Faulty Thinking Supports God and Martyrs (Frank Turek & J Warner Wallace Response)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 15 окт 2024
- If Frank Turek or J Warner Wallace used the methods they use to investigate Christian claims to solve crimes as detectives... they would be among the least-effective around. (Fortunately, Jim seems to use different methods for his day job.)
Guess who has the burden of proof
• Guess who has the burd...
How Do We Know the Apostles Died as Martyrs?
• How Do We Know the Apo...
Support Paulogia at
/ paulogia
www.paypal.me/p...
teespring.com/...
Paulogia Audio-Only-Version Podcast
paulogia.buzzs...
Follow Paulogia at
/ paulogia0
/ paulogia0
/ discord
J. Warner Wallace blocked me on Twitter for asking him if he applied his apologetic standards during his professional career.
Someone should review his cases.
"Your Honor, no one saw the defendant not do it." Hilarious, good job :)
That's some Winston Payne level legal weaksauce. XD
OMG, I can’t believe that Frank just literally shouted the only sensible response to learning someone’s been accused of a crime as if he found it appalling. This is weird.
Prophet of Zod easy ta sell shat when faith ignores the smell
@YM 7 I've pressed on a link before and ended up on a porno site😳, so that's not happening.
@RDE Lutherie I was in the staff restaurant at the time.
@YM 7 After that experience I vowed never to click on any link.
YM 7 Then maybe stop watching RUclips videos by laymen and read a textbook on biology.
I've always wondered why Abe Lincoln never spoke out against Qanon. If he was one of our greatest presidents, he certainly would have, right?!
Great video as usual, Paul!
He just hasn't tweeted about it yet!
And why doesn't Obama order everyone to wear masks?! Doesn't he care about doing his job?!
@@brianmorris3290
that`s R00seveIt`s resp0nsibiIity
Abraham Lincoln didn’t speak out against QAnon because Lincoln died long before QAnon existed.
Something of a red flag when a detective looking for evidence starts referring to stories and traditions. He is already broadcasting his reliance upon hearsay.
It's obviously suspect X, he's black, and my grandpa told me all black people are murderers.
Am I doing this right?
@Bob Smith Do near death experiences even require debunking? It involves a brain state that's similar to, but probably less significant than dreams.
@Bob Smith I assure you that you do NOT know who I am, given the amount of mistakes in your comment.
Also I'm not really sure how one would "debunk" near death experiences, seeing as they have been recorded to exist. I will, however, point out that it's very likely just hallucinations rather than actual experiences of an afterlife, since every person conveniently finds exactly the afterlife they expected, rather than a Christian finding Vishnu or a Muslim talking about meeting Odin.
What the apologists hate is that you don't agree their suspect did it. They think if you can't find another suspect, their suspect is correct ie guilty until proven innocent
I see Mr. Turek attended the Phoenix Wright School of Law.
Their suspect isn't even a person. It's more like saying "I think this person was murdered by a Leprechaun". The proposed suspect is something we can't confirm the existence of and have no precedent for.
@@mazazon They've also failed to establish that it even was murder at all.
@@NovaSaber and that the murder weapon "nails and crosses" has been replicated 6000 times, clearly showing fakes and deception.
And that if people don't agree with you, you should never ask why they don't, like Paul suggests, but to attack and demand that they give you another solution instead, and ONLY another solution i sufficient to convince apologists that they're wrong, but he's wrong from the get go, regardless if they got the right suspect because of that. You start with finding evidence and then let it tell you if there's a murder or not, a murderer or multiple, who it might be, etc.
Turek starts with: ded body = murder+knowledge of who dunnit and then assumes to be correct by switching the burden of proof by letting you prove it's something and/or someone else.
If my mom had died and he was detective, I can promise you there'd be a murder within one day and I did it.
This is hurting my head. Turek thinks that if he accused someone of a murder then not only would he not have a burden proof, but anyone questioning his suspicion would have to propose an alternative hypothesis and then would be forced to take on the burden of proof themselves.
Yes, it's completely defective, irrational and dishonest. But hey, this is Frank Turek we're talking about.
His analogy isn't quite equal either. Mapping the analogy to reality, his suspect x isn't a person. Suspect x is a sock stealing gnome or a fairy, some creature we don't have good precedent for. When a detective finds a dead body the options are usually going to be person, animal or accident. Evidence will likely rule out one or more of these options, an animal attack tends to be pretty distinctive, but an unproven supernatural entity doesn't even enter the equation.
...I think we now know what happened in the world of the Pheonix Wright: Ace Attourney games to get such an insane court system. XD
@@mazazon Yeah, to completely extend his analogy as a murder case, the Christian is saying that suspect x is the murderer, the atheist is giving him a funny look and asking what murder, we don't even have a victim.
@@AegixDrakan This made me laugh.
Shamelessly thumbed up prior to watching cus you just know this is gonna be good. 👍
Don't have to worry about that with Paul
🤜🏼🤛🏽
Just despise Frank Turek’s murder case analogy how he convicts suspect X because his imaginary colleague doesn’t have an alternative.
That's fair insurance against forgetting afterwards.
Ah, my least-favorite duo: Wallace and Vomit.
The moon is made of cheese :)
_because God...._
Haha
Too bad I can upvote you more than once.
ha
@@ALovelyBunchOfDragonballz Well I can't prove it isn't!
Sick.
I would like to see a reimagination of _12 Angry Men_ with the protagonist based on J. Warner Wallace. Oh wait, that would be a three minute video.
When he brought up Old Testament prophecies, I burst out laughing. I have no problem with saying prophecies come true all the time. They're just confined to fantasy stories.
you forgot that the new testament prophecies are also a joke. Jesus predicted that the temple would be destroyed which was written after the temple was destroyed. It is like writing 9/11 will happen in a book you are writing today.
I love how "Old Testament prophecies" ended up 6th on Frank's list of gotcha questions. Not exactly a ringing endorsement, lol.
The religious apologist still thinks that atheists have to prove that there isn't a god when actually it's the other way around, the burden of proof is on the religious apologist.
Turek often tries to impose the burden on atheists, because he knows *he* can't meet the burden.
Yeah, if this was a court case, Turek as Prosecutor, Myself as Defense. I would allow Turek his arguments (probably with a number of objections) and then promptly rest me case. Well, actually I would request summary verdict based on lack of evidence.
no we have the gospels which are more than sufficient historical record of what Jesus said and the miricles performed
if you refuse to go there you will never know God
John 18:
35"Am I a Jew?" Pilate replied. "It was your people and your chief priests who handed you over to me. What is it you have done?"36Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place."37"You are a king, then!" said Pilate. Jesus answered, "You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me."
@@raysalmon6566 A single historical record is not sufficient to determine accuracy. Secular history is only recorded as fact when multiple collaborating records are found. You can use the bible as theological record but there is not collaborative evidence to any of the supernatural claims however, parts of the torah and even new testament have been used as evidence for the histories of bronze age cultures.
@@dawnmcauley6411
no that is not historical methodology
its not how much we have its if what we we is the truth
Besides we 5800 manuscripts and nt itself is 27 books
please do some honest research and quit parroting misquided information from those who are lost
I can't believe Frank Turek is still allowed to peddle his BS, he's been shown to be disingenuous, as well as dishonest in his arguments. Just like all apologists he's spewing the same crap over and over again, i love re-watching Christopher Hitchens taking Frank's BS and highlighting it for what it is.
Amen
The power of free speech. Anyone can say BS and promptly be called out on BS. Better then the other system where BS is state-backed.
Monty Python's "Holy Grail" movie - Is she a witch?
I think this is a perfect summary of apologetic logic.
What floats on water? Wood.
What else floats on water? A Duck.
Therefore if she weighs as much as a duck - then she's a witch.
You are assuming the apologists are actually trying to prove anything. They aren't. They are trying to keep sheep in the fold
The original "apologists" were using the word "apology" to mean "defence", and were writing to defend the early Christian faith from charges of atheism, cannibalism, orgies and so on.
These guys, though ... $$$$$$
Daniel Snyder
I think they’re genuinely trying to convince themselves.
Gabe Norman which part, that apologists aren’t trying to prove anything or that they are trying to keep sheep in the fold?
@Gabe Norman But many pro-lifers AREN'T trying to prove anything. They are just stating their opinion and attempting to force it on others.
Gabe Norman
God literally condoned forced abortions, so my man, pro lifers are just wasting their time, especially considering up to 70% of abortions reported in the US are to evangelical Christian girls, pro lifers are terribly uneducated on the real word
It's more like finding a dead guy under a pile of dirt and stones next to a landslide warning sign then insisting that the Emperor of Chicago is the murderer and then throwing a caniption when someone suggests that maybe it was just a natural landslide.
Apologists: We have an ironclad case ... despite a total lack of evidence.
God only knows we need evidence to make his case.
Form a circle and pray for Yahweh to provide crucial evidence for his existence.
Oh, you don’t accept my answer to everything? Then give an explanation for everything! How can you not accept my universal answer if you don’t have an answer of your own? This type of shit drives me crazy.
The new HBO show, False Detective.
Jim clearly says in his testimony that he had an experience first and then went back to apply his detective hat to the "evidence."
Definition of working backwards? How to start nowhere and arrive safely where you began.
Nah... That wouldn't be picked up by anybody.... Maybe lifetime.
@The Truth Ahh yes, I totally forgot about pureflix. All that came to my head was _Lifetime: Television for idiots!_
The light switch in some brains just can't seem to get turned on. Sad.
I prefer to think of it as a spotlight. Keeps some things from being examined too closely. And the spotlight is manually aimed.
Why does Yahweh refuse to switch on the light in people's brains?
*Awesome video!*
Once again Paul, you have outdone yourself. You just keep getting better all the time. 👍👍👍👍
I love your use of Sean McDowell vs. team "Wallace and Turek"! 🤣🤣🤣🤣
Hey Paul! I was a 6000 year earther creationist and would spend my Fridays street preaching way of the master style. I had a hard time with those darn evilutionsists so I decided to learn about evilution to build a steal man argument and do the Lord's work... Boy was that a mistake...that was the beginning steps towards leaving my religion. In fact, the bill Nye debate was the final straw for me. I've been on a rabbit hole of your videos and it seems we had very similar experiences in our search for truth. Great videos and keep up the great work!
Great video Paul! Here’s the story of the incompetent detectives:
Frank Turek and Jim Wallace show up at a cold case crime scene where a victim’s body was not recovered after a violent night 50 years ago. The sparse records tell them the guy witnesses claimed was killed had the name Joshua, but had a nickname: Jesús.
Frank: I think this guy was the son of god, was killed for our sins, and has resurrected.
Jim: I agree, open and shut case. No one has contradicting statements he was not the son of god. No further investigation needed. One more for my stack of solved cases.
Love your videos. Thanks for uploading
This video is long overdue. Well done!
To see how Frank derails just compare gods to other hypothetical beings: Martian microbes. Do they exist? No one knows. Some might believe yes, others no but there's nothing wrong with the stance of "I'm not compelled to believe either way." To this Frank will respond: "OK, but what _do_ you believe?" Is he changing the subject?
And Frank Turek always seems angry to me. I'm not seeing any joy of the Lord in him.
well its really quite simple
Jesus is the only one who raised the dead
@@raysalmon6566 Jesus raised the dead? How do you know that? And how have you determined the hundreds (or thousands) of other claims throughout history of people raising the dead were false?
@Sam Bacon
history comes to us by reliable witnesses and participant's
it not a science project
@@raysalmon6566 "history comes to us by reliable witnesses and participant's"
Don't be asinine.
True apologetics - deflect, obfuscate, try and confuse your audience. Throw all honestly and integrity out the window. 🙄
"No one saw the defendant not do it" is the all time best
"I shot the clerk?"
58K, Paul.. 58K!
Congratulations bud, here comes 60!
This is something I've always wondered about. Millions were willing to die for Emperor Hirohito because they believed he was a living God. Did their belief make him a God?
Thx Paul, another excellent video. A truly clinical dissection and delivered with your characteristic care and great charm.
I’ve been reading about 13th century Japan and the ‘battles’ (of words) that took place between the different monasteries representing different sects of Buddhism at the time. When I started reading I though how dull such encounters would have been, but now having watch a lot of your videos I’m starting to appreciate why they would have drawn the crowds that they did. Keep up the great work!
Why would somebody's willingness to die for what they thought was true strengthen the evidential value of what they said they thought was true? This juror wouldn't think so, but might think that they might have some mental problem that made their evidential claim even less trustworthy.
Good one. I have to wonder how good J. Warner Wallace was at his profession when he demonstrates his lack of objectivity and flawed thinking.
LOL the cold case detective is wearing his badge on stage LOL. So if he was talking to a Doctor would he have a Stethoscope on stage?
ha! right?!?
You're telling me that the universe isn't fine-tuned, Paul, but everybody knows that the god has an inordinate fondness for beetles.
It doesn't give a crap about humans, though.
I think he is more fond of Tardigrades as they have been around since the Cambrian period and will probably be here well after us.
Ironic fact, more Tardigrades have been to the Moon than humans.
And black holes, apparently
Bacteria probably wins this..
The most common living thing on the planet if you don't count the viruses that infect them are Pelagibacterales or SAR11 group of 2 × 10^28 of which a 3rd are Pelagibacter ubique.
@The Truth Well, the PLANET is fine-tuned for insects. The universe is fine-tuned for lightyears and lightyears of cold, dead space.
As a rabbi would tell you, the NT isn't even a canonical sequel--such would have been written in Hebrew. The Greek of the gospels' composition indicates that they're unauthorized fan fiction.
These people are like finding a dead body, claiming x to be a murderer and when we ask for evidence they are saying "well she's dead right?shen if she's dead the has to be a murderer and so it was x" and we are saying "i mean... she has had heart problems and we don't see any stabbing or any bulletshot mark on the body..." "so you're saying she killed herself?" "maybe it was a heart attack" "so what you are saying is you don't know, but i do know and it's suspect x. You just have to believe"
Why did Yahweh appoint Frank as his lawyer?
The detective then remarked to his skeptical partner, "And Suspect X is all powerful, exists outside of space and time and is not subject to human morality and therefore cannot be held accountable for the body before us."
wow, that suspect x analogy just falls apart right out the gate
Very good work Paul, thorough and logical.
"Oh yeah? Well if suspect X didn't do it, then who did?" That sounds more like a question a lawyer would ask than one a detective would ask.
“I lack a belief in suspect X”
Not “I lack a belief that suspect X did the crime”, but “I lack a belief IN suspect X”.
Note how Frank is ambiguously conflating two beliefs here in order to muddle the situation, because on the face of it the second sounds sillier then the first. But that’s because we all assume X is a real person, as would usually be the case - if Franks “X” happened to be “the three headed Prince of Norway who wears clown makeup all the time”, then YES, we WOULD be justified in asking for evidence of X’s existence before we ever got around to whether or not they were guilty.
When will the barbaric, genocidal, Hebrew desert god appear in the sky so we can close this case?
Nearly did a spit-take during the intro, Paul. They say to start things off with a joke, but damn I was not prepared for that. Frank Turek wishes he was a detective, but that guy couldn't detect shit even if it fell out of his own ass. Keep up the great work, dude!
This was really informative. Thank you. I really enjoyed learning from this.
Damn, any case in which this faulty thinking detective was involved should be reexamined. He absolutely doesn't get any of what he *must* understand to be in such a position.
Listening to Paul's Playlist late at night Frank Turek's voice cuts through you like a knife. So grating on your ears, especially when he's talking nonsense (as he definitely is)
As far as the objection that “we have no evidence the apostles had an opportunity to recant” wouldn’t it make sense that after you see one or two of your fellow apostles being offed for the message they were spreading be a good time for you to stop spreading it?
He seems to be conflating "suspect" with "known perpetrator" which is very worrying.
and forgetting his proposed suspect is on par with suspecting a Leprechaun.
Paul, has anyone told you today, how completely awesome you are??
You are pretty darn #RAD as well!
Thank you, for such consistently amazing content. I love Saturday, late mornings, ☕ coffee & Paulogia!
Thanks Mate ✊
Means much coming from you. Thank you, beautiful mind.
They are too smart to not know it's all BS. And that means they're lying. They may want it to be true but they know it's not. Bet ya all glad I'm not a judge. :)
I would agree with you on Wallace; at the very least, he is being intellectually dishonest with himself, as he should be aware he is misapplying detective techniques. Turek I’m not so sure of; I’m genuinely convinced he’s actually that obtuse
Turek pays more attention to his wardrobe than his logic....
This is somehow similar to an pschology of an cult
Unfortunately, there are many people out there who are unable, or cannot discern the difference between bullshit and reality. 😔
@@briankrakau8371 There sure are. Cops, politicians, priests ... IT's a big list.
It's quite scary how confident these two can just spew out that detective analogy with such confidence. Repeat the same analogy to any other layman on the street, and they'd find the flaw immediately. They just won't accept "Don't know" as a legitimate, acceptable, and honest answer.
Excellent Paul!
Solid video! Thanks for all you do!
Considering the fact that the Christian faith wasn't popular before the 4th century, why would it make sense for anyone to talk about early Christian leaders as anything more than a footnote?
Do you mean "until the 4th century"?
@@Uldihaa yeah, turns out I accidentalied the sentence there.
@@ChryosSkathe I do that all the time. :D
The fact that this dude was an investigator lends evidence as to why we need to defund
I'm sad to say that after having worked on a documentary show about homicide departments and their investigations, the way these two men look at suspects is actually quite common in policing. They often have a percentage of "solved" cases to maintain. So if it takes just bringing in someone who might've possibly done it, then that's what they do. This can lead to wasted time on putting that suspect in jail, awaiting trial, then going to trial only to find out they were innocent, or there isn't sufficient evidence to convict them. Some detectives make absolutely sure that it couldn't have been anyone else, and gather as much evidence as possible, before officially arresting anyone. Sadly, more often than not there are officers who just look for what they *feel* is the more likely person.
Don't even get me started on how police interrogations are done in a way that is essentially torture and manipulation that often gets false confessions or improper leads! They don't put those parts in the shows, obviously.
This is definitely a double thumbs up. Thoroughly enjoyed
I wish we could replace the duo from Brooklyn 99 with Turek and Wallace going “it’s God!” and triumphantly leaving the room
Paulogia does great work !!
30 seconds into the video and I'm already on board! :)
Nice job, Paulogia!
Perhaps the greatest miracle of all biblical miracles is how Christian apologists pump up very thin, gossamer evidence in the New Testament (and the scant extra-biblical mentions) and pray it supports its extremely heavy claims.🤦♂️
The difficulty for apologists to make claims when it’s mostly here-say and not the kind that lends credibility to what they consider evidence.
*hearsay
here-say, there-say, doesn't matter where you say it really
6,000 years... religion still isn't any closer to evidence supporting their whimsical stories
Religions and all gods were created by primitive humans. And passed down via indoctrination and tradition.
Here's a thought I had: in Turek's 'suspect x' analogy, the only reason 'x' is a suspect is because of hearsay which is not adequate evidence to even take to trial, let alone convict
If Frank took the evidence against suspect 'X' to the District Attorney, he'd probably get fired for incompetence.
There is no way a D.A. would countenance going to a judge even for an _arrest warrant,_ let alone a criminal trial, based purely on the feeble case against 'X'.
Excellent summary, apologetics is assuming the conclusion and working back to make it convincing.
It's like Turek has completely forgotten how we go about convicting someone of a crime. When a jury gives a verdict of not guilty, they are saying "we are not convinced by your evidence that this person is guilty". Whether or not there is another potential suspect is completely irrelevant to determining that the evidence is insufficient to prove guilt.
Those detective analogies always remind me of Ace Attorney.
“Unless someone else is found guilty, the accused is still on trial.”
-Godot
Yep, it's Ace Attorney logic. Only in Ace Attorney the system is specifically referred to as being unjust.
Now of course all the apologists that have been using the martyrdom apologetic are going to apologise like Sean and admit to all their followers on their channels that this was based on nothing but church stories right? Can't wait for the honesty to begin! (And kudos to Sean for caring about the truth, so refreshing!)
But after that good work, Sean went and shot himself in the foot by declaring that Jesus really was resurrected for real because the "empty tomb" proves it.
But he can't reasonably establish that Jesus was put in a tomb in the first place, while still insisting that a tomb without Jesus' body proves that a god resurrected him.
That's absurd!
Turek misunderstanding burden of proof? Colour me shocked lol
1:49 That is a superior point
With the reasoning of detective Turek ,you have to wonder how many innocent people he helped convict.
"Bake'm away, toys."
Objective reason vs subjective bias
Another banger, Paulogia!
Many religions have martyrs. Does that mean it validates those religion's Gods?
you make it sound like they wanted to be martyrs sure they were willing to stand for what they believe and would've been more than happy to live the rest of their lives believing
but if you honestly think they WANTED to die gruesome deaths then your being just plain ignorant
"Is he a good detective?" YES, ... you and I BOTH said a second later, in unison. Seems I've been trained by the best. RockOn, Paul.
Paul, your 'awesome' logic gave me happy little brain tingles more than ever on this one! You are an intellectual weed whacker, dude.
The apologists are paid to literally never be wrong. Most arrogant humans to exist
That's not the laws of logic; that's the laws of physics. 5:10
Funny that Jim's father, also a career cop, has never been impressed by junior's work. He's still an atheist.
In Court,we don't debate the ontology of the Defendant..nor do we assume miracles,yet both Warner and Turek are using fallacies
I've said it before but I'll say it again:
Look at the number of unsolved murders, rapes, and other violent crimes, and the number of unsolved property crimes in the U.S. and then explain why you'd have any faith in cops trying to solve a "case" 2,000 years old.
Cop 1: The surveillance camera says that suspect A. is the murderer.
Cop 2: As i said five minutes ago: show me the camera or shut up!
Cop 1: The surveillance camera is very disappointed with you...
Cop 2: ...i'm gonna call the captain...
How far I have strayed from the general rule; "Never discuss religion or politics in polite company."
Cool Frank, now demonstrate that suspect X exists.
This would be, I think, the perfect time for me to share with the rest of you my favorite quote by the character Gil Grissom from legendary crime drama "CSI":
"I could be wrong. You could be wrong. But the evidence is just the evidence."
J. Warner Wallace conveniently ignores a number of the Rules of Evidence used in our judicial system in his apologetics videos, and Frank Turek obviously has even less knowledge of detective work.
I have to object on Hitchcock and Scully being bad detectives. In S02E19 "Sabotage", they get so annoyed by Boyle mocking them tat they actually solved the case and threatened Boyle to never to tell anybody bc they're far more comfortable doing desk jobs.
That’s the problem, cops don’t think your innocent until proven guilty.
That's how they're trained.
well if you're white and carrying a rifle ....
I love it when they go strawman early.
BEST. EVIDENCE. EVER.
hearsay that was written down at least SEVENTY YEARS AFTER THE EVENTS
hearsay written TWO THOUSAND YEARS AGO and the "witnesses" cannot be examined.
BEST. EVIDENCE. EVAAAAARRRRRR.
How many people has he wrongly sent to prison?
A good detective follows the evidence. Turek is suggesting that a detective must come up with a suspect, no matter how little evidence there is.
Frank and Jim are constantly drinking from the thumbtack mug.
I like when he asks what atheist say to explain life, consciousness, etc. and actually all or most one could answer, "dunno its just here" and its still valid answer. But strangely enough they cannot do that with their god, no demonstration, only coercing "godidit."
I enjoyed very much your movie review of Case for Christ's and would love to see you making one on Netflix movie named Bob Lazar area 51 and Flying Saucers , it would be hilarious if you would compare the evidence for flinging saucers to the resurrection xD
Sounds like something Pinecreek would do.
I used to wonder why nobody went after J Warner Wallace, but that was a few years ago. Now it’s open season on him.
From my point of view it's like this.
There is a body on the ground.
No wounds found.
Turek goes like: X did it.
I am like: I don't think that. How do you know?
Then he explains, how the body couldn't have just put itself there in this exact way. And bodies don't die like that without outside help.
And then the body stands up and walks away.
I would suggest that Wallace dumps Turek and partners up with Gromit again.
I'm just glad Frank's not a detective.