I really think you’ve missed the point. “Why isn’t Paulogia more specific about the charges brought against Jesus?” He’s conceding Jesus’ existence, his ministry and his crucifixion. Yet you ask why he doesn’t concede on a bunch of other stuff that you believe. Things that are not required in order to make Paulogia’s point that intentionally borrows from Habermas’s ‘minimal’ approach. Emphasis on ‘minimal’. You want to add extra baggage that you happen to like. Really unimpressed so far.

@daverobson3084

2 сағат бұрын

They avoid any actual criticism. They first admit, then totally ignore., the fact that Paul had word count limit on this , and that he stated as much. They also ignore the several videos where Payulogia goes much deeper than he does here. This is very lazy .

This was missing the point. The point was "can it be explained naturally?" Whether or not you think he did it successfully doesn't really matter. The point is that he could do it.

@shassett79

7 күн бұрын

It's weird how Cam & friends missed the point, right? Almost seems deliberate...

@rapdactyl

Күн бұрын

It's bordering on dishonest. These are smart people - how did they spend more than 2 hours on this project and completely miss the point of a 12 minute video?! Did none of the three (!!!) of them think "maybe throwing out the entire hypothetical right at the start is missing the point of the video?" I just find it hard to believe, I honestly have more faith in them than this. These individuals are not stupid, and yet...2 hours?!?

@newglof9558

Күн бұрын

"Can you dunk on a 10 foot hoop?" "Yes." "Then let's see it." "Oh, I can do it, just not successfully." "...so you can't do it." The "successfully" is implicit in the question.

@Guy_With_A_Laser

Күн бұрын

@@newglof9558 They kind of break it up a bit in the first part of this video, but Paulogia explains it pretty clearly at the start of his essay: Gary Habermas in his book says that secular scholars do not often pin down a single hypothesis that explains the rise of Christianity, and puts out a challenge for them to do so. Gary's work is based on a minimal facts hypothesis, namely that there are a small number of simple and uncontroversial facts that explain Christianity, and that there is no naturalistic explanation fits the data. Paulogia's hypothesis attempts to answer that challenge by presenting an accounting that uses the same facts as Gary but does not require any supernatural elements. The panel kind of misses the context of that discussion, pointing to a number of other things that neither Gary nor Paulogia would consider relevant in this context. Many of the objections brought up by the panel would also not be considered part of Habermas' minimal facts and would be rejected by him as well (and, actually, Gary's argument is often attacked by other Christian scholars for his facts being too minimal and not being strong enough to actually support Christianity).

@lakesideprojects7194

Күн бұрын

@newglof9558 you've got it back to front. "I can dunk a 10 foot hoop" "Let's see it" *dunks* "Well, I don't consider that successful because.." Successful or not is the opinion of the critiquer.

The first stated criticism is that Paulogia is using a "closed minded anti-supernatural philosophical assumption." Isn't that the same as using a naturalistic framework? Isn't that the point of the argument from the start - to show you can have a naturalistic account of Christianity without the supernatural events?

@truncated7644

Күн бұрын

This deserves a response from each person in the video.

@Reclaimer77

Күн бұрын

They missed the core-concept badly, you are exactly right. This is not how intellectuals engage. Jimmy and crew are just reading from the Bible, assuming it's correct, and asserting it is evidence. It's comical!

@montagdp

Күн бұрын

Yes, that's exactly the point, and the panel missed it completely.

@nagranoth_

Күн бұрын

yes, and rather duh so. But these are apologists. They have to be dishonest.

@torreyintahoe

Күн бұрын

Good point Adam.

Cameron: 'We can assume Joseph of Arimathea must have felt guilty and changed his mind about the killing of Jesus.' Also Cameron: 'It makes no sense to assume that Paul would feel guilty and change his mind'.

Now let’s see a response to Paul’s actual argument since he just responded to the three stooges

I think Paulogia's explanation for the origins of christianity is the most plausible I've heard. These three definitely didn't demolish his explanation by any stretch of the imagination.

Circus must be in town 'cause this is one hell of a clown show. 🤡

If you can’t address the content honestly, don’t bother.

Paulogia's community statement says it all: "Honestly, I've never felt LESS demolished in my whole life."

@Entropy3ko

8 күн бұрын

Paulogia's arguments were pretty bad to begin with. Frankly rather pathetic. Maybe the problem is not the response but the people buying into such bad arguments.

@shassett79

8 күн бұрын

@@Entropy3ko I found Paulogia's hypothesis to be well-researched and convincing. Do you have specific objections to share? Or are you sticking with vague insults?

@wadetisthammer3612

8 күн бұрын

​@@shassett79 What about e.g., Paulogia's questionable use of sources as described in this video?

@shassett79

8 күн бұрын

@@wadetisthammer3612 Do you have a specific source you want to discuss in the context of a specific part of Paulogia's argument?

@biblicalanarchy13

7 күн бұрын

@wadetisthammer3612 I didn't find Paulogia's use problematic. As Jimmy pointed out, the source cites someone in the third century as saying crucifixion victims were buried in his day, and also during the time of Augustus. The problem here is that Jesus was crucified in between those two time periods. Now, could one infer from this that it's possible that Jesus was buried 19 years after Augustus? Yes. But the opposite inference could just as easily be drawn. So while I side with Jimmy on the historicity of the burial, I'm at a loss to explain why they thought this context was damaging to Paulogia's argument.

Apologists can never understand that the gospel writers were just early apologists.

As noted by others, Paul's response is out. Paul's argument is that there is a reasonable naturalistic explanation. To refute Paul, Cam & Friends should provide an internal critique of why it is wrong. Instead, they reject Paul's naturalistic premise and argue from their faith position. I admire Paul's restraint on using "For the Bible Tells Me So" button....

@shassett79

Күн бұрын

He really could have just looped the "bible tells me so" jingle for an hour. That's the only response this video merits.

15:00 Cameron says he will not be missing the point. And yet he immediately misses the point. Paul's brings up Bart ehrmans opinion and proceeds to disagree with it because he personally found it insufficient.

Is there a part two coming when you demolish him?

If you want to see an _actual_ demolition of an argument, you should check out Paulogia's response. I get stuck feeling like either these folks aren't smart enough to understand Paul's point, or that they're willfully being disingenuous, and both options bum me out. Why can't they just deal with the argument honestly and in good faith?

@MenchisMenagerie

Күн бұрын

With how often it happens, I've lost any faith (har har) that it isn't them being purposefully dishonest.

@squillsify

Күн бұрын

@@MenchisMenagerie it's hard to read it any other way.

How could info about Joseph of Arimathea be falsifiable? No one knows where Arimathea is supposed to have been. If he wasn't a real person, no one can attest to him & the fact that he appears no where except in the Bible, bears this out. You claim someone could say "My Dad's on the Sanhedrin & no, he had nothing to do with the burial of Jesus." But this assumes JofA is a real person. No one can in fact go to Arimathea to check what he says, as it's an unknown place. How does one verify claims about an unknown person from an unknown place?

@utubepunk

Күн бұрын

Excellent points, GG. Also, it's more accurate to call him Joseph of Plot-armor-athea... because that's exactly what role this character plays.

This has to be the most intellectually dishonest rebuttal/response I’ve ever seen from this channel. This is what happens when your only goal is to defend turf whilst not engaging the actual arguments being made in reasonably good faith.

40 mins in: the Joseph of Arimethia story isn't in multiple independent sources. It's been well documented that all four gospel stories share sources, or more exactly the last three heavily copied from the first and each after used the previous gospels in the writing of is narrative. Therefore this correlation make it a single source mentioned several times over.

@TheClearwall

Күн бұрын

Point on a map where "Arimathea" is. Is it a city, a city-state, a region? What is it? No historian will ever accept that Arimathea actually existed therefore, Joseph of Arimathea is a made up character

@Control_alt_delete

Күн бұрын

@TheClearwall Joseph of Arimathea means Joseph from best disciple town. Clearly a place that was made up.

@TheClearwall

13 сағат бұрын

@@Control_alt_delete 😀 right on mate

30min into this video and yall are totally missing the point. This is hard to listen to

@Frosee14

5 күн бұрын

seeing that they start pauls vid at 17:12, thats only 13 minutes int o their actual response, less than 20% of their actual response...

@briley2177

Күн бұрын

@@Frosee14 They never address the argument. Paul’s argument boils down to a “naturalistic explanation for the origins of Christianity,” but this panel never sets aside their belief in the supernatural (just for the sake of the argument) and engages in an internal critique of whether or not Paul’s theory sufficient explains the advent of Christianity. You cannot examine the strength or weakness of a naturalistic explanation if you persist in the position that supernatural events occurred. This is why historical evidence cannot corroborate the claims of miracles.

OH MY GAWD!!! that number typo completly invalidates everything paul said,you should have just said CHECKMATE ATHIEST,right then and there!

@michaelsbeverly

Күн бұрын

Cameron: I have nicer hair. Jimmy: I have a nicer beard. Christians: We Won! Check mate atheists!

These 2 are like Legolas and Gimli fighting together at helms deep

@HellenicCatholic

12 күн бұрын

I’m gonna guess which is Gimli, lol

@isaakleillhikar8311

12 күн бұрын

Siding with a Protestant ? Siding with a catholic ? What about siding with a friend ?

@mangudaimonger8915

12 күн бұрын

"Never thought I'd be fighting side by side with a Protestant." "How about side by side with a friend?"

@mycount30000

12 күн бұрын

What a propethic typology.. When myth become true in reality.. 😂

@fernandoformeloza4107

12 күн бұрын

They should dress up when team ups like this happen lol 😂

Having watched this video and the Paulogia response to it, I have to say that not only did you not demolish his explanation, he kinda showed you guys to be either dishonest or just lazy with your commentary. It was hard watching a group of guy being a bit smug while doing an embarrassingly bad job.

@squillsify

Күн бұрын

Setting aside that "demolishing" an argument is just a little silly anyways, it was telling that Cameron kept trying to sell the idea that they "found some stuff that totally demolishes Paulogia's argument" instead of being clear about how Paul's argument didn't fly. As a general rule, shouldn't the audience, and not the content creators, get to decide who demolishes who?

@blamtasticful

13 сағат бұрын

That's all Cameron has lol

I‘m looking forward to Paul‘s response video. He takes criticism to his source treatment very seriously - as Cam knows and already experienced 😅

@highroller-jq3ix

9 күн бұрын

Yup. He will methodically tear it apart, as he always does, and readily concede any errors in his arguments or sourcing.

@erichenkel4393

9 күн бұрын

@@highroller-jq3ixsaid nobody ever. He misquotes & cherry picks all the time

@Entropy3ko

8 күн бұрын

Too bad he cannot make any decent argument

@erichenkel4393

8 күн бұрын

@@downenout8705 good for you

@highroller-jq3ix

8 күн бұрын

@@Entropy3ko Can you offer a decent argument?

One thing is for sure, a response is coming

@RegebroRepairs

Күн бұрын

And he completely demolishes them. It's rather brutal.

@benkrapf

Күн бұрын

@@RegebroRepairs He's very gracious. I don't know if I would've been so.

@colintalbert9538

Күн бұрын

Just watched the response. It completely made these three jokers look intellectually bankrupt

Smug intellectual superiority is a bad look for Cameron. He is certainly aware that he's responding to a brief summary of Paulogia's work on this subject and yet he goes all in on the strawman. Cameron is just an intellectual poser.

How is having an "anti-supernatural bias" bad? Why should we seriously consider magical storybook characters like Jesus and Frosty the Snowman and The Tooth Fairy did magical things in reality before looking at naturalistic explanations that don't require The Tooth Fairy?

@ThinkitThrough-kd4fn

11 сағат бұрын

It isn't. It's good to have that bias. That is a trick of sophists. Using a word that has a negative connotation to most people to make your opponent sound bad.

Cameron: "Honestly, no one knows how to pronounce his name, it might be 'Paulogia', but it's impossible to know for sure.... " Paul, at the start of every f**cking video: "Welcome to Paulogia" Just that right there should be enough to let you know they never intended to take Paul's argument seriously.

@suntorytimes1

4 сағат бұрын

They look like they’re either too dumb to remember it or they’re purposefully dishonest. I’d very much like to go with the former but I know it’s the latter.

@magicker8052

3 сағат бұрын

Yeh that immediately gets everyone's back up. Just so needless rude and petty

what a lazy character assassination

I would say that "Jesus rose from the dead" is one of the most complex hypotheses you can come up with. The massive disconnect on our Bayesian priors is the real issue, not any specific detail of the story.

More data, less dogma, gentlemen! Look at the 500. Was that precise or an estimate? Were any names taken? How many came forward? When did this happen? Where? No further attestation of what could be a major piece of data. I'm sure Paulogia will respond. With no ad hominems.

@user-mr3kf2vr6y

10 күн бұрын

Paulogia is obviously a very angry man, this is the fulfillment that atheism brings. If the historical evidence isn’t compelling to you, look at real medically backed miracles today in Jesus name, I’ve seen someone who was blind be given sight and I know it sounds nuts or ludicrous but believe me it’s true there is pre and post medical records. I don’t believe that what a lot of people call miracles are miracles but there is no doubt that miracles exist

@gospelfreak5828

8 күн бұрын

Paul had no reason to be very specific about details, especially if it was public knowledge. It was a claim that could've been checked by those he was writing to at the time. So the questions you ask are not all that relevant. The point is, around 500 people saw Jesus alive. Paul would have no reason to lie about this. He also was not a liar and clearly believed in this stuff. He would never make such a bold claim that could be proven wrong instantly.

@highroller-jq3ix

8 күн бұрын

@@gospelfreak5828 The point is at this imaginary mass witnessing is just a hearsay assertion. Paul absolutely had a reason to lie or to pass along an unverified, hysterical fantasies he was a mentally tormented, batshit zealot who suffered from halluncinations! How do you know he wasn't a liar, liar? Who was going to "prove him wrong" about such a vague claim that can't possibly be proven wrong but that also can't be verified or made credible? How come no one with credibility specifically attested to zombie Jesus, the zombie parade in Jerusalem, the imaginary census, the imaginary earthquakes, or the imaginary sun blotting?

@chrispope7486

8 күн бұрын

@@gospelfreak5828 A high school student in Norway beat Michael Jordan in a game of one on one basketball. I wasn’t there, but 500 people saw it and you can ask any of these people. I don’t know any of their names or the name of the school or the exact date but you can ask them. - lying from Tarsus

@gospelfreak5828

8 күн бұрын

@@chrispope7486 If you told me that there were those of that number of 500 who were still alive and I could go to an equivalent of the apostles and I am also a part of a church that I can visit other churches and have conversations with those living people, then that is a little different than being completely removed and unable to check and validate said claim. All someone in the Corinthian church would have to do is literally go to the church in Jerusalem and talk with an apostle and talk with others who witnessed said event. It's more like if you knew the exact school where this was witnessed, and you can go to said school and ask people there if they actually saw and witnessed that.

I find it ironic that you criticize Paul for mispronouncing some name and at the same time not make the effort to pronounce his name correctly.

@sapago4166

7 күн бұрын

Not to mention that pretty much everyone on both sides of the issue pronounces it "Thaddeus," not "Thuddeus."

@thelonelysponge5029

7 күн бұрын

How hard is it for an English speaker to mispronounce Paul?

@thomaslehner5605

7 күн бұрын

@@thelonelysponge5029 Paulogia

@thelonelysponge5029

7 күн бұрын

@@thomaslehner5605 I see..

I agree with these guys! Mostly because I had a very similar experience. I was just recently released from prison after serving time for robbing a bank. I absolutely was NOT guilty but was convicted based on faulty logic similar to what Paulogia is guilty of. The real culprit was the King of Mars, who was trying to frame me so that he could take my place as Emperor of the solar system. He was able to use both his Martian ability to teleport the cash and gold from the bank vault into my home, as well as use shape shifters from Venus to look like me. The Prosecutor never once laid out a case involving Marians, or Venusians, showing a complete anti-extraterrestrial bias. Additionally, he continually cherry-picked parts of the story that did not include teleportation or shape shifting. I wish these guys had been on my jury!

@mauromacave2662

Күн бұрын

This is the funniest thing I've seen this year 😂😂😂

@k98killer

Күн бұрын

Top kek, fren.

@rivjiou3696

13 сағат бұрын

🔖

@magicker8052

3 сағат бұрын

Nailed it

1:58:51 it is laughably ironic that Cameron is citing Occam’s razor, claiming that Jesus was magically raised from the dead instead of a totally plausible naturalistic explanation. Can’t they see the irony that they are poking fun at magical fairies doing magical things?! And that they prefer the more naturalistic explanation of his kids eating the cereal?! I FEEL LIKE IM TAKING CRAZY PILLS!!!

@calmsimon

7 күн бұрын

It’s truly wild. The cognitive dissonance is STRONG bruv

I think we need to do more video like this, Catholic + Protestant + Orthodox, team up, answering sceptic, atheist and agnostic people.

@WorkingFromHomeToday452

11 күн бұрын

Maybe you guys should agree on your own religion before going after others??

@calson814

11 күн бұрын

​@@WorkingFromHomeToday452 yeah we agreed on the Resurrection😅

@The-Doubters-Diary

11 күн бұрын

😂😂😂. Ya'll can't quit fighting each other long enough over who is right to tackle us.

@calson814

11 күн бұрын

@@The-Doubters-Diary do you realise we Christians agreed on the Resurrection right? 😃

@The-Doubters-Diary

11 күн бұрын

@@calson814 Big deal. If all people who believe in Bigfoot think the creature is brown, does that make it real? Especially if they can't agree on anything else?

Not a very convincing rebuttal of Paulogia. It relies on claims of the supernatural and the 'evidence' of what is written in the Bible whose veracity is the subject of this whole exercise. Paulogias naturalistic explanation of the start and rise of Christianity is far more likely and convincing than the Bible narratives and traditional church narratives.

The fact you are insisting it HAS to be magic - OBVIOUSLY - and it is somehow silly to suggest anything else is ... strange. At least to me.

My question is: doesn’t your god value honesty, and if so, don’t you risk getting him angry at your purposeful obtuseness and dishonesty? Do you think he’s the petty type described in the Bible, who’ll let anything pass as long as you’re worshipping him? Or have you realised there is no chance that he exists so you’re really not risking anything? Which one is it?

@NomDeUser

23 сағат бұрын

I suggest you look to Patriarch Kirill, head of the Russian Orthodox Church. Everyone has their price.

Ppl so misuse Hume. He was smart enough to not forward an obviously circular argument. He argued that we have to measure the probability of miracle vs non-miracle, which is exactly what Christian apologists say. Ppl use Hume circularly all the time, but they’re actually straw-manning Hume’s position.

@Entropy3ko

8 күн бұрын

Hume argument against miracles has been deemed an abject failure by most philosophers at this point.

@Brascofarian

8 күн бұрын

@@Entropy3ko This comment made me look it up in the Stanford Encyclopedia, here's what it says:- "A curious feature of recent discussions is that Hume’s critique of reported miracles has itself come under heavy fire and is now viewed in some quarters as requiring defense. For a range of views on the matter, see Levine (1989: 152 ff), who maintains that Part 1 contains an argument but that the argument is a failure, Johnson (1999), who argues that Part 1 is confused and unclear and that various attempts to clarify it have failed to elicit a compelling line of argument, Earman (2000), who argues that Part 1 is an “abject failure,” Fogelin (2003), who aims to rehabilitate Hume against the critiques of Johnson and Earman in particular, and Millican (2013), who argues vigorously that the interpretation of Hume’s argument offered in Earman (2000) is flawed in multiple ways, as does Vanderburgh (2020). Shapiro (2016) and Johnson (2015) endorse a more or less unreconstructed version of Hume’s critique. Millican (2011) offers a sympathetic reconstruction of Hume’s critique in the wider context of Hume’s other metaphysical and epistemological work." It doesn't seem to me to be saying most philosophers have deemed it an abject failure. Earman is the only one mentioned making that claim specifically and it seems his interpretation has been widely rebuffed.

Jimmy thinks that people have actually talked to the dead and that this is a relatively common occurrence? Shouldn't we do nothing else except research this phenomenon? This would be the first and only evidence of the supernatural. What am I missing?

@Abalabexabandraba

8 күн бұрын

Ah, but he likely thinks his supernatural beliefs already explain the phenomenon and that there are other lines of evidence to the supernatural. From the video, he seems to think the resurrection of Jesus is evidence of the supernatural, for example. So to him it’s not the first and only evidence, just one of many. Given he mentions having done two episodes of a show on this “evidence” and considering his other beliefs, it’s not surprising that he would accept such things and consider them sufficiently explored. The trouble with supernatural explanations is that they tend to discourage further tests and digging that more skeptical or scientific people might want. Do these ACDs consistently describe similar afterlives? How do we verify the person having the experience really didn’t know the information beforehand? If only some ADCs are legit, how can you differentiate? Maybe they do get into some of that in the referenced episodes, I haven’t watched them, but I suspect they take the phenomenon much more at face value than I would consider reasonable.

@fnsdjkovnsdkvn

7 күн бұрын

After death communications are reported by up to 80% of people These do *not* necessarily entail speaking with or seeing anyone (despite the terminology). Most respondents to these surveys claim "a sign" or "a sense of their presence" etc. was felt. Experiences of speaking to dead relatives, even in dreams, are a minority experience.

Cameron you truly should be ashamed of yourself and your guests for resorting to name calling and poisoning the well and then preceded to not even seriously understand and respond the Pauls arguments. KZread apologetics is truly a clown show…

@CJP.-pq3kr

7 сағат бұрын

The only circus in town is yours. All of you weirdos are so obsessed with this topic that you all pack into your clown car and bombard any channel that mentions your cult leader. Touch grass sometime. 😂

We don't care what your book says.

If people only put this much effort into behaving like Jesus instead of pedantically trying to prove he existed, who knows what we could accomplish?

@Frosee14

5 күн бұрын

nobody is trying to prove he existed, its a fact of history. it takes real faith to try and deny this. skeptics are just as gullible as the evangelicals they critique.

@AnthonySimeone

5 күн бұрын

@@Frosee14 okay, to broaden what I'm saying, maybe we should stop trying to prove he was actually the Son of God or waste time proving any other aspect of his being. We can better spend that time helping others like Christ showed us.

@Bhoddisatva

Күн бұрын

​@AnthonySimeone Unfortunately these Christians hang everything on Jesus as god-man. Anything he taught about ethics is rendered irrelevant by demands of blind faith or burning in hell. That is all that matters.

@roscius6204

22 сағат бұрын

@@Frosee14 There really is not but that's not the issue. The proof required is that the character, if real, was who you say and did what you believe him to have done. So..... prove something tangible.

lol Except, you didn't, did you?

Paulogia owns you all in his response video ti thus vid.

"Radical skepticism" against what? ... "Radical Gullibility?" How can any person thinking person believe that a dead human, with all the processes shut down for several hours, can come back to life? That guy either was not dead, or it's just a fantasy.

Never seen anyone be LESS demolished before 😅 what a load of nonsense reponses

@wadetisthammer3612

8 күн бұрын

What about e.g., the questionable use of sources as described in the video?

@shassett79

8 күн бұрын

@@wadetisthammer3612 Do you have a specific objection to the use of a specific source in a specific part of Paulogia's argument?

@danielduvana

7 күн бұрын

@@wadetisthammer3612 I don’t think they seem questionable at all, but it seems like Habermas in particular is incredibly bad with correctly representing sources

@wadetisthammer3612

7 күн бұрын

@@danielduvana _I don’t think they seem questionable at all_ What about what Paulogia did as described in 39:48 to 45:29?

@wadetisthammer3612

7 күн бұрын

@@shassett79 _Do you have a specific objection to the use of a specific source in a specific part of Paulogia's argument?_ See 39:48 to 45:29.

You should have had Habermas on to defend the minimal facts before you start inventing new points.

16:36 it sure would be nice if y’all could ever prove that ANY miracle has actually happened.

@daneumurian5466

10 күн бұрын

In early 2003, my first wife and I were sitting in church. The chairman of the board stood up and said, "Pastor Steve has something to tell you." The pastor came in and confessed to a 13 year pornography habit. The next morning my wife and I were getting up and she said, "That's funny. I just had a dream and in the dream, I was given 2 scripture references and I have no idea what they say." Just then I felt a tingling sensation. One scripture reference popped into my head. We looked up the 3 verses. They said: "Expel the immoral brother, I was homeless, and you took me in." We took him in. To me, that was on the order of a double-blind experiment, or if you will, a miracle.

@CharlesPayet

9 күн бұрын

@@daneumurian5466 that is absolutely not a double-blind study. Not even remotely close.

@MLamar0612

9 күн бұрын

​@@daneumurian5466🤣🤣🤣

@ChrisFineganTunes

6 күн бұрын

@@daneumurian5466I once had an exam and was flicking through my Bible the night before rather than studying and stumbled upon the verse ‘do not worry about tomorrow’. I wasn’t worrying all that much anyway but I figured it was a sign. Same energy.

@k98killer

Күн бұрын

​@@daneumurian5466 So your example miracle is that the night after an event, your wife dreamt about relevant Bible verses?

1:58:08 Oof. I’ll bet Cam regrets this stab at an argument. Complexity isn’t the problem in that example, my dude.

@toddramsey6893

6 күн бұрын

2:00:59 Ummm….I think this guy is actually an atheist!

@shassett79

6 күн бұрын

I'm just flabbergasted by the suggestion that positing an omnipotent, nonphysical consciousness from beyond time and space, that magically impregnated a woman to facilitate a blood sacrifice for the sake of resolving a metaphorical issue inherent to the universe it created, is a better and simpler explanation than Paul having PTSD. Make it make sense.

@Finckelstein

Күн бұрын

That part was also my major hangup here. What utter lunacy to even think this would sound sane....

@rivjiou3696

13 сағат бұрын

🔖

In what way is a miraculous resurrection more possible than natural-based conjecture?

@koppite9600

11 күн бұрын

To look at the vastness of the universe and not conclude we are like fairies is disingenuous.

@Draezeth

11 күн бұрын

Simple, apply Occam's Razor. The Christian position has lots of testimony to support it, whereas Paul has to discount parts of the tradition with no reason other than that it makes his thesis easier to support, and posit events we have no record of. The Christian position comes out of available information. The atheist position comes out of pure speculation. The big difference between us is that I've seen miracles happen, so I can't presuppose they're impossible. You've never seen one, so you don't believe they're possible. That's why the gospel being true seems like a less probable explanation.

@curatinghumanism

11 күн бұрын

@@Draezeth We just see Occam's razor different here. God or miracles seem to be clearly a larger leap in probability than naturalism.

@curatinghumanism

11 күн бұрын

@@koppite9600 wait, what? lol

@Draezeth

11 күн бұрын

@curatinghumanism All we need is for miracle to be possible. If the weight of evidence is heavy enough in the miracle's favor, then it should be taken as the best explanation. "Best" is also important to mention. Nobody in this discussion should be saying their answer is the definitive truth. At the end of the day, finding the best fit for the facts we accept is the best we can do. It's how we do science.

When your arguments are so bad that nor even Christians will come to defend then.

Two and a half hours of quality clownshow ❤️ Paulogia's response only makes it funnier. Let's go Camerinooo 🔥🔥

This is why every single year religions are declining rapidly.. The people that are supposed to be the most moral are always the biggest liars and deceivers.. These three continue time after time to lie over and over and over so many overs I can't continue about the content they're talking about it's honestly embarrassing. Paulogia (Paul) has literally gone through this embarrassing attempt to defame another human(real Christian like right?) because he has a different belief than they do, and pointed out the facts for everybody to see if you're interested in the truth go over and watch the video.

The fact of the matter is that even if we had solid evidence of 12 apostles who proclaimed through torture until their executions that they had seen the risen Jesus, it’s still more plausible that they were lying or mistaken than that a previously dead man actually rose back to life. But we don’t have anything like that kind of evidence. We have a minuscule fraction of that evidence.

@Bythegraceofgod1646

3 күн бұрын

Let’s assume there is evidence for the 12 apostles being killed due to their proclamation of Jesus rising from the grave… Name one other person in history who claimed to die and be raised and had followers willing to die for this truth rather than deny it. I give this challenge with respect and in all sincerity. Former zealous atheist here, btw. I used to be as anti-Christianity as anyone.

@ChrisFineganTunes

3 күн бұрын

@@Bythegraceofgod1646 I have no idea why naming another person in history who that applies to would progress an argument at all. Another example wouldn’t demonstrate that it did or didn’t happen again and it being a one-off wouldn’t demonstrate that it did or didn’t happen at all.

@Bythegraceofgod1646

3 күн бұрын

@@ChrisFineganTunes So, then, if unable to name another- you can, at least, acknowledge this to be a particularly unique and rare series of circumstances. I think that’s a fair starting point in approaching a discussion of Christianity’s start. It seems disingenuous to assert that there is nothing noteworthy going on, given the evidence. Not many people are willing to give their life for someone else- let alone for a lie.

@ChrisFineganTunes

3 күн бұрын

@@Bythegraceofgod1646 where did I say or imply there was nothing noteworthy?

@briley2177

Күн бұрын

@@Bythegraceofgod1646 Holy wars have been fought for eons… people have been given the opportunity to convert… and many have chosen death as opposed to forsaking their deity. This isn’t exclusive to supposed witnesses of Christ’s resurrection… it’s not even exclusive to Christianity. Death as opposed to conversion is not evidence of the TRUTH of the underlying belief… at best it is evidence of how fervently it is believed. But in no case is it novel to Christianity.

1:53 " [Paulogia] thinks that he can just come up with whatever theory he wants and then just like conclude that it's more likely than the resurrection because it's got to be more likely than a miracle..." Just how likely is a miracle, exactly? When should we disregard explanations that are based on things that we know can and do happen every day and all the time (like people being mistaken or exaggerating or lying) and instead prefer "supernatural" explanations?

@kenhilker2507

12 күн бұрын

Would you agree that people lying or being mistaken happens more often than God raising someone from the dead? If so, then you agree with Paulogia on this point.

@CollinBoSmith

12 күн бұрын

Well for starters when those “things that happen all the time” make a mess of/ignore the evidence while the single miracle explains all of it with ease.

@makescode

12 күн бұрын

@@CollinBoSmith I don't know what "make a mess of" means in this context. What evidence is being ignored? Also, assuming miracles are possible, when is a miracle not able to explain anything whatsoever "with ease"? If I can't rightly explain how my basement has become such a mess, should I be considering miraculous explanations?

@kenhilker2507

12 күн бұрын

@@CollinBoSmith yes, when you introduce a being who can do anything, then you can explain *anything* with ease.

@blackeneth3449

11 күн бұрын

How much have you empirically studied miracles?

The daughter making the cereal is more probable than fairies! Duh. Now replace fairies with god and the daughter with the natural world.

@Draezeth

11 күн бұрын

Yeah, Cameron shot his point in the foot by bringing in fairies. A better analogy would be "one of my daughters made herself a bowl of cereal" vs. "All three of my daughters collectively made the bowl of cereal- one got the bowl, one got the milk, and one got the cereal."

@joeterp5615

10 күн бұрын

@@Draezeth Yes, much better example. 👍

@marvalice3455

10 күн бұрын

The natural world is literally defined by it's not being supernatural. And anything which is not supernatural cannot be the source of all things. This is just cope, and it's sad.

@curatinghumanism

10 күн бұрын

@@marvalice3455 then you disagree with someone from another one of my comments that was sticking with saying that we (humans) are walking miracles - which they later defined as something only a supernatural being could perform

"NooOOoOo it's gotta be incomprehensible god and impossible magic it can't be any of these perfectly mundane things"😭 Real top bottom of the barrel stuff once again!👍

A lot of well poisoning in this one. Even for Capturing Christianity, it’s a lot.

01:27:58 That is a blatant mistranslation, and I suppose you chose the CPOV deliberately for this. Every other translations says "The Twelve." Indeed, the Greek explicitly says "dodeka," which literally means "twelve." Why would you use a misleading translation in this way? 🤔

@CapturingChristianity

11 күн бұрын

It gets corrected later in the stream.

@Greyz174

11 күн бұрын

​@@CapturingChristianitythis isnt an enormous point or anything but it is a bit of an L for Jimmy to explicitly refer to "the eleven" as evidence that it was an early creed

@jaydon225

11 күн бұрын

@@Greyz174 same thought I had. And he never retracted that when the error was pointed out.

@erichenkel4393

9 күн бұрын

@@jaydon225he did retract that actually. Shows you didn’t watch the stream

Hume's argument is about proving miracles with testimony, not that they can't happen.

@CapturingChristianity

12 күн бұрын

Actually, there’s a debate in the literature about whether he rules miracles out a priori given his ostensible definition of a miracle as a violation of the laws of nature.

@anthonydesimone502

12 күн бұрын

​@CapturingChristianity that seems like a reasonable definition and is definitely the most common one I've come across from both theists and atheists. What would you offer as a better definition?

@danielweaver3361

12 күн бұрын

Must admit I've never read his arguments personally, only heard others explain them.

@gospelfreak5828

11 күн бұрын

@@anthonydesimone502 Miracles don't violate the laws of nature. They are events that do not naturally occur without divine intervention. But God intervening with his creation is not unnatural or violating any laws.

@anthonydesimone502

11 күн бұрын

@gospelfreak5828 that just sounds like quibbling over semantics. I'm going to call natural laws, those that can be discovered by science. I'm fine if we want to say there are laws that undergird them, and that miracles don't violate *those* laws. But they still violate the laws of nature as we can understand and discover them.

Cameron and friends have convinced me not to harbor an anti-supernatural bias. I used to think that the death and resurrection of Jesus was impossible. Now I think it's no big deal. Supernatural crap happens all the time. Shiva cut off Ganesh's head and replaced it with an elephant head. Way cooler than Jesus.

It says in the text you are referring to, that Paul had his own visions ... plural and there is a footnote there. Did you ignore it? @1:55:07

Paul tries to be nice to all Christians. Please be respectful and call his theory by the name he uses Just like you would WLC... please and thank you.

@user-mr3kf2vr6y

10 күн бұрын

Why does he even care? Super silly and super prideful if he so strongly doesn’t believe something is true why even engage with it?

@michaelkierum42

9 күн бұрын

​@@user-mr3kf2vr6ybecause his previous faith ended up costing him and he doesn't want others to repeat his journey.

@newglof9558

9 күн бұрын

so nice when he mocks them "because the Bible tells me sooooo"

@michaelkierum42

9 күн бұрын

@@newglof9558 he is mocking the single source of the claim. he does take some jabs at certain specific Christians he finds disingenuous, but nothing close to the atheists rape and murder with no qualms rhetoric we hear repeated

@user-mr3kf2vr6y

9 күн бұрын

@@michaelkierum42 we both know he’s not nice in any way, very passive aggressive and condescending

Tell me you don't understand a single thing you read without telling me you don't understand a single thing you read. Lol. You spent 2.5 hours "not getting it" and preaching to your echo chamber about how "the bible tells me so!" What a joke

Data from the NT or outside the NT? Someone is slippery sloping @1:53:53

Mentioning that there have been responses to Hume’s argument against miracle within a Bayesian framework is interesting considering that his argument has been formalized and proven true in Bayesian terms. But otherwise, the treatment of Hume and miracles was disappointing. It’s not “anti-supernaturalist” to point out that miracles are a priori more improbable than non miraculous explanations. If anything it’s just prudent

@TheEpicProOfMinecraf

11 күн бұрын

I'm gonna need a source on that first sentence.

@gospelfreak5828

11 күн бұрын

I mean when the evidence is not observed,than sure. A miracle claim will always be less likely. But when the evidence is observed and the naturalistic explanations are so unlikely, and the miracle claim fits in with the evidence the best, then Hume's point is moot. A miracle claim that fits the evidence will always be more likely than a naturalistic explanation that cannot possibly or do not fit the evidence. Basically, the atheist who wants to argue this way will have to say "The evidence doesn't actually really matter, as the evidence may fit your view better but I will just disregard the evidence because there is no way I can believe your conclusion is true." It is a very flawed and unfalsifiable position to take, and the evidence is basically irrelevant at that point

@Tommy01_XO

11 күн бұрын

@@gospelfreak5828 Yes, Hume would agree and I'm pretty sure he argued (I haven't read enquiry in a few years, sorry) that any miracle account, since it would violate the regularities of nature, is less probable, at least a priori. I'm taking issue with your second sentence: "but when the evidence is observed and the naturalistic explanations so unlikely..." the point is that any naturalistic explanation, no matter how unlikely, would be orders of magnitude more probable than a miracle occurring. And in the case of naturalistic explanations, even the conjunction of naturalistic hypotheses to account for specific details of the resurrection story, maybe grave robbery for the empty tomb or hallucinations/lies for the eyewitness accounts, would be a priori more probable than a miracle occurring. We know that grave robberies occur, we know that hallucinations occur, and we know that people lie. We have zero examples of resurrections, though. The point of this is not to defend any particular hypothesis(es) and I'm sure you probably could argue against any of them. The point is that my prior for any conjunctive naturalistic hypothesis is going to be higher than my prior for any miracle. But what about during the updating process? Atheists would not say "the evidence doesn't actually really matter..." In the case of the resurrection, facts like Jesus existed and was an apocalyptic prophet, he was crucified by Romans, and he was buried, are mundane. Does the resurrection narrative predict that we find evidence in support of this? Yes. Does "Jesus was just an incredibly influential guy with good ideas who died for them and stayed dead" hypothesis predict that we find evidence in support of this, too? Also yes. And as for testimony of things like the empty tomb and the post-death appearances, does the resurrection narrative explain those? Yes. Does a conjunction of naturalistic hypotheses also explain those? Also yes. Atheists would say that the evidence matters, and that the evidence also fits naturalistic explanations. Hume said that the only way to affirm a miracle on the basis of testimony is if the falsehood of that testimony would be more miraculous than the miracle occurring. Atheists make, in some words or others, this point all the time, and it's one that I would agree with. It's not an unfalsifiable position whatsoever. Verify the testimony, or show how improbable its falsehood would be (in fact, I've heard resurrection defenders try to do the latter in these discussions!), and you can verify the miracle.

@whatsinaname691

11 күн бұрын

The only “successfull Bayesian formulations of Humes argument form miracles give infinitesimal probabilities to miracles (Sobel) or include absurd special pleading about every other instance of a previously broken law of nature/as well as invoking a definition of miracle (breaking a law of nature) that most theists don’t accept (Cavin et al)

@gospelfreak5828

11 күн бұрын

@@Tommy01_XO The second sentence was meant to clarify my disagreement with Hume. My argument isn't that that is his belief. I was giving my position. Without looking at any evidence, a naturalistic explanation will always seem more probable. The whole argument of Hume's that even when looking at the evidence you have to assume such a low priority to miracles that the naturalistic one wins automatically is precisely what I take issue with and is my entire point. Such an idea is ridiculous. It would be like in a hypothetical world where either a supernatural being or every human on earth was guilty of killing a man. Naturally we would assume that a man did it. But if we had undeniable proof that every single person was video taped and the tape was genuine and every human being on earth was not responsible for the knife inside the dead man, to say it is more likely any one of these people on camera killed the man than a supernatural being is preposterous. But such an assumption makes the evidence useless and it does not matter. No matter what, it is impossible to believe a miracle occurred epistemically, and that is absurd. It doesn't even work as a framework and results in ridiculous conclusions. And any of the hypothesis' would on face value without observing them seem more probable than a resurrection do to the fact they occur more often. No one argues that. The argument is that you have to observe if these things actually work and are more probable based on the evidence we actually have. And the naturalistic ones fail, every last one of them. Since they fail, the resurrection is more probable. No previous probability of resurrections and other things should inform the view of the evidence, or else the view is clouded with an insurmountable bias. There is no reason to assume that even with evidence the evidence could never be good enough due to some previous probability we understand is true intuitively before any evidence is observed. It is absurd. No, the hypothesis Jesus stayed dead, and he didn't die for good ideas. He died because the Jewish leaders hated him for blasphemy and claiming to be God. It was not something so vague. The evidence supports the resurrection hypothesis alone. That is the whole point. Naturalistic explanations do not fit the evidence and data. None of the naturalistic hypotheses explain all the data, and the resurrection is the only thing that explains the evidence in its entirety. Naturalistic explanations are only consistent with some of the evidence. When you are convicting someone of murder, there are some people who may fit some of the evidence like motive and being around during the crime. But you only convict the suspect that fits all the data. You don't leave that suspect alone and then arrest a different subject that fits some of the evidence. We are talking about what is rationale and what should be believed and what is more probably true. Not what is possible. Yeah, anything is possible. These naturalistic hypothesis are possible. But they cannot be believed based on the evidence available. They basically have to be blindly believed, and atheists have to reject the evidence and where it leads and believe in a faulty hypothesis blindly due to a naturalistic bias and faulty epistemology. The falsehood of the testimony is more miraculous, as the evidence against every naturalistic hypothesis is so much just as in my hypothetical above that they just can't be said to be true when all the evidence and data is accounted for. They say evidence matters, but it doesn't actually play out practically and their words don't match how they react to the evidence. It is an unfalsifiable position. Miracles can't happen, or if they do, we could never know epistemically based on testimony and historical data. The miracle is so unlikely that we will take any other hypothesis that doesn't fit the data and reject the only idea that fits it. That makes no sense. Hume and this kind of thinking is reflective of someone like Louise Bundy, who maintained her son was innocent throughout despite the evidence. Her a priori belief that her son could never do such a thing based on her experience and knowledge of him brought her to the idea he was innocent no matter how much evidence was against him. I see little to no difference in the way Hume and other atheists handle the resurrection. You've heard us try, and we succeed in showing the improbability of the naturalistic explanations. But the assumption the atheists and Hume take is the issue in the first place and that claim needs to be justified first before we can say we need to show the naturalistic explanations to be highly improbable. We already do that, but the assumption of Hume needs to first be justified.

I appreciate that @paulogia tries to make it easy for the audience to read his sources.

I mean obviously there's numerous explanations. And none of us know for sure. But it being supernatural or miraculous is the least likely by definition, id assume.

Fabulous dicussion here guys, great points from both Jimmy and Gavin (Cameron too). Taking the time to dissect different arguments is one of the best ways we can learn to engage with folks. Would love to see a rebuttal from Paulogia after this as well. It's awesome seeing folks from typically opposing traditions working together, need to see more of that. Been casually reading and listening to Jimmy and Gavin's individual work for the past couple years, and seeing them working together is super exciting. Again, great video guys, thanks for your time and effort in making this happen!

@highroller-jq3ix

9 күн бұрын

Catholicism and Protestantism are from exactly the same tradition. But claiming, childishly and trollishly, that this rebuttal "demolishes" Paulogia's hypothesis is not at all an intelligent or intellectually competent way to engage ideas.

@davidfrisken1617

8 күн бұрын

Is there a part two where the Demolishing happens?

@rapdactyl

Күн бұрын

@@highroller-jq3ix I remember when the early wave of "KZread atheists" used language like this and just about everyone rolled their eyes, apologists included. I wonder why the standards are different now? To be fair, language like this did get me into watching atheist content was a teenager...but as an adult I just shake my head. It's difficult to have a rational discussion when your detractors constantly claim they've demolished your position, they've destroyed your arguments, that you just hate their god (wait how'd that one get in there?). I guess this fits my impressions of apologists: secretly the goal is not to create a rational belief in their god or to engage those who doubt their beliefs and thus gain new followers; it is to reinforce existing believers' faith in their position and prevent them from asking questions about it. Look, this smart guy says he DEMOLISHED a non-believer's hundreds of hours of work in just 2 hours!!! I can just quietly put my questions to rest and move on with my life.

@organicelliottwave2938

Күн бұрын

Jacob, the rebuttal is now online; well worth the 1 hour to watch!

@highroller-jq3ix

Күн бұрын

@@rapdactyl Clickbait nonsense doesn't belong to a position or an ideology, but it is the recourse of dishonest, sensationalizing, sub-intellectual douches, like Betuzzi and squeaky little Ben and, as you noted, numerous other youtube apologists.

One thing I am curious about on the topic of hallucinations. I think we can all agree that group hallucinations are uncommon if not never observed. Cameron says "hallucinations that you are having in your mind -- you are not having that with someone else" I agree that group hallucinations are not observed. However, resurrection is also not a thing that is statistically observed. I want to know how this is not special pleasing because that is what it feels like to me (even if I am mistaken). It feels like we are saying group hallucinations are not observed therefore this could not have been a group hallucination. Also, resurrections are not observed therefore this couldn't have been a resurrection.

@CharlesPayet

10 күн бұрын

The other point is that there is literally not one eyewitness written account of a single one of these alleged group hallucinations. All we have are hearsay reports of them. So those can simply be dismissed. No explanation needed.

@georgenassif5777

10 күн бұрын

Resurrections and hallucinations are two completely different things. If you see a person who was previously dead and a large number of other people see that same person then it is most likely not a hallucination as everyone would have to have collectively hallucinated the same person which is unlikely. Thus leaving the possibility of the resurrection more likely because you know the person you observed along with other people was not a delusion. So you technically can observe resurrections or the aftermath of one at least.

@CharlesPayet

10 күн бұрын

@@georgenassif5777 if that ever happened, then one could use that as a starting point for discussion. Since no resurrection has ever been reliably recorded in real time, that’s a moot point. The problem with the alleged resurrection appearances n the Bible, is that all we have is hearsay testimony from decades after the alleged event. Which makes it supremely unreliable.

@user-mr3kf2vr6y

10 күн бұрын

The Big Bang only happened once, doesn’t mean it didn’t happen

@philippbrogli779

9 күн бұрын

To build on the reply of @georgenassif, If someone claims to be God and predicts his own resurrections, people don't belief him and then various people, including the ones who doubted it, all see him, then the actual resurrections is the more likely outcome. So basically you have two unnatural explanations to a strange situation. One that the available evidence points to and one that seems ad-hoc. Sure, both are unnatural, but I go with the one that fits the surrounding situation better. Also the hallucination explanation only answers some of the problems. For example the hallucination explanation doesn't address at all why the body is suddenly lost. The reason why I called the hallucination ad-hoc is because you also need to have some random person stealing a corpse from a guarded grave, without telling the Romans, the Jews or the Christians. So you need to have two independent explanation at the same time. One very unlikely which requires a very skilled thief and the other a not observed phenomena that this thief didn't have any control over.

You completely missed the point of what Paulogia said. You are incompetent at best, and dishonest at worst.

I can’t wait for Paulogia to pick this apart

@DUDEBroHey

9 күн бұрын

Will you watch it

@Essex626

9 күн бұрын

I just started the video, but I keep expecting him to pause and respond to their points.

@namapalsu2364

9 күн бұрын

Why? You can't pick it apart yourselves?

@Abalabexabandraba

8 күн бұрын

I mean, I’ve got guesses on how Paul will tackle most of it, but it’s always fun to see his response anyway

@ThinkitThrough-kd4fn

Күн бұрын

You didn't have to wait long. And he makes them look like fools (but in a nice way).

Cameron is doing more for Christian unity with this stream than the World Council of Churches has done in its 76 years of existence.

@adamtokay

12 күн бұрын

As an atheist, I have to give it to Cameron on this one. He does seem to give an effort and try to rise the standard of discourse on YT. Subscribed.

@MeanBeanComedy

11 күн бұрын

Yeah, what the heck?? He's a Catholic now; someone get Papa Francis on the horn and let him know we've found "The Guy" to lead the next Ecumenical Council.

@MeanBeanComedy

11 күн бұрын

​@@adamtokayCareful! He might getcha! 😉😜

@adamtokay

10 күн бұрын

@@MeanBeanComedy no worries, I like my sinning way too much. Now if you excuse me, my morning child sacrifice is getting cold.

@philippbrogli779

9 күн бұрын

@@adamtokay lol

Awesome episode Cameron, so cool to see both Jimmy and Gavin together on the same episode, both wonderful brothers in Christ!

Cam’s example at the end with fairies is such a strawman. You could make an argument that adding more details makes the theory less possible, but said you made an argument that adding more details that are also fantastic. Makes the theory less probable. Those two points are not the same thing.

@highroller-jq3ix

8 күн бұрын

That's because he's kind of a moron and is constantly dealing with topics well beyond his comprehension.

Anyone got the Jewish sources mentioning Jesus specifically on the two-fold charges they brought against Him that Jimmy mentioned? I'd really love to delve into those, thank you!

@Greyz174

12 күн бұрын

it's the Talmud, which also says Jesus was stoned to death. the Talmud is mostly polemical in these stories and places Jesus all over history because accurately preserving history isn't the main reason behind what the Talmud is saying. in one story Jesus worships a brick, but that's just because brick worship was something relevant to the people at the time, not because they have reliable information about Jesus from the first century so it just reflects Jewish polemics against the already established Jewish heresy and its claims, it's not like we have independent accounts from the first century from the Jews' side. would be nice if we did

@isaakleillhikar8311

11 күн бұрын

On the other hand, it shows the anti Christian Jews who say Jesus was born of a Harlet. Which confirms John and Mark aren’t inventing the story of the people slandering him in his ministry.

@Greyz174

10 күн бұрын

@@isaakleillhikar8311 jesus was a sorcerer and idolater who was born 9f a harlot, and the Jews are the children of the Devil who would burn their own scriptures if they could in order to get rid of all the prophecies of Jesus Yes, opposing sects that branched from a common tradition said nasty things about each other as the centuries unfolded. I dont think people make the claim that Jesus was an uncontroversial person, but the picture of the Jews in the gospels is like comic book hero supervillans, it's obviously just a biased story

@Greyz174

10 күн бұрын

@@isaakleillhikar8311 wait what are you telling me that competing sects said bad things about each other :0 Do you think that there were Jews that ever had the thought process of "oh man this old testament really is prophesying Jesus, I would totally burn this if I could but I cant so I will just lie about and deny the truth because I am a child of the father of lies" or do you think that competing sects just say terrible things about each other that tend to be untrue and self serving

@Greyz174

10 күн бұрын

@@isaakleillhikar8311 wait what are you telling me that competing sects said bad things about each other :0 Do you think that there were people in history that ever explicitly or implicitly had the thought process of "oh man this old testament really is prophesying Jesus, I would totally burn this if I could but I cant so I will just lie about and deny the truth because we all know who my father is" or do you think that competing sects just say untrue and things about each other

I was laughing imagining Paulogia drawing Jimi Akin and Gavin Ortlund. But unfortunately he draws the invited people. But seriously he’s funny.

Gavin and jimmy together is quite formidable. Get them together more often 👍👍

@DaviniaHill

11 күн бұрын

They weren't.

@M3Etasmania

11 күн бұрын

They are "together" quite often. Hard to get them out of each other when they are getting into it.

@georgenassif5777

10 күн бұрын

@@DaviniaHillhow so?

@metaldisciple

10 күн бұрын

@@georgenassif5777 def a bot

@DaviniaHill

9 күн бұрын

@georgenassif5777 they made some assumptions right at the top that made the rest of thier arguments invalid, not least of which was claiming Paul "didn't know the material".

Love these Jimmy episodes

This feels very, very "For the Bible tells me so"

@EricTheYounger

10 күн бұрын

Atheist and skeptical scholars treat the various books of the Bible has historical sources. Because that’s what they are, as textual criticism and cross-references with other sources establishes.

@danielkirienko1701

9 күн бұрын

​@@EricTheYounger various scholars treat PARTS of the Gospels and other Biblical books like they do other potential historical sources...with some parts being considered accurate and other parts mythological.

@calebadcock363

7 күн бұрын

“For this ancient document tells me so”

@squillsify

23 сағат бұрын

@@EricTheYounger treating them as historical sources doesn't mean they treat all of the information in them as true. Pick a well known ancient text. It's likely considered an historical source, even when it includes supernatural elements. But again, calling something a hisotrical source doesn't mean that all or even most of the information contained is fact. Plus, as Paul (and so many, many others) have patiently pointed out - even if we treat the Bible as a "super accurate" historical source, it's still the only source that supports the vast majority of Christian claims. Indeed, the text itself is often the only source the the claims themselves, and so how could it also serve as evidence?

1:17:54 So you're saying that Jesus s followers agreed with Hume that common explainable events were always preferable to a miracle?

@gospelfreak5828

8 күн бұрын

That is kind of just the default. We assume a natural explanation unless a natural one is impossible, and the evidence fits a miracle way more.

@goldenalt3166

8 күн бұрын

@@gospelfreak5828 So if the natural explanation is not provably impossible, we should still accept it?

@gospelfreak5828

8 күн бұрын

@@goldenalt3166 No. That's not what I said. Nothing is impossible unless logically contradictory or incoherent. If the natural explanation is shown to not fit the data and shown to be highly improbable, then we should reject it. If it fits the evidence very well, we should accept it or at least see it as a possibility. I have yet to see a probable explanation of the resurrection from a naturalistic perspective.

@goldenalt3166

8 күн бұрын

@@gospelfreak5828 I've yet to see a probable explanation of the resurrection at all. God had no motive. The recording was sloppy. The proposed accounts are contradictory. And the conclusion is even more contradictory to those accounts. The natural explanation is for the books of the Bible. That's the only fact that needs to be explained.

Regarding the number of apostles who have fallen outside of reliable history, I think Paulogia has condensed some wider points into this one point that will be confusing if you don’t have context. This is a point in response to the argument that the apostles proclaimed the risen Jesus even though it meant they would be executed. I.e. they must have been eye-witnesses who truly believed or they would have recanted in order to avoid death. This item in the list is there to point out that there’s scant evidence of apostles being executed or having the option of recanting in order to avoid execution. Most fall out of historical record and give no evidence to this claim.

Christianity began exactly like the thousands of other religions through the ages. Random guy or group makes up a story. That's it. Think about it.

12:23 given that supernaturalism is also entirely non-falsifiable, any and all evidence you can provide for a supernatural event, especially a one-off event like the resurrection, is 100% NOT the most likely answer, REGARDLESS of your “evidences.” Every single possible natural answer is more likely. Miracles are *by definition* rare, for crying out loud. Off to a bad start here, guys.

@muskyoxes

9 күн бұрын

So you decided at the outset that your own position is absolutely impossible to counter, then you challenge people to do a good job countering your position

@gospelfreak5828

8 күн бұрын

For one, the fact that we could not prove supernaturalism wrong is entirely irrelevant. If we are talking about specific cases, we actually can falsify supernatural hypothesize. Zeus is a popular example. He doesn't cause lightning. We have ruled out the supernatural. If we found Jesus' body, the resurrection would be falsified. So, your claim is wrong if you are talking about specifics. Though your comment is poorly worded, so it is difficult to discover your point and actual logical flow. Run on sentences tend to give that impression. You say every naturalistic hypothesis is more likely. You have to prove that claim. That is something you need to demonstrate. The resurrection is the only thing that makes sense of all the evidence. You basically have to ignore and reject the evidence and where it leads due to a presupposition on your part. But then you should just ignore the claims of evidence entirely as it doesn't even matter to you. You should just show why your epistemic standards is better than us Christians, which you have yet to do. They are by definition rare. But that doesn't automatically make it the least probable option. It may be rarer for a monkey to kill a person with a gun than a human being. But we don't look at video evidence of a monkey killing someone and then say "Well, people killing people is more likely and happens more often, so we can rule out the monkey despite the evidence and convict this human person instead." You make a category error in probability. You have to look at the individual circumstance outside of how often they occur, and then assess if such a rare thing actually happened or not. After all, rare things happen, and we know they do. We could never discover the rare or the exceptions if we did not look individually at specific circumstances and the evidence around said circumstances. They are not at a bad start. Just because you made a claim you did not prove, showing your naturalistic bias and presuppositions, and then you also make a category error in probability does not make their arguments invalid.

@jameslay1489

14 сағат бұрын

And the funny thing is, resurrections aren't exactly rare in the NT. Two other people are resurrected before Jesus. Still doesn't mean it happened.

@gospelfreak5828

11 сағат бұрын

Plane crashes are rarer than car crashes. Should we blame 9/11 on cars, since cars are more likely? Since plane crashes into buildings are so infrequent versus cars, we should discount any evidence for the plane crash into buildings, as those are rare for crying out loud. The evidence does not matter. You can never show a plane crash into a building is more likely than a car crash, as car crashes are observed to happen more.... This is a category error in assessing probabilities. That is not how that works.

@gospelfreak5828

11 сағат бұрын

@@jameslay1489 They are rare. A thing can happen multiple times and still be rare. And being rare still does not mean it did not happen.

Thank you for getting Jimmy and Gavin in one video. It was a genuine pleasure to watch this. God bless you guys!!

A few issues 1. My impression of the conversation is that ita taken somewhat out of context. The paulogia minimal witnesses argument is an argument or rebuttal against Habermass argument. There were definitely points made which seemed to lose sight of that 2. The notion of extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence IS a statement about the nature of evidence and probability. Supernatural claims are a subset of this but not necessary. It seems to me this point isn't really adequately considered

@EricTheYounger

12 күн бұрын

1. If his rebuttal to Habermas involves ignoring/cherry-picking data, it’s not a very good rebuttal is it? 2. Deciding that a certain claim is “extraordinary” and what level of evidence it now needs is a completely philosophical and somewhat arbitrary exercise.

@francisa4636

12 күн бұрын

@EricTheYounger 1. I'm not clear that it is cherry picked of the data is focused on habermasses argument. It seemed to be the case that some of the critique was against the lack of acknowledgement of the maximal case which of course paulogia wasn't actually considering. It's just not relevant to the hypothesis 2. No this is just incorrect, it's a claim about probability. No one has ever demonstrated a supernatural claim. Not once. The probability of a supernatural claim bring correct is therefore very low. That's as opposed to claims like hallucinations which happen quite frequently. In context of the ressurection we know that there are many stories of this type of thing, but they are exclusive a Christian would not accept a ressurection story in another story. They are all unevidenced or poorly evidenced stories with no known mechanism for them to actually occur.

@Boundless_Border

12 күн бұрын

​@EricTheYounger Within the context of minimal facts. He isn't cherry picking as the creed isn't taken at face value by Habermas. So their rebuttal that Paulogia doesn't affirm the entire creed falls on its face. I'll note that I do think many of the points in the video are slightly lazy in part because it is a summary and in part because of the context.

@EricTheYounger

10 күн бұрын

Part of having healthy debates is steelmanning the evidence of the opposing side (I.e. the Socratic method) and not seizing on the most skeptical interpretation of it. Regardless of how Habermas views specific pieces of evidence, why not look at how strong certain evidence ACTUALLY is? Because the bigger picture is determining whether or not the resurrection actually happened, not if Habermas’s specific formulation is correct.

@francisa4636

10 күн бұрын

@EricTheYounger steelmanning would involve dealing with the argument at hand not a different argument though wouldn't it.

I'm so thankful that I'm not dumb enough to believe in religion 🙏

I think it is so telling how the panel reacted to the video. You know this is totally bad faith, when they spend wch a long time to talk about the points they agree on and complain that general points laying out the facts to be explained don't disprove the resurrection. Paulogia is saying that Jese got killed and Cameron complains, that it doesn't disprove the Bible? Yeah, sure, because it never meant to... It's just so crazy to me, that these guys who do this professionally and are clearly intelligent well read people, can totally miss the whole point so hard. This video was meant to be understood by laymen. How can it be, that I have no problem figuring out why Paul is saying the things he is saying, but we get twenty minutes of arguments against humes position, when Paul never made any argument about that? I totally get that one can get lost in trying to disagree with every word someone else is saying and nitpicking everything, but please, have the decency to realise you are just being bad faith and don't post it on the Internet...

2:08:53 what about the author(s) of Mark who invented the resurrection narrative at the end? Who’s cherry picking now?…

@user-mr3kf2vr6y

10 күн бұрын

The short ending of mark still very clearly talks about resurrection if you are not being biased

@Viekoda

10 күн бұрын

@@user-mr3kf2vr6y in the original short ending, there is no eye witness to the risen Jesus. He was just gone.

@user-mr3kf2vr6y

9 күн бұрын

@@Viekoda the original ending states “Jesus is going ahead to Galilee you will see him there” man really? No resurrection in mark?

@Viekoda

9 күн бұрын

@@user-mr3kf2vr6y did anyone see the risen Jesus in the original ending of mark, yes or no? Let’s not be biased….No. They are told they will see him. But no one saw him. Then someone adds the ending of mark that includes post resurrection appearances. Does it bother you at all that the perfect word of god has been tampered with like this? It bothers me…

@user-mr3kf2vr6y

9 күн бұрын

@@Viekoda it clearly implies of the resurrection😭it’s clear as day

Paulogia's response completely demolishes this "demolishing," so... ball's in your court you wacky religious folks. Please make a point of actually addressing the arguments next time?

Buddy talking about “you can’t assert” yet his entire world view is based on assertion after assertion. This is a great video for people who want to confirm their bias. I missed the demo as the majority of this video is suggesting the individual with the slightest doubt is exemplifying radical skepticism.

I really believe you owe everyone an explanation for the continued mispronunciation of Paulogia. How can you rebut his material without hearing his own pronunciation of his own name? If it's willful, that's a cheap tactic that should be beneath you. If not, and it's just beyond you to get it right, that's rather embarrassing.

If God really existed, it may still be possible for naturalistic / alternate explanations to make at least some sense coincidentally, but nowhere near the amount of sense these alternate explanations actually make. It would not be necessary to "demolish" Paul's explanations -- his explanations would demolish themselves, and Paulogia wouldn't be an ex-Christian to begin with. This stuff shouldn't be anywhere near as controversial as it is. God isn't just another facet of existence, but the single unifying facet; not just another category, but the absolute category from which all other realities are generated and measured. With this "fact" on their side, the theists should win every controversy hands down. Naturalistic explanations shouldn't have a chance, much less be as successful as they are, unless God is a naturalist, or naturalism itself is the creator.

@Some_Deist

10 күн бұрын

Thats flawed since the way things are it makes perfect sense for the existence of God but atheists have made their own explanations, they try to find any explanation which excludes God, this comes down to free will, you’re talking about Roboters programmed by God, I mean yeah God created us but he also gave us free will and looking at nature it just makes sense that there’s a intelligent creator, any other explanation is also possible but that would be out of your free will and rebellion.

@WS-dd8ow

9 күн бұрын

@@Some_Deist An explanation that can't be proven wrong is not a suitable explanation.

@gospelfreak5828

8 күн бұрын

These alternative explanations do not actually make any sense though, at least when considering the data and evidence. They do not fit the data at all. Any idea can make sense if you ignore the evidence. But the thing is that these naturalistic explanations are ridiculous due to the evidence and facts. And nowhere does God's existence imply that other views would not be believed, and everyone would believe in God automatically. It doesn't mean theists would win every debate they are in either. That does not logically follow. Naturalistic explanations are not successful though, and this video demonstrates that by destroying Paulogia's bad hypothesis.

@dougsmith6793

8 күн бұрын

@@gospelfreak5828 [gf]: "These alternative explanations do not actually make any sense though, at least when considering the data and evidence. They do not fit the data at all. Any idea can make sense if you ignore the evidence. But the thing is that these naturalistic explanations are ridiculous due to the evidence and facts." So you're saying that naturalistic explanations are not consistent with the data and evidence? Which ones don't fit? Star formation? Formation of hurricanes / tornadoes, planetary systems, hydrologic cycle, how airplanes / rockets work? None of those naturalistic descriptions fit the data / evidence? [gf]: "And nowhere does God's existence imply that other views would not be believed, and everyone would believe in God automatically." Lol. Uh, you literally stake your own life on naturalistic explanations -- and for good reason. [gf]: "It doesn't mean theists would win every debate they are in either. That does not logically follow." Even you believe that "logical" means that there's coherence between evidence and an explanation for it. [gf]: "Naturalistic explanations are not successful though, and this video demonstrates that by destroying Paulogia's bad hypothesis." Lol. This is the 3rd time you state this in your post, and the 3rd time you fail to provide even a single example of how naturalistic explanations are unsuccessful. It's not entirely accurate to equate "incomplete" with "unsuccessful" -- progress is made continually.

@gospelfreak5828

8 күн бұрын

@@dougsmith6793 We are talking specifically about the resurrection. The naturalistic explanations do not work there. I did not say naturalistic explanations do not work for everything. Are we purposefully being obtuse? The context of this conversation and the youtube video is the resurrection. Let's stay on topic. Stake my own life? What do you mean? Peter being the only one who saw Jesus, the idea they did not know where Jesus' body was, mass hallucinations, the lying hypothesis, every single one doesn't fit or make sense with the data. You can't progress any of these views as none of them work. It's like saying Bobby killed Samantha when you have video of a floating knife stabbing Samantha while Bobby watched helpless in the video. You have to rule Bobby out as a hypothesis as he does not fit. None of these views fit. Just take the mass grave theory. Every record of Jesus' death has him taken down from the cross to be buried in Joseph of Arimathea's tomb. The view that Jesus was buried in a mass grave contradicts the evidence and data we have. We know that crucified victims could be buried in tombs as we have found evidence for such. There is no good reason to believe Jesus was thrown into a mass grave and the disciples would not know where the body was. That is one example of a naturalistic hypothesis that does not work. Being incomplete is one thing. But that is not the case here. That is an assumption you have not proven. They are unsuccessful. If you have a naturalistic hypothesis that works for the resurrection, I am all ears. But no one has succeeded in showing a hypothesis more likely than Jesus actually rising from the dead.

So they are dead serious with the phrase "anti-supernatural assumptions"? Boiiiii xDDDDDD

@billystorrs6054

10 күн бұрын

Are you serious? By immediately ruling out the possibility of a supernatural explanation, you are making a philosophical statement. Not a statement based on the evidence. How can you be so arrogant when you don't know what you're talking about.

@TierBelowPro

10 күн бұрын

@@billystorrs6054 I have evidence to believe that the disturbed spouting's of a preacher in Judea led him however prominent he may have been, to be discarded in an indistinguishable grave reserved for those who had committed grievances against the roman Empire that warranted such. Assuming a miracle to posit a narrative that's only reference are other disturbed spouting's is frankly irrational

@billystorrs6054

10 күн бұрын

@TierBelowPro You don't understand the critique. Akin is not supposing that the miracle happened (as in an assertation) he is just saying that to close your mind to the POSSIBILITY of a miracle is a philosophical idea. It's not an evidential idea.

@ramodemmahom8905

10 күн бұрын

​@@TierBelowProYou merely presupposing Enlightenment rationality.

@spacemoose4726

10 күн бұрын

​@@billystorrs6054It's not about ruling out the possibility of a supernatural explanation. It's that a natural explanation is automatically much more likely to be true. That's not being biased. That's acknowledging reality. You would need an extraordinary amount of evidence to justify belief in the supernatural claim. It's insulting to one's intelligence to suggest anonymous books written decade's after the fact could get you anywhere near the evidence needed to justify such a belief.

Click bait, All these guys miss the point of the video in question. The Navel gazing and theistic nonsense is rife here. Save your time, @Paulogia's points stand just fine after they trip over themselves for over 2 hours.

For some reason counter apologists don't like Bayes theorem. I understand that it can be annoying when people play with numbers to get to predetermined conclusions. But I still think it's fun to go along. So let's go along! Short reminder: Probability of A given some evidence B is equal to probability of B given A times probability of A divided by probability of B. P(A|B) = [P(B|A)*P(A)/P(B)] 1. If Jesus self-resurrected (not being resurrected by a God or a prophet but by his own act). He would be the only person to do it in history. This gives us a nice prior probability of the event. Since about 100 billion people died so far, this is 1 in 100 billion event. P(A) = 1/100 000 000 000 Now we need all facts that need to be explained. Going with Garry Habermas: 1. Crucifiction 2. Appearances 3. Skeptics 4. Early Let's give each of them a-priori probability. 1. Everybody agrees. probability 1 (100%) 2. Appearances. About 1/8 people see dead loved ones. so 1/8 (12.5%) 3. Skeptics. This is harder. But let's go with this: 23% of war veterans get PTSD. 40% of those get psychotic symptoms including hallucinations. About 1% of veterans actively say the war they participated is unjust (based on vietnam war data) About 0.3 % of people can't tell the difference between their hallucinations and reality. There were about 6000 pharisees in the approximate vicinity of Jesus's time. I'd say it would be generous to multiply those to get probability of a single person becaming hallucinatory convert. So 0.23*0.4*0.01*0.003 ~= 1/27 000 000. But we had 6000 pharysees. So let's treat each as a roll of the 27 000 000 dice. We only get Paul if we roll a 1. This gives us a total probability of at least one Paul to be 0.00022219753. Pretty low. (I'm willing to be more charitable than that given good reason) 4. Accounts were early. Let's take the earliest. Say immediatelly after death. Given that myths can easily get created immediatelly (for example Elvis being alive, Covid being a hoax) I'd say this is also 1. But. I know some people will disagree with that. So let's say this is 0.001 (0.1%) (comment if you think it's even lower) Now. 1. Doesn't impact our prior at all. It's 100% likely on both ressurection and not resurrection hypothesis. 2. Apperances is 12.5% a priori, 100% given resurrection. So let's calculate P(A|B) = (1*1/100 000 000 000)/0.125 = 1/12500000000 3. Skeptics is 0.00022219753 a priori, 100% given resurrection. Lets calculate P(A|B) = (1*1/12500000000)/ 0.00022219753 ~= 8/22219753 (thanks wolphram alpha) 4. Early is 0.001 a priori, 100% given resurrection. Let's calculate (1*8/22219753)/0.001 ~= 1/2500 So this is it. 1 in 2500 chances. Honestly I thought it would be lower. Still. Pretty low given how charitable I was on the entire process.

My favourite Catholic apologist with my favourite Protestant apologist ❤ thanks for the great content

Theres no way anyone took this video seriously after watching Paul's video....

@Entropy3ko

8 күн бұрын

I find it hard to believe anyone takes Paulogia serious... his arguments are just so bad.

@shassett79

8 күн бұрын

​@@Entropy3koGet specific?

@MLamar0612

7 сағат бұрын

@@shassett79 he won't be able to

I guess y’all need to watch his newest video that discusses Bayesian probability

Unfortunately I think the person in chat is right - they spent 2.5 hours and missed the point of Paulogia’s video

@user-mr3kf2vr6y

10 күн бұрын

Unfortunately I think your wrong bidenblubb!

@BidenBlubb

10 күн бұрын

@@user-mr3kf2vr6y Paulogia’s point was just to show how you could create a reasonable narrative for how Christianity started, using completely naturalistic reasoning. Cameron and Akin completely missed that and kept arguing “Well that doesn’t account for what the Bible says”. Right! Paulogia is saying, the New Testament could be fiction and we can still explain Christianity starting naturalistically, no resurrection required. That was the point

@user-mr3kf2vr6y

10 күн бұрын

@@BidenBlubb you could do that for anything but just because it’s possible doesn’t means it aligns even remotely with the evidence, there’s a reason no serious scholar takes paulogia seriously

@BidenBlubb

10 күн бұрын

@@user-mr3kf2vr6y Oh! Just because something is POSSIBLE doesnt mean it’s PROBABLE? You don’t say! So when it’s possible that a person named Joseph of Arimethia somehow existed and somehow broke ranks with the Sanhedrin….that possibility doesn’t mean it probably happened? Welcome to Paulogia’s entire point!!

@user-mr3kf2vr6y

9 күн бұрын

@@BidenBlubb the first century skeptics could have easily gone and seen if Joseph of aremthia was a real person, the gospel writers would have really been kicking themselves in the crotch by making up a high class social status Jew who could easily be checked. I don’t think your skepticism in that area is warranted at all.

Paulogia is coming from a historical point of view and what is valid from that view. You all seem to be upset he is not accepting supernatural claims. Supernatural claims are not what we would consider history at this time. In the past there were historical volumes attributing supernatural claims to leaders and Pharaohs. Do you believe all the supernatural claims of the rulers outside of the bible? Isn't that cherry picking? He is looking at historicity not supernatural. Back in that time it was OK to fudge history with supernatural claims that could not be proven but not now.

@koppite9600

11 күн бұрын

By historical documents we should know if Christ didn't rise from the dead. But the documents show that he rose. If only you would let the evidence (documents) do the talking we would agree Jesus rose, but you input yourself in them.

@gospelfreak5828

11 күн бұрын

You assume that supernatural claims are automatically not historical. However, it is your burden of proof to show that is the case. As for the pharaohs, was it eyewitness testimony with no ulterior motives to write false supernatural claims? If you have an example of that, please share. Otherwise, it is a false equivalency. No other supernatural claim in history that I am aware of that matched the evidence for the resurrection. If there is a similar or even better evidence for another supernatural claim, I would be willing to believe it. But every single time I ask an atheist to give an example of another supernatural claim with eyewitness testimony from people who clearly lacked an ulterior motive, and in fact had every motive not to believe said natural claim, yet they never do. So, no, it isn't cherry picking as there is no other supernatural claim with evidence that is as good as Christianity. If you are saying it is no different, you have to demonstrate that. You need to justify that supernatural cannot be historical (which has its own presupposition that naturalism is true so you would probably need to demonstrate that to be true to justify such a claim) and then prove that the evidence for these pharaohs or other supernatural claims is the same. If you cannot do either, then your entire comment is baseless and you shouldn't have made comments with baseless assertions filled with faulty presuppostions.

@luis_sa78

11 күн бұрын

​@@koppite9600by documents you mean the bible? Why not Iliad?

@koppite9600

10 күн бұрын

@@luis_sa78 Iliad is Greek mythology.

@luis_sa78

10 күн бұрын

@@koppite9600 no sh!t, Sherlock!