I have heard Christians claim that WLC invented the cosmological argument. I am fully aware why they're hesitant to teach church history to lay people, but also COME ON.
@tealbricks the way he talks about it himself i could certainly see people reading that off him. Even though in reality he just sorta took one centuries old that had a clear special pleading issue and made it not about god
@@tealbricks Ask them where the word "kalam" comes from. It's those heretical muslims. 😱 The irony of trying to prove the truth of your own beliefs by using the arguments of heretics is huge.
A very convincing argument especially to ̶r̶e̶a̶l̶ other philosophers to point out that they are expanding on the ideas of others. I guess we will just ignore standing on the shoulders of giants. This is almost as bad as Stefan Molyneux' argument of "This is boring". Seriously how do people take him seriously, especially given he touts himself as a philosopher? A philosopher should immediately recognize that this is not a valid argument in response as it doesn't do anything to dismantle the argument. If this would be enough to dismantle an argument then you could just say that Craigs accent isn't appealing to you therefore he is wrong. It would do the same amount of debunking.
“You give them an inch, they take a mile.” Dr. Bart Ehrman should have been even more charitable with the avatar-euhemerism mythicist position, it has far more evidence going for it than supernaturalism. Same thing with the skeleton-and-lipstick imitatio (scaffolding-and-highlights intertextual mimesis) textual criticism between Greek text influence upon Judaism and heavy Greek text influence upon Christian bibliolatry. We still need to take a closer look into any Zoroastrian and Kemetic-Egyptian texts available as well.
@@letsomethingshine Your bar is sooooooo low. There's really one group of people who think that mythicism has a lot going for it, and that group is random people on the internet who don't study ancient languages and texts professionally. This should tell us something, that to those most capable of assessing it, mythicism is not only a fringe position, but generally elicits an eyeroll. There are a few scholars out there too, but this goes for young earth Creationism as well.
@@jackfrosterton2530 So because only some people believe it, it's false? That doesn't follow. I personally find it entirely plausible that Jesus wasn't a historical person based on the evidence presented, but I'm more like 50/50ish on that. Historicist-agnostic, I guess. Ehrman is way too dismissive of the idea and his reasons for dismissing it are suspect and poorly-articulated. I also think it's a bit hypocritical for him to say Craig doesn't take the Romulus story seriously based on weak evidence, but then he takes Jesus's historicity seriously based on weak evidence. He ought to at least acknowledge the genuine strangeness of the paucity of reliable evidence for the existence of such a supposedly important man.
@@Uryvichk No, that isn't what I said, what I said is what I said. When unqualified people think they know more than expert consensus, well.... think for yourself for a few minutes about all of the other cases where you see people with that sort of mindset and self confidence on the internet, and look at the conclusions they believe, because they think they understand more than they actually do. It's not good company to be in.
I don't think Ehrman is as erudite as you think. He really dismisses some things with that laugh and not argument. He represents himself as a historian but he was educated in theology. I think he wants to sell books. He avoids certain topics because he knows his audience. It's a bit flippant the way he treats certain scholarly ideas. He's not necessarily wrong but, he isn't what I'd cal honest about how he arrives. That dismissive laugh irks me. Anyway, nothing in this video that I could disagree with.
A man who made his entire career expanding on the Kalam cosmological argument for the existence of God, blaming Bart for following Hume…the irony, it knows no end.
two things relating to religion on youtube that give me boundless pleasure, sean carroll at skepticon and sean carroll trouncing everything WLC in debate.
@@HarryNicNicholas sean carroll provided a public ass whipping to WLC. One of the favorite moments was having a particular physics guy [don't recall name] appear by VIDEO and say WLC was misrepresenting his work.
@@GodlessGubment "say WLC was misrepresenting his work." Where was this? I think you must mean Guth who claimed that he thought that the universe was eternal. He was talking about a model that evaded the BGV theorem. However Guth's model was merely another time-reversal model that completely fails to describe our FLRW universe OR the model is merely discribing a creation event producing two universes. I do not think that Guth officially published his model. Which was wise.
@@HarryNicNicholasThere is more irony there, WLC is complaining Bart is overstepping his bonds when WLC himself goes off on physics without having any qualification in the field. None. Doesn’t stop him.
That's because Bart works at an accredited institution doing research founded in reality. His reaction is how 99% of other actual academics react to WLC's ludicrous claims.
@@BlueBarrier782 no, it´s simply because that Adam and Eve book is not history, it´s adjacent to archeology and biology but reading a summary makes it obvious that it´s all theology. It´s trying to answer the question if and how it might be possible to believe in the actual existence of Adam and Eve based on what science tells us about human development and evolution. If you don´t already believe in the bible, this book won´t do anything for you and it was obviously never supposed to.
@@mekullag Yeeup. 17:00 and the response was bang on. "No no no, I'm talking about HISTORY". Yep. There's room for study there, but it's not history unless it's accepted as true. And so far there's very little reason to accept it as anything other than a fable or myth. Fables and myths can have value, but we don't think there was an actual historical figure called Pandora for example... Do we?
Mr. Paulogia, you've really opened my eyes to the complexity of history and other arguments against religion with the guests you've had and the arguments and videos you've made.
It’s crazy to me how when I was a Christian I held WLC up in really high regard as a shining example of intellectual faith, and now, I just see him as a snake oil salesman through and through. He’s a very compelling orator if you already agree with everything he’s saying.
Wow, kind of same. WLC was one of the first apologists i turned to (via Lee Strobel's Case for Christ). I found him so wise and insightful back then... I think about it every time i watch him play these mind games now
Yes the same. Although I hadn't really looked in detail at what he and his opponents were saying, only what he 'says' in Case for Christ and Case for Easter, which is obviously as one sided as it gets. Now i think he comes across as a bit of a dick ...
It takes a while of watching WLC speak and debate (and I've done plenty of watching) to pick out the specific techniques he uses to try to convince people of his views. He'll specifically try to attack the credibility and legitimacy of his opponent rather than trying to address their arguments, and he'll attempt to portray their views as some crazy fringe ideas that no rational person believes anymore. He frequently will act "shocked" and "surprised" that his opponent could believe something so "outdated" and "debunked". But when you drill down beneath all of that to his actual arguments, you find nothing of substance.
Exactly. I remember when he responded to Paulogia: he started by criticizing his appearance, his age and I kid you not, he mocked him for having been indoctrinated into young earth creationism as a kid. Abject individual, the type of guy who in another age would have been applauding from the first row at the burning of heretics.
Your analysis of his tactics is much kinder than mine. I've found him to outright blatantly misrepresent his opponents arguments while framing his interlocutors as not understanding him. Portraying their views as crazy is exponentially better if he's at least portraying their actual views. His original interactions with Scott Clifton are a great example of his dishonest smarmy condescension. I highly recommend the video "William Lane Craig isn't doing himself any favors", but then again I'm "obviously not familiar with his work".
He is also a massive clout-seeker, an attention-grubber of a sort, and respect is the currency he trades in. He wants to be respected as the smartest and most important intellectual in the room, and since he can't just DEMONSTRATE that by ACTUALLY BEING the smartest person in the room, he has to bring down anyone who might threaten him by implying they lack education, training, expertise, experience, the ability to fairly judge evidence, etc. The less people are buying that, or the more respect anyone other than WLC receives, the angrier he gets. It's shockingly childish.
Brilliantly said. That nails WLC modus operandi perfectly. Chocolate coated BS served on a platter of snide-ness and condescension. He more than tarnishes the name christian.
If Bart ever debates WLC again, make sure a set of pearls and a fainting couch is nearby so WLC doesn't injure himself. My dog, the pearl clutching theatrics here is next level.
I have to say...of all the channels that Ehrman regularly appears on, he always seems to have the most fun and has the best rapport with Paulogia. I always enjoy when you two work together.
So WLC can't find a good rebuttal to Hume's point so WLC just says it is an old argument. Why doesn't he give us a rebuttal to destroy Hume's point instead of trying to distract from the argument?
Excellent point by Dr. Ehrman about opponents saying his views are just a version of those of X, especially when X was an insightful and influential person such as Hume and Hegel. The issue isn't who else has had the same or similar views, it's whether the views are well grounded.
Its like trying to get the reverse effect when name-dropping: He wants to poison the well by hanging hume on ehrman (its not, but to _christians_ it most certainly is)... _without rebutting either hume or ehrman at all_ I just realized he also tried to weel-poison by talking about credentials. Why does anyone who isnt a christian talk to this buffoon?
Dr. Bart Ehrman is one my favorites of your regular guests! I've watched that Justin Bass debate from a few different angles now. I too was amazed at Dr. Ehrman's legendary level of patience. Thanks for another great video! 💖
Billy L Craig vs America’s favourite Xristenator. I was convinced that Xianinanity should be called Paulism quite a while ago. This should be an interesting discussion. Thank you, Dr Erman. Who is doing what to Hume ?
WLC starts "fact finding" without an actual fact. And yet people give him money to pedantically fantasize, thinking this is what smart people sound like. If I were that slick I'd start my own cryptocurrency, not mock being what a christian by representing it like he does.
This was a great video Paul! I appreciate this so much. Bart is just a smart man, he seems kind and humble, I say that just because I don't know him personally. From what I've seen Bart is a great historian and wonderful to listen to. He really does want to get to the truth of what we really know, he doesn't mind having ideas, but he wants facts. I like that about him. But, something I love even more about Bart is how he's a nice guy, and a intellectual man, so when he cuts people down or says they sound stupid it comes out just awesome. He makes me laugh, and he's right, he's just smarter than these guys. I know Bart is a intellectual so he would never say he's smarter than someone or anything like that, but he is, I'll say it for him lol.
"Sound and fury signifying nothing" was actually written about apologists. They're not playing to anyone beyond people who believe what they're "proving" to start with.
10:37 whereas WLC has completely new arguments. oh. is it me or is there this slight tone of desperation in WLC's voice? he sounds like he's trying to convince himself. (edit) he sounds like he's in need of a respirator, he needs to take it easy.
Since the 1800s “originality” has been highly lauded by academia. However, pop culture has always preferred “good remixes” which is to say “rehashing old stuff with slight presently applicable changes.”
Bertrand Russell said that Hume’s arguments are often disliked by some types of philosophers, but they can’t refute them. WLC seems to fit this definition.
Philosophy is quite useful for exploring various thought experiments; unfortunately some philosophers, like Craig, often believe that these thought experiment model accurately represent the real world. This is analogous to believe that our mathematical or physics models exactly represents the world. They are model, some more accurate than others. Craigs consistently wanders down philosophical paths and arrogantly states the conclusions are real
The defining characteristics of WLC are his intellectual dishonesty, his intellectual condescension, and.... well everything else I'm thinking of is covered by those first two....
WLC is the genius who said that animals feel pain but do not suffer because, lacking self awareness, they do not know that they feel pain. That’s enough WLC for one lifetime.
Wow I really regained a lot of respect for Bart Ehrman watching this. I needed to appreciate Bart in the context of his expertise rather than the things I disagree with him about.
I bet you never imagined being mentioned in the same breath as Craig and Ehrman back when you first started lol You're still one of my favorites, keep up the good work
My wife arranged a sit-down with her pastor (i attend church with her as a non-believer) I told the pastor I explored both sides of the claims of Christianity and became unconvinced. The guy then went off about how Bart got a divorce and now he's angry at god. Then he trashed Ehrman's scholarship. Funny thing is Frank Turek frequents "our" church and his books are garbage...
Breaking news from Ecuador. "Woman "heavily breathing" in coffin at wake" So, if this hadn't been so public, someone could have gone into that room where the wake had been and found the coffin empty.
So many comments here that I want to copy to a document for future reference. So many more burns and roasts of WLC as well; I love coming back just to re-read them. 😈😁😎
Here is the version of the argument 14ish year old me came up with. I’m now in my sixties. The further back in time you go the more claims of miracles you read. Either there was once a time of miracles with super men and women walking the earth performing feats that no one can achieve today or stories get more fictional the further back in time you go. I opted for the second as the only evidence for the miracles were the texts they were written in and no other trace that these miracles occurred can be found.
I would just add that real faith is where you weigh the arguments equally and choose for yourself one side is for you. Also, I must say as a 66 year old, I have seen people come to conclusions, many times without a cogent reason, and their curiosity ends. When you are so sure... why even investigate any further... on any topic. any issue. It's the end of curiosity and the certainty of dogma and popular opinion. - I agree with the point that it is impossible to reconcile the suffering of life on Earth and the existence of a personal deity. Yet I believe we have no knowledge or method of explaining everything. Just in a scientific way. Not because miracles must fill the gap, it's just we do not have the capacity to figure the question/problem out.I keep it simple. When I am asked at the Pharmacy ( or anywhere) "Do you have any questions?" I sometimes find myself uncontrollably responsive and I reply: "Yes, How will the world end?" - I remain curious, and willing to listen. (and a trouble maker). Have a great week. . just some ramblings. I hope I made some sense.
Curiosity is what drives the constructive human condition. It is the antithesis of a religious mind, which seeks a concrete answer with little room for doubt. Curiosity is what keeps the mind young and adaptive. Nice comment. Live long and prosper in knowledge. Best regards.
Now I understand why my Jewish girl friend doesn't believe in any of this. She says that Jesus is just one of MANY people who claimed to be the messiah and none of them fulfilled scripture.
People really need to stop validating WLC - the guy's only ever using a warmed over version of Pascal. But seriously, his reasoning is so clearly motivated and his double standards on what evidence he excludes are so astoundingly clear, that his credibility as a point of context for anything is non-existent. It's like asking a stopped clock to give their opinion on other clocks.
I've _looooong_ said that we shouldnt call it Christianity but instead Paulanity since it's Paul's interpretation of post-messiah, Judaism-for-the-Hellenistic-world "christianity" that we all know, rather than the Christianity of Peter, which is the post-messiah, Judaism-for-the-Jewish-world that Jesus was promoting during his ministry.
Nice. Baye's is used to predict random events - this resurrection would be a planned event - not intended to be covered in the Baye's analysis. Good point - I never thought of that. I just assumed a prior of like 1 on 110 billion - about 110 billion human deaths, and a self-resurrection count of a presumed value of 1. That is an insignificant prior...
The problem with using Bayes' Theorem to do history is that the inputs to the equation are unknown and unknowable. What, for instance, is the probability that the evidence would exist? Who can tell? So you just make up a number, and if you don't like the answer, then you make up a different number until you get the answer you want.
WLC says when history can't find any reason to believe some claim that he now gets to dismiss the historical process and claim the "evidence" should now be decided only by his philosophy, but not Hume's. Does he really think we should be that drivel?
The nerve of this conman! He says about Ehrman that "these things have been explained to him and he is ignoring them", while, on his debate with Sean Carroll, Carroll, an actual expert on cosmology, explained to him over and over again that his Kalam premise about the universe having a beginning is problematic, because we don't know that scientifically, and he's been employing the same argument nevertheless for years, claiming the same thing an expert corrected him on without a shred of shame!
Whoa whoa whoa. Did WLC just have the gall to accuse Ehrman of reusing an argument after he was given a rebuttal against it? Is that not the entire field of Christian apologetics? WLC has all the self-awareness of a dog licking its own ---hole on the sidewalk.* *line credit: Jim Wright (Stonekettle Station).
The sheer brass balls on WLC to have the front to complain that someone isn't just accepting his explanations of whole cloth bullshit as truth when he has consistently had his "corrections" called out, debunked and proven to be lies for what, 40 years? and he's still talking the same crap to this day
Well the overt lying, ad hominem attacks and just plain not addressing the argument by someone who supposedly should know better, has GOT to be infuriating. No less than coming from a supposedly respected scholar. This just poisons the well...much like what is happening in politics by absolutely heinous people.
Thomas Paine wrote in the Age of Reason: What people perceived as miracles were often the result of natural events or human deception. He believed that people tended to attribute unusual or unexplained events to divine intervention, rather than seeking rational explanations. Paine relied heavily on the work of other Deists including Hume
On the resurrection issue, some of these folks should expand their reading materials. I recommend Yogananda s Autobiography of a Yogi . The Chapter on the resurrection of Yukteswar, regardless of “belief”, regardless of “belief” in “ miracles” , regardless of Ehrman s probability positions, provides an explanation for resurrection not dependent on any “belief” or probability arguments. You might disagree with the points Yogananda makes, BUT those points provide an explanation beyond the sophistry of Ehrman and the fundamentalism of the biblical apologists.
He won't address the argument because he knows your right. WLC can't resist talking down to people. And he is just plain dishonest. Being an apologist, he has to be dishonest, but he is the used car salesman of apologists.
To William Craig, facts are those narrated by unknown authors whose sources are unknown and written decades after the supposed occurrence of events that had not been corroborated by other sources. I wonder if he learned the way to consider facts from his Ph.D studies.
It's good to learn from William Lane Craig how to argue... his favourite argument for the existence of god is a warmed up argument from Aristotle! Check mate Craig!
An (idealistic) analogy: Scientists are like the police; dispassionately gathering evidence and following wherever it leads. Apologists are like defense attorneys; passionately trying to protect a single vision and using every possible argument (including contradictory ones) to poke a hole (or seem to) in the other side's evidence and thus win. So... Evidence v. Rhetoric.
Also, Craig's snotty tone of voice betrays his a priori opinion-as-fact that he is so obviously superior to the earnest honesty of Ehrmann that Craig's opinion as fact cannot be wrong when he accepts the supernatural as his starting point of "reality". Craig is uniquely delusional in his arrogance and should be dismissed as nothing more than a shill for dogma.
You cannot exchange ideas dispassionately with a religious believer. Belief is an identity investment. To question the text in which a believer has invested personal identity is to undermine their sense of self. They react by slitting your throat to stop you talking of, decapitation to stop you thinking of ideas that threaten their existence. This is the history of religious warfare in 16th France. A believer is beyond redemption.
@10:50 "I don't know what he thinks historians do for a living, but it's clear he's never hung out ... " LISTEN dude - if there's a one in a million chance he's hung out with historians, we MUST believe he hung out with historians. Your bar is SO HIGH, Bart-dude. You need to be more like Bill.
Wait so wlc the philosopher and theologian says Dr. Ehrman is just a text critic and implied he needed to stay in his lane also makes critiques and offers opinions of physics and says hes allowed to because its a philosophy argument? What a hypocrite
William Lane Craig thinks that he is so clever, that his qualifications limited to divinity, theology and philosophy, also makes him an expert historian. Then basically says that the resurrection probably happened, because the subsequent events described in the Bible, are absolutely historically true. This ignores the fact that they all must stand or fall together, as being either fact or fiction.
It would be helpful if you mention Erhmans knowledge of NT greek, and Koine greek, or, or other dead language. So he can used that against the way the NT is translated in History.
The reason I push back on Paul's claims of being a persecutor of Christians is 1) there are no other sources for any kind of even local persecution of Christians in Israel in the 1st century except Paul and 2) the "I've seen the light and changed" is to this day a common technique to earn the trust of a mark.
SIGN UP FOR "Paul & Jesus - The Great Divide" SEMINAR www.tinyurl.com/BartDivide
Is it just me or is WLC having breathing problems? He wheezes at the end of every sentence.
If I had the money I'd buy it... Love Bart Ehrman as a consistent guest.
❤Jesus power wants all sheep to be in good condition for judgement day
WLC: "That's just warmed-over Hume!"
Also WLC: "Let me tell you about this totally fresh concept called the Kalam Cosmological Argument."
Perfect
I have heard Christians claim that WLC invented the cosmological argument. I am fully aware why they're hesitant to teach church history to lay people, but also COME ON.
@tealbricks the way he talks about it himself i could certainly see people reading that off him. Even though in reality he just sorta took one centuries old that had a clear special pleading issue and made it not about god
@@tealbricks Ask them where the word "kalam" comes from. It's those heretical muslims. 😱 The irony of trying to prove the truth of your own beliefs by using the arguments of heretics is huge.
A very convincing argument especially to ̶r̶e̶a̶l̶ other philosophers to point out that they are expanding on the ideas of others. I guess we will just ignore standing on the shoulders of giants.
This is almost as bad as Stefan Molyneux' argument of "This is boring". Seriously how do people take him seriously, especially given he touts himself as a philosopher? A philosopher should immediately recognize that this is not a valid argument in response as it doesn't do anything to dismantle the argument. If this would be enough to dismantle an argument then you could just say that Craigs accent isn't appealing to you therefore he is wrong. It would do the same amount of debunking.
A close-minded apologist complaining that other people don't learn from their interactions with others is internet gold
Considering a lot of their arguments are a whole lot older then 20 years as well
Especially since Craig learned absolutely nothing from his debate with Sean Carroll.
@@RurikeWell... the older an argument the more true it is duh.
@marcomoreno6748 then Gilgamesh is the ultimate true story since it predates any other story by hundreds of years
@@nickburns8096 no, Aboriginal stories are even older so they MUST be true. Lol 😆
Bart is erudite, witty, intelligent and most of all - very charitable to his opponent.
Bill, on the other hand....
“You give them an inch, they take a mile.” Dr. Bart Ehrman should have been even more charitable with the avatar-euhemerism mythicist position, it has far more evidence going for it than supernaturalism. Same thing with the skeleton-and-lipstick imitatio (scaffolding-and-highlights intertextual mimesis) textual criticism between Greek text influence upon Judaism and heavy Greek text influence upon Christian bibliolatry. We still need to take a closer look into any Zoroastrian and Kemetic-Egyptian texts available as well.
@@letsomethingshine Your bar is sooooooo low. There's really one group of people who think that mythicism has a lot going for it, and that group is random people on the internet who don't study ancient languages and texts professionally. This should tell us something, that to those most capable of assessing it, mythicism is not only a fringe position, but generally elicits an eyeroll. There are a few scholars out there too, but this goes for young earth Creationism as well.
@@jackfrosterton2530 So because only some people believe it, it's false? That doesn't follow. I personally find it entirely plausible that Jesus wasn't a historical person based on the evidence presented, but I'm more like 50/50ish on that. Historicist-agnostic, I guess. Ehrman is way too dismissive of the idea and his reasons for dismissing it are suspect and poorly-articulated. I also think it's a bit hypocritical for him to say Craig doesn't take the Romulus story seriously based on weak evidence, but then he takes Jesus's historicity seriously based on weak evidence. He ought to at least acknowledge the genuine strangeness of the paucity of reliable evidence for the existence of such a supposedly important man.
@@Uryvichk No, that isn't what I said, what I said is what I said. When unqualified people think they know more than expert consensus, well.... think for yourself for a few minutes about all of the other cases where you see people with that sort of mindset and self confidence on the internet, and look at the conclusions they believe, because they think they understand more than they actually do. It's not good company to be in.
I don't think Ehrman is as erudite as you think. He really dismisses some things with that laugh and not argument. He represents himself as a historian but he was educated in theology. I think he wants to sell books. He avoids certain topics because he knows his audience. It's a bit flippant the way he treats certain scholarly ideas. He's not necessarily wrong but, he isn't what I'd cal honest about how he arrives. That dismissive laugh irks me. Anyway, nothing in this video that I could disagree with.
A man who made his entire career expanding on the Kalam cosmological argument for the existence of God, blaming Bart for following Hume…the irony, it knows no end.
can't have that dangerous empiricism getting in the way of a good myth
two things relating to religion on youtube that give me boundless pleasure, sean carroll at skepticon and sean carroll trouncing everything WLC in debate.
@@HarryNicNicholas sean carroll provided a public ass whipping to WLC. One of the favorite moments was having a particular physics guy [don't recall name] appear by VIDEO and say WLC was misrepresenting his work.
@@GodlessGubment "say WLC was misrepresenting his work." Where was this? I think you must mean Guth who claimed that he thought that the universe was eternal. He was talking about a model that evaded the BGV theorem. However Guth's model was merely another time-reversal model that completely fails to describe our FLRW universe OR the model is merely discribing a creation event producing two universes. I do not think that Guth officially published his model. Which was wise.
@@HarryNicNicholasThere is more irony there, WLC is complaining Bart is overstepping his bonds when WLC himself goes off on physics without having any qualification in the field. None. Doesn’t stop him.
I love how quickly Bart laughed away the Adam and Eve book 😂😂😂
That's because Bart works at an accredited institution doing research founded in reality.
His reaction is how 99% of other actual academics react to WLC's ludicrous claims.
@@BlueBarrier782 no, it´s simply because that Adam and Eve book is not history, it´s adjacent to archeology and biology but reading a summary makes it obvious that it´s all theology. It´s trying to answer the question if and how it might be possible to believe in the actual existence of Adam and Eve based on what science tells us about human development and evolution. If you don´t already believe in the bible, this book won´t do anything for you and it was obviously never supposed to.
@@mekullag Yeeup. 17:00 and the response was bang on. "No no no, I'm talking about HISTORY". Yep. There's room for study there, but it's not history unless it's accepted as true. And so far there's very little reason to accept it as anything other than a fable or myth. Fables and myths can have value, but we don't think there was an actual historical figure called Pandora for example... Do we?
Just quoting Hume scoffs the man who has ridden the Kalam to death😂
It's hard not to see the irony.
@@oscargr_ it's made harder because it's hidden behind all the hypocrisy
Mr. Paulogia, you've really opened my eyes to the complexity of history and other arguments against religion with the guests you've had and the arguments and videos you've made.
It’s crazy to me how when I was a Christian I held WLC up in really high regard as a shining example of intellectual faith, and now, I just see him as a snake oil salesman through and through. He’s a very compelling orator if you already agree with everything he’s saying.
Wow, kind of same. WLC was one of the first apologists i turned to (via Lee Strobel's Case for Christ). I found him so wise and insightful back then... I think about it every time i watch him play these mind games now
For me it was Ravi Zacharias. Imagine my embarrassment now. Yeesh.
Yes the same. Although I hadn't really looked in detail at what he and his opponents were saying, only what he 'says' in Case for Christ and Case for Easter, which is obviously as one sided as it gets.
Now i think he comes across as a bit of a dick ...
My first experience with Craig was his debate with Sean Carrol.
So you could say i never had that problem, lol.
@@BluePhoenix_ Yeah. That was fun. Craig simply wasn´t able to understand even the beginnings of the physics Carroll so patiently explained to him.
It takes a while of watching WLC speak and debate (and I've done plenty of watching) to pick out the specific techniques he uses to try to convince people of his views. He'll specifically try to attack the credibility and legitimacy of his opponent rather than trying to address their arguments, and he'll attempt to portray their views as some crazy fringe ideas that no rational person believes anymore. He frequently will act "shocked" and "surprised" that his opponent could believe something so "outdated" and "debunked". But when you drill down beneath all of that to his actual arguments, you find nothing of substance.
Exactly. I remember when he responded to Paulogia: he started by criticizing his appearance, his age and I kid you not, he mocked him for having been indoctrinated into young earth creationism as a kid. Abject individual, the type of guy who in another age would have been applauding from the first row at the burning of heretics.
Your analysis of his tactics is much kinder than mine. I've found him to outright blatantly misrepresent his opponents arguments while framing his interlocutors as not understanding him. Portraying their views as crazy is exponentially better if he's at least portraying their actual views. His original interactions with Scott Clifton are a great example of his dishonest smarmy condescension. I highly recommend the video "William Lane Craig isn't doing himself any favors", but then again I'm "obviously not familiar with his work".
@@88mphDrBrown Excellent analysis of WLC
He is also a massive clout-seeker, an attention-grubber of a sort, and respect is the currency he trades in. He wants to be respected as the smartest and most important intellectual in the room, and since he can't just DEMONSTRATE that by ACTUALLY BEING the smartest person in the room, he has to bring down anyone who might threaten him by implying they lack education, training, expertise, experience, the ability to fairly judge evidence, etc. The less people are buying that, or the more respect anyone other than WLC receives, the angrier he gets. It's shockingly childish.
Brilliantly said. That nails WLC modus operandi perfectly. Chocolate coated BS served on a platter of snide-ness and condescension. He more than tarnishes the name christian.
This was so fun watching this! 😂
If Bart ever debates WLC again, make sure a set of pearls and a fainting couch is nearby so WLC doesn't injure himself. My dog, the pearl clutching theatrics here is next level.
Very well said, my friend. 😅
I have to say...of all the channels that Ehrman regularly appears on, he always seems to have the most fun and has the best rapport with Paulogia. I always enjoy when you two work together.
So WLC can't find a good rebuttal to Hume's point so WLC just says it is an old argument. Why doesn't he give us a rebuttal to destroy Hume's point instead of trying to distract from the argument?
Because he’s got nothin’ 🙂
Apparently if you've read Hume, you would already know the magic rebuttal. Basically the "because it's obvious" argument.
While I find his rebuttals weak WLC has rebutted Hume's argument multiple times.
I musty have missed that, I've only heard him disagree with them.@@tomasrocha6139
WLC criticising someone for not correcting their mistakes after they've been pointed out, is both insanely hilarious and disgustingly hypocritical.
♪Every Accusation Is A Confession♫
Excellent point by Dr. Ehrman about opponents saying his views are just a version of those of X, especially when X was an insightful and influential person such as Hume and Hegel. The issue isn't who else has had the same or similar views, it's whether the views are well grounded.
Its like trying to get the reverse effect when name-dropping:
He wants to poison the well by hanging hume on ehrman (its not, but to _christians_ it most certainly is)...
_without rebutting either hume or ehrman at all_
I just realized he also tried to weel-poison by talking about credentials. Why does anyone who isnt a christian talk to this buffoon?
Dr. Bart Ehrman is one my favorites of your regular guests!
I've watched that Justin Bass debate from a few different angles now. I too was amazed at Dr. Ehrman's legendary level of patience.
Thanks for another great video!
💖
Yeah, he did a fine job of editing, too. I'm assuming there was editing, since the transitions were so smooth and quick. Good stuff.
I love seeing Ehrman on your show, everytime he's on I learn something new.
The entire Video can be summed up as:
"Your honor. I object!"
"On what grounds?"
"It's Devastating to my case!"
Was cursing Paul for not putting a new video out an hour ago 😭😭😂😂 now we are here. Thanks a lot Paul.
Billy L Craig vs America’s favourite Xristenator.
I was convinced that Xianinanity should be called Paulism quite a while ago. This should be an interesting discussion. Thank you, Dr Erman.
Who is doing what to Hume ?
Great video dr bart and paulogia! Nothing makes me happier than to see the veil removed from apologetics. Lies laid bare!
I don't think that WLC could identify a fact if it hit him in on the top of the head with a low bar.
WLC starts "fact finding" without an actual fact. And yet people give him money to pedantically fantasize, thinking this is what smart people sound like.
If I were that slick I'd start my own cryptocurrency, not mock being what a christian by representing it like he does.
Thank Paul. Glad to see you still producing. Hope your health is good. I very much enjoyed this segment.
I love Bart mentioning the Baal Shem Tov ❤
This was a great video Paul! I appreciate this so much. Bart is just a smart man, he seems kind and humble, I say that just because I don't know him personally. From what I've seen Bart is a great historian and wonderful to listen to. He really does want to get to the truth of what we really know, he doesn't mind having ideas, but he wants facts. I like that about him. But, something I love even more about Bart is how he's a nice guy, and a intellectual man, so when he cuts people down or says they sound stupid it comes out just awesome. He makes me laugh, and he's right, he's just smarter than these guys. I know Bart is a intellectual so he would never say he's smarter than someone or anything like that, but he is, I'll say it for him lol.
I always love to see Craig and his ego taken down a few pegs.
"Sound and fury signifying nothing" was actually written about apologists. They're not playing to anyone beyond people who believe what they're "proving" to start with.
10:37 whereas WLC has completely new arguments.
oh.
is it me or is there this slight tone of desperation in WLC's voice? he sounds like he's trying to convince himself. (edit) he sounds like he's in need of a respirator, he needs to take it easy.
Since the 1800s “originality” has been highly lauded by academia. However, pop culture has always preferred “good remixes” which is to say “rehashing old stuff with slight presently applicable changes.”
WLC breaths deeply before he lies. Seems to be with each sentence.
Bertrand Russell said that Hume’s arguments are often disliked by some types of philosophers, but they can’t refute them. WLC seems to fit this definition.
Beast mode Bart truly is something to behold...
Philosophy is quite useful for exploring various thought experiments; unfortunately some philosophers, like Craig, often believe that these thought experiment model accurately represent the real world. This is analogous to believe that our mathematical or physics models exactly represents the world. They are model, some more accurate than others. Craigs consistently wanders down philosophical paths and arrogantly states the conclusions are real
Hell yeah, Paul never disappoints
Some really good points here. Man, Craig has really trashed his reputation in recent years.
More like, more people are seeing the real WLC who didn't deserve a reputation ,... any more than Ravi Zacharias.
The defining characteristics of WLC are his intellectual dishonesty, his intellectual condescension, and.... well everything else I'm thinking of is covered by those first two....
WLC strives for respect. His cult followers are mentally like the folks at Jonestown, as his words are like sweet Kool-Aid.
WLC is the genius who said that animals feel pain but do not suffer because, lacking self awareness, they do not know that they feel pain.
That’s enough WLC for one lifetime.
The "patience of Job" saying should be swapped for "patience of Bart".
Wow I really regained a lot of respect for Bart Ehrman watching this. I needed to appreciate Bart in the context of his expertise rather than the things I disagree with him about.
I bet you never imagined being mentioned in the same breath as Craig and Ehrman back when you first started lol
You're still one of my favorites, keep up the good work
Bart Ehrman seems like a dude I could hang out with and learn from for hours.
Yeah. Spark up a joint with him and chill.|
Dude...what if early Christians actually called the Historical Jesus "hay-ZOOS". Whoa
My wife arranged a sit-down with her pastor (i attend church with her as a non-believer) I told the pastor I explored both sides of the claims of Christianity and became unconvinced. The guy then went off about how Bart got a divorce and now he's angry at god. Then he trashed Ehrman's scholarship. Funny thing is Frank Turek frequents "our" church and his books are garbage...
WLC sounds like he's logging into Skype and breathing in the chemicals when he's talking about Bart
By that logic, William Lane Craig is just presenting "warmed over Bible"...
Breaking news from Ecuador.
"Woman "heavily breathing" in coffin at wake"
So, if this hadn't been so public, someone could have gone into that room where the wake had been and found the coffin empty.
Lines up with that scuba diving lobster fisherman who was swallowed (and quickly spat out) by a whale !!
Nobody can decide what they believe.
So many comments here that I want to copy to a document for future reference.
So many more burns and roasts of WLC as well; I love coming back just to re-read them. 😈😁😎
I just noticed that WLC takes regular enormous and hurried gulps of breath, and now it’s all I can hear.
Here is the version of the argument 14ish year old me came up with. I’m now in my sixties. The further back in time you go the more claims of miracles you read. Either there was once a time of miracles with super men and women walking the earth performing feats that no one can achieve today or stories get more fictional the further back in time you go. I opted for the second as the only evidence for the miracles were the texts they were written in and no other trace that these miracles occurred can be found.
I would just add that real faith is where you weigh the arguments equally and choose for yourself one side is for you. Also, I must say as a 66 year old, I have seen people come to conclusions, many times without a cogent reason, and their curiosity ends. When you are so sure... why even investigate any further... on any topic. any issue. It's the end of curiosity and the certainty of dogma and popular opinion. - I agree with the point that it is impossible to reconcile the suffering of life on Earth and the existence of a personal deity. Yet I believe we have no knowledge or method of explaining everything. Just in a scientific way. Not because miracles must fill the gap, it's just we do not have the capacity to figure the question/problem out.I keep it simple. When I am asked at the Pharmacy ( or anywhere) "Do you have any questions?" I sometimes find myself uncontrollably responsive and I reply: "Yes, How will the world end?" - I remain curious, and willing to listen. (and a trouble maker). Have a great week. . just some ramblings. I hope I made some sense.
Curiosity is what drives the constructive human condition. It is the antithesis of a religious mind, which seeks a concrete answer with little room for doubt.
Curiosity is what keeps the mind young and adaptive.
Nice comment. Live long and prosper in knowledge.
Best regards.
Now I understand why my Jewish girl friend doesn't believe in any of this. She says that Jesus is just one of MANY people who claimed to be the messiah and none of them fulfilled scripture.
LOL . Craig said the resurrection hypothesis is way out in front on PLAUSIBILITY! 19:00
What is wrong with WLC's breathing? His intake after each statement is very raspy.
"Ticks me off!"
Damn, Bart's getting intense!
People really need to stop validating WLC - the guy's only ever using a warmed over version of Pascal.
But seriously, his reasoning is so clearly motivated and his double standards on what evidence he excludes are so astoundingly clear, that his credibility as a point of context for anything is non-existent. It's like asking a stopped clock to give their opinion on other clocks.
I've _looooong_ said that we shouldnt call it Christianity but instead Paulanity since it's Paul's interpretation of post-messiah, Judaism-for-the-Hellenistic-world "christianity" that we all know, rather than the Christianity of Peter, which is the post-messiah, Judaism-for-the-Jewish-world that Jesus was promoting during his ministry.
Nice. Baye's is used to predict random events - this resurrection would be a planned event - not intended to be covered in the Baye's analysis.
Good point - I never thought of that. I just assumed a prior of like 1 on 110 billion - about 110 billion human deaths, and a self-resurrection count of a presumed value of 1.
That is an insignificant prior...
The problem with using Bayes' Theorem to do history is that the inputs to the equation are unknown and unknowable. What, for instance, is the probability that the evidence would exist? Who can tell? So you just make up a number, and if you don't like the answer, then you make up a different number until you get the answer you want.
@@michaelsommers2356 Bayes describes a normal distribution.
The interesting portions of history are not very normal :)
Let me get this straight, this is a review podcast, of a review podcast, of a review podcast. Such inception :D Love it :D
Spinning my totem now.
Those sudden deep breaths from WLC are intense. We need a clip of just those breaths.
I imagine that would be part of the devil's protocol, if hell were real.
WLC says when history can't find any reason to believe some claim that he now gets to dismiss the historical process and claim the "evidence" should now be decided only by his philosophy, but not Hume's. Does he really think we should be that drivel?
The nerve of this conman!
He says about Ehrman that "these things have been explained to him and he is ignoring them", while, on his debate with Sean Carroll, Carroll, an actual expert on cosmology, explained to him over and over again that his Kalam premise about the universe having a beginning is problematic, because we don't know that scientifically, and he's been employing the same argument nevertheless for years, claiming the same thing an expert corrected him on without a shred of shame!
When your back is against the wall as is WLC's you slide in any direction that you think will provide an escape.
Whoa whoa whoa. Did WLC just have the gall to accuse Ehrman of reusing an argument after he was given a rebuttal against it? Is that not the entire field of Christian apologetics?
WLC has all the self-awareness of a dog licking its own ---hole on the sidewalk.*
*line credit: Jim Wright (Stonekettle Station).
Noice. I love when Bart is on this biatch.
I love how the majority of Craig's "reaponse" is whining that Ehrman didn't change everything he said after their debate.
The sheer brass balls on WLC to have the front to complain that someone isn't just accepting his explanations of whole cloth bullshit as truth when he has consistently had his "corrections" called out, debunked and proven to be lies for what, 40 years? and he's still talking the same crap to this day
I'm glad you do this, but it is legitimately hard to listen to WLC.
I'm slightly worried for poor Bill's health after watching this.
I had to laugh out loud at the "Adam and Eve research" quip.
Dr Ehrman starting to get savage!
Well the overt lying, ad hominem attacks and just plain not addressing the argument by someone who supposedly should know better, has GOT to be infuriating. No less than coming from a supposedly respected scholar. This just poisons the well...much like what is happening in politics by absolutely heinous people.
WLC sounds like he's having an asthma attack
Thomas Paine wrote in the Age of Reason: What people perceived as miracles were often the result of natural events or human deception. He believed that people tended to attribute unusual or unexplained events to divine intervention, rather than seeking rational explanations.
Paine relied heavily on the work of other Deists including Hume
Each and Every truly Theistic Endeavor that has EVER been practiced is of exactly equal amounts of truth, honesty, and factual nature.
WLC should learn bloody logic
On the resurrection issue, some of these folks should expand their reading materials. I recommend Yogananda s Autobiography of a Yogi . The Chapter on the resurrection of Yukteswar, regardless of “belief”, regardless of “belief” in “ miracles” , regardless of Ehrman s probability positions, provides an explanation for resurrection not dependent on any “belief” or probability arguments. You might disagree with the points Yogananda makes, BUT those points provide an explanation beyond the sophistry of Ehrman and the fundamentalism of the biblical apologists.
I've read a few books on the life of Paul Bunyan. They have sculptures of him and a blue ox, too.
God of the historical gaps....
He won't address the argument because he knows your right. WLC can't resist talking down to people. And he is just plain dishonest. Being an apologist, he has to be dishonest, but he is the used car salesman of apologists.
To William Craig, facts are those narrated by unknown authors whose sources are unknown and written decades after the supposed occurrence of events that had not been corroborated by other sources. I wonder if he learned the way to consider facts from his Ph.D studies.
I find WLC's gasping for air in between sentences to be particularly irritating 🤣
I do find it strange that some apologists argue that logic presupposes a deity and then abandon logic forthwith 🤔
I did not know how much I did not need to hear William Lane Craig huff and puff into his mic.
It's good to learn from William Lane Craig how to argue... his favourite argument for the existence of god is a warmed up argument from Aristotle!
Check mate Craig!
Just one minor correction to 15:30 on.
David Hume was an eighteenth century *Scottish* deist, not English.
But he was human😃
Low Bar Bill is credulous & has no shame. He'd do well to reverse that.
An (idealistic) analogy:
Scientists are like the police; dispassionately gathering evidence and following wherever it leads.
Apologists are like defense attorneys; passionately trying to protect a single vision and using every possible argument (including contradictory ones) to poke a hole (or seem to) in the other side's evidence and thus win.
So... Evidence v. Rhetoric.
Someone needs to make the edit "William Lane-Craig but it's Only the Frantic Gasps Between Sentences."
Also, Craig's snotty tone of voice betrays his a priori opinion-as-fact that he is so obviously superior to the earnest honesty of Ehrmann that Craig's opinion as fact cannot be wrong when he accepts the supernatural as his starting point of "reality". Craig is uniquely delusional in his arrogance and should be dismissed as nothing more than a shill for dogma.
They sound like children trying to prove the tooth fairy.
11:02 Who is he talking about?
I must have got the spelling wrong because nothing came up when I tried to look this person up.
You cannot exchange ideas dispassionately with a religious believer. Belief is an identity investment. To question the text in which a believer has invested personal identity is to undermine their sense of self. They react by slitting your throat to stop you talking of, decapitation to stop you thinking of ideas that threaten their existence. This is the history of religious warfare in 16th France. A believer is beyond redemption.
@10:50 "I don't know what he thinks historians do for a living, but it's clear he's never hung out ... "
LISTEN dude - if there's a one in a million chance he's hung out with historians, we MUST believe he hung out with historians.
Your bar is SO HIGH, Bart-dude. You need to be more like Bill.
Wait so wlc the philosopher and theologian says Dr. Ehrman is just a text critic and implied he needed to stay in his lane also makes critiques and offers opinions of physics and says hes allowed to because its a philosophy argument? What a hypocrite
William Lane Craig thinks that he is so clever, that his qualifications limited to divinity, theology and philosophy, also makes him an expert historian. Then basically says that the resurrection probably happened, because the subsequent events described in the Bible, are absolutely historically true. This ignores the fact that they all must stand or fall together, as being either fact or fiction.
Just in time for breakfast. Thank you, Paul!
That's 30 minutes that I enjoyed :P
I bookmarked the part at 22:25 where Bart defends himself against the baseless attack that he's not an academically trained NT historian.
It would be helpful if you mention Erhmans knowledge of NT greek, and Koine greek, or, or other dead language. So he can used that against the way the NT is translated in History.
The reason I push back on Paul's claims of being a persecutor of Christians is 1) there are no other sources for any kind of even local persecution of Christians in Israel in the 1st century except Paul and 2) the "I've seen the light and changed" is to this day a common technique to earn the trust of a mark.
Wow, angry Craig is angry! He's definitely getting backed into a corner more and more these days.
Ah yes, "Hume." We have dismissed that claim.