Who Saw Risen Jesus? 2 (Dr. Andrew Loke Redux)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 15 мар 2021
- Dr Andrew Loke has spent 4.5 hours on live streams since my last substantive analysis of his arguments, so let's get back to those and see if there is any evidence for people actually having seen the risen Jesus. Maybe we need to look below the surface?
PREVIOUS VIDEOS, IN ORDER...
Did the Disciples Hallucinate the Risen Jesus? (w/ Dr. Andrew Loke)
• Did the Disciples Hall...
Who Saw Risen Jesus? (Dr Andrew Loke vs Dr Dale Allison & Friends)
• Who Saw Risen Jesus? (...
Who Saw Risen Jesus? Dr. Andrew Loke Responds to Paulogia • Who Saw Risen Jesus? D...
Is Paulogia a Dishonest Editor? (Capturing Christianity & Andrew Loke response)
• Is Paulogia a Dishones...
Are Paulogia's Videos Deceptive? Cameron & Dr. Loke Respond • Are Paulogia's Videos ...
And When They Shall Ask (Mennonite Documentary)
• Video
DR ANDREW LOKE'S GRIEVANCES
Due to a character limit here in the description, please see the pinned comments for my notes.
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @paulogia
Support Paulogia at
/ paulogia
www.paypal.me/paulogia
www.amazon.ca/hz/wishlist/ls/...
teespring.com/stores/paulogia
Paulogia Audio-Only-Version Podcast
paulogia.buzzsprout.com
Follow Paulogia at
/ paulogia0
/ paulogia0
/ discord 
Наука
==== DR. LOKE'S GRIEVANCES ====
1. FAILURE TO RECOGNIZE THAT LOOKING FOR ANCIENT NON-CHRISTIAN SOURCE FOR CORROBORATION MAY BE DIFFICULT UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES
It makes no difference to me if corroboration is difficult. That's no reason at all to lower one's evidential standard. We apportion confidence based on what evidence we actually have. When we don't have much, we say, "I don't know" or "I'm not confident."
2. FAILURE TO RECOGNIZE THAT WRITTEN FIRSTHAND SOURCES MAY JUST BE THE TIP OF THE ICEBERG AND THE NEED TO LOOK AT OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
Extant first-hand sources for group appearances don’t exist (nor any appearances, other than whatever Paul saw), so they’re not even part of the evidential tip. If I’m supposed to accept that anyone was willing to die for something they witnessed, a demonstration that they saw the thing seems a reasonable ask. That Andrew’s epistemological standards are lower than mine is no failure of mine.
3. FAILURE TO RECOGNIZE THAT INFERENCE BASED ON CONSIDERATIONS IS A VALID WAY TO DETERMINE THE TRUTHFULNESS OF AN ACCOUNT; IT IS MORE FOUNDATIONAL AND CAN BE HIGHLY RELIABLE
I recognize that inference CAN be valid… but the reliability of an inference is always apportioned to the evidence corroborating the inference. When I dismiss Loke’s inferences, it’s because I am unconvinced by the evidence - if any - that he attempts to back them with. Speculation isn’t inference.
4. FAILING TO RECOGNIZE THAT PAUL WAS WRITING 1 CORINTHIANS 15:6 TO ADDRESS THE PROBLEM THAT THE CORINTHIANS FOUND RESURRECTION INCREDIBLE (1 CORINTHIANS 15:12)
Dr Loke and I interpret the passage differently. That’s a hazard with interpretation. A pity that God couldn’t communicate in a medium free of this problem.
5. FAILING TO RECOGNIZE THE EPISTEMOLOGICAL STANDARD IMPLIED BY 1 CORINTHIANS 15:6 TO CONSULT “EYEWITNESSES”
The writer of a letter inviting someone to investigate says nothing at all about the epistemological standard of the receiver. I trust everyone reading this has pleaded with someone else to research something, only to have that plea not acted upon.
6. FALSE (AND MISLEADING!) ANALOGY: FRANK ZAPPA
The Frank Zappa analogy illustrates that the information provided in Paul’s letter is insufficient to investigate said witnesses… both for 21st and 1st century readers. Dr Loke’s speculation that Corinthians might have had more information doesn’t change the evidence we have and can evaluate.
7. FALSE ANALOGY: AMERICAN ELECTION
Respectfully, Loke’s objections to this are irrelevant to the primary point of the analogy… that humans can believe that they’ve investigated or have enough information to establish something incredibly important to them - and for which they perceive persecution -- and yet still be factually wrong about it.
I also dispute his assertion that early Christians necessarily believed the resurrection first and in Jesus’ divinity as a result, instead of vice versa. Christians today come to believe for many different reasons. There’s no reason to suspect there wasn’t similar epistemological diversity then.
And as for the actual level of persecution in Corinth in 52-ish AD, I think Loke is also playing that card beyond what evidence allows, but perhaps that will be a topic in future discussions.
8. MISUNDERSTAND THE POINT OF MY ARGUMENT CONCERNING WHAT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO GENERATE WIDESPREAD BELIEF OF BODILY RESURRECTION AMONG JESUS’ FOLLOWERS IN THE FIRST PLACE
I understand the argument (assertion), I just disagree with it. Very, very strongly disagree.
9. MISREPRESENTED MY BOOK BY MAKING IT SEEM THAT HE HAS READ IT, WHEN HE HAS MIS-READ IT E.G. CONCERNING 1 CORINTHIANS 15:12
I read the relevant portions of the book, which included the chapters Loke referenced in his rebuttals. That I disagree with Loke’s book on his interpretation of this passage doesn’t imply the charges he makes here.
10. MISREPRESENTED MY TALK BY QUOTING ME OUT OF CONTEXT RE: EARLY CHRISTIANS WILLING TO DIE: I WAS HIGHLIGHTING THE IMPORTANCE OF JESUS’ RESURRECTION FOR EARLY CHRISTIANS INCLUDING THOSE IN CORINTH; NOT USING THIS POINT TO ARGUE DIRECTLY FOR HOW MANY ‘EYEWITNESSES’ SUFFERED
I acknowledge that I sent this part of the discussion on a rabbit trail, as addressed in this video.
11. MISREPRESENTED SEAN AND MYSELF BY PITTING US AGAINST EACH OTHER CONCERNING THE ABOVE POINT
I derailed the point, but I still think that Andrew and Sean disagree on the level of confidence we can have in martyrdom, based on what Andrew expressed in the original video. I’m happy to have this clarified for me.
12. MISREPRESENTED SEAN BY MAKING IT SEEMS AS IF SEAN ARGUES THAT THERE IS EVIDENCE FOR ONLY 2 ‘EYEWITNESSES’ MARTYRED WHEN SEAN ARGUES FOR 6
This is addressed in my “Is Paulogia a Dishonest Editor?” video, apparently not to Loke’s satisfaction… but Christian and non-Christian commenters alike seem satisfied.
13. MISREPRESENTED ALLISON
This is addressed in my “Is Paulogia a Dishonest Editor?” video, apparently not to Loke’s satisfaction… but Christian and non-Christian commenters alike seem satisfied.
14. MISREPRESENTED LICONA AND MISINTERPRETED 1 CORINTHIANS 15:6 BY SAYING THAT PAUL WAS REPEATING OTHERS’ INVITATION
I was unaware of Licona’s written position on this particular passage. On the surface, Licona’s verbal comments gave every appearance of agreement with me, so investigating further seemed unnecessary. A misjudgement on my part, obviously. As to misinterpreting the passage, I’m still in line with my prior study on the passage. Again, be wary of anyone selling “correct” and “incorrect” interpretations. That said, I do pledge to read more before commenting again either way.
15. MISREPRESENTED MY BOOK BY CLAIMING THAT I DISREGARD FALSE MEMORY OBJECTION
It was my opinion that Andrew’s book’s flimsy dismissal of false memory science was no better than disregarding it… than not addressing it at all. I think he unjustly disregards false memory objections. Probably in much the same way that Dr Loke thinks my analogies are false. I could have phrased this more precisely.
16. TOOK ME OUT OF CONTEXT AND MISREPRESENTED MY REPRESENTATION OF PAULOGIA’S POINT CONCERNING ALLISON’S CLIP
As I said in this video, assume that I’ve taken everyone out of context. Check for yourself, and I would appreciate feedback on whether I actually did in this case, or not.
17. MADE IRRELEVANT EXCUSES FOR HIS MISLEADING CUT AND PASTE OF SEAN’S CLIP
The feedback I’ve received from “Is Paulogia a Dishonest Editor?” tells me that Dr Loke’s opinion here is in the minority. They were relevant to many. I’m sorry they were not for Andrew.
Kudos to actually hearing and comprehending what he is saying.
Ive abandoned re-legion, 6 years now. Only learning about the actual deception recently. Am disappointed, and relieved. After I found out that Matthew is NOT THE first book of the NT, I don't care for much of any apologetics.
What gets me is that to argue against Apologists, you Paulogia have to pe perfect and inerrant, but they get to make fallacious statements and assumptions that are free to interpret any way they see fit. It's a massive double standard and very dishonest!
Once again, Dr. Loke: your lack of evidence is not the problem of those you’re trying to convince.
As always, you've been very thorough and diligent - and totally reasonable.
At every step, Andrew has been desperately clutching at straws by making charges of dishonesty and impugning your intellect - all to cover up the weak foundations his argument stands on. It really is a case of starting with the conclusion that 'Christians exist, so there must have been a Christ - and everything in the Bible must be true', a premise that he would reject out of hand if asked to judge upon the veracity of any other competing reliigous claim.
He's clapping coconuts, and expecting us to believe he's riding a horse.
I think pointing to his incredible double standard when it comes to people verifying sources was a significant one because it's pretty much proof that he is knowingly, or otherwise, inconsistent in a very predictable way.
I hope it's not too difficult for you to shrug off these unjustified attacks on your character,
You are the most honest opponent that these two have ever dealt with, and they are struggling to wrap their head around someone who is thoughtful and has integrity, yet disagrees with them. It's such a rare gem in the state of today's public discourse; that as they are slinging mud, you wipe it off gracefully and ask if we can get back to the actual topic of discussion now.
Keep up the high quality work, Paul, and kudos to you for your grace under fire! 👏
Paulogia, stop "intentionally" using logic and reason! Jesus... get a PHD in astrology or something.
Damn you RR!! Beat me to it by 3 mins!!!!!!
Oh yeah you think youre *RATIONAL?* Name every logics.
... And stop using those clips of PhD holders refuting Dr. Loke!
Clearly, they don't have "true" PhD's. 😱
lol
@@galacticbob1 clearly
Man, you really got under this guy's skin. Glad to see you standing your ground.
It's weird. Loke is an Assistant Professor at his institution. It seems he is trying to make a case for promotion based on .... winning a pi$$ing match with a youtuber?
As an academic myself (yes, I have a PhD but not in a related field) that seems weird. Is that what passes for scholarly activity in a Christian university?
@@flowingafterglow629 yeah, it does seem odd. I am in college now trying to finish out my 4-year degree program and then I plan on going to grad school. Even in my lower studies I think this is an odd tactic.
@@flowingafterglow629 Much admiration for being an academic after I earned my PhD in Computer Science and Engineering; I briefly taught at a post-secondary institution and realized that I was not suited to be an academic. I had the similar thoughts about what passes for scholarly activity in a Christian university as well, really sad.
It seems thin enough so I’m not surprised.
@@flowingafterglow629 I don't think the scholarly activity requirements in a Christian university are the same as what is even in secular community colleges. They want echo chambers, not new research or evidence.
Imagine if I told Dr. Loke that I have a PhD, and then as proof presented him a letter that I had written to someone else, asserting that decades ago I had displayed my PhD to over 500 witnesses, some of whom are still alive.
Would that settle the matter? Surely, I wouldn't need to demonstrate any further that I hold a PhD - that person who received the letter must have already done the hard work of verifying my degree, and if they found it lacking then why am I still insisting I have a PhD?
Exactly. Its an air tight argument....Doctor.
Can we get Dr. Alverson's comment enough exposure so that Dr. Loke sees it?
How many people were willing to die rather than deny you had a PhD?
@@bdf2718 No is persecuting him...yet....
@@bdf2718 how many is required before it becomes credible? If I say that 2 people, or 200, were certain that I had a PhD, before Big Education shamefully cut them down for their belief... now is it a more reliable claim? Is there a minimum threshold of martydom that my claim should pass, is only one person killed on its behalf not enough?
How many people have died because of their belief that they could survive a trip over Niagara Falls? It seems to me that the number of people who die or are killed because of a belief has no relation to its truth value.
After watching these videos, one thing has become clear to me ... Andrew Loke has provided a definitive demonstration of how a PhD does not preclude dishonesty, ignorance or idiocy.
He's unwitting proof of Paul's meta point: you can be sincere, passionate, vocal, and wrong.
@@midnighteternalsoul very true. Gee I wonder if that applies to the writers of the New Testament as well. Hmmm
Even Kent hovind has a "PhD"....
A degree means nothing. Your output is what matters. And a PhD doesn't ensure good output.
My parents told me that PhD stands for "pile it higher and deeper".
I'm amused by Dr. Loke's terrible epistemology. "Hey, we don't have convincing evidence now, but people back then MUST have had it". It goes to show that having a PhD does not guarantee sound reasoning.
agree
A PhD in theology is like a PhD in the Easter Bunny - a useless joke.
@@pauligrossinoz
Only if they are wrong and they must have engaged in due diligence to ascertain that they are right. So naturally they would check everything against the one book they KNOW is right, because it comes from a god.
@@pauligrossinoz I tend to disagree, a thesis written about theology, thoroughly examining its mechanisms and sources and in the process reducing it to a story analogue to the easter bunny could well deserve a doctorate.
@@ottonormalverbrauch3794 - 🤣👍
Yep ... a doctorate in _literature!_
" It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it."
~ Upton Sinclair
Can confirm. I was a fundamentalist Christian who taught science in a fundamentalist Christian school for nearly 20 years. Even my doubts were actively supressed and I became very good at compartmentalising reality with my religious views. But being able to even openly question preferred interpretations of scripture (let alone question its accuracy or authenticity) was just not an option, unless of course you wanted to go look for another job. When I left that school, and was free to think, I was able to publicly identify as an atheist within 2 years. I now look back that those years with shame and embarrassment.
@@1970Phoenix your story gives me some hope. Thank you for sharing it. 🌟
@@trishayamada807 I should also add that I'm much happier and more content with life now as an open atheist than I ever was as a fundamentalist Christian. I once was lost but now am found, was blind but now I see.
@@1970Phoenix Welcome to reality! :)
Christianity promises a lot - oneness with the universe, real connection with your fellow human beings, and even everlasting life, for crying out loud!
And then it slowly dawns on us that it’s not delivering the goods. 😕
And even the New Testament is real disjointed. For example, the whole interesting story in the last chapter of Luke in which Jesus meets two followers on the road to Emmaus, but doesn’t immediately identify who he is. This story begins in Luke 24:13. On verse 49, Jesus asks them to remain in Emmaus until the Holy Spirit comes, or “until you have been clothed with power from on high” in the NIV version. But then, in the very next verse (verse 50), Jesus leads them to Bethany, no mention of the Holy Spirit at all. In verse 52, after the Ascension, the disciples go on their own to Jerusalem.
Very confusing. I’m sorry, but it is! 🌈 🚴🏿♂️
I tried to attend a Bible College, questions were discouraged and side stepped. I was a Christian woman at the time so I was used to that happening. I only left at the time because women were not permitted to teach classes or hold positions of authority. I recognized sexism before I recognized the lack of evidence for God. Now looking back I realize that my questions were not just dismissed because I am a woman, but because answers did not exist.
That is messed up, yet not surprising. When I looked into it, I found there was nothing to support this stuff, so had to stop being a Christen.
My same experience as a child, none of it made sense, so I asked questions, and got non-answers like "god works in mysterious ways" or "you just have to have faith". I never fully believed, I went from skeptical to atheist at about age 8.
@@MG-ot2yr if there is a god it doesnt seem to want us to know anything about it. :D
Sadly, most religions do not have a good track record when it comes to placing value on women.
Yeah unfortunately Christians don't think woman should hold any authority, it says so in 1 Timothy 2 12 I think it is.
1:10 wait did Cameron just... pronounce Paulogia correctly??
I think that’s a bigger surprise than the apology itself.
Proof of god right there, tis the only explanation for such a miracle XD
That's Cam's "I'm sorry" voice. 🙄
If you pronounce the name differently every time then it’s just a matter of time until you pronounce it correctly by accident.
@@ramigilneas9274 Cameron "Stopped Clock" Bertuzzi? I'll pay that.
He probably said it correctly to get a more sympathetic response from his listeners, instead of the dismissing ridiculing response he would normally want. Yes, I think CC is a manipulative worm.
If god really is all knowing, he could write a book that does not take a PhD to understand. If the bible really was written by man, it could take a PhD to spin it to conform with Christianity.
That logic is really bullet proof. Good job.
I would think that an omnipotent, omniscient being that wanted to spread his message would give every person an indestructible, unalterable copy of his book, in that person's language, and make every person able to read. And no, that would not negate free will. Lots of people today believe in a flat Earth, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
@@michaelsommers2356 Some, especially the presuppositionalists, would claim that this book was written in our hearts by god. An assertion with no supporting evidence. There is far more evidence to say that this was written upon our hearts by millions of years of evolution as a social species.
I mean if we’re proposing a God that’s all powerful, all knowing, created everything, and loves us/wants to communicate with us then there really isn’t any excuse for that being to be unable to clearly communicate with us. Now I wouldn’t use that alone as an argument against that God, at best that could be used to challenge the nature/power of that God.
@@johns7734 Indeed. If the "heart" chip was (is) in us, why bother with paper in the first place? I have scans of many documents and chucked the paper long ago. Just pull the first thread on the BS curtain and it doesn't take long to completely unravel.
As someone who lives very close to Fatima let me tell you: there can very easily be a claim of hundreds of thousands of people having seen something extraordinary that becomes famous in the area, without it having happened
That so called miracle is so silly its amazing anyone buys into it!
Yea and ironically Lisbon is said to be the birthplace of atheism following the devastating earthquake that leveled churches, on a holy day (All Saints Day), and spared the redlight district.
@@MG-ot2yr damn!!
But something *did* happen. A trick perpetrated by 3 schoolgirls and peddled by the Catholic Church as a miracle.
@@bdf2718 hahaha! sounds about right.
I guess its just surprising that its school girls rather then school boys eh? :D
Jesus didn't have a PHD, so is therefore untrustworthy? Dr. Loke....
that’s just the hate and arrogance of Christians like Andrew loke, or even William lane Craig, both of them love to assume that if someone didn’t go to college have no college degrees Or PhD , that there’s nothing they can say that proves what Andrew says as being false. But they do the same to people who do have PhD and other college degrees, they’re just too arrogant and prideful to ever admit they can ever be wrong.
@@user-xs2qq7kv9w I'm appalled by an Asian Christian apologist. I don't think he believes in Jesus enough. I mean, when you believe in Jesus enough, Jesus becomes your image.
@@kiabvaj5656 I’m sure like William lane Craig. It’s nothing but a way to get people to buy his books. Plus the god complex christian leaders so desperately crave.
@@user-xs2qq7kv9w What I was saying is that Jesus Christ is the God of the white men. White people have been believing in Jesus Christ for close to 2 millenniums. Their faith in Jesus Christ is beyond comprehension. Even Jesus Christ became a white man with blonde hair and blue eyes. To white apologists like William Lame Craig, Christianity is more than a religion; it is his culture. But an Asian apologist like Dr. Loke is like a little child who could hardly understand what Christianity is.
@@kiabvaj5656 exactly
"People with no P.H.D tend to make more mistakes than people with P.H.D." Loke is a walking refutation of that ridiculous claim.
Paulogia: What is the evidence for people who saw Jesus?
Loke: There must be sufficient evidence.
Paulogia: What is the evidence for people who saw the resurrected Jesus?
Loke: Paul was a preacher.
Loke: Preachers and their followers never lie or exaggerate or are mistaken or mislead.
Loke: Corinthians knew both Paul and Paul’s followers.
Loke: Therefore Paul must have been telling the truth and there must have been sufficient evidence.
I think the big problem is in line 3.
Paul was not present and claims all he knew about Jesus came by revelation and so not from any person. So Paul makes claims based on what voices in his mind told him in he imagined.
Dr. Loke reminds me of that old analogy of playing chess against a pigeon. He has been intellectually beaten, comes back with dishonest arguments (poops on the board), and struts around like he won.
Shits on the board, knocks all the pieces over, and then flies back to his friends to brag about his victory. Yes. Apologists are pigeons. Flying, filthy plague rats.
Do not insult the pigeon's intelligence. It could do more intelligent things than men.
@@EdwardHowton “They’re the chicken of the underpass.”
-Champ Kind
Damn, Man the quality of your Video are beyond RUclips quality in content and style. You are an amazing example of someone trying to be intellectually honest, I am trying to follow. These guy's are leagues behind in personal credibility, keep up the High bar Paul, My fellow Canadian, I'm proud of you.
The majority of scholars and biblical historians feel the gospels were not eyewitness accounts and they were written many decades after the supposed events that they talked about, so what we have here is a very elaborate game of telephone.
It's not the "majority". It's the unanimous consensus of all credible scholars.
@@1970Phoenix That can be argued to be a No True Scottsman fallacy.
Do you really want to lower the standards of discussion with your opposition to the point where No True Scottsman arguments are standard?
That move will both force you to establish an objective standard of credibility, while giving them the excuse that you were the one who lowered the standards that low in the first place.
@@OzixiThrill I'm not making an argument, so it is literally impossible for my reasoning to be fallacious.
I'm also going to go out on a limb here and infer that English is not your first language.
@@1970Phoenix You are dismissing scholars whose stance the other side might accept by stating that the scholars are not credible. That will lead to them rightfully poking at your justifications, which in this case will end up being a no true scottsman fallacy at the end of the line, as your only criteria at present seems to be wether or not they accept a position you agree with.
Also, while your observation is correct, I fail to see any clear indication of it, save for my runalong sentences; Which is something that I do in every language I speak.
@@OzixiThrill Name one scholar I'm "dismissing" and/or asserting that they are "not credible", (in the context of claims that the Gospels contained eye-witness reports). Do you know of even a single credible scholar who holds the view that the Gospels were written by eye witnesses?
Also, again, I haven't made an argument, so I can't commit a logical fallacy. It is your failure to comprehend this point which caused me to wonder if your understanding of English was insufficient. Why don't you tell me what specific argument you think I'm making.
I didn't think my opinion of Dr Loke could be much lower ....
Well done , stay above the fray.
The longer I've been at this, the more I realize that these kinds of people, who you think are scraping the bottom of the barrel and can sink no lower, are in fact scraping the bottom of the barrel so hard that they scrape right through the bottom of the barrel and discover a whole new basement full of barrel-bottoms to scrape, finding who new depths to which they can sink.
He just arrogant and prideful as William lane Craig, no matter how much they been proven wrong they just can’t accept or admit . He points out paulogia doesn’t have a PhD so he think he can used that to discredit anything he claims. They love using appeal to authority. If it was a Muslim multiple PhD, More than someone like loke has he still think no one can prove him wrong.
@@user-xs2qq7kv9w Craig’s smugness is contagious. All his boot lickers seem to be infected
@@Dialogos1989 of course they all copy off each non of them are capable of original though. They watch these apologetics videos see how easy it is and decide they can do it as well.
@@user-xs2qq7kv9w they all follow the same script. Literally a conversation with one is having a convo with all the rest. Never anything new.
I do get a kick out of apologists like Loke and Habermus who dismiss statements by non-credentialed critics. Using their logic, I can dismiss all creationists who do not have Biology credentials.
Their habits of punching down on the accreditation scale when it comes to whom they argue with is rather telling
I used to get a demand for my credentials from a crank with a PhD on Physorg.
OK I don't have a degree of any kind. But I also don't have a Meagan's Law page like he did.
@@ethelredhardrede1838 that got dark
@@bigtombowski
When you are dealing with cranks, you are sometimes dealing with people that have other problems as well. Of course that is true with many groups, but this particular case is a very nasty one. The person is Dr. Oliver K. Manuel, a former NASA consultant and a professor in nuclear chemistry. Which still sound like an oxymoron to me. He has the crank idea that the Sun, all stars, has an iron/neutron star core. He never cleared that up and when asked got abusive demanding that you read his papers, despite being reminded that they had been read and the question was NOT clarified in the papers.
He never convinced a single astronomer or astrophysicist or physicist that his nonsense was correct. Too bad that was not his only problem. It came out that he was a child abuser, both sexes, his own and his adopted children. He plead guilty to the only case that had not reached the statute of limitation. This was discussed at physorg, starting with a newspaper article. I checked that actual court records. Yep he is a POS.
He is absolutely the worst crank I have ever dealt with and his demand for credentials was part of his bullying tactics. Similar to a frequent liar asking if you are calling them a liar. IF you get that treatment, its likely they are a liar.
There is an old quote I'm reminded of whenever this guy opens his mouth.
"Any man that wastes time bragging about his intelligence is surely an idiot."
I imagine the only reason he continues to bring up his PHD is because he hopes it will prevent people from questioning his lack of valid arguments.
2:33 Paul, Dr Loke's PhD is in bloody Theology not history or philosophy. He has a Master in philosophy of religion though yet he has no right to whine about non-PhDs when his PhD is neither in historical studies nor philosophy.
If he was an historian, even an amateur, he would know that historical method CANNOT prove, or disprove, supernatural.
There is no way historical method can backup the claim that Jesus resurrected. No historian, Christian, like Dr Dale B Martin, or non christian, like Dr Bart Ehrman, would ever claim that.
It makes sense since his arguments seem to be based on arguing abstract concepts more than physical reality.
@@UlshaRS do you mean that jesus resurrection is just an abstract concept? I fully agree... 🙂
But that's probably not what Dr Loke tries to prove here. He misuses and distort historical method, like inference, or the justification for the existence of the 500, to justify his belief in the supernatural. That's not how it works.
I surmise that Dr. Loke doesn't apply his standards for accepting the claims of the bible to any other ancient religious text.
But the hypothetical evidence is all plainly there!!
I think his Justthetippian theology implies that all of them are true!
Pretty likely - but to be fair, EVERY apologist for EVERY religion does exactly the same thing. It's just that the Christian apologists are generally more sophisticated (which means not much more than they use bigger words).
@@1970Phoenix I disagree. If anything, I find Christian and Islamic apologists to be more obviously idiotic than apologists of any other religions. And for what it is worth, Christian apologists are the only ones who would actually twist a conversation into demeaning someone for their lack of credentials.
That "loyalty pledge", limiting academics at Christian universitys to only ever working towards one, pre-assumed conclusion, regardless of the evidence, is the most egregious, blatant example of institutional dishonesty in academia, that I've ever heard of.
It's virtually an admission that they KNOW that the evidence doesn't support their beliefs- Why would you pay off jurors, or demand your investigators ignore certain evidence, if truly believed you'd be found innocent anyway?
The loyalty pledge is a pledge to institutional corruption and a career of lies.
What is the evidence for this 'loyalty pledge'? I did a quick search and couldn't find one.
@@roblovestar9159 the more correct term would be a statement of faith. You will have more success searching that term eg Christian university statement of faith. Use that as your starting point.
@@roblovestar9159 yes it’s called a statement of faith
Dr. Andrew Loke perfectly showing how useful a PhD in Theology is!
Like having a PhD in fables.
Worthless cuz many come from diploma mills
Thanks for bringing attention to the "statements of faith" thing in new testament studies. Hopefully this shines a light on this practice and helps discourage such intellectual dishonesty in academia.
Your calm and collected demeanor when dealing with character assassination is admirable and inspirational.
This Loke character is one big Gish gallop. Good job, Paul.
Yes, a long Paul vid, another great day
Long Paul Vid
are Paul O’ Jeeah’s nom du pirate🏴☠️ !
He’s always arrrguing with someone.
Dr Loke needs to understand most of us will never read his book. Any one with a Church based PHD is self declared prejudiced
I find it quite hilarious that you can be called a doctor because you're an expert on fairytales. 🤣
@@briankrakau8371 I agree but to clarify I will always respect some one who has a PHD on Fairy tales( Perhaps in a discipline of literature or mythology) as opposed to someone who believes the fairy tales are real.
@@briankrakau8371 to be fair loke was already a medical doctor already
5hrs of Dr Loke ad hoc problems, explained away by in 44mins. winning!
Shaka, when the walls fell.
Your Darmok and Jalad clip made me so happy! This is why I love you Paul. You are awesome!
TNG forever.
Glad someone appreciated it.
I am, myself, soon to obtain a PhD in neuroscience and I'm absolutely disgusted by Dr Loke's comments. Will I suddenly become less error prone when I submit my PhD thesis???
It’s how people who studied nothing worthwhile view more intelligent people without a degree.
You picked the wrong field.
> Will I suddenly become less error prone
You need to find a field where it's hard to find evidence.
Then you'll be error-free.
Literally, if it's hard to get evidence, we'll let you promote ANYTHING. Including you resurrected a man named Lazarus, and then you yourself were resurrected (by you as one member of your trinity)
And the trinity is you.
Just remember that your technicians are always god, 😎.
Love listening to Paulogia's videos and his rebuffs. Just gently lets the evidence do the talking and totally obliterates the other person. Brilliant
In the first century of the Common Era, there appeared at the eastern end of the Mediterranean a remarkable religious leader who taught the worship of one true God and declared that religion meant not the sacrifice of beasts but the practice of charity and piety and shunning of hatred and enmity. He was said to have worked miracles of goodness, casting out demons, healing the sick, raising the dead. His exemplary life led some of his followers to claim he was a son of God, though he called himself the son of man. Accused of sedition against Rome, he was arrested. After his death, his disciples claimed he had risen from the dead, appeared to them alive, and then ascended to heaven. Who was this teacher and wonder-worker? His name was Apollonius of Tyana; he died about 98 AD, and his story may be read in Flavius Philostratus's Life of Apollonius.
Yeah, but did he show his love by preaching that if you don't worship him, you'd burn in hell for all of eternity?
"Even today, there are gullible people around" - Dr Loke
One day he'll realise what he said.
I won't hold my breath.
Not bloody likely. His paycheck depends on him not understanding.
"The disciples wouldn't have believed on the scant information that is written alone."
And yet, that scant information is apparently enough for Loke, at least as long as he has his imagined hypothetical evidence.
I would love to dive deeper into your clarification attempts, but I'm physically unable to listen to Dr. Loke for longer than 20 seconds.
talk quickly --> avoid critical inquiry
Since we’re going to elevate the debate, and have a robust discussion, please make sure to discuss the _full_ Caca-Doodoo Head rebuttal and the “He Who Smelt It, Dealt It” defense
Brilliant!
Thank you so much for making editing content that smoothly addresses the points instead of... five hours of streaming where it's rambling and mostly self-admitted emotional responses.
His entire philosophy is "So you're saying there's a chance..."
The entire concept is faith is basically "So you're saying there's a chance..."
Lmao
Loke: "these specific ancient people would have thoroughly investigated the claims about Jesus"
Also Loke: "why do people listen to Paulogia without thorougly investigating my book!?"
> ancient people would have thoroughly investigated
using their own CSI lab, just to be sure.
With their own David Caruso character saying weird shit and then
dramatically putting on their shades to over-the-top music.
Good observation.
Those ancient people would have been labouring from sunrise to sunset to obtain the food needed to prevent them from going to bed hungry that night. These were simple, illiterate peasants whose only mode of transport was there own two feet. How exactly would they have conducted any investigation?
They researched as much as people who believe in Alien crash landing based on Roswell tinfoil.
If you come for Paulogia, you best not miss 🔥
The reason many people didn't read his book is that we have heard all of this before. Reading the same info again, will not change our minds. Bad arguments will always be bad arguments.
Exactly, if he has some new arguments and new evidence then I might actually read his book.
But it seems that it’s just the same nonsense that has been rejected centuries ago.😂
@@ramigilneas9274 he does have new evidence, the bottom of the iceberg. Only you can't see it, read it, hear it, or know it. Seems legit.
Paul, another great video. I admire your patience and forebearance.
I genuinely feel Loke finds it difficult to distinguish between what he 'knows' and what he 'believes'.
Nobody does a fairer dive into biblical errancy than Paulogia...its a joy to listen and watch as Paul meticulously takes apart his opponent's claims with almost surgical precision.
And the icing on the cake was this video gave Paul the green light to give "For the bible tells me so" a well-deserved outing.
I find it interesting how andrew assumed that people saying in the comments that Paulogia did a good job did not read his book and as such they are not checking the evidence. Has he seen paulogia's series about resurrection evidence yet? If not, which he still sounds like he hasn't, i'd say that being hypocritical is not that good of an image.
Yaweh is the King of Excuses; furthermore, he likes the smell of burning flesh.
Apologetics: making up excuses for your imaginary friends.
All the gods liked the smell of burning flesh; that's nothing special.
@@michaelsommers2356 Nope.
@@meptune I was a little hyperbolic, but all the gods who demanded burnt offerings liked the smell of burning flesh, and that was most of them. At the very least, it was not uncommon.
This is the most salient point made (imho): That if we have as a goal to trust the accounts in the Gospels we have to find corroborative evidence outside the New Testament documents that can bolster the claims within the Gospels, and sufficient quality that justifies acceptance of the claims in the Gospels.
Ok, this is now my favorite video Paulogia has ever done. Not because of the content, but solely on the inclusion of a clip from Monty Python and the Holy Grail! It's about time Paul... More please.
Great job staying calm and doing a well thought out video. I would have lost my temper on Dr. Loke several times. Fantastic work Paul!!
I can’t imagine Paulogia ever losing his patience.
Calm, Collected, Coherent, and Correct. Thanks for another solid video Paul.
Even if they wanted to, it would take a Corinthian at least a month to make the round trip to Judea to check for corroboration of the claim of there being 500 witnesses there. And that doesn't include the time it would take to track those unnamed people down.
A PhD in theology is as relevant to explaining reality as a PhD in literature is to cosmology.
If you switch literature to astrology, it will make more sense, almost perfect. 😀
"Argument from hypothetical evidence" Sums up the whole evidence of revivification.
I mean sure, I don’t have a PhD. I AM smart enough to know that a PhD from a Bible college isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on though, so in terms of my capacity to process inputs and make decisions about my time and efforts I put myself on par or above “doctor” Lok.
Does Dr. Loke have a PhD in make believe or a make believe PhD? 🤣😂
@@jasonsabbath6996 Possibly both.
He also has a medical degree so the quotation marks are unnecessary (despite him being a gormless twonk)
@@bigtombowski medical phd?
@@tarfielarchelone2674 Andrew Lok has a medical degree "MB BS". His PhD is in something like Philosophy of Religion.
Paul, huge thanks for focusing on the salient points and valuing everyone’s time ... I watched a couple of hours of Cameron & Dr Loke which was enough to convince me you have the patience of a saint. Keep up the great work 👍
appreciated, Chris
I see Dr. Loke is completely unrepentant. I'm starting to think he doesn't have the fruits of the spirit.
That's what happens when an Asian man tries to defend the faith of the white men.
Especially Peace. Calm down and chill, Loke.
My favorite fruit of the spirit is Grey Goose Pear
God damn (pun intended), that university that gave Loke a PhD must be cringing over the quality of logic and argumentation he exhibits.
They did allow him to give out his book for free. You get what you pay for?
@@Paulogia that odd situation when acquiring somerhing free of charge is still a bad deal...
I love that when he scoffed at your jingle and sang it sarcastically, that you played the jingle simultaneously!😄
I adore you
Ok, ok, get a room you two. 😂🤣
Loke bores me so much I’m going to not read his book twice.
That is the only reasonable response.
I could not get through not reading it even once, so good luck to you
Huh. You guys should do your research. I've failed to read it cover to cover. I've got a Phd in failing to read it. What i don't know about it literally cannot be measured.
I'm not going to read it three times and whenever I see Loke speaking, I'm going to put my fingers in my ears and go *'lalalalalalalala...'*
@@skepticusmaximus184 Honestly, it's such a good book to repeatedly not read. It gets better and better each time.
“Mischievous superstitions” Couldn’t have said it better myself!
I love your videos Paul. Thanks again for your hard work!
You just schooled a dude with a PHD lol. To bad he doesn’t care about facts as much as his personal beliefs.
If I had a taken the time to get an actual PHD rather than these fake what ever people like Loke, and the likes of Hovind have, I would be up in arms getting those revoked, as it is I still believe they should not have their "credentials" # take fake PHD's away
@bob smith Ph.D.s are overrated. Completing work and exams is an entirely different skill-set than genuine critical thinking and problem solving, and being academically gifted does not make someone not-an-idiot. In fact, you would be surprised by the amount of morons that exist in the planet despite having a Ph.D. Yes, having a Ph.D does count for something... but only a little bit. And this is especially true if it is a Ph.D not it in medicine or the sciences. With such an inherently problematic field of study like New Testament Studies, getting a Ph.D is something literally any person, even the most ungifted and unskilled of all, can do. Far from surprising, I would argue this is to be expected.
"Don't do it Andrew! I have the high ground!"
ha!
@12:25 - Dr. Loke admits that his belief system's foundation is
made of weak evidence
Thanks for your hard work & honesty in this presentation. It was both interesting & frustrating.👍
Thank you for all of your content Paulogia! You are inspirational, informative, and a great guide amongst many others I have come across!
thank you for the kind words, Brandon.
The "PhD" calling out Paulogia for not having a degree in fantasy literature says more about the value of the degree than it does about Paul or his arguments. Question for the "Ph.D": if a church at the time of Paul of Tarsus was around 30 ~ 40 people, where did "500 brothers at once" come from? Why were over a dozen churches from all over Europe and the middle east all meeting together on same day? Weird how that suddenly doesn't make sense anymore, huh? Here's my theory: Paul of Tarsus was as authentic and honest then as Jim Bakker is today.
Sales people talk in big numbers, as do sports announcers! 😜
I love your intellectual honesty Paul. Keep up the great work! You are awesome!🌏🍀🌻
Excellent as always, Paul. Thanks for the work you do
What a spectacular video. Well worth the wait. I've been following this closely from the beginning
"Excuses aren't evidence"
I have a very vivid memory of when my arm went through the ringer of the ringer washing machine my parents had when I was 3 (late 1980s). I remember Mom leaving the room when the baby monitor went off (my brother was an infant and upstairs) and I remember poking the ringer. I remember my arm going through the ringer and stopping at the elbow where the bunches of the large sweatshirt I was wearing got caught. I don't remember any pain or screaming. I don't remember the ride to the hospital or Grandpa ordering Dad to buy a proper washer/dryer. But I've been told about all of this for as long as I can remember. I've heard the story over and over again.
I know now as an adult that it's not actually my own memory of the event. My brain reconstructed it in vivid detail from the stories I heard and it was reinforced with each telling. It actually happened and I do remember the story in step by step detail, but I wouldn't have that "memory" if it weren't for hearing the story so often. I'm not misremembering or mistaken, but it's still an implanted memory, for lack of a better term. I don't technically know if it all happened just like it was described for me. I don't even know if the story changed over the years, but that is the memory I have. And I have the scar on my left elbow to show that it actually did happen.
I've got memories like that. But *ouch!* Mine aren't _that_ bad! I'm glad you got through it with just a scar on your elbow!
@@Bill_Garthright Don't feel too bad. Like I said, I don't remember any pain.
I suspect certain details were added by Mom. She's paranoid of ppl thinking she's not a good mother. I also find it very unlikely that they had a baby monitor. They certainly didn't have one when I was older and it's the kind if thing they couldn't have afforded at that time. They were living on a rented farm where they paid very little in rent in exchange for taking care of the animals. And the house was basically in shambles with the owner refusing to do any upkeep - even after the heater quite literally blew up. That's why my parents finally moved out.
I don't trust Cameron anymore. I hope that he's sincere but damage control often works this way too.
Reasonable observation.
I’ve flipped a bit on what I think of Cameron. The early stuff I saw made me think he was reasonable. Then I saw a couple of things (the main one that springs to mind is the episode where he and Dr Craig took atheist comedian arguments (the lowest hanging fruit), and Dr Craig accidently misinterpreted everything one of the statements which conveniently let him dismiss them all without ever addressing the heart of the points being made. Around that time I though Cameron was dishonest.
Seeing this series where he immediately jumped to calling Paulogia dishonest without any consideration, then later apologised... that makes me think Cameron isn’t dishonest but is someone that jumps quickly to conclusions. If a guest has an opinion that matches what he wants to be true he seems very quick to accept it seemingly without any questioning going on.
@@JohnSmith-fz1ih Jumping quickly to conclusions is another form of dishonesty, though. That still makes him dishonest. Honestly, he is not very different from most apologists. Apologists are both sincere and dishonest. They are sincere in their beliefs, but dishonest with their discourse, because the only way to even manage to maintain those beliefs is precisely to be dishonest in discourse.
30:56 was _gloriously_ funny!
*Loke:* Human nature means people will check the sources of claims.
Also *Loke:* I'm surprised that people didn't check the source - my book!
Loke is a _joke!_ He's good at debunking his own arguments. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Did any of the 500 witness included Roman soldiers saying, 'Hey, we crucified that guy! What giveth?'
(you'd think they'd record something like that.)
yeah, i wonder the same thing.
Heh! "Right! Come along now, it's back up on the cross for you!"
How low can the bar go for argumentation?
Ladies & Gentlemen, I present: an argument from hypothetical evidence that may have possibly existed but is not now extant.
Great work again Paul. You are appreciated. Keep it up!
From the first time I watched one of your videos, I have loved your style. Brilliant work: straight and to the point (with references :) ). I have tons of questions but haven't a clue how to frame them. Slowly getting there.
Hey Paulogia, keep on keeping on. Reason is important and you are championing it well, in my opinion
Paul doesn’t have a PhD in Make Believe like I do! So he can’t possibly know more about my invisible friend than I do!
When I was a kid, my parents bought my brother and me a miniature air-hockey table. Along with our friends (and our father) we played on that thing until it literally fell apart, and although quite unintentional, I got really, really good at air hockey. This was especially apparent when I would play in public on those full-sized commercial tables like they used to have in arcades and bars, etc. Compared to playing on my old mini table, the game moved much slower on those big tables, and I never lost a game on one unless I deliberately didn't try to win.
When I got into college, the local dive bar my friends and I frequented had an air hockey table, and we would often encounter at that bar a group of guys we knew--friends of friends, so to speak--who were really into playing air hockey: they'd lay small bets when they'd play each other, and occasionally would hold tournaments amongst their group of friends. Although it had been a while since I'd played, and although this group of guys were quite superior air hockey players to the average bar-goer, when I played against them I found the old skills I'd picked up as a kid hadn't left me, and I beat all of them every time, usually without much trouble. I couldn't just screw around and coast to easy victories, but none of those guys was ever as tough as, say, playing against my brother. And although I liked the group of guys well enough, their boastfulness and initial assumption that they would be the obviously superior air hockey players caused me to never cut them any slack--I never went easy on them even for a couple scores to keep a game close. Over the course of a few months, they got frustrated playing me although they never overtly said said so, but I knew they were because they were less boisterous and more serious when they played, and eventually they quit inviting me to play if they saw me in the bar. I didn't blame them--no hard feelings.
What does any of this have to do with biblical debates? Well, whenever Paulogia addresses the arguments of christian apologists, esp when they have the poor sense to challenge him directly, I always get the image in my mind of playing air hockey against those guys in that bar. They flailed around and sweated, and tried all kinds of funky trick shots and long reaches across the table; I sat back, defended my goal with small moves, and took advantage of the openings to score that my opponents left for me. Sometimes the games ran for a half-hr and required multiple payments of quarters, and other times they were over in three minutes flat, but regardless of length, I always won. My opponents simply did not have the tools or skills to win, but they were loathe to admit it, and challenged me to game after game. And just as I'd shrug, smile, and say, "sure, let's go again" to each air hockey challenge, I imagine Paulogia must do something similar when he hears people like Cameron and the Very Important good doctor: a smile, a little shrug, and it's off again to the already forgone conclusion of rhetorical victory against opponents who haven't yet figured out that they simply don't have the tools necessary to change the outcome of the game. They can flail around all they want, they can try any gimmicky tricks they want, but it's not going to make any difference because none of it alters the fundamental strength of Paulogia's positions. And the logical superiority of those positions is the very reason he was a christian and is now an atheist.
The idea that a bunch of people in Corinth would have "investigated" events in distant Judea at a time such travel was extraordinarily expensive and difficult is simply absurd. The vast majority of people in the Roman world were in no position to abandon their homes and employment to go on expeditions to distant lands.
Imagine your whole professional credibility hanging on a loose claim about the truth of a storybook. You'd also be majorly butthurt if anyone questioned your work.
I'm sure there are plenty of PhD's garnered through the study of Mother Goose, the Brothers Grimm and other storybooks, but--ironically--believing they were true would have likely been a disqualification.
I am always amazed how readily willing Christian institutions are to hand out doctorates to people who use no logic, evidence or outright lie to prove their positions.
As usual, this video hits all the right notes. Well done Paul!
After all this perfectly presented information and arguments, the origin and struggle of your family, the thorough editing and entertainment, what I end up being amazed about, is that Andrew Loke is even a doctor 🤔
This is confusing. When Loke talks about Paul, is he talking about Paul or Paul?
Yes.
@@FahadAyaz Ah, I see. Thank you for clearing that up.
Again my advise: Slow the video down to 0.5 speed when Loke talks. Really helps a lot.
Paul thank you so much for these videos. The way you describe how you grew up and what you came to believe describes me so perfectly. From one atheist to another keep it up and thank you!
Appreciate that, Joshua.
These are the types of videos I enjoy. Well thought out and well prepared ideas and rebuttals. They don't really bring us closer to the truth, but help illustrate the problem with proving historical events from the Bible.
You may not be officially titled as a scholar, but there's no denying the work you do is indeed scholarly and I would pit you against the best of them any day!
Paulogia destroys completely Andrew Loke again and again
Another excellent video, Paul- very thorough and honest. 👍
Thanks 👍
just wanted to say that i love what you do so much
Apologists, for the most parts, appear unbearably smug about their so called "clarity" so for me, even if I wanted to see their side, I would close the video before really getting deep into their arguments.
Paul, thanks for your continued work in this specific area. I really enjoy your calm and respectful demeanor. I have been atheist nearly my whole life, from the age of 16 to 69; so, technically, In my case you are "preaching to the choir". Regardless, I really enjoy your videos and I am a long time subscriber. Please, keep up the good work.
Appreciate the support. Thanks.
Great video! Reminded me I should watch Community again.
Dr. Loke uses the phrase "I'm surprised at how many people don't read my book" way too many times. If this was a drinking game, I'd have already drank two bottles of wine.