How could info about Joseph of Arimathea be falsifiable? No one knows where Arimathea is supposed to have been. If he wasn't a real person, no one can attest to him & the fact that he appears no where except in the Bible, bears this out. You claim someone could say "My Dad's on the Sanhedrin & no, he had nothing to do with the burial of Jesus." But this assumes JofA is a real person. No one can in fact go to Arimathea to check what he says, as it's an unknown place. How does one verify claims about an unknown person from an unknown place?
Cameron: 'We can assume Joseph of Arimathea must have felt guilty and changed his mind about the killing of Jesus.' Also Cameron: 'It makes no sense to assume that Paul would feel guilty and change his mind'.
@@barry.anderberg No, he isn't saying that are the same thing. But such argument is ridiculous by what Cameron justifies it with. Cameron tries to ridicule Paulogia by asserting that it's impossible to know the psychology of a person thousands of years ago. While he himself says that Joseph changing his mind is plausible while asserting his psychology. Which is a special pleading fallacy.
15:00 Cameron says he will not be missing the point. And yet he immediately misses the point. Paul's brings up Bart ehrmans opinion and proceeds to disagree with it because he personally found it insufficient.
The first stated criticism is that Paulogia is using a "closed minded anti-supernatural philosophical assumption." Isn't that the same as using a naturalistic framework? Isn't that the point of the argument from the start - to show you can have a naturalistic account of Christianity without the supernatural events?
What bothers me is it sure looks like they purposely tried to avoid it and infantalise the arguements rather than confront them honestly, and frankly I'm sick and tired of seeing this. Do they understand this nonsense is precisely why people move away from religion? They have questions and wonderments, and just dismissing them like this does the exact opposite of what they want.
@@MenchisMenagerie Exactly. The kind of dishonesty and uncharitable bullying on display in this video played a bigger part of my moving away from Christianity than any argument or evidence.
40 mins in: the Joseph of Arimethia story isn't in multiple independent sources. It's been well documented that all four gospel stories share sources, or more exactly the last three heavily copied from the first and each after used the previous gospels in the writing of is narrative. Therefore this correlation make it a single source mentioned several times over.
Point on a map where "Arimathea" is. Is it a city, a city-state, a region? What is it? No historian will ever accept that Arimathea actually existed therefore, Joseph of Arimathea is a made up character
Cameron: "Honestly, no one knows how to pronounce his name, it might be 'Paulogia', but it's impossible to know for sure.... " Paul, at the start of every f**cking video: "Welcome to Paulogia" Just that right there should be enough to let you know they never intended to take Paul's argument seriously.
They look like they’re either too dumb to remember it or they’re purposefully dishonest. I’d very much like to go with the former but I know it’s the latter.
This was missing the point. The point was "can it be explained naturally?" Whether or not you think he did it successfully doesn't really matter. The point is that he could do it.
It's bordering on dishonest. These are smart people - how did they spend more than 2 hours on this project and completely miss the point of a 12 minute video?! Did none of the three (!!!) of them think "maybe throwing out the entire hypothetical right at the start is missing the point of the video?" I just find it hard to believe, I honestly have more faith in them than this. These individuals are not stupid, and yet...2 hours?!?
"Can you dunk on a 10 foot hoop?" "Yes." "Then let's see it." "Oh, I can do it, just not successfully." "...so you can't do it." The "successfully" is implicit in the question.
@@newglof9558 They kind of break it up a bit in the first part of this video, but Paulogia explains it pretty clearly at the start of his essay: Gary Habermas in his book says that secular scholars do not often pin down a single hypothesis that explains the rise of Christianity, and puts out a challenge for them to do so. Gary's work is based on a minimal facts hypothesis, namely that there are a small number of simple and uncontroversial facts that explain Christianity, and that there is no naturalistic explanation fits the data. Paulogia's hypothesis attempts to answer that challenge by presenting an accounting that uses the same facts as Gary but does not require any supernatural elements. The panel kind of misses the context of that discussion, pointing to a number of other things that neither Gary nor Paulogia would consider relevant in this context. Many of the objections brought up by the panel would also not be considered part of Habermas' minimal facts and would be rejected by him as well (and, actually, Gary's argument is often attacked by other Christian scholars for his facts being too minimal and not being strong enough to actually support Christianity).
@newglof9558 you've got it back to front. "I can dunk a 10 foot hoop" "Let's see it" *dunks* "Well, I don't consider that successful because.." Successful or not is the opinion of the critiquer.
If you want to see an _actual_ demolition of an argument, you should check out Paulogia's response. I get stuck feeling like either these folks aren't smart enough to understand Paul's point, or that they're willfully being disingenuous, and both options bum me out. Why can't they just deal with the argument honestly and in good faith?
@@squillsify Yup. Aaran Ra once made a great point saying that, while we can't truly know what anyone else is thinking, if you see someone walking down the sidewalk and their gait is very unusual and you notice that they are moving their feet in such a way that they don't step on any cracks, you can reasonably infer that they are intentionally avoiding cracks.
A third option is that they are simply so committed to their outcome being true, and so used to flimsy epistemology that it truly seems like this was a good response to them.
Prompt: Provide a plausible naturalistic explanation for Christianity Paul: Provides a plausible naturalistic explanation for Christianity These guys: “This naturalistic explanation contradicts the supernatural explanations laid out in the Bible! That’s Anti-Supernaturalistic bias!!”
Came here to see if people had the same thoughts as me and so pleased everyone is calling Cameron & the panel out. A totally dishonest approach which completely missed the point either willingly or not. Deliberate misinformation & conflation of points whilst not properly engaging with the data. The nitpicking is awful too. Such an own goal. The accusation of cherry picking is laughable especially from Christians. You need to take a long hard look at your critical thinking skills here guys. Poor show
This has to be the most intellectually dishonest rebuttal/response I’ve ever seen from this channel. This is what happens when your only goal is to defend turf whilst not engaging the actual arguments being made in reasonably good faith.
@@barry.anderberg First thought would be that they are aware this is a naturalistic response to the minimal facts case and they constantly put forth things that aren't facts to be explained according to the minimal facts case as issues. A tomb burial isn't a fact to explain. The witness count is agreed upon. And so forth. It is intellectually dishonest as it doesn't approach the argument on its grounds but instead tries to contend it on a completely different basis (the maximal data approach). I list the three major errors in a comment on the video and I could refer you to Paulogia's video if you would like to at least hear from the other side.
"People who have grief hallucinations nowadays don't immediately assume their loved one has risen from the dead" People nowadays don't attribute epilepsy and autism to demonic possession either. It was a very, very different age
This is one of the saddest examples of intellectual sloppiness I've come across in some time. These three men throw scholarship and objectivity to the winds, wilfully misrepresent Paulogia's short essay, and do not seem to be able to grasp the fact that someone might not accept the positions that they hold purely on faith. Paulogia's position was very simple. When presented with the claim that a miraculous resurrection was "the only plausible explanation" for the beginnings of the Christian religion, he points out that a perfectly plausible explanation can be posited which does not require any supernatural events. He draws on common sense methods of interpreting historical events and common sense human psychology. It is perfectly clear that Paulogia was not attempting to prove that this is exactly what happened, but only that the claim that a miracle is the only plausible explanation is clearly not viable. A non-miraculous interpretation of the evidence is clearly possible ----- indeed, clearly more likely than a miraculous event. This discussion does everything possible to misdirect and confuse the issue, and to poison the well with sneers and irrelevant issues. Endlessly repeating that Paulogia's point must be ignored because he has an "anti-supernatural bias" is possibly the most idiotic thing I've seen in quite awhile. If one posits that historical events can be "explained" by supernatural events, then nothing even resembling historical analysis is possible. Anything whatsoever might have occurred, and any "explanation," no matter how absurd, would have to be accepted at face value. We could posit that Amundsen reached the South Pole by hopping there on a magical pogo stick, or that the Gettysburg Address was written by a leprechaun and that Abraham Lincoln was actually a robot created by the God Marduk ---- and these would have to be accepted as just as plausible as anything else. Real historians and real scholars do not indulge in such childish rubbish.
I think Bart's "philosophical" idea that any other scenario will be more likely than a miracle is reasonable is because miracles are by definition, unlikely. When people talk miracles, they mean how lucky that an event happened. Unlikelihood is the very essence of a miracle. When discussing history, you want to posit the most likely hypothesis even if it might not be true because it is our best bet
If that's correct then Bart would seem to be equivocating between 'miracles' in the metaphorical sense of "something incredible and/or lucky happened" versus what is meant by Christians with the resurrection of Jesus "An extra-natural event by a free agent that overrides what would usually stop it". It would be a philosophical presupposition or assumption to say it's automatically the least likely based on this because you're conflating with the metaphorical terms and aren't actually dealing with context.
1:58:51 it is laughably ironic that Cameron is citing Occam’s razor, claiming that Jesus was magically raised from the dead instead of a totally plausible naturalistic explanation. Can’t they see the irony that they are poking fun at magical fairies doing magical things?! And that they prefer the more naturalistic explanation of his kids eating the cereal?! I FEEL LIKE IM TAKING CRAZY PILLS!!!
I think Paulogia's explanation for the origins of christianity is the most plausible I've heard. These three definitely didn't demolish his explanation by any stretch of the imagination.
@@CafeteriaCatholic ok please explain. The sudarium was carbon dated to 700 AD and the shroud to 1350 AD. And they both line up 120 blood stains. So please explain. This ought to be good.
I would say that "Jesus rose from the dead" is one of the most complex hypotheses you can come up with. The massive disconnect on our Bayesian priors is the real issue, not any specific detail of the story.
Yeah. I have degrees in nuclear engineering and theoretical physics and I worked in probabilistic analysis for about 8 years. The apologists' infatuation with Bayes' theorem is incredibly disheartening. The ones who understand what it is have extremely bizarre and unjustifiable priors and the ones who don't understand what it is use it as a sort of intellectual veneer for their arguments.
I agree with these guys! Mostly because I had a very similar experience. I was just recently released from prison after serving time for robbing a bank. I absolutely was NOT guilty but was convicted based on faulty logic similar to what Paulogia is guilty of. The real culprit was the King of Mars, who was trying to frame me so that he could take my place as Emperor of the solar system. He was able to use both his Martian ability to teleport the cash and gold from the bank vault into my home, as well as use shape shifters from Venus to look like me. The Prosecutor never once laid out a case involving Marians, or Venusians, showing a complete anti-extraterrestrial bias. Additionally, he continually cherry-picked parts of the story that did not include teleportation or shape shifting. I wish these guys had been on my jury!
@@DavidTextle They never address the argument. Paul’s argument boils down to a “naturalistic explanation for the origins of Christianity,” but this panel never sets aside their belief in the supernatural (just for the sake of the argument) and engages in an internal critique of whether or not Paul’s theory sufficient explains the advent of Christianity. You cannot examine the strength or weakness of a naturalistic explanation if you persist in the position that supernatural events occurred. This is why historical evidence cannot corroborate the claims of miracles.
@@DavidTextle Paul's post here was in response to a challenge by Gary Habermas for anyone to present a naturalistic explanation for Christianity that doesn't involve the supernatural, and so which would necessarily preclude the bible in order to be fulfilled. The panel's primary argument throughout this was that Paul had an anti-supernatural, naturalistic bias, and that what he presented contradicted the bible. They failed to understand what they were arguing against, and from their first complaint trying to jump down Paul's throat about even point 1, that a really real Jesus lived because that _alone_ didn't disprove a resurrection by itself, suggests to me that this panel entered into this with a predrawn conclusion that Paul would be wrong about anything he says and they would be there to try and argue back piecemeal regardless of what was said. That this stream would be a train wreck of missing the point was I think evident right from the start
nobody is trying to prove he existed, its a fact of history. it takes real faith to try and deny this. skeptics are just as gullible as the evangelicals they critique.
@@DavidTextle okay, to broaden what I'm saying, maybe we should stop trying to prove he was actually the Son of God or waste time proving any other aspect of his being. We can better spend that time helping others like Christ showed us.
@AnthonySimeone Unfortunately these Christians hang everything on Jesus as god-man. Anything he taught about ethics is rendered irrelevant by demands of blind faith or burning in hell. That is all that matters.
@@DavidTextle There really is not but that's not the issue. The proof required is that the character, if real, was who you say and did what you believe him to have done. So..... prove something tangible.
Jimmy thinks that people have actually talked to the dead and that this is a relatively common occurrence? Shouldn't we do nothing else except research this phenomenon? This would be the first and only evidence of the supernatural. What am I missing?
Ah, but he likely thinks his supernatural beliefs already explain the phenomenon and that there are other lines of evidence to the supernatural. From the video, he seems to think the resurrection of Jesus is evidence of the supernatural, for example. So to him it’s not the first and only evidence, just one of many. Given he mentions having done two episodes of a show on this “evidence” and considering his other beliefs, it’s not surprising that he would accept such things and consider them sufficiently explored. The trouble with supernatural explanations is that they tend to discourage further tests and digging that more skeptical or scientific people might want. Do these ACDs consistently describe similar afterlives? How do we verify the person having the experience really didn’t know the information beforehand? If only some ADCs are legit, how can you differentiate? Maybe they do get into some of that in the referenced episodes, I haven’t watched them, but I suspect they take the phenomenon much more at face value than I would consider reasonable.
After death communications are reported by up to 80% of people These do *not* necessarily entail speaking with or seeing anyone (despite the terminology). Most respondents to these surveys claim "a sign" or "a sense of their presence" etc. was felt. Experiences of speaking to dead relatives, even in dreams, are a minority experience.
Well, I have to at least give you credit for allowing dissenting opinions in your comment section. That is more honest than a lot of theist channels. I think I need not really comment on the quality of the video, as I think Paulogia has adequately responded.
More data, less dogma, gentlemen! Look at the 500. Was that precise or an estimate? Were any names taken? How many came forward? When did this happen? Where? No further attestation of what could be a major piece of data. I'm sure Paulogia will respond. With no ad hominems.
Paulogia is obviously a very angry man, this is the fulfillment that atheism brings. If the historical evidence isn’t compelling to you, look at real medically backed miracles today in Jesus name, I’ve seen someone who was blind be given sight and I know it sounds nuts or ludicrous but believe me it’s true there is pre and post medical records. I don’t believe that what a lot of people call miracles are miracles but there is no doubt that miracles exist
Paul had no reason to be very specific about details, especially if it was public knowledge. It was a claim that could've been checked by those he was writing to at the time. So the questions you ask are not all that relevant. The point is, around 500 people saw Jesus alive. Paul would have no reason to lie about this. He also was not a liar and clearly believed in this stuff. He would never make such a bold claim that could be proven wrong instantly.
@@gospelfreak5828 The point is at this imaginary mass witnessing is just a hearsay assertion. Paul absolutely had a reason to lie or to pass along an unverified, hysterical fantasies he was a mentally tormented, batshit zealot who suffered from halluncinations! How do you know he wasn't a liar, liar? Who was going to "prove him wrong" about such a vague claim that can't possibly be proven wrong but that also can't be verified or made credible? How come no one with credibility specifically attested to zombie Jesus, the zombie parade in Jerusalem, the imaginary census, the imaginary earthquakes, or the imaginary sun blotting?
@@gospelfreak5828 A high school student in Norway beat Michael Jordan in a game of one on one basketball. I wasn’t there, but 500 people saw it and you can ask any of these people. I don’t know any of their names or the name of the school or the exact date but you can ask them. - lying from Tarsus
@@chrispope7486 If you told me that there were those of that number of 500 who were still alive and I could go to an equivalent of the apostles and I am also a part of a church that I can visit other churches and have conversations with those living people, then that is a little different than being completely removed and unable to check and validate said claim. All someone in the Corinthian church would have to do is literally go to the church in Jerusalem and talk with an apostle and talk with others who witnessed said event. It's more like if you knew the exact school where this was witnessed, and you can go to said school and ask people there if they actually saw and witnessed that.
Not a very convincing rebuttal of Paulogia. It relies on claims of the supernatural and the 'evidence' of what is written in the Bible whose veracity is the subject of this whole exercise. Paulogias naturalistic explanation of the start and rise of Christianity is far more likely and convincing than the Bible narratives and traditional church narratives.
After listening to many of your videos and many of Paulogia's, I have come to the conclusion that I just can't take you seriously. Cameron, I would say it looks like you are not seeking the truth at all. You are engaging in banal, safe, standard apologetics. You're not being fair or intellectually honest about the points Paul makes. It's really disheartening and honestly it makes you look quite silly. Also - Cameron, your complete and utter inability to entertain a run-of-the-mill hypothetical here shows an astonishing lack of intellectual curiosity.
@@calson814 Big deal. If all people who believe in Bigfoot think the creature is brown, does that make it real? Especially if they can't agree on anything else?
The wrap-up in short; Gary Habermas: "here's my challenge, come up with a naturalistic explanation that explains early belief in the resurrection better than the bible" Paulogia: "here's one" Cameron, Jimmy and Gavin for two hours: "no but that contradicts the bible though. You're close-minded and anti-supernaturalistic" So the best explanation is the that the bible is true because there are no other explanations on the table, and any other attempt to present an explanation can be dismissed because it doesn't match the one in the bible. Convenient bible-shaped goalposts ___ Can I also just point out that the first complaint about Paul's first point - that a real Jesus existed - was that _that_ alone doesn't disprove a resurrection. Were these guys just coming in to make pithy remarks about every single point piecemeal, Hovind-style, without considering the case that all the facts make together? It struck me as very strange, point 1 was a concession to their side, they clearly agree with it, why the need to whine about it? And yes, "Point 1: Jesus existed" is very clearly not supposed to be an argument against the resurrection, what a bizarre complaint. Misunderstanding right from the get-go, and seemingly playing their hand that this was a motivated attack on Paul's video rather than seriously considering what he says. ___ Paulogia: "Paul might've felt bad for killing people and had a post-bereavement hallucinatory experience" Cameron, advocating on the side of magic: "What strikes me is how implausible this is... You might as well postulate aliens, or time travellers, just add in a whole bunch of other stuff. Nah, it's easier to say Jesus rose from the dead, much simpler!" I don't know what to even say to that. I think I'll just point at it in astonishment
Ppl so misuse Hume. He was smart enough to not forward an obviously circular argument. He argued that we have to measure the probability of miracle vs non-miracle, which is exactly what Christian apologists say. Ppl use Hume circularly all the time, but they’re actually straw-manning Hume’s position.
@@Entropy3ko This comment made me look it up in the Stanford Encyclopedia, here's what it says:- "A curious feature of recent discussions is that Hume’s critique of reported miracles has itself come under heavy fire and is now viewed in some quarters as requiring defense. For a range of views on the matter, see Levine (1989: 152 ff), who maintains that Part 1 contains an argument but that the argument is a failure, Johnson (1999), who argues that Part 1 is confused and unclear and that various attempts to clarify it have failed to elicit a compelling line of argument, Earman (2000), who argues that Part 1 is an “abject failure,” Fogelin (2003), who aims to rehabilitate Hume against the critiques of Johnson and Earman in particular, and Millican (2013), who argues vigorously that the interpretation of Hume’s argument offered in Earman (2000) is flawed in multiple ways, as does Vanderburgh (2020). Shapiro (2016) and Johnson (2015) endorse a more or less unreconstructed version of Hume’s critique. Millican (2011) offers a sympathetic reconstruction of Hume’s critique in the wider context of Hume’s other metaphysical and epistemological work." It doesn't seem to me to be saying most philosophers have deemed it an abject failure. Earman is the only one mentioned making that claim specifically and it seems his interpretation has been widely rebuffed.
Hume isn’t a good source for cogent arguments against miracles. He wrote about them, yes, but not well, and certainly not convincingly. I think people trot Hume out because he’s a well-known philosopher, but his miracles framework is just shoddy work.
Judging from the comments, it is clear the purpose of the video was not to counter Paulogia's argument, but to increase views by making a video so absurd and with such a clickbait title they'd be able to draw in Paul's viewers. Would love to see views chart to compare with release date of the response video.
My question is: doesn’t your god value honesty, and if so, don’t you risk getting him angry at your purposeful obtuseness and dishonesty? Do you think he’s the petty type described in the Bible, who’ll let anything pass as long as you’re worshipping him? Or have you realised there is no chance that he exists so you’re really not risking anything? Which one is it?
@@goldenalt3166 no, he doesn't lol. Every time he talks about his minimal facts he brings in other facts that aren't in those minimal facts of his. He ALWAYS brings up that group appearances cannot be explained, but doesn't include group appearances in his list, because he knows scholars don't agree with that. He cannot defend his minimal facts theory.
@@goldenalt3166 no, you said they should have him on to "defend" the minimal facts. Not to list them. The list can be found quite easily with a cursory search. Habermas doesn't need to be there for that.
Simple, apply Occam's Razor. The Christian position has lots of testimony to support it, whereas Paul has to discount parts of the tradition with no reason other than that it makes his thesis easier to support, and posit events we have no record of. The Christian position comes out of available information. The atheist position comes out of pure speculation. The big difference between us is that I've seen miracles happen, so I can't presuppose they're impossible. You've never seen one, so you don't believe they're possible. That's why the gospel being true seems like a less probable explanation.
@curatinghumanism All we need is for miracle to be possible. If the weight of evidence is heavy enough in the miracle's favor, then it should be taken as the best explanation. "Best" is also important to mention. Nobody in this discussion should be saying their answer is the definitive truth. At the end of the day, finding the best fit for the facts we accept is the best we can do. It's how we do science.
Having watched this video and the Paulogia response to it, I have to say that not only did you not demolish his explanation, he kinda showed you guys to be either dishonest or just lazy with your commentary. It was hard watching a group of guy being a bit smug while doing an embarrassingly bad job.
Setting aside that "demolishing" an argument is just a little silly anyways, it was telling that Cameron kept trying to sell the idea that they "found some stuff that totally demolishes Paulogia's argument" instead of being clear about how Paul's argument didn't fly. As a general rule, shouldn't the audience, and not the content creators, get to decide who demolishes who?
@@barry.anderberg I'm pretty sure Paul-ogia's video has all the specifics you need. I don't think I've ever seen him play the "for the bible tells me so' jingle that many times. And as a recovering Christian, I really hope I was never as petty as to continually get the name of the guy I was reviewing wrong. It was a very bad look.
Inaccurately titled. It should be "Demolishing Our Own Intellectual Integrity by Willfully or Stupidly Misrepresenting Almost Everything @Paulogia Said in His Natural Explanation of Christianity (feat. Akin & Ortlund)"
Yeah, Cameron shot his point in the foot by bringing in fairies. A better analogy would be "one of my daughters made herself a bowl of cereal" vs. "All three of my daughters collectively made the bowl of cereal- one got the bowl, one got the milk, and one got the cereal."
The natural world is literally defined by it's not being supernatural. And anything which is not supernatural cannot be the source of all things. This is just cope, and it's sad.
@@marvalice3455 then you disagree with someone from another one of my comments that was sticking with saying that we (humans) are walking miracles - which they later defined as something only a supernatural being could perform
Captain America: "The comment section isn't going the way you planned." Guys, I enjoy very much a good exchange of arguments (both in a direct debate or as a video response here) and I have celebrated the "demolition" of both believers and atheists, as my main interest is to learn how to debate. This video... Has been very hard to watch. In summary, you just don't have the scholarly sophistication to go against Paulogia: 1. You didn't understand the assignment from the start, demanding Paulogia to include the possibility of the supernatural on an argument specifically designed not to include such an assumption. 2. You establish contentions about his arguments and the way he approaches certain historical facts to later commit the exact same "fails" yourself (which some are just you subjective and unsubstantiated evaluation of them). 3. You tend to poison the well by condemning sources or the epistemology used rather than provide actual contentions. There are more things to say, but I think I made my point. Please either be more rigorous with the content of your videos or look for less prepared counter apologists.
Cameron you truly should be ashamed of yourself and your guests for resorting to name calling and poisoning the well and then preceded to not even seriously understand and respond the Pauls arguments. RUclips apologetics is truly a clown show…
The only circus in town is yours. All of you weirdos are so obsessed with this topic that you all pack into your clown car and bombard any channel that mentions your cult leader. Touch grass sometime. 😂
Paulogia, a layman, with no formal training in history finds the historical evidence for the resurrection flimsy and unconvincing. So, you can decide how much merit to assign to his conclusion. However, you know who overwhelming agrees with him? Just about every single historian (ie. people with formal training and relevant academic credentials) who are currently alive. 1.) Only a small minority of historians hold the position that the historical evidence supports the conclusion that it is most likely that Jesus rose from the dead. 2.) When you remove the historians who are work at intuitions that imposes a Statement of Faith on their employment, that dictates what positions they must hold, the number goes down to close to none. This sums up nicely how feeble the historical argument is, and how soundly rejected it is by historians. If the historical evidence was anywhere near as strong as apologists claim, one would expect there would be a number much larger than zero of historians holding the view that we may not know by what means Jesus rose from the dead, but the historical evidence is very clear that he did. The historical argument for the resurrection tends to only be convincing to the people who know the least about history.
I did find that example a little funny as well. I was tempted to talk about Cameron's anti-supernatural bias against fairies but I thought doing so would be a little too childish.
Atheist and skeptical scholars treat the various books of the Bible has historical sources. Because that’s what they are, as textual criticism and cross-references with other sources establishes.
@@EricTheYounger various scholars treat PARTS of the Gospels and other Biblical books like they do other potential historical sources...with some parts being considered accurate and other parts mythological.
@@EricTheYounger treating them as historical sources doesn't mean they treat all of the information in them as true. Pick a well known ancient text. It's likely considered an historical source, even when it includes supernatural elements. But again, calling something a hisotrical source doesn't mean that all or even most of the information contained is fact. Plus, as Paul (and so many, many others) have patiently pointed out - even if we treat the Bible as a "super accurate" historical source, it's still the only source that supports the vast majority of Christian claims. Indeed, the text itself is often the only source the the claims themselves, and so how could it also serve as evidence?
@@wadetisthammer3612 I don’t think they seem questionable at all, but it seems like Habermas in particular is incredibly bad with correctly representing sources
@@wadetisthammer3612that have extremely small bearing on his overall video, use of sources and arguments. It’s really nitpicking minor mistakes, if this criticism is actually correct
@@newglof9558 he is mocking the single source of the claim. he does take some jabs at certain specific Christians he finds disingenuous, but nothing close to the atheists rape and murder with no qualms rhetoric we hear repeated
wow....this is pretty embarrassing for your channel, I'm surprised you haven't taken this down yet. I encourage you to re watch this video. You completely missed the point and don't appear to know what "cherry picking" means. Wow just wow
Actually, there’s a debate in the literature about whether he rules miracles out a priori given his ostensible definition of a miracle as a violation of the laws of nature.
@CapturingChristianity that seems like a reasonable definition and is definitely the most common one I've come across from both theists and atheists. What would you offer as a better definition?
@@anthonydesimone502 Miracles don't violate the laws of nature. They are events that do not naturally occur without divine intervention. But God intervening with his creation is not unnatural or violating any laws.
@gospelfreak5828 that just sounds like quibbling over semantics. I'm going to call natural laws, those that can be discovered by science. I'm fine if we want to say there are laws that undergird them, and that miracles don't violate *those* laws. But they still violate the laws of nature as we can understand and discover them.
01:27:58 That is a blatant mistranslation, and I suppose you chose the CPOV deliberately for this. Every other translations says "The Twelve." Indeed, the Greek explicitly says "dodeka," which literally means "twelve." Why would you use a misleading translation in this way? 🤔
@@CapturingChristianitythis isnt an enormous point or anything but it is a bit of an L for Jimmy to explicitly refer to "the eleven" as evidence that it was an early creed
31:45 Yeah, Gavin, a claim of one Joseph of Arimathea burying Jesus (and existing in the first place), found nowhere in any source until the Gospel attributed to Mark and dating to nearly 4 decades after, is "the kind of claim that would have been difficult to make up" and "would have been falsifiable" with ease.
In early 2003, my first wife and I were sitting in church. The chairman of the board stood up and said, "Pastor Steve has something to tell you." The pastor came in and confessed to a 13 year pornography habit. The next morning my wife and I were getting up and she said, "That's funny. I just had a dream and in the dream, I was given 2 scripture references and I have no idea what they say." Just then I felt a tingling sensation. One scripture reference popped into my head. We looked up the 3 verses. They said: "Expel the immoral brother, I was homeless, and you took me in." We took him in. To me, that was on the order of a double-blind experiment, or if you will, a miracle.
One thing I am curious about on the topic of hallucinations. I think we can all agree that group hallucinations are uncommon if not never observed. Cameron says "hallucinations that you are having in your mind -- you are not having that with someone else" I agree that group hallucinations are not observed. However, resurrection is also not a thing that is statistically observed. I want to know how this is not special pleasing because that is what it feels like to me (even if I am mistaken). It feels like we are saying group hallucinations are not observed therefore this could not have been a group hallucination. Also, resurrections are not observed therefore this couldn't have been a resurrection.
The other point is that there is literally not one eyewitness written account of a single one of these alleged group hallucinations. All we have are hearsay reports of them. So those can simply be dismissed. No explanation needed.
Resurrections and hallucinations are two completely different things. If you see a person who was previously dead and a large number of other people see that same person then it is most likely not a hallucination as everyone would have to have collectively hallucinated the same person which is unlikely. Thus leaving the possibility of the resurrection more likely because you know the person you observed along with other people was not a delusion. So you technically can observe resurrections or the aftermath of one at least.
@@georgenassif5777 if that ever happened, then one could use that as a starting point for discussion. Since no resurrection has ever been reliably recorded in real time, that’s a moot point. The problem with the alleged resurrection appearances n the Bible, is that all we have is hearsay testimony from decades after the alleged event. Which makes it supremely unreliable.
To build on the reply of @georgenassif, If someone claims to be God and predicts his own resurrections, people don't belief him and then various people, including the ones who doubted it, all see him, then the actual resurrections is the more likely outcome. So basically you have two unnatural explanations to a strange situation. One that the available evidence points to and one that seems ad-hoc. Sure, both are unnatural, but I go with the one that fits the surrounding situation better. Also the hallucination explanation only answers some of the problems. For example the hallucination explanation doesn't address at all why the body is suddenly lost. The reason why I called the hallucination ad-hoc is because you also need to have some random person stealing a corpse from a guarded grave, without telling the Romans, the Jews or the Christians. So you need to have two independent explanation at the same time. One very unlikely which requires a very skilled thief and the other a not observed phenomena that this thief didn't have any control over.
Fabulous dicussion here guys, great points from both Jimmy and Gavin (Cameron too). Taking the time to dissect different arguments is one of the best ways we can learn to engage with folks. Would love to see a rebuttal from Paulogia after this as well. It's awesome seeing folks from typically opposing traditions working together, need to see more of that. Been casually reading and listening to Jimmy and Gavin's individual work for the past couple years, and seeing them working together is super exciting. Again, great video guys, thanks for your time and effort in making this happen!
Catholicism and Protestantism are from exactly the same tradition. But claiming, childishly and trollishly, that this rebuttal "demolishes" Paulogia's hypothesis is not at all an intelligent or intellectually competent way to engage ideas.
@@highroller-jq3ix I remember when the early wave of "RUclips atheists" used language like this and just about everyone rolled their eyes, apologists included. I wonder why the standards are different now? To be fair, language like this did get me into watching atheist content was a teenager...but as an adult I just shake my head. It's difficult to have a rational discussion when your detractors constantly claim they've demolished your position, they've destroyed your arguments, that you just hate their god (wait how'd that one get in there?). I guess this fits my impressions of apologists: secretly the goal is not to create a rational belief in their god or to engage those who doubt their beliefs and thus gain new followers; it is to reinforce existing believers' faith in their position and prevent them from asking questions about it. Look, this smart guy says he DEMOLISHED a non-believer's hundreds of hours of work in just 2 hours!!! I can just quietly put my questions to rest and move on with my life.
@@rapdactyl Clickbait nonsense doesn't belong to a position or an ideology, but it is the recourse of dishonest, sensationalizing, sub-intellectual douches, like Betuzzi and squeaky little Ben and, as you noted, numerous other youtube apologists.
"Radical skepticism" against what? ... "Radical Gullibility?" How can any person thinking person believe that a dead human, with all the processes shut down for several hours, can come back to life? That guy either was not dead, or it's just a fantasy.
How is having an "anti-supernatural bias" bad? Why should we seriously consider magical storybook characters like Jesus and Frosty the Snowman and The Tooth Fairy did magical things in reality before looking at naturalistic explanations that don't require The Tooth Fairy?
It isn't. It's good to have that bias. That is a trick of sophists. Using a word that has a negative connotation to most people to make your opponent sound bad.
Cam’s example at the end with fairies is such a strawman. You could make an argument that adding more details makes the theory less possible, but said you made an argument that adding more details that are also fantastic. Makes the theory less probable. Those two points are not the same thing.
Mentioning that there have been responses to Hume’s argument against miracle within a Bayesian framework is interesting considering that his argument has been formalized and proven true in Bayesian terms. But otherwise, the treatment of Hume and miracles was disappointing. It’s not “anti-supernaturalist” to point out that miracles are a priori more improbable than non miraculous explanations. If anything it’s just prudent
I mean when the evidence is not observed,than sure. A miracle claim will always be less likely. But when the evidence is observed and the naturalistic explanations are so unlikely, and the miracle claim fits in with the evidence the best, then Hume's point is moot. A miracle claim that fits the evidence will always be more likely than a naturalistic explanation that cannot possibly or do not fit the evidence. Basically, the atheist who wants to argue this way will have to say "The evidence doesn't actually really matter, as the evidence may fit your view better but I will just disregard the evidence because there is no way I can believe your conclusion is true." It is a very flawed and unfalsifiable position to take, and the evidence is basically irrelevant at that point
@@gospelfreak5828 Yes, Hume would agree and I'm pretty sure he argued (I haven't read enquiry in a few years, sorry) that any miracle account, since it would violate the regularities of nature, is less probable, at least a priori. I'm taking issue with your second sentence: "but when the evidence is observed and the naturalistic explanations so unlikely..." the point is that any naturalistic explanation, no matter how unlikely, would be orders of magnitude more probable than a miracle occurring. And in the case of naturalistic explanations, even the conjunction of naturalistic hypotheses to account for specific details of the resurrection story, maybe grave robbery for the empty tomb or hallucinations/lies for the eyewitness accounts, would be a priori more probable than a miracle occurring. We know that grave robberies occur, we know that hallucinations occur, and we know that people lie. We have zero examples of resurrections, though. The point of this is not to defend any particular hypothesis(es) and I'm sure you probably could argue against any of them. The point is that my prior for any conjunctive naturalistic hypothesis is going to be higher than my prior for any miracle. But what about during the updating process? Atheists would not say "the evidence doesn't actually really matter..." In the case of the resurrection, facts like Jesus existed and was an apocalyptic prophet, he was crucified by Romans, and he was buried, are mundane. Does the resurrection narrative predict that we find evidence in support of this? Yes. Does "Jesus was just an incredibly influential guy with good ideas who died for them and stayed dead" hypothesis predict that we find evidence in support of this, too? Also yes. And as for testimony of things like the empty tomb and the post-death appearances, does the resurrection narrative explain those? Yes. Does a conjunction of naturalistic hypotheses also explain those? Also yes. Atheists would say that the evidence matters, and that the evidence also fits naturalistic explanations. Hume said that the only way to affirm a miracle on the basis of testimony is if the falsehood of that testimony would be more miraculous than the miracle occurring. Atheists make, in some words or others, this point all the time, and it's one that I would agree with. It's not an unfalsifiable position whatsoever. Verify the testimony, or show how improbable its falsehood would be (in fact, I've heard resurrection defenders try to do the latter in these discussions!), and you can verify the miracle.
The only “successfull Bayesian formulations of Humes argument form miracles give infinitesimal probabilities to miracles (Sobel) or include absurd special pleading about every other instance of a previously broken law of nature/as well as invoking a definition of miracle (breaking a law of nature) that most theists don’t accept (Cavin et al)
@@Tommy01_XO The second sentence was meant to clarify my disagreement with Hume. My argument isn't that that is his belief. I was giving my position. Without looking at any evidence, a naturalistic explanation will always seem more probable. The whole argument of Hume's that even when looking at the evidence you have to assume such a low priority to miracles that the naturalistic one wins automatically is precisely what I take issue with and is my entire point. Such an idea is ridiculous. It would be like in a hypothetical world where either a supernatural being or every human on earth was guilty of killing a man. Naturally we would assume that a man did it. But if we had undeniable proof that every single person was video taped and the tape was genuine and every human being on earth was not responsible for the knife inside the dead man, to say it is more likely any one of these people on camera killed the man than a supernatural being is preposterous. But such an assumption makes the evidence useless and it does not matter. No matter what, it is impossible to believe a miracle occurred epistemically, and that is absurd. It doesn't even work as a framework and results in ridiculous conclusions. And any of the hypothesis' would on face value without observing them seem more probable than a resurrection do to the fact they occur more often. No one argues that. The argument is that you have to observe if these things actually work and are more probable based on the evidence we actually have. And the naturalistic ones fail, every last one of them. Since they fail, the resurrection is more probable. No previous probability of resurrections and other things should inform the view of the evidence, or else the view is clouded with an insurmountable bias. There is no reason to assume that even with evidence the evidence could never be good enough due to some previous probability we understand is true intuitively before any evidence is observed. It is absurd. No, the hypothesis Jesus stayed dead, and he didn't die for good ideas. He died because the Jewish leaders hated him for blasphemy and claiming to be God. It was not something so vague. The evidence supports the resurrection hypothesis alone. That is the whole point. Naturalistic explanations do not fit the evidence and data. None of the naturalistic hypotheses explain all the data, and the resurrection is the only thing that explains the evidence in its entirety. Naturalistic explanations are only consistent with some of the evidence. When you are convicting someone of murder, there are some people who may fit some of the evidence like motive and being around during the crime. But you only convict the suspect that fits all the data. You don't leave that suspect alone and then arrest a different subject that fits some of the evidence. We are talking about what is rationale and what should be believed and what is more probably true. Not what is possible. Yeah, anything is possible. These naturalistic hypothesis are possible. But they cannot be believed based on the evidence available. They basically have to be blindly believed, and atheists have to reject the evidence and where it leads and believe in a faulty hypothesis blindly due to a naturalistic bias and faulty epistemology. The falsehood of the testimony is more miraculous, as the evidence against every naturalistic hypothesis is so much just as in my hypothetical above that they just can't be said to be true when all the evidence and data is accounted for. They say evidence matters, but it doesn't actually play out practically and their words don't match how they react to the evidence. It is an unfalsifiable position. Miracles can't happen, or if they do, we could never know epistemically based on testimony and historical data. The miracle is so unlikely that we will take any other hypothesis that doesn't fit the data and reject the only idea that fits it. That makes no sense. Hume and this kind of thinking is reflective of someone like Louise Bundy, who maintained her son was innocent throughout despite the evidence. Her a priori belief that her son could never do such a thing based on her experience and knowledge of him brought her to the idea he was innocent no matter how much evidence was against him. I see little to no difference in the way Hume and other atheists handle the resurrection. You've heard us try, and we succeed in showing the improbability of the naturalistic explanations. But the assumption the atheists and Hume take is the issue in the first place and that claim needs to be justified first before we can say we need to show the naturalistic explanations to be highly improbable. We already do that, but the assumption of Hume needs to first be justified.
Do you believe in the public miracles of Vespasian as reported by Tacitus, Suetonius and Cassius Dio since you don't have "closed minded anti-supernatural philosophical assumptions."?
Yeah, what the heck?? He's a Catholic now; someone get Papa Francis on the horn and let him know we've found "The Guy" to lead the next Ecumenical Council.
12:23 given that supernaturalism is also entirely non-falsifiable, any and all evidence you can provide for a supernatural event, especially a one-off event like the resurrection, is 100% NOT the most likely answer, REGARDLESS of your “evidences.” Every single possible natural answer is more likely. Miracles are *by definition* rare, for crying out loud. Off to a bad start here, guys.
So you decided at the outset that your own position is absolutely impossible to counter, then you challenge people to do a good job countering your position
For one, the fact that we could not prove supernaturalism wrong is entirely irrelevant. If we are talking about specific cases, we actually can falsify supernatural hypothesize. Zeus is a popular example. He doesn't cause lightning. We have ruled out the supernatural. If we found Jesus' body, the resurrection would be falsified. So, your claim is wrong if you are talking about specifics. Though your comment is poorly worded, so it is difficult to discover your point and actual logical flow. Run on sentences tend to give that impression. You say every naturalistic hypothesis is more likely. You have to prove that claim. That is something you need to demonstrate. The resurrection is the only thing that makes sense of all the evidence. You basically have to ignore and reject the evidence and where it leads due to a presupposition on your part. But then you should just ignore the claims of evidence entirely as it doesn't even matter to you. You should just show why your epistemic standards is better than us Christians, which you have yet to do. They are by definition rare. But that doesn't automatically make it the least probable option. It may be rarer for a monkey to kill a person with a gun than a human being. But we don't look at video evidence of a monkey killing someone and then say "Well, people killing people is more likely and happens more often, so we can rule out the monkey despite the evidence and convict this human person instead." You make a category error in probability. You have to look at the individual circumstance outside of how often they occur, and then assess if such a rare thing actually happened or not. After all, rare things happen, and we know they do. We could never discover the rare or the exceptions if we did not look individually at specific circumstances and the evidence around said circumstances. They are not at a bad start. Just because you made a claim you did not prove, showing your naturalistic bias and presuppositions, and then you also make a category error in probability does not make their arguments invalid.
Plane crashes are rarer than car crashes. Should we blame 9/11 on cars, since cars are more likely? Since plane crashes into buildings are so infrequent versus cars, we should discount any evidence for the plane crash into buildings, as those are rare for crying out loud. The evidence does not matter. You can never show a plane crash into a building is more likely than a car crash, as car crashes are observed to happen more.... This is a category error in assessing probabilities. That is not how that works.
This is why every single year religions are declining rapidly.. The people that are supposed to be the most moral are always the biggest liars and deceivers.. These three continue time after time to lie over and over and over so many overs I can't continue about the content they're talking about it's honestly embarrassing. Paulogia (Paul) has literally gone through this embarrassing attempt to defame another human(real Christian like right?) because he has a different belief than they do, and pointed out the facts for everybody to see if you're interested in the truth go over and watch the video.
@georgenassif5777 they made some assumptions right at the top that made the rest of thier arguments invalid, not least of which was claiming Paul "didn't know the material".
All this fundraising and donations to produce videos that completely miss the point? Can some checks be put in place to avoid this kind of misguided effort in the future?
For some reason counter apologists don't like Bayes theorem. I understand that it can be annoying when people play with numbers to get to predetermined conclusions. But I still think it's fun to go along. So let's go along! Short reminder: Probability of A given some evidence B is equal to probability of B given A times probability of A divided by probability of B. P(A|B) = [P(B|A)*P(A)/P(B)] 1. If Jesus self-resurrected (not being resurrected by a God or a prophet but by his own act). He would be the only person to do it in history. This gives us a nice prior probability of the event. Since about 100 billion people died so far, this is 1 in 100 billion event. P(A) = 1/100 000 000 000 Now we need all facts that need to be explained. Going with Garry Habermas: 1. Crucifiction 2. Appearances 3. Skeptics 4. Early Let's give each of them a-priori probability. 1. Everybody agrees. probability 1 (100%) 2. Appearances. About 1/8 people see dead loved ones. so 1/8 (12.5%) 3. Skeptics. This is harder. But let's go with this: 23% of war veterans get PTSD. 40% of those get psychotic symptoms including hallucinations. About 1% of veterans actively say the war they participated is unjust (based on vietnam war data) About 0.3 % of people can't tell the difference between their hallucinations and reality. There were about 6000 pharisees in the approximate vicinity of Jesus's time. I'd say it would be generous to multiply those to get probability of a single person becaming hallucinatory convert. So 0.23*0.4*0.01*0.003 ~= 1/27 000 000. But we had 6000 pharysees. So let's treat each as a roll of the 27 000 000 dice. We only get Paul if we roll a 1. This gives us a total probability of at least one Paul to be 0.00022219753. Pretty low. (I'm willing to be more charitable than that given good reason) 4. Accounts were early. Let's take the earliest. Say immediatelly after death. Given that myths can easily get created immediatelly (for example Elvis being alive, Covid being a hoax) I'd say this is also 1. But. I know some people will disagree with that. So let's say this is 0.001 (0.1%) (comment if you think it's even lower) Now. 1. Doesn't impact our prior at all. It's 100% likely on both ressurection and not resurrection hypothesis. 2. Apperances is 12.5% a priori, 100% given resurrection. So let's calculate P(A|B) = (1*1/100 000 000 000)/0.125 = 1/12500000000 3. Skeptics is 0.00022219753 a priori, 100% given resurrection. Lets calculate P(A|B) = (1*1/12500000000)/ 0.00022219753 ~= 8/22219753 (thanks wolphram alpha) 4. Early is 0.001 a priori, 100% given resurrection. Let's calculate (1*8/22219753)/0.001 ~= 1/2500 So this is it. 1 in 2500 chances. Honestly I thought it would be lower. Still. Pretty low given how charitable I was on the entire process.
Paulogia is coming from a historical point of view and what is valid from that view. You all seem to be upset he is not accepting supernatural claims. Supernatural claims are not what we would consider history at this time. In the past there were historical volumes attributing supernatural claims to leaders and Pharaohs. Do you believe all the supernatural claims of the rulers outside of the bible? Isn't that cherry picking? He is looking at historicity not supernatural. Back in that time it was OK to fudge history with supernatural claims that could not be proven but not now.
By historical documents we should know if Christ didn't rise from the dead. But the documents show that he rose. If only you would let the evidence (documents) do the talking we would agree Jesus rose, but you input yourself in them.
You assume that supernatural claims are automatically not historical. However, it is your burden of proof to show that is the case. As for the pharaohs, was it eyewitness testimony with no ulterior motives to write false supernatural claims? If you have an example of that, please share. Otherwise, it is a false equivalency. No other supernatural claim in history that I am aware of that matched the evidence for the resurrection. If there is a similar or even better evidence for another supernatural claim, I would be willing to believe it. But every single time I ask an atheist to give an example of another supernatural claim with eyewitness testimony from people who clearly lacked an ulterior motive, and in fact had every motive not to believe said natural claim, yet they never do. So, no, it isn't cherry picking as there is no other supernatural claim with evidence that is as good as Christianity. If you are saying it is no different, you have to demonstrate that. You need to justify that supernatural cannot be historical (which has its own presupposition that naturalism is true so you would probably need to demonstrate that to be true to justify such a claim) and then prove that the evidence for these pharaohs or other supernatural claims is the same. If you cannot do either, then your entire comment is baseless and you shouldn't have made comments with baseless assertions filled with faulty presuppostions.
Using these guy's criteria...it is a much more simple explanation and more likely Muhammad spoke to an angel in a cave, the moon was split and Joseph Smith decoded some plates with the help from an angel... as miracles are just as likely for the resurrection as they are for these other miracles.
@@beatskxdd there is justification, which they explain in the video. Muhammad and Joseph Smith had individual unverifiable experiences. Joseph Smiths “witnesses” which were more like business partners recanted, or he recanted their faithfulness. It’s not special pleading if the evidence is different.
@blaketmoran I disagree; Joseph Smith's "witnesses" never denied or recanted their testimonies even after being excommunicated. Them maintaining their witness fits a particular criterion of embarrassment if you ask me, if you're not special pleading ofc.
@@user-mr3kf2vr6y Paulogia’s point was just to show how you could create a reasonable narrative for how Christianity started, using completely naturalistic reasoning. Cameron and Akin completely missed that and kept arguing “Well that doesn’t account for what the Bible says”. Right! Paulogia is saying, the New Testament could be fiction and we can still explain Christianity starting naturalistically, no resurrection required. That was the point
@@BidenBlubb you could do that for anything but just because it’s possible doesn’t means it aligns even remotely with the evidence, there’s a reason no serious scholar takes paulogia seriously
@@user-mr3kf2vr6y Oh! Just because something is POSSIBLE doesnt mean it’s PROBABLE? You don’t say! So when it’s possible that a person named Joseph of Arimethia somehow existed and somehow broke ranks with the Sanhedrin….that possibility doesn’t mean it probably happened? Welcome to Paulogia’s entire point!!
@@BidenBlubb the first century skeptics could have easily gone and seen if Joseph of aremthia was a real person, the gospel writers would have really been kicking themselves in the crotch by making up a high class social status Jew who could easily be checked. I don’t think your skepticism in that area is warranted at all.
@@user-mr3kf2vr6y did anyone see the risen Jesus in the original ending of mark, yes or no? Let’s not be biased….No. They are told they will see him. But no one saw him. Then someone adds the ending of mark that includes post resurrection appearances. Does it bother you at all that the perfect word of god has been tampered with like this? It bothers me…
@@InShadowsLinger Strawman? What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Debate? You know time exists and some events happen before others?
A few issues 1. My impression of the conversation is that ita taken somewhat out of context. The paulogia minimal witnesses argument is an argument or rebuttal against Habermass argument. There were definitely points made which seemed to lose sight of that 2. The notion of extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence IS a statement about the nature of evidence and probability. Supernatural claims are a subset of this but not necessary. It seems to me this point isn't really adequately considered
1. If his rebuttal to Habermas involves ignoring/cherry-picking data, it’s not a very good rebuttal is it? 2. Deciding that a certain claim is “extraordinary” and what level of evidence it now needs is a completely philosophical and somewhat arbitrary exercise.
@EricTheYounger 1. I'm not clear that it is cherry picked of the data is focused on habermasses argument. It seemed to be the case that some of the critique was against the lack of acknowledgement of the maximal case which of course paulogia wasn't actually considering. It's just not relevant to the hypothesis 2. No this is just incorrect, it's a claim about probability. No one has ever demonstrated a supernatural claim. Not once. The probability of a supernatural claim bring correct is therefore very low. That's as opposed to claims like hallucinations which happen quite frequently. In context of the ressurection we know that there are many stories of this type of thing, but they are exclusive a Christian would not accept a ressurection story in another story. They are all unevidenced or poorly evidenced stories with no known mechanism for them to actually occur.
@EricTheYounger Within the context of minimal facts. He isn't cherry picking as the creed isn't taken at face value by Habermas. So their rebuttal that Paulogia doesn't affirm the entire creed falls on its face. I'll note that I do think many of the points in the video are slightly lazy in part because it is a summary and in part because of the context.
Part of having healthy debates is steelmanning the evidence of the opposing side (I.e. the Socratic method) and not seizing on the most skeptical interpretation of it. Regardless of how Habermas views specific pieces of evidence, why not look at how strong certain evidence ACTUALLY is? Because the bigger picture is determining whether or not the resurrection actually happened, not if Habermas’s specific formulation is correct.
I think it is so telling how the panel reacted to the video. You know this is totally bad faith, when they spend wch a long time to talk about the points they agree on and complain that general points laying out the facts to be explained don't disprove the resurrection. Paulogia is saying that Jese got killed and Cameron complains, that it doesn't disprove the Bible? Yeah, sure, because it never meant to... It's just so crazy to me, that these guys who do this professionally and are clearly intelligent well read people, can totally miss the whole point so hard. This video was meant to be understood by laymen. How can it be, that I have no problem figuring out why Paul is saying the things he is saying, but we get twenty minutes of arguments against humes position, when Paul never made any argument about that? I totally get that one can get lost in trying to disagree with every word someone else is saying and nitpicking everything, but please, have the decency to realise you are just being bad faith and don't post it on the Internet...
I always find it disengenous of Cameron to start every single video by diminishing the opposition to a laughing start before even presenting his/her claim/topic. Its almost like he isnt here to discuss anything to find the truth, He is simply here to attack a fellow human being. Shame on you people on using the Lord's name to your gain and fun!
@@marvalice3455 I'm sure you must watch him constantly, ranking the value of each statement he makes. Let us know if, in your next year of watching every second of his videos, he says anything you deem to be above zero in value. Enjoy the process!
@@beanbrewer and you miss the point. The point was that within the historical documents there are more than one source. The synoptic source. The Johannine source. The Pauline source. Thats exactly what akin said in the video. You just choose to hear what you want to hear.
@@trentonmabry8189 we have no evidence that Paul ever came into contact with Jesus while he was alive sohow could he even know that what he saw was Jesus? And it's well established that the other gospels build off of Mark.
"NooOOoOo it's gotta be incomprehensible god and impossible magic it can't be any of these perfectly mundane things"😭 Real top bottom of the barrel stuff once again!👍
If God really existed, it may still be possible for naturalistic / alternate explanations to make at least some sense coincidentally, but nowhere near the amount of sense these alternate explanations actually make. It would not be necessary to "demolish" Paul's explanations -- his explanations would demolish themselves, and Paulogia wouldn't be an ex-Christian to begin with. This stuff shouldn't be anywhere near as controversial as it is. God isn't just another facet of existence, but the single unifying facet; not just another category, but the absolute category from which all other realities are generated and measured. With this "fact" on their side, the theists should win every controversy hands down. Naturalistic explanations shouldn't have a chance, much less be as successful as they are, unless God is a naturalist, or naturalism itself is the creator.
Thats flawed since the way things are it makes perfect sense for the existence of God but atheists have made their own explanations, they try to find any explanation which excludes God, this comes down to free will, you’re talking about Roboters programmed by God, I mean yeah God created us but he also gave us free will and looking at nature it just makes sense that there’s a intelligent creator, any other explanation is also possible but that would be out of your free will and rebellion.
These alternative explanations do not actually make any sense though, at least when considering the data and evidence. They do not fit the data at all. Any idea can make sense if you ignore the evidence. But the thing is that these naturalistic explanations are ridiculous due to the evidence and facts. And nowhere does God's existence imply that other views would not be believed, and everyone would believe in God automatically. It doesn't mean theists would win every debate they are in either. That does not logically follow. Naturalistic explanations are not successful though, and this video demonstrates that by destroying Paulogia's bad hypothesis.
@@gospelfreak5828 [gf]: "These alternative explanations do not actually make any sense though, at least when considering the data and evidence. They do not fit the data at all. Any idea can make sense if you ignore the evidence. But the thing is that these naturalistic explanations are ridiculous due to the evidence and facts." So you're saying that naturalistic explanations are not consistent with the data and evidence? Which ones don't fit? Star formation? Formation of hurricanes / tornadoes, planetary systems, hydrologic cycle, how airplanes / rockets work? None of those naturalistic descriptions fit the data / evidence? [gf]: "And nowhere does God's existence imply that other views would not be believed, and everyone would believe in God automatically." Lol. Uh, you literally stake your own life on naturalistic explanations -- and for good reason. [gf]: "It doesn't mean theists would win every debate they are in either. That does not logically follow." Even you believe that "logical" means that there's coherence between evidence and an explanation for it. [gf]: "Naturalistic explanations are not successful though, and this video demonstrates that by destroying Paulogia's bad hypothesis." Lol. This is the 3rd time you state this in your post, and the 3rd time you fail to provide even a single example of how naturalistic explanations are unsuccessful. It's not entirely accurate to equate "incomplete" with "unsuccessful" -- progress is made continually.
@@dougsmith6793 We are talking specifically about the resurrection. The naturalistic explanations do not work there. I did not say naturalistic explanations do not work for everything. Are we purposefully being obtuse? The context of this conversation and the youtube video is the resurrection. Let's stay on topic. Stake my own life? What do you mean? Peter being the only one who saw Jesus, the idea they did not know where Jesus' body was, mass hallucinations, the lying hypothesis, every single one doesn't fit or make sense with the data. You can't progress any of these views as none of them work. It's like saying Bobby killed Samantha when you have video of a floating knife stabbing Samantha while Bobby watched helpless in the video. You have to rule Bobby out as a hypothesis as he does not fit. None of these views fit. Just take the mass grave theory. Every record of Jesus' death has him taken down from the cross to be buried in Joseph of Arimathea's tomb. The view that Jesus was buried in a mass grave contradicts the evidence and data we have. We know that crucified victims could be buried in tombs as we have found evidence for such. There is no good reason to believe Jesus was thrown into a mass grave and the disciples would not know where the body was. That is one example of a naturalistic hypothesis that does not work. Being incomplete is one thing. But that is not the case here. That is an assumption you have not proven. They are unsuccessful. If you have a naturalistic hypothesis that works for the resurrection, I am all ears. But no one has succeeded in showing a hypothesis more likely than Jesus actually rising from the dead.
@@gospelfreak5828 [gf]: "But no one has succeeded in showing a hypothesis more likely than Jesus actually rising from the dead." Well, I dunno, GF. There's no reason to believe that the folks who wrote the Bible were any smarter, more enlightened, more trustworthy, or less prone to well-intentioned self-delusion than folks are today. When I look at the stuff that people believe in today that they're willing to die for, it becomes much easier to believe that the entire story is a product of human imagination than an accurate report of events that actually happened as described / interpreted. Too few witnesses. No chance of any cross-examination. I would not accept stories from a 2,000 year-old book as evidence for some scientific proposition either, much less a resurrection. I always try to be as honest as I can. I look at some of the things I've been passionate about in life. I gained an appreciation for the psychology of fanaticism. If humans can talk themselves into believing / doing almost anything, it seems wise for me to look at all of it critically. A group of people believing in something so deeply that they're willing to lie or die for it? We never observe that today, do we? Did Heaven's Gate need a resurrection to convince the followers to die for their delusion? So, no, based on my own personal experience, my background in science, my interest in theology, philosophy, psychology ... humans' virtually infinite capacity for self-delusion (the naturalistic explanation) accounts for theology much more coherently / consistently / elegantly than theology accounts for humans' nearly infinite capacity for self-delusion. We can observe that evidence right here, right now, just about everywhere we look, including the mirror.
How could info about Joseph of Arimathea be falsifiable? No one knows where Arimathea is supposed to have been. If he wasn't a real person, no one can attest to him & the fact that he appears no where except in the Bible, bears this out. You claim someone could say "My Dad's on the Sanhedrin & no, he had nothing to do with the burial of Jesus." But this assumes JofA is a real person. No one can in fact go to Arimathea to check what he says, as it's an unknown place. How does one verify claims about an unknown person from an unknown place?
Excellent points, GG. Also, it's more accurate to call him Joseph of Plot-armor-athea... because that's exactly what role this character plays.
@@utubepunk Plot-armor-athea...Love it!
Cameron: 'We can assume Joseph of Arimathea must have felt guilty and changed his mind about the killing of Jesus.' Also Cameron: 'It makes no sense to assume that Paul would feel guilty and change his mind'.
Wait, you mean you really can't tell the difference between the two?
@@barry.anderberg No, he isn't saying that are the same thing. But such argument is ridiculous by what Cameron justifies it with.
Cameron tries to ridicule Paulogia by asserting that it's impossible to know the psychology of a person thousands of years ago. While he himself says that Joseph changing his mind is plausible while asserting his psychology.
Which is a special pleading fallacy.
15:00 Cameron says he will not be missing the point. And yet he immediately misses the point. Paul's brings up Bart ehrmans opinion and proceeds to disagree with it because he personally found it insufficient.
The first stated criticism is that Paulogia is using a "closed minded anti-supernatural philosophical assumption." Isn't that the same as using a naturalistic framework? Isn't that the point of the argument from the start - to show you can have a naturalistic account of Christianity without the supernatural events?
Yes, that's exactly the point, and the panel missed it completely.
yes, and rather duh so. But these are apologists. They have to be dishonest.
Good point Adam.
What bothers me is it sure looks like they purposely tried to avoid it and infantalise the arguements rather than confront them honestly, and frankly I'm sick and tired of seeing this. Do they understand this nonsense is precisely why people move away from religion? They have questions and wonderments, and just dismissing them like this does the exact opposite of what they want.
@@MenchisMenagerie Exactly. The kind of dishonesty and uncharitable bullying on display in this video played a bigger part of my moving away from Christianity than any argument or evidence.
40 mins in: the Joseph of Arimethia story isn't in multiple independent sources. It's been well documented that all four gospel stories share sources, or more exactly the last three heavily copied from the first and each after used the previous gospels in the writing of is narrative. Therefore this correlation make it a single source mentioned several times over.
Point on a map where "Arimathea" is. Is it a city, a city-state, a region? What is it? No historian will ever accept that Arimathea actually existed therefore, Joseph of Arimathea is a made up character
@TheClearwall Joseph of Arimathea means Joseph from best disciple town. Clearly a place that was made up.
@@Control_alt_delete 😀 right on mate
Cameron: "Honestly, no one knows how to pronounce his name, it might be 'Paulogia', but it's impossible to know for sure.... "
Paul, at the start of every f**cking video: "Welcome to Paulogia"
Just that right there should be enough to let you know they never intended to take Paul's argument seriously.
They look like they’re either too dumb to remember it or they’re purposefully dishonest. I’d very much like to go with the former but I know it’s the latter.
Yeh that immediately gets everyone's back up. Just so needless rude and petty
@@magicker8052 Would you expect any better? Once upon a time I would have... but I've seen too many people like these guys.
This was missing the point. The point was "can it be explained naturally?" Whether or not you think he did it successfully doesn't really matter. The point is that he could do it.
It's bordering on dishonest. These are smart people - how did they spend more than 2 hours on this project and completely miss the point of a 12 minute video?! Did none of the three (!!!) of them think "maybe throwing out the entire hypothetical right at the start is missing the point of the video?" I just find it hard to believe, I honestly have more faith in them than this. These individuals are not stupid, and yet...2 hours?!?
"Can you dunk on a 10 foot hoop?"
"Yes."
"Then let's see it."
"Oh, I can do it, just not successfully."
"...so you can't do it."
The "successfully" is implicit in the question.
@@newglof9558 They kind of break it up a bit in the first part of this video, but Paulogia explains it pretty clearly at the start of his essay: Gary Habermas in his book says that secular scholars do not often pin down a single hypothesis that explains the rise of Christianity, and puts out a challenge for them to do so. Gary's work is based on a minimal facts hypothesis, namely that there are a small number of simple and uncontroversial facts that explain Christianity, and that there is no naturalistic explanation fits the data. Paulogia's hypothesis attempts to answer that challenge by presenting an accounting that uses the same facts as Gary but does not require any supernatural elements.
The panel kind of misses the context of that discussion, pointing to a number of other things that neither Gary nor Paulogia would consider relevant in this context. Many of the objections brought up by the panel would also not be considered part of Habermas' minimal facts and would be rejected by him as well (and, actually, Gary's argument is often attacked by other Christian scholars for his facts being too minimal and not being strong enough to actually support Christianity).
@newglof9558 you've got it back to front.
"I can dunk a 10 foot hoop"
"Let's see it"
*dunks*
"Well, I don't consider that successful because.."
Successful or not is the opinion of the critiquer.
Uhm, if the explanation isn't successful, then nothing has been explained. I love that 109 dumb dumbs upvoted your comment.
If you want to see an _actual_ demolition of an argument, you should check out Paulogia's response.
I get stuck feeling like either these folks aren't smart enough to understand Paul's point, or that they're willfully being disingenuous, and both options bum me out. Why can't they just deal with the argument honestly and in good faith?
With how often it happens, I've lost any faith (har har) that it isn't them being purposefully dishonest.
@@MenchisMenagerie it's hard to read it any other way.
Completely agree. To add to your point, the video ends up being BORING as well. I mean, typos? They are complaining about typos? Really?
@@squillsify Yup. Aaran Ra once made a great point saying that, while we can't truly know what anyone else is thinking, if you see someone walking down the sidewalk and their gait is very unusual and you notice that they are moving their feet in such a way that they don't step on any cracks, you can reasonably infer that they are intentionally avoiding cracks.
A third option is that they are simply so committed to their outcome being true, and so used to flimsy epistemology that it truly seems like this was a good response to them.
Prompt: Provide a plausible naturalistic explanation for Christianity
Paul: Provides a plausible naturalistic explanation for Christianity
These guys: “This naturalistic explanation contradicts the supernatural explanations laid out in the Bible! That’s Anti-Supernaturalistic bias!!”
Is there a part two coming when you demolish him?
No
They're incompetent
Came here to see if people had the same thoughts as me and so pleased everyone is calling Cameron & the panel out. A totally dishonest approach which completely missed the point either willingly or not. Deliberate misinformation & conflation of points whilst not properly engaging with the data. The nitpicking is awful too. Such an own goal. The accusation of cherry picking is laughable especially from Christians. You need to take a long hard look at your critical thinking skills here guys. Poor show
This has to be the most intellectually dishonest rebuttal/response I’ve ever seen from this channel. This is what happens when your only goal is to defend turf whilst not engaging the actual arguments being made in reasonably good faith.
So glad to see people calling Cameron out. What a load of horse patoooey.
Please be more specific.
@@barry.anderberg
First thought would be that they are aware this is a naturalistic response to the minimal facts case and they constantly put forth things that aren't facts to be explained according to the minimal facts case as issues.
A tomb burial isn't a fact to explain.
The witness count is agreed upon. And so forth.
It is intellectually dishonest as it doesn't approach the argument on its grounds but instead tries to contend it on a completely different basis (the maximal data approach).
I list the three major errors in a comment on the video and I could refer you to Paulogia's video if you would like to at least hear from the other side.
"People who have grief hallucinations nowadays don't immediately assume their loved one has risen from the dead"
People nowadays don't attribute epilepsy and autism to demonic possession either. It was a very, very different age
This is one of the saddest examples of intellectual sloppiness I've come across in some time. These three men throw scholarship and objectivity to the winds, wilfully misrepresent Paulogia's short essay, and do not seem to be able to grasp the fact that someone might not accept the positions that they hold purely on faith. Paulogia's position was very simple. When presented with the claim that a miraculous resurrection was "the only plausible explanation" for the beginnings of the Christian religion, he points out that a perfectly plausible explanation can be posited which does not require any supernatural events. He draws on common sense methods of interpreting historical events and common sense human psychology. It is perfectly clear that Paulogia was not attempting to prove that this is exactly what happened, but only that the claim that a miracle is the only plausible explanation is clearly not viable. A non-miraculous interpretation of the evidence is clearly possible ----- indeed, clearly more likely than a miraculous event. This discussion does everything possible to misdirect and confuse the issue, and to poison the well with sneers and irrelevant issues. Endlessly repeating that Paulogia's point must be ignored because he has an "anti-supernatural bias" is possibly the most idiotic thing I've seen in quite awhile. If one posits that historical events can be "explained" by supernatural events, then nothing even resembling historical analysis is possible. Anything whatsoever might have occurred, and any "explanation," no matter how absurd, would have to be accepted at face value. We could posit that Amundsen reached the South Pole by hopping there on a magical pogo stick, or that the Gettysburg Address was written by a leprechaun and that Abraham Lincoln was actually a robot created by the God Marduk ---- and these would have to be accepted as just as plausible as anything else. Real historians and real scholars do not indulge in such childish rubbish.
Concise, and thorough. Thank you.
@@Marniwheeler Supernatural events explain everything while providing no information about anything.
Now let’s see a response to Paul’s actual argument since he just responded to the three stooges
Don't insult the Three Stooges.
I think Bart's "philosophical" idea that any other scenario will be more likely than a miracle is reasonable is because miracles are by definition, unlikely. When people talk miracles, they mean how lucky that an event happened.
Unlikelihood is the very essence of a miracle.
When discussing history, you want to posit the most likely hypothesis even if it might not be true because it is our best bet
Huh, I should've continued watching the video. I have some reading to do.
If that's correct then Bart would seem to be equivocating between 'miracles' in the metaphorical sense of "something incredible and/or lucky happened" versus what is meant by Christians with the resurrection of Jesus "An extra-natural event by a free agent that overrides what would usually stop it".
It would be a philosophical presupposition or assumption to say it's automatically the least likely based on this because you're conflating with the metaphorical terms and aren't actually dealing with context.
1:58:51 it is laughably ironic that Cameron is citing Occam’s razor, claiming that Jesus was magically raised from the dead instead of a totally plausible naturalistic explanation. Can’t they see the irony that they are poking fun at magical fairies doing magical things?! And that they prefer the more naturalistic explanation of his kids eating the cereal?! I FEEL LIKE IM TAKING CRAZY PILLS!!!
It’s truly wild. The cognitive dissonance is STRONG bruv
I think Paulogia's explanation for the origins of christianity is the most plausible I've heard. These three definitely didn't demolish his explanation by any stretch of the imagination.
Demolish Paulogia, Sudarium of Oviedo, Shroud of Turin, WAXS dating method.
@@jimmoore9490 More like sudaria, because there are so many of them.
@@CafeteriaCatholic There is only one that has 120 blood stains that perfectly match up to the shroud. Sudarium of Oviedo
@@jimmoore9490 So the Sudarium of Veronica is a fake?
@@CafeteriaCatholic ok please explain. The sudarium was carbon dated to 700 AD and the shroud to 1350 AD. And they both line up 120 blood stains. So please explain. This ought to be good.
I would say that "Jesus rose from the dead" is one of the most complex hypotheses you can come up with. The massive disconnect on our Bayesian priors is the real issue, not any specific detail of the story.
Yes! Great point.
Yeah. I have degrees in nuclear engineering and theoretical physics and I worked in probabilistic analysis for about 8 years. The apologists' infatuation with Bayes' theorem is incredibly disheartening. The ones who understand what it is have extremely bizarre and unjustifiable priors and the ones who don't understand what it is use it as a sort of intellectual veneer for their arguments.
OH MY GAWD!!! that number typo completly invalidates everything paul said,you should have just said CHECKMATE ATHIEST,right then and there!
I agree with these guys! Mostly because I had a very similar experience. I was just recently released from prison after serving time for robbing a bank. I absolutely was NOT guilty but was convicted based on faulty logic similar to what Paulogia is guilty of. The real culprit was the King of Mars, who was trying to frame me so that he could take my place as Emperor of the solar system. He was able to use both his Martian ability to teleport the cash and gold from the bank vault into my home, as well as use shape shifters from Venus to look like me. The Prosecutor never once laid out a case involving Marians, or Venusians, showing a complete anti-extraterrestrial bias. Additionally, he continually cherry-picked parts of the story that did not include teleportation or shape shifting. I wish these guys had been on my jury!
This is the funniest thing I've seen this year 😂😂😂
Top kek, fren.
🔖
Nailed it
There really is a Mars, a Venus and a Solar system, you are a reliable source when it comes to claims I can check, therefore you must tell the truth.
30min into this video and yall are totally missing the point. This is hard to listen to
seeing that they start pauls vid at 17:12, thats only 13 minutes int o their actual response, less than 20% of their actual response...
@@DavidTextle
They never address the argument. Paul’s argument boils down to a “naturalistic explanation for the origins of Christianity,” but this panel never sets aside their belief in the supernatural (just for the sake of the argument) and engages in an internal critique of whether or not Paul’s theory sufficient explains the advent of Christianity.
You cannot examine the strength or weakness of a naturalistic explanation if you persist in the position that supernatural events occurred. This is why historical evidence cannot corroborate the claims of miracles.
@@DavidTextle Paul's post here was in response to a challenge by Gary Habermas for anyone to present a naturalistic explanation for Christianity that doesn't involve the supernatural, and so which would necessarily preclude the bible in order to be fulfilled. The panel's primary argument throughout this was that Paul had an anti-supernatural, naturalistic bias, and that what he presented contradicted the bible. They failed to understand what they were arguing against, and from their first complaint trying to jump down Paul's throat about even point 1, that a really real Jesus lived because that _alone_ didn't disprove a resurrection by itself, suggests to me that this panel entered into this with a predrawn conclusion that Paul would be wrong about anything he says and they would be there to try and argue back piecemeal regardless of what was said. That this stream would be a train wreck of missing the point was I think evident right from the start
These 2 are like Legolas and Gimli fighting together at helms deep
I’m gonna guess which is Gimli, lol
Siding with a Protestant ? Siding with a catholic ?
What about siding with a friend ?
"Never thought I'd be fighting side by side with a Protestant."
"How about side by side with a friend?"
What a propethic typology.. When myth become true in reality.. 😂
They should dress up when team ups like this happen lol 😂
I‘m looking forward to Paul‘s response video. He takes criticism to his source treatment very seriously - as Cam knows and already experienced 😅
Yup. He will methodically tear it apart, as he always does, and readily concede any errors in his arguments or sourcing.
@@highroller-jq3ixsaid nobody ever. He misquotes & cherry picks all the time
Too bad he cannot make any decent argument
@@downenout8705 good for you
@@Entropy3ko Can you offer a decent argument?
If you can’t address the content honestly, don’t bother.
If people only put this much effort into behaving like Jesus instead of pedantically trying to prove he existed, who knows what we could accomplish?
nobody is trying to prove he existed, its a fact of history. it takes real faith to try and deny this. skeptics are just as gullible as the evangelicals they critique.
@@DavidTextle okay, to broaden what I'm saying, maybe we should stop trying to prove he was actually the Son of God or waste time proving any other aspect of his being. We can better spend that time helping others like Christ showed us.
@AnthonySimeone Unfortunately these Christians hang everything on Jesus as god-man. Anything he taught about ethics is rendered irrelevant by demands of blind faith or burning in hell. That is all that matters.
@@DavidTextle There really is not but that's not the issue.
The proof required is that the character, if real, was who you say and did what you believe him to have done.
So..... prove something tangible.
One thing is for sure, a response is coming
And he completely demolishes them. It's rather brutal.
@@RegebroRepairs He's very gracious. I don't know if I would've been so.
Just watched the response. It completely made these three jokers look intellectually bankrupt
Jimmy thinks that people have actually talked to the dead and that this is a relatively common occurrence?
Shouldn't we do nothing else except research this phenomenon? This would be the first and only evidence of the supernatural.
What am I missing?
Ah, but he likely thinks his supernatural beliefs already explain the phenomenon and that there are other lines of evidence to the supernatural. From the video, he seems to think the resurrection of Jesus is evidence of the supernatural, for example. So to him it’s not the first and only evidence, just one of many. Given he mentions having done two episodes of a show on this “evidence” and considering his other beliefs, it’s not surprising that he would accept such things and consider them sufficiently explored. The trouble with supernatural explanations is that they tend to discourage further tests and digging that more skeptical or scientific people might want. Do these ACDs consistently describe similar afterlives? How do we verify the person having the experience really didn’t know the information beforehand? If only some ADCs are legit, how can you differentiate? Maybe they do get into some of that in the referenced episodes, I haven’t watched them, but I suspect they take the phenomenon much more at face value than I would consider reasonable.
After death communications are reported by up to 80% of people
These do *not* necessarily entail speaking with or seeing anyone (despite the terminology).
Most respondents to these surveys claim "a sign" or "a sense of their presence" etc. was felt.
Experiences of speaking to dead relatives, even in dreams, are a minority experience.
Well, I have to at least give you credit for allowing dissenting opinions in your comment section. That is more honest than a lot of theist channels. I think I need not really comment on the quality of the video, as I think Paulogia has adequately responded.
That is actually a fair point
Circus must be in town 'cause this is one hell of a clown show. 🤡
More data, less dogma, gentlemen! Look at the 500. Was that precise or an estimate? Were any names taken? How many came forward? When did this happen? Where? No further attestation of what could be a major piece of data. I'm sure Paulogia will respond. With no ad hominems.
Paulogia is obviously a very angry man, this is the fulfillment that atheism brings. If the historical evidence isn’t compelling to you, look at real medically backed miracles today in Jesus name, I’ve seen someone who was blind be given sight and I know it sounds nuts or ludicrous but believe me it’s true there is pre and post medical records. I don’t believe that what a lot of people call miracles are miracles but there is no doubt that miracles exist
Paul had no reason to be very specific about details, especially if it was public knowledge. It was a claim that could've been checked by those he was writing to at the time. So the questions you ask are not all that relevant. The point is, around 500 people saw Jesus alive. Paul would have no reason to lie about this. He also was not a liar and clearly believed in this stuff. He would never make such a bold claim that could be proven wrong instantly.
@@gospelfreak5828 The point is at this imaginary mass witnessing is just a hearsay assertion. Paul absolutely had a reason to lie or to pass along an unverified, hysterical fantasies he was a mentally tormented, batshit zealot who suffered from halluncinations! How do you know he wasn't a liar, liar? Who was going to "prove him wrong" about such a vague claim that can't possibly be proven wrong but that also can't be verified or made credible? How come no one with credibility specifically attested to zombie Jesus, the zombie parade in Jerusalem, the imaginary census, the imaginary earthquakes, or the imaginary sun blotting?
@@gospelfreak5828 A high school student in Norway beat Michael Jordan in a game of one on one basketball. I wasn’t there, but 500 people saw it and you can ask any of these people. I don’t know any of their names or the name of the school or the exact date but you can ask them. - lying from Tarsus
@@chrispope7486 If you told me that there were those of that number of 500 who were still alive and I could go to an equivalent of the apostles and I am also a part of a church that I can visit other churches and have conversations with those living people, then that is a little different than being completely removed and unable to check and validate said claim. All someone in the Corinthian church would have to do is literally go to the church in Jerusalem and talk with an apostle and talk with others who witnessed said event. It's more like if you knew the exact school where this was witnessed, and you can go to said school and ask people there if they actually saw and witnessed that.
Not a very convincing rebuttal of Paulogia. It relies on claims of the supernatural and the 'evidence' of what is written in the Bible whose veracity is the subject of this whole exercise. Paulogias naturalistic explanation of the start and rise of Christianity is far more likely and convincing than the Bible narratives and traditional church narratives.
After listening to many of your videos and many of Paulogia's, I have come to the conclusion that I just can't take you seriously. Cameron, I would say it looks like you are not seeking the truth at all. You are engaging in banal, safe, standard apologetics. You're not being fair or intellectually honest about the points Paul makes. It's really disheartening and honestly it makes you look quite silly.
Also - Cameron, your complete and utter inability to entertain a run-of-the-mill hypothetical here shows an astonishing lack of intellectual curiosity.
I think we need to do more video like this, Catholic + Protestant + Orthodox, team up, answering sceptic, atheist and agnostic people.
@@WorkingFromHomeToday452 yeah we agreed on the Resurrection😅
😂😂😂. Ya'll can't quit fighting each other long enough over who is right to tackle us.
@@The-Doubters-Diary do you realise we Christians agreed on the Resurrection right? 😃
@@calson814 Big deal. If all people who believe in Bigfoot think the creature is brown, does that make it real? Especially if they can't agree on anything else?
And the strange axe wielding « All at the snack-bar » bearded renamed Sithlords.
The wrap-up in short;
Gary Habermas: "here's my challenge, come up with a naturalistic explanation that explains early belief in the resurrection better than the bible"
Paulogia: "here's one"
Cameron, Jimmy and Gavin for two hours: "no but that contradicts the bible though. You're close-minded and anti-supernaturalistic"
So the best explanation is the that the bible is true because there are no other explanations on the table, and any other attempt to present an explanation can be dismissed because it doesn't match the one in the bible. Convenient bible-shaped goalposts
___
Can I also just point out that the first complaint about Paul's first point - that a real Jesus existed - was that _that_ alone doesn't disprove a resurrection. Were these guys just coming in to make pithy remarks about every single point piecemeal, Hovind-style, without considering the case that all the facts make together? It struck me as very strange, point 1 was a concession to their side, they clearly agree with it, why the need to whine about it? And yes, "Point 1: Jesus existed" is very clearly not supposed to be an argument against the resurrection, what a bizarre complaint. Misunderstanding right from the get-go, and seemingly playing their hand that this was a motivated attack on Paul's video rather than seriously considering what he says.
___
Paulogia: "Paul might've felt bad for killing people and had a post-bereavement hallucinatory experience"
Cameron, advocating on the side of magic: "What strikes me is how implausible this is... You might as well postulate aliens, or time travellers, just add in a whole bunch of other stuff. Nah, it's easier to say Jesus rose from the dead, much simpler!"
I don't know what to even say to that. I think I'll just point at it in astonishment
I can’t wait for Paulogia to pick this apart
Will you watch it
I just started the video, but I keep expecting him to pause and respond to their points.
Why? You can't pick it apart yourselves?
I mean, I’ve got guesses on how Paul will tackle most of it, but it’s always fun to see his response anyway
You didn't have to wait long. And he makes them look like fools (but in a nice way).
I find it ironic that you criticize Paul for mispronouncing some name and at the same time not make the effort to pronounce his name correctly.
Not to mention that pretty much everyone on both sides of the issue pronounces it "Thaddeus," not "Thuddeus."
How hard is it for an English speaker to mispronounce Paul?
@@thelonelysponge5029 Paulogia
@@thomaslehner5605 I see..
What a waste of time. You had a perfect opportunity to address the secular argument with secular sources, and it devolved into My Magic book win
Ppl so misuse Hume. He was smart enough to not forward an obviously circular argument. He argued that we have to measure the probability of miracle vs non-miracle, which is exactly what Christian apologists say. Ppl use Hume circularly all the time, but they’re actually straw-manning Hume’s position.
Hume argument against miracles has been deemed an abject failure by most philosophers at this point.
@@Entropy3ko This comment made me look it up in the Stanford Encyclopedia, here's what it says:-
"A curious feature of recent discussions is that Hume’s critique of reported miracles has itself come under heavy fire and is now viewed in some quarters as requiring defense. For a range of views on the matter, see Levine (1989: 152 ff), who maintains that Part 1 contains an argument but that the argument is a failure, Johnson (1999), who argues that Part 1 is confused and unclear and that various attempts to clarify it have failed to elicit a compelling line of argument, Earman (2000), who argues that Part 1 is an “abject failure,” Fogelin (2003), who aims to rehabilitate Hume against the critiques of Johnson and Earman in particular, and Millican (2013), who argues vigorously that the interpretation of Hume’s argument offered in Earman (2000) is flawed in multiple ways, as does Vanderburgh (2020). Shapiro (2016) and Johnson (2015) endorse a more or less unreconstructed version of Hume’s critique. Millican (2011) offers a sympathetic reconstruction of Hume’s critique in the wider context of Hume’s other metaphysical and epistemological work."
It doesn't seem to me to be saying most philosophers have deemed it an abject failure. Earman is the only one mentioned making that claim specifically and it seems his interpretation has been widely rebuffed.
Hume isn’t a good source for cogent arguments against miracles. He wrote about them, yes, but not well, and certainly not convincingly. I think people trot Hume out because he’s a well-known philosopher, but his miracles framework is just shoddy work.
@@JS-ln4ns your opinion flies in the face of philosophical consensus.
Judging from the comments, it is clear the purpose of the video was not to counter Paulogia's argument, but to increase views by making a video so absurd and with such a clickbait title they'd be able to draw in Paul's viewers. Would love to see views chart to compare with release date of the response video.
Two and a half hours of quality clownshow ❤️
Paulogia's response only makes it funnier.
Let's go Camerinooo 🔥🔥
what a lazy character assassination
My question is: doesn’t your god value honesty, and if so, don’t you risk getting him angry at your purposeful obtuseness and dishonesty? Do you think he’s the petty type described in the Bible, who’ll let anything pass as long as you’re worshipping him? Or have you realised there is no chance that he exists so you’re really not risking anything? Which one is it?
I suggest you look to Patriarch Kirill, head of the Russian Orthodox Church. Everyone has their price.
@@NomDeUser I wonder what that monthly youtube check addressed to Cameron looks like?
You should have had Habermas on to defend the minimal facts before you start inventing new points.
Habermas _cannot_ defend the minimal facts
@@plannein Sure he can. I don't know that his data is accurate but he at least knows what the minimal facts are.
@@goldenalt3166 no, he doesn't lol. Every time he talks about his minimal facts he brings in other facts that aren't in those minimal facts of his. He ALWAYS brings up that group appearances cannot be explained, but doesn't include group appearances in his list, because he knows scholars don't agree with that. He cannot defend his minimal facts theory.
@@plannein Oh you're confused. I asked them to find out what the minimal facts were. Not the "explanation".
@@goldenalt3166 no, you said they should have him on to "defend" the minimal facts. Not to list them. The list can be found quite easily with a cursory search. Habermas doesn't need to be there for that.
In what way is a miraculous resurrection more possible than natural-based conjecture?
To look at the vastness of the universe and not conclude we are like fairies is disingenuous.
Simple, apply Occam's Razor. The Christian position has lots of testimony to support it, whereas Paul has to discount parts of the tradition with no reason other than that it makes his thesis easier to support, and posit events we have no record of. The Christian position comes out of available information. The atheist position comes out of pure speculation.
The big difference between us is that I've seen miracles happen, so I can't presuppose they're impossible. You've never seen one, so you don't believe they're possible. That's why the gospel being true seems like a less probable explanation.
@@Draezeth We just see Occam's razor different here. God or miracles seem to be clearly a larger leap in probability than naturalism.
@@koppite9600 wait, what? lol
@curatinghumanism All we need is for miracle to be possible. If the weight of evidence is heavy enough in the miracle's favor, then it should be taken as the best explanation.
"Best" is also important to mention. Nobody in this discussion should be saying their answer is the definitive truth. At the end of the day, finding the best fit for the facts we accept is the best we can do. It's how we do science.
Having watched this video and the Paulogia response to it, I have to say that not only did you not demolish his explanation, he kinda showed you guys to be either dishonest or just lazy with your commentary. It was hard watching a group of guy being a bit smug while doing an embarrassingly bad job.
Setting aside that "demolishing" an argument is just a little silly anyways, it was telling that Cameron kept trying to sell the idea that they "found some stuff that totally demolishes Paulogia's argument" instead of being clear about how Paul's argument didn't fly.
As a general rule, shouldn't the audience, and not the content creators, get to decide who demolishes who?
That's all Cameron has lol
Can you be more specific?
@@barry.anderberg I'm pretty sure Paul-ogia's video has all the specifics you need. I don't think I've ever seen him play the "for the bible tells me so' jingle that many times. And as a recovering Christian, I really hope I was never as petty as to continually get the name of the guy I was reviewing wrong. It was a very bad look.
@@scottharrison6836 so you don't have specifics. Got it.
Inaccurately titled. It should be "Demolishing Our Own Intellectual Integrity by Willfully or Stupidly Misrepresenting Almost Everything @Paulogia Said in His Natural Explanation of Christianity (feat. Akin & Ortlund)"
The daughter making the cereal is more probable than fairies! Duh. Now replace fairies with god and the daughter with the natural world.
Yeah, Cameron shot his point in the foot by bringing in fairies. A better analogy would be "one of my daughters made herself a bowl of cereal" vs. "All three of my daughters collectively made the bowl of cereal- one got the bowl, one got the milk, and one got the cereal."
@@Draezeth Yes, much better example. 👍
The natural world is literally defined by it's not being supernatural. And anything which is not supernatural cannot be the source of all things.
This is just cope, and it's sad.
@@marvalice3455 then you disagree with someone from another one of my comments that was sticking with saying that we (humans) are walking miracles - which they later defined as something only a supernatural being could perform
I appreciate that @paulogia tries to make it easy for the audience to read his sources.
Captain America: "The comment section isn't going the way you planned."
Guys, I enjoy very much a good exchange of arguments (both in a direct debate or as a video response here) and I have celebrated the "demolition" of both believers and atheists, as my main interest is to learn how to debate.
This video... Has been very hard to watch. In summary, you just don't have the scholarly sophistication to go against Paulogia: 1. You didn't understand the assignment from the start, demanding Paulogia to include the possibility of the supernatural on an argument specifically designed not to include such an assumption. 2. You establish contentions about his arguments and the way he approaches certain historical facts to later commit the exact same "fails" yourself (which some are just you subjective and unsubstantiated evaluation of them). 3. You tend to poison the well by condemning sources or the epistemology used rather than provide actual contentions.
There are more things to say, but I think I made my point. Please either be more rigorous with the content of your videos or look for less prepared counter apologists.
Cameron you truly should be ashamed of yourself and your guests for resorting to name calling and poisoning the well and then preceded to not even seriously understand and respond the Pauls arguments.
RUclips apologetics is truly a clown show…
The only circus in town is yours. All of you weirdos are so obsessed with this topic that you all pack into your clown car and bombard any channel that mentions your cult leader. Touch grass sometime. 😂
@@CJP.-pq3kr Projection
@@vladd415 - “projection” = low effort canned response
@@CJP.-pq3kr Well, it is what you are doing. Should I search for a synonym of projection, and use that instead?
Paulogia, a layman, with no formal training in history finds the historical evidence for the resurrection flimsy and unconvincing. So, you can decide how much merit to assign to his conclusion. However, you know who overwhelming agrees with him? Just about every single historian (ie. people with formal training and relevant academic credentials) who are currently alive.
1.) Only a small minority of historians hold the position that the historical evidence supports the conclusion that it is most likely that Jesus rose from the dead.
2.) When you remove the historians who are work at intuitions that imposes a Statement of Faith on their employment, that dictates what positions they must hold, the number goes down to close to none. This sums up nicely how feeble the historical argument is, and how soundly rejected it is by historians.
If the historical evidence was anywhere near as strong as apologists claim, one would expect there would be a number much larger than zero of historians holding the view that we may not know by what means Jesus rose from the dead, but the historical evidence is very clear that he did. The historical argument for the resurrection tends to only be convincing to the people who know the least about history.
1:58:08 Oof. I’ll bet Cam regrets this stab at an argument. Complexity isn’t the problem in that example, my dude.
2:00:59 Ummm….I think this guy is actually an atheist!
That part was also my major hangup here. What utter lunacy to even think this would sound sane....
🔖
I did find that example a little funny as well. I was tempted to talk about Cameron's anti-supernatural bias against fairies but I thought doing so would be a little too childish.
This feels very, very "For the Bible tells me so"
Atheist and skeptical scholars treat the various books of the Bible has historical sources. Because that’s what they are, as textual criticism and cross-references with other sources establishes.
@@EricTheYounger various scholars treat PARTS of the Gospels and other Biblical books like they do other potential historical sources...with some parts being considered accurate and other parts mythological.
“For this ancient document tells me so”
@@EricTheYounger treating them as historical sources doesn't mean they treat all of the information in them as true.
Pick a well known ancient text. It's likely considered an historical source, even when it includes supernatural elements. But again, calling something a hisotrical source doesn't mean that all or even most of the information contained is fact.
Plus, as Paul (and so many, many others) have patiently pointed out - even if we treat the Bible as a "super accurate" historical source, it's still the only source that supports the vast majority of Christian claims.
Indeed, the text itself is often the only source the the claims themselves, and so how could it also serve as evidence?
Never seen anyone be LESS demolished before 😅 what a load of nonsense reponses
What about e.g., the questionable use of sources as described in the video?
@@wadetisthammer3612 I don’t think they seem questionable at all, but it seems like Habermas in particular is incredibly bad with correctly representing sources
@@danielduvana
_I don’t think they seem questionable at all_
What about what Paulogia did as described in 39:48 to 45:29?
@@shassett79
_Do you have a specific objection to the use of a specific source in a specific part of Paulogia's argument?_
See 39:48 to 45:29.
@@wadetisthammer3612that have extremely small bearing on his overall video, use of sources and arguments. It’s really nitpicking minor mistakes, if this criticism is actually correct
Paul tries to be nice to all Christians. Please be respectful and call his theory by the name he uses Just like you would WLC... please and thank you.
Why does he even care? Super silly and super prideful if he so strongly doesn’t believe something is true why even engage with it?
@@user-mr3kf2vr6ybecause his previous faith ended up costing him and he doesn't want others to repeat his journey.
so nice when he mocks them "because the Bible tells me sooooo"
@@newglof9558 he is mocking the single source of the claim. he does take some jabs at certain specific Christians he finds disingenuous, but nothing close to the atheists rape and murder with no qualms rhetoric we hear repeated
@@michaelkierum42 we both know he’s not nice in any way, very passive aggressive and condescending
wow....this is pretty embarrassing for your channel, I'm surprised you haven't taken this down yet. I encourage you to re watch this video. You completely missed the point and don't appear to know what "cherry picking" means. Wow just wow
Hume's argument is about proving miracles with testimony, not that they can't happen.
Actually, there’s a debate in the literature about whether he rules miracles out a priori given his ostensible definition of a miracle as a violation of the laws of nature.
@CapturingChristianity that seems like a reasonable definition and is definitely the most common one I've come across from both theists and atheists. What would you offer as a better definition?
Must admit I've never read his arguments personally, only heard others explain them.
@@anthonydesimone502 Miracles don't violate the laws of nature. They are events that do not naturally occur without divine intervention. But God intervening with his creation is not unnatural or violating any laws.
@gospelfreak5828 that just sounds like quibbling over semantics. I'm going to call natural laws, those that can be discovered by science. I'm fine if we want to say there are laws that undergird them, and that miracles don't violate *those* laws. But they still violate the laws of nature as we can understand and discover them.
01:27:58
That is a blatant mistranslation, and I suppose you chose the CPOV deliberately for this. Every other translations says "The Twelve." Indeed, the Greek explicitly says "dodeka," which literally means "twelve." Why would you use a misleading translation in this way? 🤔
It gets corrected later in the stream.
@@CapturingChristianitythis isnt an enormous point or anything but it is a bit of an L for Jimmy to explicitly refer to "the eleven" as evidence that it was an early creed
@@Greyz174 same thought I had. And he never retracted that when the error was pointed out.
@@jaydon225he did retract that actually. Shows you didn’t watch the stream
@@erichenkel4393
In what minute exactly did he retract that? Stop lying for Jesus.
Do better guys
This is just sad
31:45 Yeah, Gavin, a claim of one Joseph of Arimathea burying Jesus (and existing in the first place), found nowhere in any source until the Gospel attributed to Mark and dating to nearly 4 decades after, is "the kind of claim that would have been difficult to make up" and "would have been falsifiable" with ease.
You completely missed the point of what Paulogia said. You are incompetent at best, and dishonest at worst.
The only thing you demolished is common sense.
As they say: never bring logic to a magic fight 😂😂😂😂
16:36 it sure would be nice if y’all could ever prove that ANY miracle has actually happened.
In early 2003, my first wife and I were sitting in church. The chairman of the board stood up and said, "Pastor Steve has something to tell you." The pastor came in and confessed to a 13 year pornography habit. The next morning my wife and I were getting up and she said, "That's funny. I just had a dream and in the dream, I was given 2 scripture references and I have no idea what they say." Just then I felt a tingling sensation. One scripture reference popped into my head. We looked up the 3 verses. They said: "Expel the immoral brother, I was homeless, and you took me in." We took him in. To me, that was on the order of a double-blind experiment, or if you will, a miracle.
@@daneumurian5466 that is absolutely not a double-blind study. Not even remotely close.
@@daneumurian5466🤣🤣🤣
@@daneumurian5466 So your example miracle is that the night after an event, your wife dreamt about relevant Bible verses?
@@k98killer That's what I'm reading.
Any wonder these people believe the rubbish preached to them.
One thing I am curious about on the topic of hallucinations. I think we can all agree that group hallucinations are uncommon if not never observed.
Cameron says "hallucinations that you are having in your mind -- you are not having that with someone else"
I agree that group hallucinations are not observed. However, resurrection is also not a thing that is statistically observed.
I want to know how this is not special pleasing because that is what it feels like to me (even if I am mistaken). It feels like we are saying group hallucinations are not observed therefore this could not have been a group hallucination. Also, resurrections are not observed therefore this couldn't have been a resurrection.
The other point is that there is literally not one eyewitness written account of a single one of these alleged group hallucinations. All we have are hearsay reports of them. So those can simply be dismissed. No explanation needed.
Resurrections and hallucinations are two completely different things. If you see a person who was previously dead and a large number of other people see that same person then it is most likely not a hallucination as everyone would have to have collectively hallucinated the same person which is unlikely. Thus leaving the possibility of the resurrection more likely because you know the person you observed along with other people was not a delusion. So you technically can observe resurrections or the aftermath of one at least.
@@georgenassif5777 if that ever happened, then one could use that as a starting point for discussion. Since no resurrection has ever been reliably recorded in real time, that’s a moot point.
The problem with the alleged resurrection appearances n the Bible, is that all we have is hearsay testimony from decades after the alleged event. Which makes it supremely unreliable.
The Big Bang only happened once, doesn’t mean it didn’t happen
To build on the reply of @georgenassif, If someone claims to be God and predicts his own resurrections, people don't belief him and then various people, including the ones who doubted it, all see him, then the actual resurrections is the more likely outcome.
So basically you have two unnatural explanations to a strange situation. One that the available evidence points to and one that seems ad-hoc. Sure, both are unnatural, but I go with the one that fits the surrounding situation better.
Also the hallucination explanation only answers some of the problems. For example the hallucination explanation doesn't address at all why the body is suddenly lost. The reason why I called the hallucination ad-hoc is because you also need to have some random person stealing a corpse from a guarded grave, without telling the Romans, the Jews or the Christians. So you need to have two independent explanation at the same time. One very unlikely which requires a very skilled thief and the other a not observed phenomena that this thief didn't have any control over.
Fabulous dicussion here guys, great points from both Jimmy and Gavin (Cameron too). Taking the time to dissect different arguments is one of the best ways we can learn to engage with folks. Would love to see a rebuttal from Paulogia after this as well.
It's awesome seeing folks from typically opposing traditions working together, need to see more of that. Been casually reading and listening to Jimmy and Gavin's individual work for the past couple years, and seeing them working together is super exciting. Again, great video guys, thanks for your time and effort in making this happen!
Catholicism and Protestantism are from exactly the same tradition. But claiming, childishly and trollishly, that this rebuttal "demolishes" Paulogia's hypothesis is not at all an intelligent or intellectually competent way to engage ideas.
Is there a part two where the Demolishing happens?
@@highroller-jq3ix I remember when the early wave of "RUclips atheists" used language like this and just about everyone rolled their eyes, apologists included. I wonder why the standards are different now?
To be fair, language like this did get me into watching atheist content was a teenager...but as an adult I just shake my head. It's difficult to have a rational discussion when your detractors constantly claim they've demolished your position, they've destroyed your arguments, that you just hate their god (wait how'd that one get in there?). I guess this fits my impressions of apologists: secretly the goal is not to create a rational belief in their god or to engage those who doubt their beliefs and thus gain new followers; it is to reinforce existing believers' faith in their position and prevent them from asking questions about it. Look, this smart guy says he DEMOLISHED a non-believer's hundreds of hours of work in just 2 hours!!! I can just quietly put my questions to rest and move on with my life.
Jacob, the rebuttal is now online; well worth the 1 hour to watch!
@@rapdactyl Clickbait nonsense doesn't belong to a position or an ideology, but it is the recourse of dishonest, sensationalizing, sub-intellectual douches, like Betuzzi and squeaky little Ben and, as you noted, numerous other youtube apologists.
"Radical skepticism" against what? ... "Radical Gullibility?" How can any person thinking person believe that a dead human, with all the processes shut down for several hours, can come back to life? That guy either was not dead, or it's just a fantasy.
How is having an "anti-supernatural bias" bad? Why should we seriously consider magical storybook characters like Jesus and Frosty the Snowman and The Tooth Fairy did magical things in reality before looking at naturalistic explanations that don't require The Tooth Fairy?
It isn't. It's good to have that bias. That is a trick of sophists. Using a word that has a negative connotation to most people to make your opponent sound bad.
@@ThinkitThrough-kd4fn Yep, poisoning the well is one of their tried and true strategies.
So Paul’s natural explanation is less likely than a supernatural event?!?
Cam’s example at the end with fairies is such a strawman. You could make an argument that adding more details makes the theory less possible, but said you made an argument that adding more details that are also fantastic. Makes the theory less probable. Those two points are not the same thing.
That's because he's kind of a moron and is constantly dealing with topics well beyond his comprehension.
how are you guys not embarrassed???? all this and still no evidence of a god! 😆
Mentioning that there have been responses to Hume’s argument against miracle within a Bayesian framework is interesting considering that his argument has been formalized and proven true in Bayesian terms. But otherwise, the treatment of Hume and miracles was disappointing. It’s not “anti-supernaturalist” to point out that miracles are a priori more improbable than non miraculous explanations. If anything it’s just prudent
I'm gonna need a source on that first sentence.
I mean when the evidence is not observed,than sure. A miracle claim will always be less likely. But when the evidence is observed and the naturalistic explanations are so unlikely, and the miracle claim fits in with the evidence the best, then Hume's point is moot. A miracle claim that fits the evidence will always be more likely than a naturalistic explanation that cannot possibly or do not fit the evidence. Basically, the atheist who wants to argue this way will have to say "The evidence doesn't actually really matter, as the evidence may fit your view better but I will just disregard the evidence because there is no way I can believe your conclusion is true." It is a very flawed and unfalsifiable position to take, and the evidence is basically irrelevant at that point
@@gospelfreak5828 Yes, Hume would agree and I'm pretty sure he argued (I haven't read enquiry in a few years, sorry) that any miracle account, since it would violate the regularities of nature, is less probable, at least a priori. I'm taking issue with your second sentence: "but when the evidence is observed and the naturalistic explanations so unlikely..." the point is that any naturalistic explanation, no matter how unlikely, would be orders of magnitude more probable than a miracle occurring. And in the case of naturalistic explanations, even the conjunction of naturalistic hypotheses to account for specific details of the resurrection story, maybe grave robbery for the empty tomb or hallucinations/lies for the eyewitness accounts, would be a priori more probable than a miracle occurring. We know that grave robberies occur, we know that hallucinations occur, and we know that people lie. We have zero examples of resurrections, though. The point of this is not to defend any particular hypothesis(es) and I'm sure you probably could argue against any of them. The point is that my prior for any conjunctive naturalistic hypothesis is going to be higher than my prior for any miracle.
But what about during the updating process? Atheists would not say "the evidence doesn't actually really matter..." In the case of the resurrection, facts like Jesus existed and was an apocalyptic prophet, he was crucified by Romans, and he was buried, are mundane. Does the resurrection narrative predict that we find evidence in support of this? Yes. Does "Jesus was just an incredibly influential guy with good ideas who died for them and stayed dead" hypothesis predict that we find evidence in support of this, too? Also yes. And as for testimony of things like the empty tomb and the post-death appearances, does the resurrection narrative explain those? Yes. Does a conjunction of naturalistic hypotheses also explain those? Also yes. Atheists would say that the evidence matters, and that the evidence also fits naturalistic explanations. Hume said that the only way to affirm a miracle on the basis of testimony is if the falsehood of that testimony would be more miraculous than the miracle occurring. Atheists make, in some words or others, this point all the time, and it's one that I would agree with. It's not an unfalsifiable position whatsoever. Verify the testimony, or show how improbable its falsehood would be (in fact, I've heard resurrection defenders try to do the latter in these discussions!), and you can verify the miracle.
The only “successfull Bayesian formulations of Humes argument form miracles give infinitesimal probabilities to miracles (Sobel) or include absurd special pleading about every other instance of a previously broken law of nature/as well as invoking a definition of miracle (breaking a law of nature) that most theists don’t accept (Cavin et al)
@@Tommy01_XO The second sentence was meant to clarify my disagreement with Hume. My argument isn't that that is his belief. I was giving my position. Without looking at any evidence, a naturalistic explanation will always seem more probable. The whole argument of Hume's that even when looking at the evidence you have to assume such a low priority to miracles that the naturalistic one wins automatically is precisely what I take issue with and is my entire point. Such an idea is ridiculous. It would be like in a hypothetical world where either a supernatural being or every human on earth was guilty of killing a man. Naturally we would assume that a man did it. But if we had undeniable proof that every single person was video taped and the tape was genuine and every human being on earth was not responsible for the knife inside the dead man, to say it is more likely any one of these people on camera killed the man than a supernatural being is preposterous. But such an assumption makes the evidence useless and it does not matter. No matter what, it is impossible to believe a miracle occurred epistemically, and that is absurd. It doesn't even work as a framework and results in ridiculous conclusions. And any of the hypothesis' would on face value without observing them seem more probable than a resurrection do to the fact they occur more often. No one argues that. The argument is that you have to observe if these things actually work and are more probable based on the evidence we actually have. And the naturalistic ones fail, every last one of them. Since they fail, the resurrection is more probable. No previous probability of resurrections and other things should inform the view of the evidence, or else the view is clouded with an insurmountable bias. There is no reason to assume that even with evidence the evidence could never be good enough due to some previous probability we understand is true intuitively before any evidence is observed. It is absurd.
No, the hypothesis Jesus stayed dead, and he didn't die for good ideas. He died because the Jewish leaders hated him for blasphemy and claiming to be God. It was not something so vague. The evidence supports the resurrection hypothesis alone. That is the whole point. Naturalistic explanations do not fit the evidence and data. None of the naturalistic hypotheses explain all the data, and the resurrection is the only thing that explains the evidence in its entirety. Naturalistic explanations are only consistent with some of the evidence. When you are convicting someone of murder, there are some people who may fit some of the evidence like motive and being around during the crime. But you only convict the suspect that fits all the data. You don't leave that suspect alone and then arrest a different subject that fits some of the evidence. We are talking about what is rationale and what should be believed and what is more probably true. Not what is possible. Yeah, anything is possible. These naturalistic hypothesis are possible. But they cannot be believed based on the evidence available. They basically have to be blindly believed, and atheists have to reject the evidence and where it leads and believe in a faulty hypothesis blindly due to a naturalistic bias and faulty epistemology. The falsehood of the testimony is more miraculous, as the evidence against every naturalistic hypothesis is so much just as in my hypothetical above that they just can't be said to be true when all the evidence and data is accounted for. They say evidence matters, but it doesn't actually play out practically and their words don't match how they react to the evidence. It is an unfalsifiable position. Miracles can't happen, or if they do, we could never know epistemically based on testimony and historical data. The miracle is so unlikely that we will take any other hypothesis that doesn't fit the data and reject the only idea that fits it. That makes no sense. Hume and this kind of thinking is reflective of someone like Louise Bundy, who maintained her son was innocent throughout despite the evidence. Her a priori belief that her son could never do such a thing based on her experience and knowledge of him brought her to the idea he was innocent no matter how much evidence was against him. I see little to no difference in the way Hume and other atheists handle the resurrection. You've heard us try, and we succeed in showing the improbability of the naturalistic explanations. But the assumption the atheists and Hume take is the issue in the first place and that claim needs to be justified first before we can say we need to show the naturalistic explanations to be highly improbable. We already do that, but the assumption of Hume needs to first be justified.
Do you believe in the public miracles of Vespasian as reported by Tacitus, Suetonius and Cassius Dio since you don't have "closed minded anti-supernatural philosophical assumptions."?
Cameron is doing more for Christian unity with this stream than the World Council of Churches has done in its 76 years of existence.
As an atheist, I have to give it to Cameron on this one. He does seem to give an effort and try to rise the standard of discourse on YT. Subscribed.
Yeah, what the heck?? He's a Catholic now; someone get Papa Francis on the horn and let him know we've found "The Guy" to lead the next Ecumenical Council.
@@adamtokayCareful! He might getcha! 😉😜
@@MeanBeanComedy no worries, I like my sinning way too much. Now if you excuse me, my morning child sacrifice is getting cold.
@@adamtokay lol
I was laughing imagining Paulogia drawing Jimi Akin and Gavin Ortlund. But unfortunately he draws the invited people.
But seriously he’s funny.
12:23 given that supernaturalism is also entirely non-falsifiable, any and all evidence you can provide for a supernatural event, especially a one-off event like the resurrection, is 100% NOT the most likely answer, REGARDLESS of your “evidences.” Every single possible natural answer is more likely.
Miracles are *by definition* rare, for crying out loud.
Off to a bad start here, guys.
So you decided at the outset that your own position is absolutely impossible to counter, then you challenge people to do a good job countering your position
For one, the fact that we could not prove supernaturalism wrong is entirely irrelevant. If we are talking about specific cases, we actually can falsify supernatural hypothesize. Zeus is a popular example. He doesn't cause lightning. We have ruled out the supernatural. If we found Jesus' body, the resurrection would be falsified. So, your claim is wrong if you are talking about specifics. Though your comment is poorly worded, so it is difficult to discover your point and actual logical flow. Run on sentences tend to give that impression. You say every naturalistic hypothesis is more likely. You have to prove that claim. That is something you need to demonstrate. The resurrection is the only thing that makes sense of all the evidence. You basically have to ignore and reject the evidence and where it leads due to a presupposition on your part. But then you should just ignore the claims of evidence entirely as it doesn't even matter to you. You should just show why your epistemic standards is better than us Christians, which you have yet to do.
They are by definition rare. But that doesn't automatically make it the least probable option. It may be rarer for a monkey to kill a person with a gun than a human being. But we don't look at video evidence of a monkey killing someone and then say "Well, people killing people is more likely and happens more often, so we can rule out the monkey despite the evidence and convict this human person instead." You make a category error in probability. You have to look at the individual circumstance outside of how often they occur, and then assess if such a rare thing actually happened or not. After all, rare things happen, and we know they do. We could never discover the rare or the exceptions if we did not look individually at specific circumstances and the evidence around said circumstances.
They are not at a bad start. Just because you made a claim you did not prove, showing your naturalistic bias and presuppositions, and then you also make a category error in probability does not make their arguments invalid.
And the funny thing is, resurrections aren't exactly rare in the NT. Two other people are resurrected before Jesus. Still doesn't mean it happened.
Plane crashes are rarer than car crashes. Should we blame 9/11 on cars, since cars are more likely? Since plane crashes into buildings are so infrequent versus cars, we should discount any evidence for the plane crash into buildings, as those are rare for crying out loud. The evidence does not matter. You can never show a plane crash into a building is more likely than a car crash, as car crashes are observed to happen more....
This is a category error in assessing probabilities. That is not how that works.
@@jameslay1489 They are rare. A thing can happen multiple times and still be rare. And being rare still does not mean it did not happen.
This is why every single year religions are declining rapidly.. The people that are supposed to be the most moral are always the biggest liars and deceivers.. These three continue time after time to lie over and over and over so many overs I can't continue about the content they're talking about it's honestly embarrassing. Paulogia (Paul) has literally gone through this embarrassing attempt to defame another human(real Christian like right?) because he has a different belief than they do, and pointed out the facts for everybody to see if you're interested in the truth go over and watch the video.
When your arguments are so bad that nor even Christians will come to defend then.
Gavin and jimmy together is quite formidable. Get them together more often 👍👍
They weren't.
@@DaviniaHillhow so?
@@georgenassif5777 def a bot
@georgenassif5777 they made some assumptions right at the top that made the rest of thier arguments invalid, not least of which was claiming Paul "didn't know the material".
@@OrthodoxJoker def a prick
All this fundraising and donations to produce videos that completely miss the point?
Can some checks be put in place to avoid this kind of misguided effort in the future?
Thank you for getting Jimmy and Gavin in one video. It was a genuine pleasure to watch this. God bless you guys!!
For some reason counter apologists don't like Bayes theorem. I understand that it can be annoying when people play with numbers to get to predetermined conclusions. But I still think it's fun to go along. So let's go along!
Short reminder: Probability of A given some evidence B is equal to probability of B given A times probability of A divided by probability of B. P(A|B) = [P(B|A)*P(A)/P(B)]
1. If Jesus self-resurrected (not being resurrected by a God or a prophet but by his own act). He would be the only person to do it in history. This gives us a nice prior probability of the event. Since about 100 billion people died so far, this is 1 in 100 billion event. P(A) = 1/100 000 000 000
Now we need all facts that need to be explained. Going with Garry Habermas:
1. Crucifiction
2. Appearances
3. Skeptics
4. Early
Let's give each of them a-priori probability.
1. Everybody agrees. probability 1 (100%)
2. Appearances. About 1/8 people see dead loved ones. so 1/8 (12.5%)
3. Skeptics. This is harder. But let's go with this: 23% of war veterans get PTSD. 40% of those get psychotic symptoms including hallucinations. About 1% of veterans actively say the war they participated is unjust (based on vietnam war data) About 0.3 % of people can't tell the difference between their hallucinations and reality. There were about 6000 pharisees in the approximate vicinity of Jesus's time. I'd say it would be generous to multiply those to get probability of a single person becaming hallucinatory convert. So 0.23*0.4*0.01*0.003 ~= 1/27 000 000. But we had 6000 pharysees. So let's treat each as a roll of the 27 000 000 dice. We only get Paul if we roll a 1. This gives us a total probability of at least one Paul to be 0.00022219753. Pretty low. (I'm willing to be more charitable than that given good reason)
4. Accounts were early. Let's take the earliest. Say immediatelly after death. Given that myths can easily get created immediatelly (for example Elvis being alive, Covid being a hoax) I'd say this is also 1. But. I know some people will disagree with that. So let's say this is 0.001 (0.1%) (comment if you think it's even lower)
Now.
1. Doesn't impact our prior at all. It's 100% likely on both ressurection and not resurrection hypothesis.
2. Apperances is 12.5% a priori, 100% given resurrection. So let's calculate P(A|B) = (1*1/100 000 000 000)/0.125 = 1/12500000000
3. Skeptics is 0.00022219753 a priori, 100% given resurrection. Lets calculate P(A|B) = (1*1/12500000000)/ 0.00022219753 ~= 8/22219753 (thanks wolphram alpha)
4. Early is 0.001 a priori, 100% given resurrection. Let's calculate (1*8/22219753)/0.001 ~= 1/2500
So this is it. 1 in 2500 chances. Honestly I thought it would be lower. Still. Pretty low given how charitable I was on the entire process.
My favourite Catholic apologist with my favourite Protestant apologist ❤ thanks for the great content
Paulogia is coming from a historical point of view and what is valid from that view. You all seem to be upset he is not accepting supernatural claims. Supernatural claims are not what we would consider history at this time. In the past there were historical volumes attributing supernatural claims to leaders and Pharaohs. Do you believe all the supernatural claims of the rulers outside of the bible? Isn't that cherry picking? He is looking at historicity not supernatural. Back in that time it was OK to fudge history with supernatural claims that could not be proven but not now.
By historical documents we should know if Christ didn't rise from the dead. But the documents show that he rose.
If only you would let the evidence (documents) do the talking we would agree Jesus rose, but you input yourself in them.
You assume that supernatural claims are automatically not historical. However, it is your burden of proof to show that is the case. As for the pharaohs, was it eyewitness testimony with no ulterior motives to write false supernatural claims? If you have an example of that, please share. Otherwise, it is a false equivalency. No other supernatural claim in history that I am aware of that matched the evidence for the resurrection. If there is a similar or even better evidence for another supernatural claim, I would be willing to believe it. But every single time I ask an atheist to give an example of another supernatural claim with eyewitness testimony from people who clearly lacked an ulterior motive, and in fact had every motive not to believe said natural claim, yet they never do. So, no, it isn't cherry picking as there is no other supernatural claim with evidence that is as good as Christianity. If you are saying it is no different, you have to demonstrate that. You need to justify that supernatural cannot be historical (which has its own presupposition that naturalism is true so you would probably need to demonstrate that to be true to justify such a claim) and then prove that the evidence for these pharaohs or other supernatural claims is the same. If you cannot do either, then your entire comment is baseless and you shouldn't have made comments with baseless assertions filled with faulty presuppostions.
@@koppite9600by documents you mean the bible? Why not Iliad?
@@luis_sa78
Iliad is Greek mythology.
@@koppite9600 no sh!t, Sherlock!
Using these guy's criteria...it is a much more simple explanation and more likely Muhammad spoke to an angel in a cave, the moon was split and Joseph Smith decoded some plates with the help from an angel... as miracles are just as likely for the resurrection as they are for these other miracles.
Witnesses
The evidence is simply not equal across these situations, this is a strawman
@@blaketmoransounds like special pleading without justification, "our miracles are different because (reasons)"
@@beatskxdd there is justification, which they explain in the video. Muhammad and Joseph Smith had individual unverifiable experiences. Joseph Smiths “witnesses” which were more like business partners recanted, or he recanted their faithfulness. It’s not special pleading if the evidence is different.
@blaketmoran I disagree; Joseph Smith's "witnesses" never denied or recanted their testimonies even after being excommunicated. Them maintaining their witness fits a particular criterion of embarrassment if you ask me, if you're not special pleading ofc.
It says in the text you are referring to, that Paul had his own visions ... plural and there is a footnote there. Did you ignore it? @1:55:07
Unfortunately I think the person in chat is right - they spent 2.5 hours and missed the point of Paulogia’s video
Unfortunately I think your wrong bidenblubb!
@@user-mr3kf2vr6y Paulogia’s point was just to show how you could create a reasonable narrative for how Christianity started, using completely naturalistic reasoning.
Cameron and Akin completely missed that and kept arguing “Well that doesn’t account for what the Bible says”. Right! Paulogia is saying, the New Testament could be fiction and we can still explain Christianity starting naturalistically, no resurrection required. That was the point
@@BidenBlubb you could do that for anything but just because it’s possible doesn’t means it aligns even remotely with the evidence, there’s a reason no serious scholar takes paulogia seriously
@@user-mr3kf2vr6y Oh! Just because something is POSSIBLE doesnt mean it’s PROBABLE?
You don’t say!
So when it’s possible that a person named Joseph of Arimethia somehow existed and somehow broke ranks with the Sanhedrin….that possibility doesn’t mean it probably happened?
Welcome to Paulogia’s entire point!!
@@BidenBlubb the first century skeptics could have easily gone and seen if Joseph of aremthia was a real person, the gospel writers would have really been kicking themselves in the crotch by making up a high class social status Jew who could easily be checked. I don’t think your skepticism in that area is warranted at all.
2:08:53 what about the author(s) of Mark who invented the resurrection narrative at the end? Who’s cherry picking now?…
The short ending of mark still very clearly talks about resurrection if you are not being biased
@@user-mr3kf2vr6y in the original short ending, there is no eye witness to the risen Jesus. He was just gone.
@@Viekoda the original ending states “Jesus is going ahead to Galilee you will see him there” man really? No resurrection in mark?
@@user-mr3kf2vr6y did anyone see the risen Jesus in the original ending of mark, yes or no? Let’s not be biased….No. They are told they will see him. But no one saw him. Then someone adds the ending of mark that includes post resurrection appearances. Does it bother you at all that the perfect word of god has been tampered with like this? It bothers me…
@@Viekoda it clearly implies of the resurrection😭it’s clear as day
Paulogia owns you all in his response video ti thus vid.
Oh my, I didn't realize how scarily formidable these two would be together. Wouldn't want to debate them. 😅
I guess the question then is why didn’t they debate Paulogia directly rather than strawman his claims in his absence.
@@InShadowsLinger Strawman? What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Debate? You know time exists and some events happen before others?
@@InShadowsLinger I don't see how including clips of Paulogia stating his positions is "strawmanning." Sounds like jargon slinging to me.
@@InShadowsLinger What, precisely, do you think they strawmanned about Paulogia's case?
@@rivereuphrates8103 I what way playing clips prevents anyone from strawmaning? You must be mistaking it for cherry picking.
A few issues
1. My impression of the conversation is that ita taken somewhat out of context. The paulogia minimal witnesses argument is an argument or rebuttal against Habermass argument. There were definitely points made which seemed to lose sight of that
2. The notion of extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence IS a statement about the nature of evidence and probability. Supernatural claims are a subset of this but not necessary. It seems to me this point isn't really adequately considered
1. If his rebuttal to Habermas involves ignoring/cherry-picking data, it’s not a very good rebuttal is it?
2. Deciding that a certain claim is “extraordinary” and what level of evidence it now needs is a completely philosophical and somewhat arbitrary exercise.
@EricTheYounger
1. I'm not clear that it is cherry picked of the data is focused on habermasses argument. It seemed to be the case that some of the critique was against the lack of acknowledgement of the maximal case which of course paulogia wasn't actually considering. It's just not relevant to the hypothesis
2. No this is just incorrect, it's a claim about probability. No one has ever demonstrated a supernatural claim. Not once. The probability of a supernatural claim bring correct is therefore very low. That's as opposed to claims like hallucinations which happen quite frequently. In context of the ressurection we know that there are many stories of this type of thing, but they are exclusive a Christian would not accept a ressurection story in another story. They are all unevidenced or poorly evidenced stories with no known mechanism for them to actually occur.
@EricTheYounger
Within the context of minimal facts. He isn't cherry picking as the creed isn't taken at face value by Habermas. So their rebuttal that Paulogia doesn't affirm the entire creed falls on its face.
I'll note that I do think many of the points in the video are slightly lazy in part because it is a summary and in part because of the context.
Part of having healthy debates is steelmanning the evidence of the opposing side (I.e. the Socratic method) and not seizing on the most skeptical interpretation of it. Regardless of how Habermas views specific pieces of evidence, why not look at how strong certain evidence ACTUALLY is? Because the bigger picture is determining whether or not the resurrection actually happened, not if Habermas’s specific formulation is correct.
@EricTheYounger steelmanning would involve dealing with the argument at hand not a different argument though wouldn't it.
Data from the NT or outside the NT? Someone is slippery sloping @1:53:53
It's not an anti-supernatural presupposition
Then demonstrate how it isn’t instead of just sharing your opinion.
I think it is so telling how the panel reacted to the video.
You know this is totally bad faith, when they spend wch a long time to talk about the points they agree on and complain that general points laying out the facts to be explained don't disprove the resurrection.
Paulogia is saying that Jese got killed and Cameron complains, that it doesn't disprove the Bible? Yeah, sure, because it never meant to...
It's just so crazy to me, that these guys who do this professionally and are clearly intelligent well read people, can totally miss the whole point so hard.
This video was meant to be understood by laymen. How can it be, that I have no problem figuring out why Paul is saying the things he is saying, but we get twenty minutes of arguments against humes position, when Paul never made any argument about that?
I totally get that one can get lost in trying to disagree with every word someone else is saying and nitpicking everything, but please, have the decency to realise you are just being bad faith and don't post it on the Internet...
I always find it disengenous of Cameron to start every single video by diminishing the opposition to a laughing start before even presenting his/her claim/topic. Its almost like he isnt here to discuss anything to find the truth, He is simply here to attack a fellow human being.
Shame on you people on using the Lord's name to your gain and fun!
I am intending to watch this but I strongly suspect that Paulogia's explanation will not be "demolished".
Same... time to find out tho :P
Surely.
You cannot demolishe something with absolutely zero substance.
I've never seen anything worth the bits it takes up on a computer out of paulogia.
@@marvalice3455 Nonsense, he is a very clear communicator with an honest take and a strong ability to bring in subject matter experts.
@@marvalice3455 I'm sure you must watch him constantly, ranking the value of each statement he makes. Let us know if, in your next year of watching every second of his videos, he says anything you deem to be above zero in value.
Enjoy the process!
Paul uses research and documentation. The theists use straw man arguments and empty rhetoric. I thought you guys had the facts on your side.
🎶 for the bible tells me so...
Pretty much
The gospels are historical documents. So it would probably be a good thing to examine them.
@@trentonmabry8189 you miss the point. A single source, Bible or otherwise, does not make for a strong case.
@@beanbrewer and you miss the point. The point was that within the historical documents there are more than one source. The synoptic source. The Johannine source. The Pauline source. Thats exactly what akin said in the video. You just choose to hear what you want to hear.
@@trentonmabry8189 we have no evidence that Paul ever came into contact with Jesus while he was alive sohow could he even know that what he saw was Jesus? And it's well established that the other gospels build off of Mark.
"NooOOoOo it's gotta be incomprehensible god and impossible magic it can't be any of these perfectly mundane things"😭 Real top bottom of the barrel stuff once again!👍
If God really existed, it may still be possible for naturalistic / alternate explanations to make at least some sense coincidentally, but nowhere near the amount of sense these alternate explanations actually make. It would not be necessary to "demolish" Paul's explanations -- his explanations would demolish themselves, and Paulogia wouldn't be an ex-Christian to begin with. This stuff shouldn't be anywhere near as controversial as it is. God isn't just another facet of existence, but the single unifying facet; not just another category, but the absolute category from which all other realities are generated and measured. With this "fact" on their side, the theists should win every controversy hands down. Naturalistic explanations shouldn't have a chance, much less be as successful as they are, unless God is a naturalist, or naturalism itself is the creator.
Thats flawed since the way things are it makes perfect sense for the existence of God but atheists have made their own explanations, they try to find any explanation which excludes God, this comes down to free will, you’re talking about Roboters programmed by God, I mean yeah God created us but he also gave us free will and looking at nature it just makes sense that there’s a intelligent creator, any other explanation is also possible but that would be out of your free will and rebellion.
These alternative explanations do not actually make any sense though, at least when considering the data and evidence. They do not fit the data at all. Any idea can make sense if you ignore the evidence. But the thing is that these naturalistic explanations are ridiculous due to the evidence and facts. And nowhere does God's existence imply that other views would not be believed, and everyone would believe in God automatically. It doesn't mean theists would win every debate they are in either. That does not logically follow. Naturalistic explanations are not successful though, and this video demonstrates that by destroying Paulogia's bad hypothesis.
@@gospelfreak5828
[gf]: "These alternative explanations do not actually make any sense though, at least when considering the data and evidence. They do not fit the data at all. Any idea can make sense if you ignore the evidence. But the thing is that these naturalistic explanations are ridiculous due to the evidence and facts."
So you're saying that naturalistic explanations are not consistent with the data and evidence? Which ones don't fit? Star formation? Formation of hurricanes / tornadoes, planetary systems, hydrologic cycle, how airplanes / rockets work? None of those naturalistic descriptions fit the data / evidence?
[gf]: "And nowhere does God's existence imply that other views would not be believed, and everyone would believe in God automatically."
Lol. Uh, you literally stake your own life on naturalistic explanations -- and for good reason.
[gf]: "It doesn't mean theists would win every debate they are in either. That does not logically follow."
Even you believe that "logical" means that there's coherence between evidence and an explanation for it.
[gf]: "Naturalistic explanations are not successful though, and this video demonstrates that by destroying Paulogia's bad hypothesis."
Lol. This is the 3rd time you state this in your post, and the 3rd time you fail to provide even a single example of how naturalistic explanations are unsuccessful. It's not entirely accurate to equate "incomplete" with "unsuccessful" -- progress is made continually.
@@dougsmith6793 We are talking specifically about the resurrection. The naturalistic explanations do not work there. I did not say naturalistic explanations do not work for everything. Are we purposefully being obtuse? The context of this conversation and the youtube video is the resurrection. Let's stay on topic.
Stake my own life? What do you mean?
Peter being the only one who saw Jesus, the idea they did not know where Jesus' body was, mass hallucinations, the lying hypothesis, every single one doesn't fit or make sense with the data. You can't progress any of these views as none of them work. It's like saying Bobby killed Samantha when you have video of a floating knife stabbing Samantha while Bobby watched helpless in the video. You have to rule Bobby out as a hypothesis as he does not fit. None of these views fit. Just take the mass grave theory. Every record of Jesus' death has him taken down from the cross to be buried in Joseph of Arimathea's tomb. The view that Jesus was buried in a mass grave contradicts the evidence and data we have. We know that crucified victims could be buried in tombs as we have found evidence for such. There is no good reason to believe Jesus was thrown into a mass grave and the disciples would not know where the body was. That is one example of a naturalistic hypothesis that does not work. Being incomplete is one thing. But that is not the case here. That is an assumption you have not proven. They are unsuccessful. If you have a naturalistic hypothesis that works for the resurrection, I am all ears. But no one has succeeded in showing a hypothesis more likely than Jesus actually rising from the dead.
@@gospelfreak5828
[gf]: "But no one has succeeded in showing a hypothesis more likely than Jesus actually rising from the dead."
Well, I dunno, GF. There's no reason to believe that the folks who wrote the Bible were any smarter, more enlightened, more trustworthy, or less prone to well-intentioned self-delusion than folks are today. When I look at the stuff that people believe in today that they're willing to die for, it becomes much easier to believe that the entire story is a product of human imagination than an accurate report of events that actually happened as described / interpreted. Too few witnesses. No chance of any cross-examination.
I would not accept stories from a 2,000 year-old book as evidence for some scientific proposition either, much less a resurrection.
I always try to be as honest as I can. I look at some of the things I've been passionate about in life. I gained an appreciation for the psychology of fanaticism. If humans can talk themselves into believing / doing almost anything, it seems wise for me to look at all of it critically. A group of people believing in something so deeply that they're willing to lie or die for it? We never observe that today, do we? Did Heaven's Gate need a resurrection to convince the followers to die for their delusion?
So, no, based on my own personal experience, my background in science, my interest in theology, philosophy, psychology ... humans' virtually infinite capacity for self-delusion (the naturalistic explanation) accounts for theology much more coherently / consistently / elegantly than theology accounts for humans' nearly infinite capacity for self-delusion.
We can observe that evidence right here, right now, just about everywhere we look, including the mirror.