Brilliant video! I recently had an atheist throw this argument my way myself. He completely denied it when I pointed out its circular reasoning and he just continued to push it. They can definitely be stubborn....
@@freshbakedclips4659 happened to me today, atheist ignored all of my points and just contined to say I was using God of the gaps fallacy when I went into that in good detail. I don't even think he read my comment
@@soloknight7197 Socrates' sources are at least contemporary though, every source about Jesus is written at least 30 years after his death by people who almost certainly weren't eyewitnesses, even so I'm still skeptical of Socrates' existence, really glad whether or not I receive eternal punishment doesn't hinge on my belief in him so I can just enjoy his(or Plato's) teachings for what they were.
@@AntiTheBird 30 years was contemporary when Jesus was only here for 30 years. It's like saying that Eddie Murphy can't tell about the Mulan movie because it's been 30 years since it came out. Also, it's hard to fake when everyone you're quoting is alive and reachable. Matthew and John were eye witnesses and lived through the temple destruction that brought Josephus to fame
More like how to lie about arguments from silence and ignore them by apologetic lying. Arguments from silence are not fallacies. He is just another christian liar. "Historians routinely rely on Arguments from Silence: when something isn't said or attested, we conclude it didn't happen. Such reasoning is often challenged with the quip “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” But the truth is, absence of evidence is evidence of absence-but only when that evidence is expected." "...our concern is with when an Argument from Silence is valid and sound-and when it is not. The logical conditions have already been correctly stated: To be valid, the argument from silence must fulfill two conditions: the writer whose silence is invoked in proof of the non-reality of an alleged fact, would certainly have known about it had it been a fact; [and] knowing it, he would under the circumstances certainly have made mention of it. When these two conditions are fulfilled, the argument from silence proves its point with moral certainty." Proving History, pg 117
*@Chris Blair* We are extremely lucky because there are very few remains of ancient dramatical historical events. If we didn't have such physical evidence, textual evidence would be all we have and the point here is that there is indeed scant textual evidence despite the magnitude of the event.
@@GreenLightMe some believe that as a theory, but it shouldn’t be stated as fact. It does seem strange since Christians worked so hard to keep the ancient writings. We have many of the ancient philosophers because the monks protected and copied them.
it's a terrible video and it is full of lies and misrepresentations. He claims argument from silence is fallacious, it's not. it has certain criteria to be valid. "To be valid, the argument from silence must fulfill two conditions: the writer whose silence is invoked in proof of the non-reality of an alleged fact, would certainly have known about it had it been a fact; [and] knowing it, he would under the circumstances certainly have made mention of it. When these two conditions are fulfilled, the argument from silence proves its point with moral certainty." . Garraghan, Guide to Historical Method, §149a. See also Shafer, Guide to Historical Method, p. 77; Gottschalk, Understanding History, pp. 45-46; and Neville Morley, Writing Ancient History (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1999), pp. 67-68. He doesn't know this or is lying about it. It is also a lie to say that a event not corroborated by others is assumed to be false. No historian does this. many things in history only have one source. He also says an argument from silence is a fallacy, then turns around says it it's only a fallacy if it rejects a single point attribution. So he changed his story and then misrepresented what an argument from silence actually is. The problem with the gospels is that it isn't a valid source for anything historical. we know all the gospels are redactions of mark, which is fan fiction about paul's letters and a rewrite of things in josphus and other pagan writings. Paul who is the closest writer to the time in question, and who spoke at length with the apostles, is completely unaware of anything claimed in the gospels. There is no ministry, no miracles, no disciples, no trial, no pontius pilate, nothing. he says jesus was killed by demons in outer space and we only know about it from secret codes in scripture that have been revealed to him and others. He claims if we applied the same standard of rejecting absurd claims, we would have to throw out most of history. This is a lie. We do reject absurd claims in all historical documents. But that isn't the only reason why the new testament is not credible. it gets basic things wrong like geography, dates, order of succession, the accounts contradict each other on key details no one would get wrong had they actually been there. Had there been a 3 hour darkening of the sun, a great earthquake, or the dead walking the streets someone else absolutely would have noticed it and mentioned it. No one does because it never happened. Same as the massacre of innocents by herod isn't mentioned because it didn't happen. His example of Josephus and the cancelling of passover doesn't help his case. it is possible josephus did make the story up. Why assume he didn't? He gives no reason. His whole video is cherry picking "but whatabout" examples in a completely different reference class of writings. Jesus appears as a character in a mythical context. Like others who do so, they always turn out to not be turn. The human jesus is a later retcon by the church. None of the first christians for the first century of the movement thought jesus was a real person who walked around and did stuff. Ever the first gospel winks at the reader to let them know the whole story is just an allegory.
"If an ancient author had recorded the resurrection truly did happen, that would have made him a Christian convert then the skeptics would simply dismiss them as such and as unreliable." -IP Well, that is something that truly makes sense. 🙂
I came to this realization when contemplating this sort of answer/excuse from people. I realized, if the source affirmed the miraculous life of Jesus then that document would BE Christian sources. So they are asking for married bachelor's. (Conceptually)
Just a display of their choice/decision, proclaimed as a (false) argument In other words they ignorantly and/or unknowingly proclaim their cognitive dissonance.
@spiritsplice so you think a non-christian would write about the miracles of Jesus as truth? Or would they just say that there are people who claim He did miracles, which I think they did (as far as my little knowledge goes). And even those who would've mentioned christians talking about miracles, noones preserving it unless it's an important historical document like of Josephus (who likely did mention Christ as the so-called messiah by his followers) or of Tacitus
Excellent video! Love it! Although I never identified it as the "argument from silence", I have addressed this as their faulty logic of asserting that "the absence of evidence equals the evidence of absence". In other words, if they don't see corroborating evidence for Biblical claims, then they automatically resort to declaring it "false". They famously did this with the Bible's account of the Hittites. Up until the early 1900's, there had been no corroborating evidence, outside the Bible, to the existence of the Hittites. The response from the anti-theists was to mock the claim as a Bible myth. Of course, the Hittite capital WAS eventually discovered, proving the mockers wrong. They then apologized as they had learned their lesson and promised never to automatically believe the Bible wrong again. (okay, I made up the last part, they continue doing this today, LOL!) Another aspect of this faulty logic is to dismiss Biblical accounts because "it's in the Bible and therefore biased". The faulty foundation of this broken logic is the false assumption that the Bible writers were a close-knit group of fellows who wrote literary pieces intended to be contributions to the compilation of works known as the Bible. In reality, the individual "books" of the Bible each stand on their own as pieces of literature that attest to various aspects of God's dealings with mankind. Had they not been compiled together in a single text and called "the Bible", then they would have been considered various historical accounts that corroborate one another's authenticity. But somehow anti-theists are either unwilling or unable to comprehend their biased blunder. Anyway, thanks for concisely articulating the illogical bias of anti-theists!
+Pirabee That's a little harsher than I would put it, but to some extent, yes-no amount of logic or reasoning can convince many of today's skeptics. They need to ask themselves, if there WAS irrefutable proof, would they believe then? Or would they still ignore Him because they didn't want to follow Him? Oftentimes it's more of a lack of desire than a lack of proof, no matter what they may say :(
In my opinion, you have a valid point but once you need to desire for something to make sense before it makes sense just sounds like changing a perception of evidence to suit a desired outcome. I wouldn't follow him you are correct. But this is not because I do not wish there to be a God... this is simply because I would not follow this God if I understand his deeds correctly. I might not. But I mean drowning a world instead of talking to them sounds a little out of context I would hope. And the evidence stacking up that the worldwide flood never happened (which is such a fundamental part of the Bible)... I hear Christians talking about people building themselves and their beliefs from a strong foundation of rock not sand, forgive the paraphrase... can't remember the verse off the top of my head... but if the Bible itself builds itself from several weak foundations and several weak levels, then it is all too easy for an all-powerful God to fix that right? He exists outside of space and time so theoretically he could time travel and if he is all-powerful that can't be too much of a stretch. But it still a lack of proof for me, I'm just not sure I would follow him if I believed in him, also not to say I would worship Satan, the idea of black and white, worshiping God or worshipping Satan is a fundamentally flawed idea so please deal with the grays in between if you go there? Thanks.
hellavadeal Yes... because we listen to ALL the people who say God said this or that or God speaks to them... especially the old nutjob building a boat that shouldn't float for any reason as he's stuffing EVERY animal IN THE WORLD into it... yea... we listen to them right?
Another great video IP, I appreciate the work you're doing to edify the body of Christ. Helping believers to think and sceptics to believe (trust in the historical reliability of Christian Theism). When one takes the time to think these things through, apply the same standards to the NT documents with other ancient works, it is quite apparent (if one is fair) that these types of biases are on the cynical end of historical enquiry and shouldn't have so much authority and appeal. The argument from silence, seriously harms our ability to make sense of ancient history and attacks the intelligence and questions the ability of all ancient historians to chronicle history. To put it simply, the argument from silence makes history impossible and arrogantly imposes modern biases and techniques on the ancients who did history differently to fit their contexts. Those contexts should be respected and take precedent over our own when studying these ancient documents. We should not forget that. Thanks again IP.
@@AnarchoPunkChad What "grade"? Are you assuming I'm in school? I have a master's degree, so it's been a while since I was in any grade. Anyway, here's why this video falls short. The central claim of this video is that "Arguments from silence are flawed since atheists often accept other claims with only one source, so they should therefore accept the Bible too" or something like that. Here's why that's dumb: Let's say that someone tells you they visited Amarillo, TX and they saw a brown dog eating a discarded hamburger in 1997. Do you believe them? Have you been to Amarillo? Did you see the dog yourself? Are there contemporary news accounts from 1997 that prove this dog did this thing in this place? Do you just accept the claim, based off one source? Shouldn't you wait until there's conclusive proof of the event before accepting the guy's claim? No, of course not. Because this is a rather mundane claim. Nothing extraordinary or supernatural. Now, if a guy says that he saw a brown dog eating a Griffon corpse and flying with pegasus wings in Amarillo, TX in the year 1890 after traveling back using his time machine, then you'd probably not just take his word for it. Those are exceptional claims and they require much more evidence than a mundane claim. Let's use the example the presenter in the video used. He told of a story in Josephus' works about Herod killing people in the temple. This story doesn't appear in other historians works, nor is it in the gospels. Does that mean Josephus made it up? Not necessarily, but maybe, I guess. The idea of a king ordering the deaths of political opponents isn't an exceptional claim and it happened all the time (still happens in some parts of the world). So I'm fine with accepting Josephus' account of this event based on how likely it was, using my understanding of the natural world. The gospel writers do something extraordinary. They say a guy was born of a virgin, could violate the laws of physics and he rose from the dead after 3 days of being dead. This is not mundane. This is exceptional. This is like the guy saying he time traveled to Amarillo in 1890 and saw a dog flying and chewing on a unicorn. Such a crazy claim needs more than just one source. That's why this is a weak argument.
@@AnarchoPunkChad How many historical sources would you need to read before I could convince you that George Washington could shoot lasers from his eyes and fly like a mythical dragon?
@@AnarchoPunkChad No, it's an analogy. Stay with me here There are quite a few sources that talk about magical sirens who sing magical songs that entrance sailors into a deep sleep. You can find a source describing the siren, and another source corroborating the claim, describing a similar story. Does this alone convince you that magical sirens exist? That's my analogy here. Yes, the gospels tell a story of Jesus (written decades later by people who don't even claim to be eyewitneses). And other people mention him too (like Paul, for example). These claims alone are not enough for a reasonable person to conclude that a God-Man existed and defied the laws of physics and rose from the dead.
"Give me one primary contemporary source for the existance of Jesus! I'll wait." "Ok, while I am doing that impossible task, why don't you find me one primary contemporary source for Socrates, Julius Cesar or Alexander the Great. I'll wait."
There are three primary contemporary sources for Socrates (Aristophanes, Xenophon, Plato). There are even more contemporary sources for Alexander the Great (e.g. the speeches of Isocrates and Demosthenes, the poetry of Theocritus, the works of Theophrastus, etc.). As for Caesar, we have... his own writings!
Christian Psychonaut777 I would agree that Christian Right wingers are illogical and that person statement is pretty stupid and ridiculous, but you’d probably also take the stance that Christianity is illogical, which I would disagree with
6:10. Good point. Another thing that could be added to the list is the perishability of most writing materials. If something was written on anything other than a noble metal, it was susceptible to decay. There were probably a lot of things written that have since decayed beyond the point of being recognized as a writing medium.
I just got into an argument about the absence of King Herod and the slaying of the innocents. Sure, there's no other record of it. But there are records about hoy psychotic King Herod was. He didn't think twice about killing his own children and his own mother for power gains and to cover up his many adulterous affairs and his palaces and buildings give the mere appearance of beautiful buildings, but upon further investigation they were forts. Also, he was reported as having maniacal bouts of laughter and schizophrenia. Lastly, he built Herod's Temple as an act to appease the people.This is CLEARLY someone who was paranoid about his power.
Truly great work, brother. Maybe slightly decrease the audio? It can be a bit difficult to listen closely, even though you put up the text to read (which is really nice). God bless
I was always curious why there aren't more writings about Jesus since he was such an important figure. This actually makes sense. Jesus had many powerful opponents that didn't assist at his miracles and they ofcourse wouldn't have believed the pleb that has seen the miracles.
+InspiringPhilosphy I understood this because the news outlets/media won't cover every story possible. Sometimes the right will cover certain stories, sometimes the left will cover certain stories. That doesn't mean that the events being broadcasted by the news didn't happen just because it wasn't in both media outlets. It just means that the right/left media doesn't care too much about the story in question. Likewise, this would be the Gospel, the good news.
@@spiritsplice, no, it is. This fallacy is what’s most often used when discussing whether the Exodus happened or not as they say that the lack of sources from the Egyptians “proves” that it didn’t happen. The problem - of course - is that it assumes the Egyptians would record such a humiliating thing within their sources to begin with. The Egyptians never recorded bad things; not without heavily altering them to make Pharaoh look good and/or twist it to say they actually “won” when - in truth - they did not. The Battle of Kadesh is a perfect example of this; from the Egyptian sources, you’d gather they won a fantastic victory when - in reality - Pharaoh barely survived a major ambush by the Hittites.
this is great ! thanks for this .. it helped me on other issues . I just had someone deny my ancestral documentation basically because they said no one in modern times has documented it as true . because politically no one would do that because they were the guilty parties.. so there is always 40 ways out of believing the truth if someone wants to deny it.. because the truth only offends the guilty .. the fact that my documentation was lucky in that in 1815 a reputable man who had no dog in the fight but was only recording what he heard and what was said and what he had experienced . and yet the truth gets totally wasted and swallowed up by a mocker because the lawless make up their own laws as they go .
This is very educational. I'm thankful for the technology that allows me to read this on my phone. And not go over to a building on the University of Texas. GOD HAS really used technology to spread the truth of his word and this channel is a great example of that blessing. Be blessed Michael.
You deserve all the likes and subscribers in the world! your work for Jesus is incredible and you have helped me do my paper for college! thank you sir and God bless you!!! You rock dude and I hope and pray that your reward in heaven will be great! Thank you for your admirable service for the kingdom of heaven! you inspire me. Brother in Christ you are, and I am proud to declare it!!!!
Sounds like we need a second coming of Jesus now in modern times where we have a more global communication network and proper ways of documentation so that he can confirm his ties to divinity.
It's funny that they have to put logic on their shirt, since its not in their head. Reminds me of G.K. Chesterton talking about the BIG BOLD headlines in his day written to convey they were saying something radical and alarming, then he showed they were just as timid and abased as any other publication. It's nice to be modest and humble people can make their own evaluations of your points and processes. Well, then again most college students today are just fine with the pious proofless propoundments of their pitiable professors. Doesn't take anything more than a catchy one liner to turn some peoples station in life. Being an atheist is easy, one could slip into it like a slipper. Being an devout follower of an eternal spiritual being that asks you to follow with the whole of your heart, mind, and soul on the other hand. That's is quite a bit more engaging, wouldn't you say?
I'm scared of commitment. Not just religious commitment, but commitment in general and committing to God is like falling in love. It's terrifying because from a selfish point of view, you might get hurt by the relationship and from a selfless point of view, you might fail your lover or your God. It's not nice to be hurt by people you hate but I suspect that being hurt by people you love is infinitely more painful. I've looked into the evidence of the Resurrection. The surviving proof is staggering, especially when you consider the limitations of the time when it was recorded. The fact that so much proof survived at all is a miracle in itself because there are so many events in ancient history that don't have half of the evidence that the Resurrection has, yet people accept that they happened without question. I have no logical reason to dismiss the Resurrection and eternal life sounds both scary and amazing (scary because eventually you might get bored of eternity and amazing because you never have to fear death again). However, I still fear devoting myself to religion despite the evidence. I think that's the case with most atheists and agnostics, at least among those who have done their research. They're terrified of committing and either falling short of the mark or being hurt by whomever they've devoted themselves to.
@@tomnorton4277 I...did not expect that. Do you have Instagram or something? There is so much I can explain you that should surely make you rethink about what commitment to God really is.
@@Navii-05 I don't do instagram. I have Twitter and Facebook but although I check those sites quite frequently, I don't comment very often or post very much. Most of the interactions I have on the internet are either through emails or in RUclips comment sections.
@@Navii-05 I guess so. I kind of feel like how C.S. Lewis and Jordan Peterson described their feelings about converting to Christianity. Lewis was very reluctant to do so but later became very devout and Peterson technically isn't a Christian because he finds the idea "too terrifying" but he seems to be on his way to becoming one.
Now granted, as a few other commenters have pointed out, Alexander the Great's generals did write about him within his lifetime. As a subset of those commenters conveniently neglected to mention, however, the works of Ptolemy, Nearchus, and Aristobolus on Alexander are lost! Obviously, InspiringPhilosophy is talking about works we still have today. Lost works are not what we have, today, as available sources.
Very good insight here. It also exposes their ignorance as well. I can apply the same argument to one who has a genuine angelic encounter. Some may conclude that it didn't happen; but, they don't take into consideration the credibility of the one recording the account.
If they want to defend their argument from silence then they'll pretty much have to deny all of ancient history. It's sad when we see people doing just that.
what this video did not touch upon is the era of "cognitive dissonance' in which we now live. There was a time in the not so distant past that scholars openly refuted the historicity of scripture because there was no proof of Roman Conscript Pilot (mentioned in the Gospels), Jericho, the Hittites, Pharaoh Shishak's conquering of Judah, the cylinder of Cyrus the great, etc. Now that they, and more, have all been proven factual there should be a thunderous gallop to support scripture......insert cricket sounds here.....
Even today, with the plethora of knowledge at our fingertips, you still have Atheists asking questions or presenting "moral problems of God" today, still. And these have been philosophically addressed for 15 centuries or more. Stranger still, when evidence is offered, it becomes "how do you KNOW that?" However, when an Atheist is asked "How do YOU know that what you say is true?" they get butt-hurt and claim you are trolling. Its really a pleasure to behold.
@@WhatsTheTakeaway Or they say, "Yeah but that could apply to any other 'god', it doesn't prove YOUR god." Took so many beatings from Atheists...Love to obliterate worldviews and intelligently present the Gospel.
@LazyH-Online The main difference between Christianity and all the mythologies is the basis in actual historical events that we can verify with an accuracy above reasonable doubt. There is excellent verified evidence that a large number of people in the Bible really existed, a large number of the details given, which we can verify, have a historical accuracy that is staggering. For example, the accurate going price of a slave during the Middle Bronze Age, the accurate price of a slave during the Late Bronze Age, adjusted for inflation, and the only dynastic collapse in Egyptian history during the Late Bronze Age, the mighty 18th dynasty with the untimely death of Tuthmosis IV, which directly corroborates the events of the Exodus: the plundering of Egyptian wealth, the loss of a large labor force, the decimation of its northern military forces, the loss of the Pharaoh himself, details that wouldn't be accurate if the manuscripts were as late as some scholars claim, even the fairly recent autopsy of Tuthmosis IV corroborates brain deterioration consistent with drowning (he seems to have been rescued somehow and survived several weeks after the event and then promptly died). Amenemhat, who was Tuthmosis IV's son, died very young, his canopic jars and possible mummy were found in the Valley of Kings, KV43, which also offers direct corroboration for the first-born death plague. It is quite clear that the ancient Egyptians maintained records that made their pharaohs appear in the best possible light, as they were seen as divine in addition to being rulers, and would not have recorded any kind of defeat at the hands of a slave people and their God. "Nowhere in the written record of ancient Egypt is there any explicit mention of Hebrew or Israelite slaves, let alone a figure named Moses. There is no mention of the Nile waters turning into blood, or of any series of plagues matching those in the Bible, or of the defeat of any pharaoh on the scale suggested by the Bible’s narrative of the mass drowning of Egyptian forces at the sea. Furthermore, the Bible states that 600,000 men between the ages of twenty and sixty left Egypt; adding women, children, and the elderly, we arrive at a population in the vicinity of two million souls. There is no archaeological or other evidence of an ancient encampment that size anywhere in the Sinai desert. Nor is there any evidence of so great a subsequent influx into the land of Israel, at any time. "Let’s begin with the missing evidence of the Hebrews’ existence in Egyptian records. It is true enough that these records do not contain clear and unambiguous reference to 'Hebrews' or 'Israelites.' But that is hardly surprising. The Egyptians referred to all of their West-Semitic slaves simply as 'Asiatics,' with no distinction among groups-just as slave-holders in the New World never identified their black slaves by their specific provenance in Africa. "More generally, there is a limit to what we can expect from the written record of ancient Egypt. Ninety-nine percent of the papyri produced there during the period in question have been lost, and none whatsoever has survived from the eastern Nile delta, the region where the Bible claims the Hebrew slaves resided. Instead, we have to rely on monumental inscriptions, which, being mainly reports to the gods about royal achievements, are far from complete or reliable as historical records. They are more akin to modern-day résumés, and just as conspicuous for their failure to note setbacks of any kind. "But now let’s consider the absence of specifically archaeological evidence of the exodus. In fact, many major events reported in various ancient writings are archaeologically invisible. The migrations of Celts in Asia Minor, Slavs into Greece, Arameans across the Levant-all described in written sources-have left no archeological trace. And this, too, is hardly surprising: archaeology focuses upon habitation and building; migrants are by definition nomadic. "There is similar silence in the archaeological record with regard to many conquests whose historicity is generally accepted, and even of many large and significant battles, including those of relatively recent vintage. The Anglo-Saxon conquest of Britain in the 5th century, the Arab conquest of Palestine in the 7th century, even the Norman invasion of England in 1066: all have left scant if any archaeological remains. Is this because conquest is usually accompanied by destruction? Not really: the biblical books of Joshua and Judges, for instance, tell of a gradual infiltration into the land of Israel, with only a small handful of cities said to have been destroyed. And what is true of antiquity holds true for many periods in military history in which conquest has in no sense entailed automatic destruction." - Joshua Berman Professor of Bible at Bar-Ilan University and a research fellow at the Herzl Institute. Correlation Does Not Imply Causation: quite simply stated it is a questionable cause logical fallacy that an exceptional number of scholars, intellectuals, et al., like to throw around to give weight to pure speculation that the Bible is completely based on myths originating from other people groups for which there is complete lack of proof. Luke, who has been described as a historian of the first rank, unequivocally establishes the veracity of Scripture, giving minute details that we have verified. Even secular historians concur that Jesus did in fact exist, he was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified under Pontius Pilate. This is very well established. Archaeologists have also found significant evidence that corroborates the historicity of both old and new testaments over the last nearly 200 years; there are many, many papers written on this subject, I definitely suggest Dr. Steven Collins. All other historical texts, whether religious or not, are always innocent until proven guilty; the Bible is approached with completely unreasonable skepticism. The manuscripts were written by eyewitnesses, during the lifetime of other eyewitnesses who directly corroborated their writings, and described miraculous events that had thousands upon thousands of eyewitnesses. They were ridiculously early compared to ALL other historical documents. In addition, the enemies of the writers corroborate the documents in their own secular writings; if they were false accounts, there would have been scores of documents attesting to the falsehood, yet, there are NONE. Dr. Nelson Glueck, probably the greatest modern authority on Israeli archeology, has said: “No archeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference. Scores of archeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or in exact detail historical statements in the Bible. And, by the same token, proper evaluation of Biblical descriptions has often led to amazing discoveries.”
@LazyH-Online What sets the Bible apart are predictions of the future that we have been able to historically verify. Exactly what one would expect if an omniscient God were behind it. The Bible has many predictions: -In Genesis 15:5, 22:17, and 26:4, God asks Abraham if he could number the stars. To the ancients this was a joke, of course they had counted the stars! Much later, when telescopes were invented, there were indeed vast numbers of stars. www.astrometry.org/magnitude.php www.ianridpath.com/startales/almagest.htm www.ianridpath.com/startales/alsufi.htm www.ianridpath.com/startales/tycho.htm en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomy_in_medieval_Islam#1025.E2.80.931450 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_in_Medieval_Western_Europe#High_Middle_Ages_.28AD_1000.E2.80.931300.29 -In Job 26:7, it is stated "God hung the earth on nothing," that one turned out to be true as well. The earth floats in space, held in orbit to the sun, which in turn orbits in the Milky Way. Unlike all other ancient belief or religious systems which stated the earth rested on something, like a turtle, or a giant holding it up. solarviews.com/eng/solarsys.htm en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_System -In Psalms 8:8, the "paths of the seas" are mentioned. Juan Ponce de León first identified the Gulf Stream in 1513. Matthew Maury took God at his word and went looking for these "paths." His 1855 textbook Physical Geography of the Sea is still the seminal work on ocean currents. -In Memoriam, Matthew Fontaine Maury, LL.D. 1873. Proceedings of the Academic Board of the Virginia Military Institute, Lexington, Va., on the occasion of the Death of Commodore M.F. Maury, LL.D., Professor of Physics, in the Virginia Military Institute, pp.21-22. -Matthew Fontaine Maury, Physical Geography of the Sea, p.403. -In Ecclesiastes 1:6-7, "The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits." Jetstream and air currents. www.netweather.tv/charts-and-data/global-jetstream#2019/04/02/0600Z/jetstream/surface/level/overlay=jetstream/orthographic=-7.62,56.40,712 -Jeremiah 25:11-12, the Jews would be in Babylonian captivity for 70 years and afterward the Babylonians would be punished. This has been verified. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonian_captivity www.google.com/amp/s/www.history.com/.amp/topics/ancient-middle-east/babylonia www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN0L71EK20150203 -Isaiah 45:1, in this passage, the prophet said God would open the gates of Babylon for Cyrus and his attacking army. Despite Babylon's remarkable defenses, which included moats, and walls that were more than 70-feet thick and 300-feet high (with 250 watchtowers) Cyrus was able to enter the city and conquer it. Cyrus and his troops accomplished it by diverting the flow of the Euphrates River into a large lake basin. Cyrus then was able to march his army across the riverbed and into the city. www.livius.org/sources/content/herodotus/cyrus-takes-babylon/ www.cyropaedia.org/book-7/chapter-7-5-cyrus-takes-babylon-by-rerouting-the-euphrates-and-entering-by-night-while-the-babylonians-are-in-celebration-he-transitions-from-a-general-into-a-king-by-worrying-about-how-to-maintain/ -Isaiah 13:19, the prophecy of the permanent overthrow of Babylon. -Isaiah 14:23, Babylon reduced to swampland. When archaeologists excavated Babylon during the 1800s, they discovered that some parts of the city could not be dug up because they were under a water table that had risen over the years. archaeologynewsnetwork.blogspot.com/2010/03/water-damage-is-destroying-ancient.html?m=1#TVGAJLDiTyQ0BGyX.97 Isaiah 13:17-20 has also been fulfilled. The city is still in ruins today. -Nahum 1:10, the condition of the Ninevites at their defeat. According to the ancient historian Diodorus Siculus: "The Assyrian king gave much wine to his soldiers. Deserters told this to the enemy, who attacked that night." Siculus compiled his historical works about 600 years after the fall of Nineveh, and in doing so, confirmed the Biblical account. jstor.org/stable/4436159?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents There are hundreds more that were already fulfilled and many scores more to be fulfilled in the future.
I'm already pretty baffled as to why cuneiform became obsolete, but if writing supplies really were that expensive, unlike cuneiform which requires only a stylus and some clay, then I am even more baffled.
Is there any credibility to the idea that as history is being written, people neglect to mention common knowledge specifically because it's common knowledge? In other words: everyone of their time already knows about it, so they see no reason to bring it up.
If there is a single video I point an atheist to watch, it is this one. I think the only improvement would have been concentrating more on the outside sources that did mention Jesus- you just covered that briefly. But besides that, this video is one of the best works by a Christian apologist. I read Habermas and Craig- and I love them both, especially Habermas. But as I said, if I can get an atheist to watch just one video, it would be this one.
I actually have to talk to an atheist when he claimed that (And, here is the comment) "There is not a single mention in him in military records or dispatches back to Rome (surely anyone who could command huge gatherings of people in a potentially disruptive province should be of interest). He is not mentioned in the records of Herod’s court nor is he mentioned in the records of the Temple or by any Priests. Surely if he was believed by some to be a prophet and others to be a false prophet some mention of the ructions he was causing in Judean civic and religious society should have been recorded. Some people like to point to the supposed letters of Pontius Pilate as evidence of Jesus’ life but these were a work of fiction. " I replied to him with this video, but I think he just dismissed it.
@@misterauctor7353 Would the Roman military really keep records of a Galilean traveling preacher who made many important enemies and no powerful allies? Jesus even said to give to Caesar what is Caesars. During this time there were other Jewish revolts- before and after Jesus. I would argue that Jesus wasn't even a minor threat to the Romans. No need to keep an eye on him. And in the end, he was killed by the Romans. But at the desires of the Jews. This video answered about Pilate- we don't have Pilate's records. But given the hardship it took in writing things down, why would the Roman military write something about Jesus when there were bigger threats? Even if you believe in "liberation theology" it's tough to make a case from the words of Jesus as recorded in the Gospels. My friend, you may not convince atheists. But it has nothing to do with your arguments or your faith. Some people refused. Some people refused to believe Jesus to be Messiah when He was a traveling preaching doing all kinds of miracles that overturned the works of the devil. Hang in there and be strong and bold :)
@@shieldofpistis9557 Thoughts on the "He is not mentioned in the records of Herod’s court nor is he mentioned in the records of the Temple or by any Priests" claim? Or, "Some people like to point to the supposed letters of Pontius Pilate as evidence of Jesus’ life but these were a work of fiction. "" claim?
@@misterauctor7353 Your wording is really choppy. Tough to understand. I think you are trying to type too fast. There are plenty of written claims about Jesus in the 1st century. More so than there are for Tiberias within 30 years of his death. It's pretty open and shut that Jesus existed, He claimed to be Lord, there was an empty tomb, and many people claimed to see His resurrected body.
Ummm, nobody is saying that Herod or Alexander the Great were able to suspend the laws of physics. That's why your claims require a greater level of evidence. If I find a historical book that says "there was a king in 1600 BC and he had many apple trees in his kingdom and people served in his army and cooked meat over fire", that's not miraculous and can be accepted, assuming there isn't some greater impact that comes with acceptance. If there was, it would incur greater scrutiny. But all those things I mentioned are normal things, rather unremarkable, or at least, reasonable to believe. Now, if the claim was "there was a king in 1600 BC who could fly like a bird and shoot lightning from his fingertips and he was 14 feet tall and he lived for 700 years", yes, that story is most likely mythical and if you want me to accept it, you'll need more than just your one source.
Well despite the fact that literacy among common folks is very low in ancient times especially in a backwater province of judea Maybe someone actually wrote about it and recorded it on a papyrus but we don't have it today because most papyrus doesn't survive 2000 years and would have disintegrated during wars like the destruction of jerusalem in 70 AD or due to extreme climate..
All you need to do is prove that the resurrection happened and Christianity is true, then you can have faith in God’s word that the Bible is 100% true.
@@Nameless-pt6oj No, that's not correct. Even if you could prove that Jesus rose from the dead, that still doesn't prove that he's god or that Christianity is true. In the Bible, a lot of people rose from the dead. According to Matthew, on the day Jesus died, graves opened all over Jerusalem and the dead walked among their relatives. So according to Matthew, a lot of people have risen from the dead. Which means even if you could prove Jesus rose from the dead, it's not a big deal since other people can do it too. Which doesn't even matter because you CAN'T prove that Jesus (or anyone else) rose from the dead.
A correction: mentioning something does not imply believing in it. Some supposed excerpts of ancient works are only known from the critics who quoted them.
@@TheSpacePlaceYT, I'm not sure if I understood. As a reply to what I said, did you say that people who don't believe someone was resurrected because according to Christianity Jesus resurrected?
Beautiful work, once again. I have seen atheists argue that you can change a mathematical formula by adding 0. Honestly. They abandon sense rather than face a logical conclusion they hate.
Pliny the Younger is not the only source that mentions the eruption of Vesuvius. Other famous ancient writers such as Cassius Dio and Suetonius mention it as well
Idiot atheist he’s writing 70 or so years later which is about the same amount of time that John was writing his gospel after jesus’ crucifixion. If you can’t accept writing that happened 70 or more years after an event than you can’t accept John nor can you accept the majority of the Old Testament, which was, for the most part, written in the post exilic period.
+Jacob Vanderkloet. Cassius Dio only started composing his works from the 190's CE onwards, which is at least more than 110+ years after the fact, not 70 years. I think 'Idiot Atheist' was trying to apply the [typical anti-thesitic] atheists' standards upon you (probably incorrectly assuming you were one of them and using this as an objection to undermine IP). Just a misunderstanding of his side, I'm sure. As you said, Cassius Dio is still very much a valid source, and I will definitely not dispute that, even if it is some 110-150 years later. I'm curious, I haven't heard of Suetonius mentioning the eruption though, could you perhaps show me where?
+Brom Ponie Yeah for sure! Its in Suetonius' "Life Of Titus" in section 8. He says, "There were some dreadful disasters during his reign, such as the eruption of Mount Vesuvius in Campania, a fire at Rome which continued three days and as many nights, and a plague the like of which had hardly ever been known before. In these many great calamities he showed not merely the concern of an emperor, but even a father's surpassing love, now offering consolation in edicts, and now lending aid so far as his means allowed. He chose commissioners by lot from among the ex-consuls for the relief of Campania; and the property of those who lost their lives by Vesuvius and had no heirs left alive he applied to the rebuilding of the buried cities." If you'd like to go look for it yourself feel free to use this website which uses a public domain translation of Suetonius' work: penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Suetonius/12Caesars/Titus*.html
I still struggle to see how other countries didn’t write about the sun going dark. Also, if God loves everyone and wants all to be saved why wouldn’t he have these events written down to affirm the truth of the gospel? Especially if people’s eternal destination was at stake. The sun going dark and the volcano erupting are in two completely different ball parks. God could’ve done a lot more to make his existence known. I think the argument from silence is a strong one.
While not really an important point, it is worth mentioning that while Grant may not directly have used the words "emancipation proclamation", he did write somewhat responses to criticism that he had received about it.
We also have singular references to a mass resurrection of cooked fish, and empty suits of armor animating themselves to fight a battle . Are you going to believe those too? In Matthew 27 , the resurrection of zombie saints is not even corroborated by the other Gospel writers. A tyrant slaughtering Jews at a festival is cruel, but not extraordinary. Dead saints rising from the grave and frolicking around Jerusalem is a different matter.
No, I believe them if there is good evidence to, and I do not reject them from silence. And again, I go over reason why other Gospel authors would not mention the things Matthew does, since they had different audiences and limited space.
***** Well, you seem fond of Josephus, do you accept or reject the following account: "A supernatural apparition was seen, too amazing to be believed. What I am now to relate would, I imagine, be dismissed as imaginary, had this not been vouched for by eyewitnesses, then followed by subsequent disasters that deserved to be thus signalized. For before sunset chariots were seen in the air over the whole country, and armed battalions speeding through the clouds and encircling the cities.” As for Matthew, It seems as though any audience would find it noteworthy if a whole graveyard emptied out.
***** Not much. What Josephus does offer is credentials. We know who he is, we know his background. He describes some of his sources, and even expresses doubt. This makes it easier to check his claims; and strengthens him relative to unknown writers. Like the gospel writers. We don't know anything about them, how they got their info, where they came from, or what credentials they might have. We don't even know their real names. Yet you're willing to believe uncorroborated magical legends from unknown ancients. If so, you have even more reason to believe in Josephus' chariot battle on Cloud Nine.
1. "why would we apply different special standard to the new testament, that is not applied to other ancient works?" hmm, maybe because it claims to be the perfect word of god? This is the point, same standards don't apply to be bible. If it is the word passed down from a perfect being, why does it contain human error? Also, history isn't made from documents alone, archeology is a big part of it too. Moreover, there's such a thing as quality of evidence. Not all sources are of the same value, if archeologists can verify certain things mentioned in a source, it can be considered more reliable. You can't take a document of a roman empire and someone's scribbles, and say that the scribbles are just as, or more accurate.
Erikas Raginis Where does it claim to be the perfect word of God? I'm pretty sure humans wrote it who were only inspired by the Holy Spirit. You do realize we don't have archeological evidence for several events from history, like Caesar crossing the Rubicon, or Hannibal invading Italy, or the fire that burned Rome under Nero... Do you doubt these things from no archeology?
***** i just told you about the quality of evidence, I'm not a historian, so i don't know where exactly are these event recorded, but i assume it's in the roman records. And that's what I'm talking about when i say the quality of evidence. Roman records are good quality evidence. But the thing about those events, is that no agenda depends on their validity. I'm not saying that something's invalid just because an agenda depends on it, I'm saying that there's no hot public debates about the validity of these events for that reason. In other words, I don't know if Rome did burn. It probably did, but if someone were to present proof that it didn't, i would just accept it and not care that much, since history isn't my specialty, and the events in question wouldn't really change anything for me. And it says that god is perfect. So why not his means of communication. Especially if it contains rules that tells us how to live our lives. Imagine if civil laws had multiple interpretations.
Are they? How many roman records do we have left today? The fact remains we have next to nothing. We know these roman events happened from later sources like Tacitus or Suetonius, not records. So how do you know they are in good quality when most have been lost? Again, where does the Bible claim it is perfect?
I encourage this sort of apologetics, flawed though it is, you can see the gears turning. If he's not careful he'll start to be able to parse good evidence from bad, start to recognize poor arguments. All the tools are there, when you meet people like this get them to use these tools, they're half way to developing a healthy skepticism.
To be honest, if he left out the claims about resurrection and miracles, it could be an atheist making the same argument. Actually, I already knew this from an atheist blogger who discusses how history is being butchered on atheist groups online. I wish more atheist criticized these dumb arguments coming from the atheist side and which are so popular. Aron Ra is a serial offender in this aspect. Actually, most of the outspoken anti-theists are basically historically illiterate to be honest. Hitchens, Harris, Sagan, Dawkins...and the list goes on. Even Grayling who should know better believes so much stupid shit about ancient history. It is amazing how otherwise smart people can become victim of their own biases.
Everything said here can be applied to any of the other mythical writings. Why would the Egyptians waste so much time and resources on their divinities if they aren't real? The Greeks? The Sumerians? There's no account of them in other sources but they talk about things that happened. It's true, arguments from silence don't work, but putting some accurate facts with some inaccurate facts (plus contradictions from an account to another) serves in no way to prove veracity. If it were the case, how could any myth be dismissed...
No one said it proves they are real. The point is silence cannot be used to dismiss them, since that is a fallacy. We evaluate the evidence for their claims, like we do in Christianity: ruclips.net/video/-ErnJF_nwBk/видео.html
***** Ok, ok... I thought it was a stand alone vid you sent me, but I'll watch the rest of the series in the coming days (unfortunatley, I have a life, so I can't do it right away). Let's see the evidence, I'm curious!
***** Are you a Christian? Facepalm I'm interested in discussing evidence, not highschool insults. Unless you have something constructive, please refrain to comment on this post. Thanks
Over two thousand years ago, God said he would return his people to Israel. He did, exactly in the ways he said he would. Now you know that the God of Israel is your God.
Hans Smirnov Could you tell me exactly how he said he would? Are you refering to: "Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates" in Genesis 15:18? or "And I will set thy bounds from the Red sea even unto the sea of the Philistines, and from the desert unto the river: for I will deliver the inhabitants of the land into your hand; and thou shalt drive them out before thee." in Exodus 23:31? If so, this claim encompasses north east Egypt, Sinai, modern Israel, modern Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, western Iraq and northern Saudi Arabia.
Considering that ancient texts are so unreliable and limited, it seems quite ridiculous that an all-powerful God would rely on them to spread Her message to modern peoples.
@@thomasecker8897 I'm not ascribing a gender to god but simply making a point. I'm happy to use any pronoun to refer to a metaphysical deity. How about you? You ever use a feminine or neutral pronoun for the Christian god or do you only ever use the masculine pronoun?
God has no gender. If English had a gender neutral pronoun, we would use it. The reason people use the masculine pronoun is because He is shown to be a father
@@levymontesdeoca4663 Thanks for your comment. The gender-neutral pronoun in English is 'it'. How is God shown to be a father? (Father's have a gender, by the way - male.)
endofscene My friend, the Bible depicts God as a Heavenly Father. And yes you’re right, earthly fathers are male and “it” is a gender-neutral pronoun. The thing is that “it” is used for inanimate objects. I would never call you nor your pet an “it”
SS4Inferno Yeah, I have seen them and they all fail, like this one: inspiringphilosophy.wordpress.com/2016/06/10/the-messianic-manics-razor-is-not-so-sharp/ Why do they refute my videos when he constantly uses straw man arguments and ignores my point?
@@lostfan5054 Or maybe you wanna read your history properly. Several walls were being built from as early as the 7th century BC by ancient Chinese states;[2] selective stretches were later joined together by Qin Shi Huang (220-206 BC), the first emperor of China
It may be that since ancient schools didn't extensively use desks people grew up with the habit of writing without a table and simply didn't use them in adulthood.
Omfg. 4 mins in: You keep listing examples of things that are NOT EXTRAORDINARY!! The existence of Alexander the Great isn't a miracle. Yes, he did some exceptional stuff but he didn't defy the laws of physics.
@@Kairi091 lol your statement makes no sense. You literally said, "I dont believe there is a god." Therefore you are an atheist. And yes, you did assume your conclusion. By making the argument you did, you assumed atheism or naturalism. Denial is not just a river in Egypt.
Also, the existence of Jesus from a purely secular lense isn't a miracle either. Also, Alexander the Great and many emperors of the Roman Empire were purported to be gods and were claimed to have performed miracles.
I would not consider myself to be a Christian. I don't go the whole nine yards and haven't been baptised or attended a church since I was very young and not once in all this time have I even considered that Jesus, as an actual historical person, did not exist. I have heard it said though and my thoughts immediately followed what you've said here. I found, very quickly, that most of those who say this don't read historical texts and don't understand how history works. I absolutely agree that if you want to list reasons as to why you don't believe in something you have to apply it to everything within that field. It's like saying 'I don't believe in Santa, but the Easter bunny's real!' There is less historical evidence for Spartacus, Boudicca, Armenius and Vercingetorix than there is for the existence of an historical Jesus so should we write them all off as made up fakes and forgeries?
I don't need the silence of others to be able to state that the passage of Mt 27:52-53 is almost certainly a myth created to embellish a story. I can't stop you from believing the extraordinary claims of your holy book, but I think you're very credulous for doing so.
MHM EEKK HAHAHA!! That's pretty funny. Demonstrating such a colossal claim with nothing more than the unfettered say so of people that we cannot interrogate? You really don't seem to understand what the word "demonstrate" actually means, or what "historical fact" means.
I've watched all of IP's videos on the resurrection and they are, to say the least, unconvincing. The only evidence for the resurrection that you have is the say-so of whoever authored your holy texts. If you believe that you can prove (as a historical fact) a supernatural event, based on a God that is still not established, solely on the basis of some writings, then you have some incredibly low standards of evidence! By those same standards you could "prove" just about anything!
MHM EEKK *Indeed, if IP's countless mountains of evidence are "unconvincing"* Yes, IP's "evidence" is unconvincing, because I do not accept that any of it is actually as reliable as he believes it is.. Personal testimony is notoriously unreliable, and simply isn't good enough for me to accept the explanation that IP is hawking. *Indeed, you probably do not trust 2+2=4.* You seem to think that because I hold to certain standards of evidence, that I will reject all knowledge claims. You don't seem to understand that the more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary the evidence required to support it. We have no reason to believe that resurrections are even possible, let alone that one could have happened two millennia ago. *You will be given an opportunity to rebut IP's evidence, go ahead.* You seem to think that I have to prove what he's said is wrong. You're simply mistaken. The burden of proof lies with the one making the claim! I just want you to answer one question for me, and in all seriousness here, why do you think that written testimony is sufficient to establish that a resurrection took place almost 2000 years ago?
See Licona and Habermas 10 facts argument for the resurrection. The resurrection is clearly the most probable answer that accounts for the known facts and therefore a person who holds the affirmative position is warranted.
Dion Sanchez, *See Licona and Habermas 10 facts argument for the resurrection* All of the evidence for the "resurrection" of Jesus comes down to exactly the same thing. The say-so of New Testament authors! *The resurrection is clearly the most probable answer that accounts for the known facts* And I don't know how you determined that! Until somebody can demonstrate that coming back from the dead, after something like 36 hours, is even possible, your "Jesus actually came back from the dead" explanation is hypothetical at best. Even if you can show that coming back from the dead after 36 hours is possible, how do you know it could have happened in the first century? The position is not yet deserving of acceptance, and the idea that it was because of God is nothing more than an assertion with no credible evidence whatsoever. We don't have a method to investigate anything beyond nature. You seem to believe that all possible natural explanations are worse than your preferred "God did it" explanation. We simply don't know that God exists, and we certainly don't know that God has the power to return anybody to life after they've been dead for a couple of days. I don't see why you think this position is warranted.
Brilliant video! I recently had an atheist throw this argument my way myself. He completely denied it when I pointed out its circular reasoning and he just continued to push it. They can definitely be stubborn....
They usually do it when they start loosing argument.
It's called Ad Infinitum. Persistently repeating the reasoning in hopes for someone to believe it
@@freshbakedclips4659 happened to me today, atheist ignored all of my points and just contined to say I was using God of the gaps fallacy when I went into that in good detail.
I don't even think he read my comment
... so can we
He lies constantly.
I asked a skeptic about this using Socrates as an example, and he just said that Socrates "feels more real"
Multiple sources attest to the existence of Socrates though
@@AntiTheBird Same with Jesus. Even more so
@@soloknight7197 Socrates' sources are at least contemporary though, every source about Jesus is written at least 30 years after his death by people who almost certainly weren't eyewitnesses, even so I'm still skeptical of Socrates' existence, really glad whether or not I receive eternal punishment doesn't hinge on my belief in him so I can just enjoy his(or Plato's) teachings for what they were.
@@AntiTheBird 30 years was contemporary when Jesus was only here for 30 years. It's like saying that Eddie Murphy can't tell about the Mulan movie because it's been 30 years since it came out. Also, it's hard to fake when everyone you're quoting is alive and reachable. Matthew and John were eye witnesses and lived through the temple destruction that brought Josephus to fame
@@AntiTheBird 30 years is still within living memory. So, there probably were eyewitnesses.
The title should have been "silencing arguments from silence" lol
Lol
"And one kick up the backside for The Silence!" -The Eleventh Doctor.
No refuting
More like how to lie about arguments from silence and ignore them by apologetic lying. Arguments from silence are not fallacies. He is just another christian liar.
"Historians routinely rely on Arguments from Silence: when something isn't said or attested, we conclude it didn't happen. Such reasoning is often challenged with the quip “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” But the truth is, absence of evidence is evidence of absence-but only when that evidence is expected."
"...our concern is with when an Argument from Silence is valid and sound-and when it is not. The logical conditions have already been correctly stated:
To be valid, the argument from silence must fulfill two conditions: the writer whose silence is invoked in proof of the non-reality of an alleged fact, would certainly have known about it had it been a fact; [and] knowing it, he would under the circumstances certainly have made mention of it. When these two conditions are fulfilled, the argument from silence proves its point with moral certainty." Proving History, pg 117
@@spiritsplicesuch ignorance lol
Good point regarding Mount Vesuvius! I had no idea we had so few textual mentions of that! Good video, IP; keep it up!
*@Chris Blair* We are extremely lucky because there are very few remains of ancient dramatical historical events. If we didn't have such physical evidence, textual evidence would be all we have and the point here is that there is indeed scant textual evidence despite the magnitude of the event.
Christians burned many historical documents that’s why many things are missing but Mt Vesuvius is well documented
@@GreenLightMe some believe that as a theory, but it shouldn’t be stated as fact.
It does seem strange since Christians worked so hard to keep the ancient writings. We have many of the ancient philosophers because the monks protected and copied them.
This was an excellent video. Those who deny the historicy of Jesus often tend to commit the logical fallacy of Argument from Silence.
it's a terrible video and it is full of lies and misrepresentations.
He claims argument from silence is fallacious, it's not. it has certain criteria to be valid.
"To be valid, the argument from silence must fulfill two conditions: the writer whose silence is invoked in proof of the non-reality of an alleged fact, would certainly have known about it had it been a fact; [and] knowing it, he would under the circumstances certainly have made mention of it. When these two conditions are fulfilled, the argument from silence proves its point with moral certainty." . Garraghan, Guide to Historical Method, §149a. See also Shafer, Guide to Historical Method, p. 77; Gottschalk, Understanding History, pp. 45-46; and Neville Morley, Writing Ancient History (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1999), pp. 67-68.
He doesn't know this or is lying about it. It is also a lie to say that a event not corroborated by others is assumed to be false. No historian does this. many things in history only have one source. He also says an argument from silence is a fallacy, then turns around says it it's only a fallacy if it rejects a single point attribution. So he changed his story and then misrepresented what an argument from silence actually is.
The problem with the gospels is that it isn't a valid source for anything historical. we know all the gospels are redactions of mark, which is fan fiction about paul's letters and a rewrite of things in josphus and other pagan writings. Paul who is the closest writer to the time in question, and who spoke at length with the apostles, is completely unaware of anything claimed in the gospels. There is no ministry, no miracles, no disciples, no trial, no pontius pilate, nothing. he says jesus was killed by demons in outer space and we only know about it from secret codes in scripture that have been revealed to him and others.
He claims if we applied the same standard of rejecting absurd claims, we would have to throw out most of history. This is a lie. We do reject absurd claims in all historical documents. But that isn't the only reason why the new testament is not credible. it gets basic things wrong like geography, dates, order of succession, the accounts contradict each other on key details no one would get wrong had they actually been there.
Had there been a 3 hour darkening of the sun, a great earthquake, or the dead walking the streets someone else absolutely would have noticed it and mentioned it. No one does because it never happened. Same as the massacre of innocents by herod isn't mentioned because it didn't happen.
His example of Josephus and the cancelling of passover doesn't help his case. it is possible josephus did make the story up. Why assume he didn't? He gives no reason.
His whole video is cherry picking "but whatabout" examples in a completely different reference class of writings. Jesus appears as a character in a mythical context. Like others who do so, they always turn out to not be turn. The human jesus is a later retcon by the church. None of the first christians for the first century of the movement thought jesus was a real person who walked around and did stuff. Ever the first gospel winks at the reader to let them know the whole story is just an allegory.
Apart from the solid argumentation, this brother in Christ destroys the skeptic arguments, simply, with class.
Christian Slayer You just made a claim and didn’t even back it up 🤦🏾♂️
@@Ommarrie 😂😂😂
@@Ommarrie it's an objective claim
he lies a lot, uses long debunked sources, and fallacious arguments. Typical of apologists.
@@spiritsplice point where he does, wait, you will never do, cope harder
"If an ancient author had recorded the resurrection truly did happen, that would have made him a Christian convert
then the skeptics would simply dismiss them as such and as unreliable."
-IP
Well, that is something that truly makes sense. 🙂
no other sources mention this comment except this one
so this comment doesnt exist
done
Non sequitur. The israelites supposedly saw god do miracles and still chose to bow to a statue (according to the story).
You are an intelligent brother.I'm a new subscriber.God bless you for your knowledge
This channel is criminally underrated
How didn't I find out about this channel until now?
Good to have you join the best.
YoutTube algorithms. I get more atheist themed videos in my feed that Christian, and its weird.
me too mate
@@WhatsTheTakeaway A real shame. It's hard to find real, credible videos with deep knowledge like this
That no win situation part was epic. Great video man and God bless.
If you are impresed by this. You are a sad case.
@@sturlaorarson4411 And why is that?
@@thomasecker8897 Because it's not very impressive.
@@endofscene And why is that??
@@endofscene The video is pretty good.
I came to this realization when contemplating this sort of answer/excuse from people.
I realized, if the source affirmed the miraculous life of Jesus then that document would BE Christian sources. So they are asking for married bachelor's. (Conceptually)
Just a display of their choice/decision, proclaimed as a (false) argument
In other words they ignorantly and/or unknowingly proclaim their cognitive dissonance.
Well put.
That doesn't follow at all.
@spiritsplice so you think a non-christian would write about the miracles of Jesus as truth? Or would they just say that there are people who claim He did miracles, which I think they did (as far as my little knowledge goes). And even those who would've mentioned christians talking about miracles, noones preserving it unless it's an important historical document like of Josephus (who likely did mention Christ as the so-called messiah by his followers) or of Tacitus
Excellent video! Love it!
Although I never identified it as the "argument from silence", I have addressed this as their faulty logic of asserting that "the absence of evidence equals the evidence of absence". In other words, if they don't see corroborating evidence for Biblical claims, then they automatically resort to declaring it "false". They famously did this with the Bible's account of the Hittites. Up until the early 1900's, there had been no corroborating evidence, outside the Bible, to the existence of the Hittites. The response from the anti-theists was to mock the claim as a Bible myth. Of course, the Hittite capital WAS eventually discovered, proving the mockers wrong.
They then apologized as they had learned their lesson and promised never to automatically believe the Bible wrong again. (okay, I made up the last part, they continue doing this today, LOL!)
Another aspect of this faulty logic is to dismiss Biblical accounts because "it's in the Bible and therefore biased".
The faulty foundation of this broken logic is the false assumption that the Bible writers were a close-knit group of fellows who wrote literary pieces intended to be contributions to the compilation of works known as the Bible. In reality, the individual "books" of the Bible each stand on their own as pieces of literature that attest to various aspects of God's dealings with mankind. Had they not been compiled together in a single text and called "the Bible", then they would have been considered various historical accounts that corroborate one another's authenticity. But somehow anti-theists are either unwilling or unable to comprehend their biased blunder.
Anyway, thanks for concisely articulating the illogical bias of anti-theists!
Looking at some comments here it seems that skeptics give an argument get refuted then after that they change it and accuse you of strawman LOL
+Pirabee That's a little harsher than I would put it, but to some extent, yes-no amount of logic or reasoning can convince many of today's skeptics. They need to ask themselves, if there WAS irrefutable proof, would they believe then? Or would they still ignore Him because they didn't want to follow Him? Oftentimes it's more of a lack of desire than a lack of proof, no matter what they may say :(
In my opinion, you have a valid point but once you need to desire for something to make sense before it makes sense just sounds like changing a perception of evidence to suit a desired outcome. I wouldn't follow him you are correct. But this is not because I do not wish there to be a God... this is simply because I would not follow this God if I understand his deeds correctly. I might not. But I mean drowning a world instead of talking to them sounds a little out of context I would hope. And the evidence stacking up that the worldwide flood never happened (which is such a fundamental part of the Bible)... I hear Christians talking about people building themselves and their beliefs from a strong foundation of rock not sand, forgive the paraphrase... can't remember the verse off the top of my head... but if the Bible itself builds itself from several weak foundations and several weak levels, then it is all too easy for an all-powerful God to fix that right? He exists outside of space and time so theoretically he could time travel and if he is all-powerful that can't be too much of a stretch.
But it still a lack of proof for me, I'm just not sure I would follow him if I believed in him, also not to say I would worship Satan, the idea of black and white, worshiping God or worshipping Satan is a fundamentally flawed idea so please deal with the grays in between if you go there?
Thanks.
Noah preached repentance to the world for 3 years before the flood. They had been warned. Ignore God you risk damnation.
hellavadeal Yes... because we listen to ALL the people who say God said this or that or God speaks to them... especially the old nutjob building a boat that shouldn't float for any reason as he's stuffing EVERY animal IN THE WORLD into it... yea... we listen to them right?
+hellavadeal Noah story is fucking bullshit.
Another great video IP, I appreciate the work you're doing to edify the body of Christ. Helping believers to think and sceptics to believe (trust in the historical reliability of Christian Theism). When one takes the time to think these things through, apply the same standards to the NT documents with other ancient works, it is quite apparent (if one is fair) that these types of biases are on the cynical end of historical enquiry and shouldn't have so much authority and appeal. The argument from silence, seriously harms our ability to make sense of ancient history and attacks the intelligence and questions the ability of all ancient historians to chronicle history. To put it simply, the argument from silence makes history impossible and arrogantly imposes modern biases and techniques on the ancients who did history differently to fit their contexts. Those contexts should be respected and take precedent over our own when studying these ancient documents. We should not forget that. Thanks again IP.
This "logic-and-reason" argument was just refuted with logic and reason. Awesome video.
The logic and reason crowd wreaks of pig diarrhea
He told about a dozen lies in this video.
@M.E-Martinez ?
Extremely usable against skeptics thanks IP!!!
Try using it against skeptics and lmk how it goes.
It's a weak claim and a bad video.
@@AnarchoPunkChad Prove what? Present a specific claim and I'll address it.
@@AnarchoPunkChad What "grade"? Are you assuming I'm in school? I have a master's degree, so it's been a while since I was in any grade.
Anyway, here's why this video falls short.
The central claim of this video is that "Arguments from silence are flawed since atheists often accept other claims with only one source, so they should therefore accept the Bible too" or something like that.
Here's why that's dumb:
Let's say that someone tells you they visited Amarillo, TX and they saw a brown dog eating a discarded hamburger in 1997. Do you believe them? Have you been to Amarillo? Did you see the dog yourself? Are there contemporary news accounts from 1997 that prove this dog did this thing in this place? Do you just accept the claim, based off one source? Shouldn't you wait until there's conclusive proof of the event before accepting the guy's claim?
No, of course not. Because this is a rather mundane claim. Nothing extraordinary or supernatural.
Now, if a guy says that he saw a brown dog eating a Griffon corpse and flying with pegasus wings in Amarillo, TX in the year 1890 after traveling back using his time machine, then you'd probably not just take his word for it. Those are exceptional claims and they require much more evidence than a mundane claim.
Let's use the example the presenter in the video used. He told of a story in Josephus' works about Herod killing people in the temple. This story doesn't appear in other historians works, nor is it in the gospels. Does that mean Josephus made it up? Not necessarily, but maybe, I guess. The idea of a king ordering the deaths of political opponents isn't an exceptional claim and it happened all the time (still happens in some parts of the world). So I'm fine with accepting Josephus' account of this event based on how likely it was, using my understanding of the natural world.
The gospel writers do something extraordinary. They say a guy was born of a virgin, could violate the laws of physics and he rose from the dead after 3 days of being dead. This is not mundane. This is exceptional. This is like the guy saying he time traveled to Amarillo in 1890 and saw a dog flying and chewing on a unicorn. Such a crazy claim needs more than just one source.
That's why this is a weak argument.
@@AnarchoPunkChad How many historical sources would you need to read before I could convince you that George Washington could shoot lasers from his eyes and fly like a mythical dragon?
@@AnarchoPunkChad No, it's an analogy.
Stay with me here
There are quite a few sources that talk about magical sirens who sing magical songs that entrance sailors into a deep sleep. You can find a source describing the siren, and another source corroborating the claim, describing a similar story.
Does this alone convince you that magical sirens exist?
That's my analogy here.
Yes, the gospels tell a story of Jesus (written decades later by people who don't even claim to be eyewitneses). And other people mention him too (like Paul, for example). These claims alone are not enough for a reasonable person to conclude that a God-Man existed and defied the laws of physics and rose from the dead.
I can just share this video to all the atheists and “skeptics” i meet (in life ) and in youtube, and save myself from typing 25words per minute.
"Give me one primary contemporary source for the existance of Jesus! I'll wait."
"Ok, while I am doing that impossible task, why don't you find me one primary contemporary source for Socrates, Julius Cesar or Alexander the Great. I'll wait."
Golvic Do you believe that Mohammed was the last messenger of God? If not, why? If yes then why aren’t you a follower of Mohammed? I will wait🤷🏽♂️
@@jeffreyagu2221 So you basically can't answer his question I see then. So you switch gears.
@@JulioCaesarTM what if they believe in both Muhammad and Jesus?
Julio CaesarTM that's exactly what golvic is doing
There are three primary contemporary sources for Socrates (Aristophanes, Xenophon, Plato). There are even more contemporary sources for Alexander the Great (e.g. the speeches of Isocrates and Demosthenes, the poetry of Theocritus, the works of Theophrastus, etc.). As for Caesar, we have... his own writings!
Why the heck is that "Logic" guy yelling so much? Maybe he needs a nap 😂
UnratedAwesomeness He is an Antifa mom basement atheist. Full commie.
@@anahata3478 not an argument
Christian Psychonaut777 idk about extreme left, personally I don’t think Bernie is but he is definetly left, far left. Plus he is a weak man.
Christian Psychonaut777 I would agree that Christian Right wingers are illogical and that person statement is pretty stupid and ridiculous, but you’d probably also take the stance that Christianity is illogical, which I would disagree with
very well done videos. I enjoy this channel. Thanks for uploading these refutations of the common challenges to the truth of Christianity.
6:10. Good point. Another thing that could be added to the list is the perishability of most writing materials. If something was written on anything other than a noble metal, it was susceptible to decay. There were probably a lot of things written that have since decayed beyond the point of being recognized as a writing medium.
An honest, intelligent and well put together presentation; well done .
I love this part 12:05. Outstanding video IP, keep it up! :)
Thanks! Me too!
I want to see all of those ~12:18 !! ^_^
I just got into an argument about the absence of King Herod and the slaying of the innocents. Sure, there's no other record of it. But there are records about hoy psychotic King Herod was. He didn't think twice about killing his own children and his own mother for power gains and to cover up his many adulterous affairs and his palaces and buildings give the mere appearance of beautiful buildings, but upon further investigation they were forts. Also, he was reported as having maniacal bouts of laughter and schizophrenia. Lastly, he built Herod's Temple as an act to appease the people.This is CLEARLY someone who was paranoid about his power.
@@johnlewisbrooks Ah yeah.
A gem video from 7 years ago!
Happy Easter InspiringPhilosophy!
I just get so excited when you upload a video!!
Truly great work, brother. Maybe slightly decrease the audio? It can be a bit difficult to listen closely, even though you put up the text to read (which is really nice).
God bless
Do you mean the music?
Levi Paladin Ah, yes. Good catch. I did mean the music.
I listened to the whole playlist, and now I'm 300% sure of Yeshua rose. Bravo, Jones! 👏
I was always curious why there aren't more writings about Jesus since he was such an important figure. This actually makes sense. Jesus had many powerful opponents that didn't assist at his miracles and they ofcourse wouldn't have believed the pleb that has seen the miracles.
You made the argument very well.
Well, this was a mic drop. Well done.
really?
I must have missed that part.
@@Kairi091 bias is one hell of a drug
That is powerful! Amen.
+InspiringPhilosphy
I understood this because the news outlets/media won't cover every story possible. Sometimes the right will cover certain stories, sometimes the left will cover certain stories. That doesn't mean that the events being broadcasted by the news didn't happen just because it wasn't in both media outlets. It just means that the right/left media doesn't care too much about the story in question. Likewise, this would be the Gospel, the good news.
This is very well-said.
I’ve brought this up in arguments online, since it is a valid argument and criticism of their argumentation.
Actually it isn't.
@@spiritsplice, no, it is. This fallacy is what’s most often used when discussing whether the Exodus happened or not as they say that the lack of sources from the Egyptians “proves” that it didn’t happen.
The problem - of course - is that it assumes the Egyptians would record such a humiliating thing within their sources to begin with. The Egyptians never recorded bad things; not without heavily altering them to make Pharaoh look good and/or twist it to say they actually “won” when - in truth - they did not. The Battle of Kadesh is a perfect example of this; from the Egyptian sources, you’d gather they won a fantastic victory when - in reality - Pharaoh barely survived a major ambush by the Hittites.
Brilliant. Gotta support your channel.
A brief, but well reasoned reply to the critics.
this is great ! thanks for this .. it helped me on other issues . I just had someone deny my ancestral documentation basically because they said no one in modern times has documented it as true . because politically no one would do that because they were the guilty parties.. so there is always 40 ways out of believing the truth if someone wants to deny it.. because the truth only offends the guilty ..
the fact that my documentation was lucky in that in 1815 a reputable man who had no dog in the fight but was only recording what he heard and what was said and what he had experienced . and yet the truth gets totally wasted and swallowed up by a mocker because the lawless make up their own laws as they go .
I was nodding my head the whole video. Groovy baby.
During the whole video. Sorry.
Came to this video after seeing Alex O’Connor vs 25 Christians, lovely video thank you for the explanation.
Citing Bart Ehrman. Nice touch ;-)
wooow brilliant child of god we need more videos like this and thanks for your efforts (believer from Tunisia)
Oooh That intro was cool!!
This is very educational. I'm thankful for the technology that allows me to read this on my phone. And not go over to a building on the University of Texas. GOD HAS really used technology to spread the truth of his word and this channel is a great example of that blessing. Be blessed Michael.
Thank you for this! You have no idea how spiritually useful this information is!!! May Yahweh bless you in all that you do!
You deserve all the likes and subscribers in the world! your work for Jesus is incredible and you have helped me do my paper for college! thank you sir and God bless you!!! You rock dude and I hope and pray that your reward in heaven will be great! Thank you for your admirable service for the kingdom of heaven! you inspire me. Brother in Christ you are, and I am proud to declare it!!!!
Sounds like we need a second coming of Jesus now in modern times where we have a more global communication network and proper ways of documentation so that he can confirm his ties to divinity.
Atheist would claim videos or pictures taken (if Jesus came in our modern day) are "fake" or along those lines
The Talmud calls Jesus a sorcerer. Doesn't this at the very least confirm that he did some things, which can't be explained that easily?
It's funny that they have to put logic on their shirt, since its not in their head. Reminds me of G.K. Chesterton talking about the BIG BOLD headlines in his day written to convey they were saying something radical and alarming, then he showed they were just as timid and abased as any other publication. It's nice to be modest and humble people can make their own evaluations of your points and processes. Well, then again most college students today are just fine with the pious proofless propoundments of their pitiable professors. Doesn't take anything more than a catchy one liner to turn some peoples station in life. Being an atheist is easy, one could slip into it like a slipper. Being an devout follower of an eternal spiritual being that asks you to follow with the whole of your heart, mind, and soul on the other hand. That's is quite a bit more engaging, wouldn't you say?
I'm scared of commitment. Not just religious commitment, but commitment in general and committing to God is like falling in love. It's terrifying because from a selfish point of view, you might get hurt by the relationship and from a selfless point of view, you might fail your lover or your God. It's not nice to be hurt by people you hate but I suspect that being hurt by people you love is infinitely more painful.
I've looked into the evidence of the Resurrection. The surviving proof is staggering, especially when you consider the limitations of the time when it was recorded. The fact that so much proof survived at all is a miracle in itself because there are so many events in ancient history that don't have half of the evidence that the Resurrection has, yet people accept that they happened without question. I have no logical reason to dismiss the Resurrection and eternal life sounds both scary and amazing (scary because eventually you might get bored of eternity and amazing because you never have to fear death again). However, I still fear devoting myself to religion despite the evidence. I think that's the case with most atheists and agnostics, at least among those who have done their research. They're terrified of committing and either falling short of the mark or being hurt by whomever they've devoted themselves to.
@@tomnorton4277 I...did not expect that. Do you have Instagram or something? There is so much I can explain you that should surely make you rethink about what commitment to God really is.
@@Navii-05 I don't do instagram. I have Twitter and Facebook but although I check those sites quite frequently, I don't comment very often or post very much. Most of the interactions I have on the internet are either through emails or in RUclips comment sections.
@@tomnorton4277 Is it fine if we discuss it here then?
@@Navii-05 I guess so. I kind of feel like how C.S. Lewis and Jordan Peterson described their feelings about converting to Christianity. Lewis was very reluctant to do so but later became very devout and Peterson technically isn't a Christian because he finds the idea "too terrifying" but he seems to be on his way to becoming one.
Great, great work!
Now granted, as a few other commenters have pointed out, Alexander the Great's generals did write about him within his lifetime. As a subset of those commenters conveniently neglected to mention, however, the works of Ptolemy, Nearchus, and Aristobolus on Alexander are lost!
Obviously, InspiringPhilosophy is talking about works we still have today. Lost works are not what we have, today, as available sources.
I'm glad you used the clip from AntiCitizenX's post, as that video threw me for a loop when I first saw it. Great content btw
Wow this is such good content! Imagine what these videos could be with your incredible content and professional editing. :D
Very good insight here. It also exposes their ignorance as well. I can apply the same argument to one who has a genuine angelic encounter. Some may conclude that it didn't happen; but, they don't take into consideration the credibility of the one recording the account.
Man this kid is on fire!!! (Great Video)
who are you calling a kid?
Great video brother.
There was an author I saw a while ago who bites all these bullets, and does deny basically all of ancient history.
If they want to defend their argument from silence then they'll pretty much have to deny all of ancient history. It's sad when we see people doing just that.
Thanks for these!
what this video did not touch upon is the era of "cognitive dissonance' in which we now live. There was a time in the not so distant past that scholars openly refuted the historicity of scripture because there was no proof of Roman Conscript Pilot (mentioned in the Gospels), Jericho, the Hittites, Pharaoh Shishak's conquering of Judah, the cylinder of Cyrus the great, etc. Now that they, and more, have all been proven factual there should be a thunderous gallop to support scripture......insert cricket sounds here.....
Even today, with the plethora of knowledge at our fingertips, you still have Atheists asking questions or presenting "moral problems of God" today, still. And these have been philosophically addressed for 15 centuries or more.
Stranger still, when evidence is offered, it becomes "how do you KNOW that?" However, when an Atheist is asked "How do YOU know that what you say is true?" they get butt-hurt and claim you are trolling. Its really a pleasure to behold.
@@WhatsTheTakeaway Or they say, "Yeah but that could apply to any other 'god', it doesn't prove YOUR god." Took so many beatings from Atheists...Love to obliterate worldviews and intelligently present the Gospel.
@LazyH-Online Oh please, what evidence must be given to you to PROVE you divine claims of the Bible?!
@LazyH-Online The main difference between Christianity and all the mythologies is the basis in actual historical events that we can verify with an accuracy above reasonable doubt. There is excellent verified evidence that a large number of people in the Bible really existed, a large number of the details given, which we can verify, have a historical accuracy that is staggering. For example, the
accurate going price of a slave during the Middle Bronze Age, the accurate price of a slave during the Late Bronze Age, adjusted for inflation, and the only dynastic collapse in Egyptian history during the Late Bronze Age, the mighty 18th dynasty with the untimely death of Tuthmosis IV, which directly corroborates the events of the Exodus: the plundering of Egyptian
wealth, the loss of a large labor force, the decimation of its northern military forces, the loss of the Pharaoh himself, details that wouldn't be accurate if the manuscripts were as late as some scholars claim, even the fairly recent autopsy of Tuthmosis IV corroborates brain deterioration consistent with drowning (he seems to have been rescued somehow and survived several
weeks after the event and then promptly died). Amenemhat, who was Tuthmosis IV's son, died very young, his canopic jars and possible mummy were found in the Valley of Kings, KV43, which also offers direct corroboration for the first-born death plague. It is quite clear that the ancient Egyptians maintained records that made their pharaohs appear in the best possible
light, as they were seen as divine in addition to being rulers, and would not have recorded any kind of defeat at the hands of a slave people and their God.
"Nowhere in the written record of ancient Egypt is there any explicit mention of Hebrew or Israelite slaves, let alone a figure named Moses. There is no mention of the Nile waters turning into blood, or of any series of plagues matching those in the Bible, or of the defeat of any pharaoh on the scale suggested by the Bible’s narrative of the mass drowning of Egyptian forces at the sea. Furthermore, the Bible states that 600,000 men between the ages of twenty
and sixty left Egypt; adding women, children, and the elderly, we arrive at a population in the vicinity of two million souls. There is no archaeological or other evidence of an ancient encampment that size anywhere in the Sinai desert. Nor is there any evidence of so great a subsequent influx into the land of Israel, at any time.
"Let’s begin with the missing evidence of the Hebrews’ existence in Egyptian records. It is true enough that these records do not contain clear and unambiguous reference to 'Hebrews' or 'Israelites.' But that is hardly surprising. The Egyptians referred to all of their West-Semitic slaves simply as 'Asiatics,' with no distinction among groups-just as slave-holders in the New World never identified their black slaves by their specific provenance in Africa.
"More generally, there is a limit to what we can expect from the written record of ancient Egypt. Ninety-nine percent of the papyri produced there during the period in question have been lost, and none whatsoever has survived from the eastern Nile delta, the region where the Bible claims the Hebrew slaves resided. Instead, we have to rely on monumental inscriptions, which,
being mainly reports to the gods about royal achievements, are far from complete or reliable as historical records. They are more akin to modern-day résumés, and just as conspicuous for their failure to note setbacks of any kind.
"But now let’s consider the absence of specifically archaeological evidence of the exodus. In fact, many major events reported in various ancient writings are archaeologically invisible. The migrations of Celts in Asia Minor, Slavs into Greece, Arameans across the Levant-all described in written sources-have left no archeological trace. And this, too, is hardly surprising: archaeology focuses upon habitation and building; migrants are by definition nomadic.
"There is similar silence in the archaeological record with regard to many conquests whose historicity is generally accepted, and even of many large and significant battles, including those
of relatively recent vintage. The Anglo-Saxon conquest of Britain in the 5th century, the Arab conquest of Palestine in the 7th century, even the Norman invasion of England in 1066: all have left scant if any archaeological remains. Is this because conquest is usually accompanied by destruction? Not really: the biblical books of Joshua and Judges, for instance, tell of a gradual infiltration into the land of Israel, with only a small handful of cities said to have been destroyed. And what is true of antiquity holds true for many periods in military history in which conquest has
in no sense entailed automatic destruction." - Joshua Berman Professor of Bible at Bar-Ilan University and a research fellow at the Herzl Institute.
Correlation Does Not Imply Causation: quite simply stated it is a questionable cause logical fallacy that an exceptional number of scholars, intellectuals, et al., like to throw around to give weight to pure speculation that the Bible is completely based on myths originating from other people groups for which there is complete lack of proof.
Luke, who has been described as a historian of the first rank, unequivocally establishes the veracity of Scripture, giving minute details that we have verified. Even secular historians concur that Jesus did in fact exist, he was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified under Pontius Pilate. This is very well established. Archaeologists have also found significant evidence that corroborates the historicity of both old and new testaments over the last nearly 200 years; there are many, many papers written on this subject, I definitely suggest Dr. Steven Collins. All other historical texts, whether religious or not, are always innocent until proven guilty; the Bible is
approached with completely unreasonable skepticism. The manuscripts were written by eyewitnesses, during the lifetime of other eyewitnesses who directly corroborated their writings, and described miraculous events that had thousands upon thousands of eyewitnesses. They were ridiculously early compared to ALL other historical documents. In addition, the enemies of the writers corroborate the documents in their own secular writings; if they were false accounts, there would have been scores of documents attesting to the falsehood, yet, there are NONE.
Dr. Nelson Glueck, probably the greatest modern authority on Israeli archeology, has said:
“No archeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference. Scores of archeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or in exact detail historical statements in the Bible. And, by the same token, proper evaluation of Biblical descriptions has often led to amazing discoveries.”
@LazyH-Online What sets the Bible apart are predictions of the future that we have been able to historically verify. Exactly what one would expect if an omniscient God were behind it.
The Bible has many predictions:
-In Genesis 15:5, 22:17, and 26:4, God asks Abraham if he could number the stars. To the ancients this was a joke, of course they had counted the stars! Much later, when telescopes were invented, there were indeed vast numbers of stars.
www.astrometry.org/magnitude.php
www.ianridpath.com/startales/almagest.htm
www.ianridpath.com/startales/alsufi.htm
www.ianridpath.com/startales/tycho.htm
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomy_in_medieval_Islam#1025.E2.80.931450
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_in_Medieval_Western_Europe#High_Middle_Ages_.28AD_1000.E2.80.931300.29
-In Job 26:7, it is stated "God hung the earth on nothing," that one turned out to be true as well.
The earth floats in space, held in orbit to the sun, which in turn orbits in the Milky Way. Unlike all other ancient belief or religious systems which stated the earth rested on something, like a turtle, or a giant holding it up.
solarviews.com/eng/solarsys.htm
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_System
-In Psalms 8:8, the "paths of the seas" are mentioned. Juan Ponce de León first identified the Gulf Stream in 1513. Matthew Maury took God at his word and went looking for these "paths." His 1855 textbook Physical Geography of the Sea is still the seminal work on ocean currents.
-In Memoriam, Matthew Fontaine Maury, LL.D. 1873. Proceedings of the Academic Board of the Virginia Military Institute, Lexington, Va., on the occasion of the Death of Commodore M.F. Maury, LL.D., Professor of Physics, in the Virginia Military Institute, pp.21-22.
-Matthew Fontaine Maury, Physical Geography of the Sea, p.403.
-In Ecclesiastes 1:6-7, "The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits." Jetstream and air currents.
www.netweather.tv/charts-and-data/global-jetstream#2019/04/02/0600Z/jetstream/surface/level/overlay=jetstream/orthographic=-7.62,56.40,712
-Jeremiah 25:11-12, the Jews would be in Babylonian captivity for 70 years and afterward the Babylonians would be punished. This has been verified.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonian_captivity
www.google.com/amp/s/www.history.com/.amp/topics/ancient-middle-east/babylonia
www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN0L71EK20150203
-Isaiah 45:1, in this passage, the prophet said God would open the gates of Babylon for Cyrus and his attacking army. Despite Babylon's remarkable defenses, which included moats, and walls that were more than 70-feet thick and 300-feet high (with 250 watchtowers) Cyrus was able to enter the city and conquer it. Cyrus and his troops accomplished it by diverting the flow of the Euphrates River into a large lake basin. Cyrus then was able to march his army across the riverbed and into the city.
www.livius.org/sources/content/herodotus/cyrus-takes-babylon/
www.cyropaedia.org/book-7/chapter-7-5-cyrus-takes-babylon-by-rerouting-the-euphrates-and-entering-by-night-while-the-babylonians-are-in-celebration-he-transitions-from-a-general-into-a-king-by-worrying-about-how-to-maintain/
-Isaiah 13:19, the prophecy of the permanent overthrow of Babylon.
-Isaiah 14:23, Babylon reduced to swampland. When archaeologists excavated Babylon during the 1800s, they discovered that some parts of the city could not be dug up because they were under a water table that had risen over the years.
archaeologynewsnetwork.blogspot.com/2010/03/water-damage-is-destroying-ancient.html?m=1#TVGAJLDiTyQ0BGyX.97
Isaiah 13:17-20 has also been fulfilled. The city is still in ruins today.
-Nahum 1:10, the condition of the Ninevites at their defeat. According to the ancient historian Diodorus Siculus: "The Assyrian king gave much wine to his soldiers. Deserters told this to the enemy, who attacked that night." Siculus compiled his historical works about 600 years after the fall of Nineveh, and in doing so, confirmed the Biblical account.
jstor.org/stable/4436159?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
There are hundreds more that were already fulfilled and many scores more to be fulfilled in the future.
The content of this video is brilliant. My one request is that you use soft music; it's very hard to concentrate on what you are saying.
Talk about the Three Stooges of Skepticism in the thumbnail...
Specially that so-called "Unabashed Atheist Aaron "sleepy" Fart ay esti Ra 🤪
0:18 A face only a mother could love... only a very special mother.
I'm already pretty baffled as to why cuneiform became obsolete, but if writing supplies really were that expensive, unlike cuneiform which requires only a stylus and some clay, then I am even more baffled.
Great video. Excellent breakdown.
saving this video
This video has blessed my sunday
Is there any credibility to the idea that as history is being written, people neglect to mention common knowledge specifically because it's common knowledge? In other words: everyone of their time already knows about it, so they see no reason to bring it up.
Great job brother!
If there is a single video I point an atheist to watch, it is this one. I think the only improvement would have been concentrating more on the outside sources that did mention Jesus- you just covered that briefly. But besides that, this video is one of the best works by a Christian apologist. I read Habermas and Craig- and I love them both, especially Habermas. But as I said, if I can get an atheist to watch just one video, it would be this one.
I actually have to talk to an atheist when he claimed that (And, here is the comment) "There is not a single mention in him in military records or dispatches back to Rome (surely anyone who could command huge gatherings of people in a potentially disruptive province should be of interest). He is not mentioned in the records of Herod’s court nor is he mentioned in the records of the Temple or by any Priests. Surely if he was believed by some to be a prophet and others to be a false prophet some mention of the ructions he was causing in Judean civic and religious society should have been recorded.
Some people like to point to the supposed letters of Pontius Pilate as evidence of Jesus’ life but these were a work of fiction.
"
I replied to him with this video, but I think he just dismissed it.
@@misterauctor7353 Would the Roman military really keep records of a Galilean traveling preacher who made many important enemies and no powerful allies? Jesus even said to give to Caesar what is Caesars.
During this time there were other Jewish revolts- before and after Jesus. I would argue that Jesus wasn't even a minor threat to the Romans. No need to keep an eye on him. And in the end, he was killed by the Romans. But at the desires of the Jews. This video answered about Pilate- we don't have Pilate's records. But given the hardship it took in writing things down, why would the Roman military write something about Jesus when there were bigger threats? Even if you believe in "liberation theology" it's tough to make a case from the words of Jesus as recorded in the Gospels.
My friend, you may not convince atheists. But it has nothing to do with your arguments or your faith. Some people refused. Some people refused to believe Jesus to be Messiah when He was a traveling preaching doing all kinds of miracles that overturned the works of the devil. Hang in there and be strong and bold :)
@@shieldofpistis9557 Although, the atheist called Bart Ehrman a theist.
@@shieldofpistis9557 Thoughts on the "He is not mentioned in the records of Herod’s court nor is he mentioned in the records of the Temple or by any Priests" claim? Or, "Some people like to point to the supposed letters of Pontius Pilate as evidence of Jesus’ life but these were a work of fiction.
"" claim?
@@misterauctor7353 Your wording is really choppy. Tough to understand. I think you are trying to type too fast.
There are plenty of written claims about Jesus in the 1st century. More so than there are for Tiberias within 30 years of his death. It's pretty open and shut that Jesus existed, He claimed to be Lord, there was an empty tomb, and many people claimed to see His resurrected body.
Michael you're a genius.
Ummm, nobody is saying that Herod or Alexander the Great were able to suspend the laws of physics.
That's why your claims require a greater level of evidence.
If I find a historical book that says "there was a king in 1600 BC and he had many apple trees in his kingdom and people served in his army and cooked meat over fire", that's not miraculous and can be accepted, assuming there isn't some greater impact that comes with acceptance. If there was, it would incur greater scrutiny. But all those things I mentioned are normal things, rather unremarkable, or at least, reasonable to believe.
Now, if the claim was "there was a king in 1600 BC who could fly like a bird and shoot lightning from his fingertips and he was 14 feet tall and he lived for 700 years", yes, that story is most likely mythical and if you want me to accept it, you'll need more than just your one source.
Agreed.
Well despite the fact that literacy among common folks is very low in ancient times especially in a backwater province of judea Maybe someone actually wrote about it and recorded it on a papyrus but we don't have it today because most papyrus doesn't survive 2000 years and would have disintegrated during wars like the destruction of jerusalem in 70 AD or due to extreme climate..
Complete nonsense and a misunderstanding of what he is trying to explain
All you need to do is prove that the resurrection happened and Christianity is true, then you can have faith in God’s word that the Bible is 100% true.
@@Nameless-pt6oj No, that's not correct.
Even if you could prove that Jesus rose from the dead, that still doesn't prove that he's god or that Christianity is true.
In the Bible, a lot of people rose from the dead. According to Matthew, on the day Jesus died, graves opened all over Jerusalem and the dead walked among their relatives. So according to Matthew, a lot of people have risen from the dead. Which means even if you could prove Jesus rose from the dead, it's not a big deal since other people can do it too.
Which doesn't even matter because you CAN'T prove that Jesus (or anyone else) rose from the dead.
A correction: mentioning something does not imply believing in it.
Some supposed excerpts of ancient works are only known from the critics who quoted them.
We know, but if someone acknowledges the ressurection, it will be dismissed as Christain belief.
@@TheSpacePlaceYT, I'm not sure if I understood. As a reply to what I said, did you say that people who don't believe someone was resurrected because according to Christianity Jesus resurrected?
perfect
Great job! Love this channel!
Based and Christpilled
indeed
Amen ✝️
Beautiful work, once again. I have seen atheists argue that you can change a mathematical formula by adding 0. Honestly. They abandon sense rather than face a logical conclusion they hate.
Atheist here. I've never heard of this argument.
But I appreciate you guys practicing your reasoning skills before engaging in actual debates.
Awesome video !
Does the wizardy looking dude just dress that way naturally or is he up to something?
He actually does dress that way.
Pliny the Younger is not the only source that mentions the eruption of Vesuvius. Other famous ancient writers such as Cassius Dio and Suetonius mention it as well
I forget to mention he was the only eyewitness source, I put a note in the video to correct that.
Jacob Vanderkloet...Vesuvius erupted in 79 AD. Cassius Dio was born in 155 AD. You cannot accept what he wrote.
Idiot atheist he’s writing 70 or so years later which is about the same amount of time that John was writing his gospel after jesus’ crucifixion. If you can’t accept writing that happened 70 or more years after an event than you can’t accept John nor can you accept the majority of the Old Testament, which was, for the most part, written in the post exilic period.
+Jacob Vanderkloet. Cassius Dio only started composing his works from the 190's CE onwards, which is at least more than 110+ years after the fact, not 70 years.
I think 'Idiot Atheist' was trying to apply the [typical anti-thesitic] atheists' standards upon you (probably incorrectly assuming you were one of them and using this as an objection to undermine IP). Just a misunderstanding of his side, I'm sure.
As you said, Cassius Dio is still very much a valid source, and I will definitely not dispute that, even if it is some 110-150 years later. I'm curious, I haven't heard of Suetonius mentioning the eruption though, could you perhaps show me where?
+Brom Ponie
Yeah for sure! Its in Suetonius' "Life Of Titus" in section 8. He says, "There were some dreadful disasters during his reign, such as the eruption of Mount Vesuvius in Campania, a fire at Rome which continued three days and as many nights, and a plague the like of which had hardly ever been known before. In these many great calamities he showed not merely the concern of an emperor, but even a father's surpassing love, now offering consolation in edicts, and now lending aid so far as his means allowed. He chose commissioners by lot from among the ex-consuls for the relief of Campania; and the property of those who lost their lives by Vesuvius and had no heirs left alive he applied to the rebuilding of the buried cities."
If you'd like to go look for it yourself feel free to use this website which uses a public domain translation of Suetonius' work: penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Suetonius/12Caesars/Titus*.html
IP is OP
To any problem God has the answer. He is father and Father Knows Best.
I still struggle to see how other countries didn’t write about the sun going dark. Also, if God loves everyone and wants all to be saved why wouldn’t he have these events written down to affirm the truth of the gospel? Especially if people’s eternal destination was at stake. The sun going dark and the volcano erupting are in two completely different ball parks. God could’ve done a lot more to make his existence known. I think the argument from silence is a strong one.
While not really an important point, it is worth mentioning that while Grant may not directly have used the words "emancipation proclamation", he did write somewhat responses to criticism that he had received about it.
We also have singular references to a mass resurrection of cooked fish, and empty suits of armor animating themselves to fight a battle . Are you going to believe those too? In Matthew 27 , the resurrection of zombie saints is not even corroborated by the other Gospel writers. A tyrant slaughtering Jews at a festival is cruel, but not extraordinary. Dead saints rising from the grave and frolicking around Jerusalem is a different matter.
No, I believe them if there is good evidence to, and I do not reject them from silence.
And again, I go over reason why other Gospel authors would not mention the things Matthew does, since they had different audiences and limited space.
***** Well, you seem fond of Josephus, do you accept or reject the following account:
"A supernatural apparition was seen, too amazing to be believed. What I am now to relate would, I imagine, be dismissed as imaginary, had this not been vouched for by eyewitnesses, then followed by subsequent disasters that deserved to be thus signalized. For before sunset chariots were seen in the air over the whole country, and armed battalions speeding through the clouds and encircling the cities.”
As for Matthew, It seems as though any audience would find it noteworthy if a whole graveyard emptied out.
uncleanunicorn Is there good evidence to accept Josephus' account? What evidence does he offer?
***** Not much. What Josephus does offer is credentials. We know who he is, we know his background. He describes some of his sources, and even expresses doubt. This makes it easier to check his claims; and strengthens him relative to unknown writers.
Like the gospel writers. We don't know anything about them, how they got their info, where they came from, or what credentials they might have. We don't even know their real names.
Yet you're willing to believe uncorroborated magical legends from unknown ancients. If so, you have even more reason to believe in Josephus' chariot battle on Cloud Nine.
+uncleanunicorn Ancient aliens? 😂
Amazing discussion!
what about when the one source contradicts itself?
See here: ruclips.net/video/8bAEjhcQryQ/видео.html
1. "why would we apply different special standard to the new testament, that is not applied to other ancient works?" hmm, maybe because it claims to be the perfect word of god? This is the point, same standards don't apply to be bible. If it is the word passed down from a perfect being, why does it contain human error? Also, history isn't made from documents alone, archeology is a big part of it too. Moreover, there's such a thing as quality of evidence. Not all sources are of the same value, if archeologists can verify certain things mentioned in a source, it can be considered more reliable. You can't take a document of a roman empire and someone's scribbles, and say that the scribbles are just as, or more accurate.
Erikas Raginis Where does it claim to be the perfect word of God?
I'm pretty sure humans wrote it who were only inspired by the Holy Spirit.
You do realize we don't have archeological evidence for several events from history, like Caesar crossing the Rubicon, or Hannibal invading Italy, or the fire that burned Rome under Nero... Do you doubt these things from no archeology?
*****
i just told you about the quality of evidence, I'm not a historian, so i don't know where exactly are these event recorded, but i assume it's in the roman records. And that's what I'm talking about when i say the quality of evidence. Roman records are good quality evidence. But the thing about those events, is that no agenda depends on their validity. I'm not saying that something's invalid just because an agenda depends on it, I'm saying that there's no hot public debates about the validity of these events for that reason. In other words, I don't know if Rome did burn. It probably did, but if someone were to present proof that it didn't, i would just accept it and not care that much, since history isn't my specialty, and the events in question wouldn't really change anything for me.
And it says that god is perfect. So why not his means of communication. Especially if it contains rules that tells us how to live our lives. Imagine if civil laws had multiple interpretations.
Are they? How many roman records do we have left today? The fact remains we have next to nothing. We know these roman events happened from later sources like Tacitus or Suetonius, not records. So how do you know they are in good quality when most have been lost?
Again, where does the Bible claim it is perfect?
I encourage this sort of apologetics, flawed though it is, you can see the gears turning. If he's not careful he'll start to be able to parse good evidence from bad, start to recognize poor arguments. All the tools are there, when you meet people like this get them to use these tools, they're half way to developing a healthy skepticism.
To be honest, if he left out the claims about resurrection and miracles, it could be an atheist making the same argument. Actually, I already knew this from an atheist blogger who discusses how history is being butchered on atheist groups online.
I wish more atheist criticized these dumb arguments coming from the atheist side and which are so popular. Aron Ra is a serial offender in this aspect. Actually, most of the outspoken anti-theists are basically historically illiterate to be honest. Hitchens, Harris, Sagan, Dawkins...and the list goes on. Even Grayling who should know better believes so much stupid shit about ancient history. It is amazing how otherwise smart people can become victim of their own biases.
Bold of you to assume the Christian perspective is wrong.
Everything said here can be applied to any of the other mythical writings. Why would the Egyptians waste so much time and resources on their divinities if they aren't real? The Greeks? The Sumerians? There's no account of them in other sources but they talk about things that happened. It's true, arguments from silence don't work, but putting some accurate facts with some inaccurate facts (plus contradictions from an account to another) serves in no way to prove veracity. If it were the case, how could any myth be dismissed...
No one said it proves they are real. The point is silence cannot be used to dismiss them, since that is a fallacy. We evaluate the evidence for their claims, like we do in Christianity: ruclips.net/video/-ErnJF_nwBk/видео.html
***** Ok, ok... I thought it was a stand alone vid you sent me, but I'll watch the rest of the series in the coming days (unfortunatley, I have a life, so I can't do it right away). Let's see the evidence, I'm curious!
***** Are you a Christian?
Facepalm
I'm interested in discussing evidence, not highschool insults. Unless you have something constructive, please refrain to comment on this post.
Thanks
Over two thousand years ago, God said he would return his people to Israel. He did, exactly in the ways he said he would. Now you know that the God of Israel is your God.
Hans Smirnov
Could you tell me exactly how he said he would? Are you refering to:
"Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates" in Genesis 15:18?
or
"And I will set thy bounds from the Red sea even unto the sea of the Philistines, and from the desert unto the river: for I will deliver the inhabitants of the land into your hand; and thou shalt drive them out before thee." in Exodus 23:31?
If so, this claim encompasses north east Egypt, Sinai, modern Israel, modern Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, western Iraq and northern Saudi Arabia.
Considering that ancient texts are so unreliable and limited, it seems quite ridiculous that an all-powerful God would rely on them to spread Her message to modern peoples.
Her message? And your accusing us of assuming the Creator's gender??
@@thomasecker8897 I'm not ascribing a gender to god but simply making a point. I'm happy to use any pronoun to refer to a metaphysical deity.
How about you? You ever use a feminine or neutral pronoun for the Christian god or do you only ever use the masculine pronoun?
God has no gender. If English had a gender neutral pronoun, we would use it. The reason people use the masculine pronoun is because He is shown to be a father
@@levymontesdeoca4663 Thanks for your comment. The gender-neutral pronoun in English is 'it'. How is God shown to be a father? (Father's have a gender, by the way - male.)
endofscene My friend, the Bible depicts God as a Heavenly Father. And yes you’re right, earthly fathers are male and “it” is a gender-neutral pronoun. The thing is that “it” is used for inanimate objects. I would never call you nor your pet an “it”
I've enjoyed watching TMM tear your videos asunder.
Tristan Goss Indeed, creationists are funny like that
Such as?
***** He's made several this summer, just go watch.
SS4Inferno Yeah, I have seen them and they all fail, like this one:
inspiringphilosophy.wordpress.com/2016/06/10/the-messianic-manics-razor-is-not-so-sharp/
Why do they refute my videos when he constantly uses straw man arguments and ignores my point?
***** One could ask you the same question.
I really love your videos
The reason Marco Polo didn’t mention the Great Wall of China was because... it wasn’t built when he was alive until a couple of centuries later.
Shhhh facts don't matter here! Only faith
@@lostfan5054 Or maybe you wanna read your history properly. Several walls were being built from as early as the 7th century BC by ancient Chinese states;[2] selective stretches were later joined together by Qin Shi Huang (220-206 BC), the first emperor of China
@@lostfan5054 Translation: Feels don't matter here!
@@lostfan5054 Facts?
@@lostfan5054 Any reply?
It may be that since ancient schools didn't extensively use desks people grew up with the habit of writing without a table and simply didn't use them in adulthood.
Omfg.
4 mins in:
You keep listing examples of things that are NOT EXTRAORDINARY!! The existence of Alexander the Great isn't a miracle. Yes, he did some exceptional stuff but he didn't defy the laws of physics.
This is just a circular argument. You're assuming your own conclusion, naturalism/atheism.
@@ea-tr1jh No, I'm saying I don't believe there is a god. I am unconvinced. I'm not assuming there isn't one.
@@Kairi091 lol your statement makes no sense. You literally said, "I dont believe there is a god." Therefore you are an atheist.
And yes, you did assume your conclusion. By making the argument you did, you assumed atheism or naturalism.
Denial is not just a river in Egypt.
Also, the existence of Jesus from a purely secular lense isn't a miracle either.
Also, Alexander the Great and many emperors of the Roman Empire were purported to be gods and were claimed to have performed miracles.
@@ea-tr1jh Hey!
I would not consider myself to be a Christian. I don't go the whole nine yards and haven't been baptised or attended a church since I was very young and not once in all this time have I even considered that Jesus, as an actual historical person, did not exist.
I have heard it said though and my thoughts immediately followed what you've said here. I found, very quickly, that most of those who say this don't read historical texts and don't understand how history works.
I absolutely agree that if you want to list reasons as to why you don't believe in something you have to apply it to everything within that field. It's like saying 'I don't believe in Santa, but the Easter bunny's real!'
There is less historical evidence for Spartacus, Boudicca, Armenius and Vercingetorix than there is for the existence of an historical Jesus so should we write them all off as made up fakes and forgeries?
I don't need the silence of others to be able to state that the passage of Mt 27:52-53 is almost certainly a myth created to embellish a story.
I can't stop you from believing the extraordinary claims of your holy book, but I think you're very credulous for doing so.
MHM EEKK
HAHAHA!! That's pretty funny.
Demonstrating such a colossal claim with nothing more than the unfettered say so of people that we cannot interrogate? You really don't seem to understand what the word "demonstrate" actually means, or what "historical fact" means.
I've watched all of IP's videos on the resurrection and they are, to say the least, unconvincing. The only evidence for the resurrection that you have is the say-so of whoever authored your holy texts.
If you believe that you can prove (as a historical fact) a supernatural event, based on a God that is still not established, solely on the basis of some writings, then you have some incredibly low standards of evidence! By those same standards you could "prove" just about anything!
MHM EEKK
*Indeed, if IP's countless mountains of evidence are "unconvincing"*
Yes, IP's "evidence" is unconvincing, because I do not accept that any of it is actually as reliable as he believes it is.. Personal testimony is notoriously unreliable, and simply isn't good enough for me to accept the explanation that IP is hawking.
*Indeed, you probably do not trust 2+2=4.*
You seem to think that because I hold to certain standards of evidence, that I will reject all knowledge claims. You don't seem to understand that the more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary the evidence required to support it. We have no reason to believe that resurrections are even possible, let alone that one could have happened two millennia ago.
*You will be given an opportunity to rebut IP's evidence, go ahead.*
You seem to think that I have to prove what he's said is wrong. You're simply mistaken. The burden of proof lies with the one making the claim!
I just want you to answer one question for me, and in all seriousness here, why do you think that written testimony is sufficient to establish that a resurrection took place almost 2000 years ago?
See Licona and Habermas 10 facts argument for the resurrection. The resurrection is clearly the most probable answer that accounts for the known facts and therefore a person who holds the affirmative position is warranted.
Dion Sanchez,
*See Licona and Habermas 10 facts argument for the resurrection*
All of the evidence for the "resurrection" of Jesus comes down to exactly the same thing. The say-so of New Testament authors!
*The resurrection is clearly the most probable answer that accounts for the known facts*
And I don't know how you determined that! Until somebody can demonstrate that coming back from the dead, after something like 36 hours, is even possible, your "Jesus actually came back from the dead" explanation is hypothetical at best. Even if you can show that coming back from the dead after 36 hours is possible, how do you know it could have happened in the first century? The position is not yet deserving of acceptance, and the idea that it was because of God is nothing more than an assertion with no credible evidence whatsoever.
We don't have a method to investigate anything beyond nature. You seem to believe that all possible natural explanations are worse than your preferred "God did it" explanation. We simply don't know that God exists, and we certainly don't know that God has the power to return anybody to life after they've been dead for a couple of days. I don't see why you think this position is warranted.
Excellent video, as is this whole series. Who's the angry chap on the left in the cover image?
Cult of Dusty
Lmao, what is wrong with this logic shirt dude
Good video. Now on my favorite list.