I realize that your not likely to believe this but it makes sense to me. I haven't heard yet that believers are debunking theorists on what actually happened. What do we know about that day? They say it must have been three days that he was dead but they don't consider that he may have been taken down off the cross the very night he died and began to heal for three days. The believers say they know his position and how deep he was pierced and where. do they?
yes, just as I expected, RandyHelzerman's description of this video's subject was dead on, and I would have to say that my rebuttal was dead on. you simply assume that God does *not* exist. you even tried to refute the resurrection by saying that we do not know of any naturalistic principle by which a resurrection could happen.
Your expectations have blinded you to the actual argument contained in the vid. Hint: it hinges on the reasoning that Christian apologists use to rule out alternatives to the res story.
"Your expectations have blinded you to the actual argument contained in the vid. Hint: it hinges on the reasoning that Christian apologists use to rule out alternatives to the res story."
and those methods by which we rule out the naturalistic hypotheses are ruled out by their borderline impossibility (as they've never happened. the physical damage of the crucifixion isn't the only reason that teh swoon theory is bollocks). but no one is positing a naturalistic explanation for the rez
the borderline impossibility of the alternate explanation rule them out. the fact that we've never seen them rules out their likelyhood. second, to say that the resurrection is less likely than all competing hypotheses does necessitate the assumption that God does not exist.
"I disagree and ask you to provide a case for this claim."
we say that the other hypotheses are unlikely because they do not have any plausible mechanisms by which they can happen. however, the resurrection relies on divine intervention. the only way you can say with any certainty that the resurrection is unlikely is to in fact prove that God does not exist, or never intervenes in the universe. bitbutter however takes no time to substantiate any of those claims at all.
"False. Even on Christianity miracles are extremely rare occurrences."
perhaps in modern times, but not with Jesus' multiple miracles and divine claims about himself. but it's very hard to say that the resurrection is less likely than any competing hypotheses if God does exist.
1) You have yet to establish that god exists and is the one referred to in the bible. You seem to be heading for a circular argument here.
2) Every civilisation has stories that feature events that were miraculous in nature. These events become less and less when one approaches the age of science. Wonder why that is?
1: certainly evidence for the resurrection, which apologists here on youtube have provided ad nauseum, would count as evidence for the existence of the judeo-christian god no?
2: gee, why is that? I mean, even the ancients knew that dead people stayed dead.
"1: certainly evidence for the resurrection, which apologists here on youtube have provided ad nauseum, would count as evidence for the existence of the judeo-christian god no?"
"the resurrection doesn't assume the existence of god, but merely the possibility of his existence."
Methinks this is one the most clear cut examples of circular logic I have ever seen on YouTube.
"the borderline impossibility of the alternate explanation rule them out. "
How have you come to the conclusion that the naturalistic alternatives are in fact borderline impossible?
I'd be interested to learn how you (presumably) avoided assigning borderline impossibility to the outrageous claim that a person came back to life three days after he died, and floated into the sky.
"How have you come to the conclusion that the naturalistic alternatives are in fact borderline impossible?"
we've never seen anyone survive a crucifixion and then come out of a tomb 3 days later fully recovered.
"I'd be interested to learn how you (presumably) avoided assigning borderline impossibility to the outrageous claim that a person came back to life three days after he died, and floated into the sky."
I don't assume the non-existence of a personal God.
"we've never seen anyone survive a crucifixion and then come out of a tomb 3 days later fully recovered. "
Do you not see the contradiction here which the video directly addressed? You have just used a body of knowledge to rule an event as unlikely in order to try evidence a claim that the same body of knowledge rules as impossible.
"Do you not see the contradiction here which the video directly addressed? You have just used a body of knowledge to rule an event as unlikely in order to try evidence a claim that the same body of knowledge rules as impossible."
allow me to explain the resurrection hypothesis
Jesus was buried. on the third day, God raised him from the dead.
okay, I have serious loading problems with this video, but Randyhelzerman told me in this video you say that the resurrection is no matter what less likely than any of the alternative hypotheses.
Now, there is a mind-bogglingly simple reason why this is an absolutely HORRIBLE argument
it relies on the a priori assumption that God does not exist. when we consider that God could exist, then the resurrection suddenly becomes more likely, even more plausible than the alternative hypotheses.
"when we consider that God could exist, then the resurrection suddenly becomes more likely, even more plausible than the alternative hypotheses."
Really? I fail to see why this should be the case. Care to substantiate how the existence (or non-existence) of a god has any effect on the likelihood of the two scenarios presented? At no point during the argument presented in this video do I see any premise of god's non-existence being referenced.
"Really? I fail to see why this should be the case. Care to substantiate how the existence (or non-existence) of a god has any effect on the likelihood of the two scenarios presented?"
because it would provide a way that the resurrection could happen, given that a supernatural entity could not be bound by the laws of physics.
You appear to have missed the point of this video.
Veritas48 claims that the apparent death theory is wrong by essentially arguing that is physically impossible for that to be the case. The intention of this video is to point out that the same line of argumentation applies even more so to the resurrection. You appear to have missed that.
the refutation of a naturalistic cause is simply unnecessary as no one is positing a natural cause. secondly, you seem keen on ignoring my point. if God exists and intervenes in the universe, then we have a mechanism by which a resurrection is possible.
"the refutation of a naturalistic cause is simply unnecessary as no one is positing a natural cause."
Are you serious? This is a joke right?
"if God exists and intervenes in the universe, then we have a mechanism by which a resurrection is possible."
Possible, yes. Likely, no. And this does nothing to make the case that the rez occurred. If I claim that I turned lead2gold because god exists and provides a mechanism does that make the claim any more valid?
"it provides a possible mechanism by which it would occur."
All you have done is to rule ALL mechanisms possible. Unless you can further show that your god(s) behave in certain ways then you rez mechanism is equally likely to be an invisible griffin stealing the body and going for a walk with it. You appear to be be making a lot of assumptions in oder to reach your conclusion.
"All you have done is to rule ALL mechanisms possible."
what?
"Unless you can further show that your god(s) behave in certain ways then you rez mechanism is equally likely to be an invisible griffin stealing the body and going for a walk with it."
1: Jesus claimed divinity
2: if a conscious entity created the universe, it follows that this entity probably intervenes in the universe.
"you make lots of assumptions" which premise did I assume a priori?
"How does this evidence compare with your evidence?"
I have 500 witnesses seeing the risen Lord as a group. I have 12 people spreading a belief which flourished despite the fact that it would be viewed by anyone in the ancient world as a laughable absurdity.
"I have 500 witnesses seeing the risen Lord as a group."
Doesn't contradict the swoon theory.
"I have 12 people spreading a belief which flourished despite the fact that it would be viewed by anyone in the ancient world as a laughable absurdity."
But my point still stands - there is no logical argument or evidence that you can present that casts doubt on my lead2gold claims that doesn't also apply to the resurrection story."
other than the fact that you lack any evidence that you turned lead into gold
You're not getting this are you? The evidence I have seen is consistent with numerous ideas - ranging from Jesus' non-existence, to a hoax, to the apparent death to the resurrection. The problem is that there is no sufficient evidence of sufficient quality available to make a determination on which case is true. In an incomplete information situation then what is possible/likely applies. And this is where the rez falls.
"You're not getting this are you? The evidence I have seen is consistent with numerous ideas - ranging from Jesus' non-existence, to a hoax, to the apparent death to the resurrection."
really? how so?
"The problem is that there is no sufficient evidence of sufficient quality available to make a determination on which case is true."
yes, actually there is. you might want to do yourself a favor and re-watch his series.
Because they all require things to occur which are either unlikely or outright impossible.
"you might want to do yourself a favor and re-watch his series."
It is quite simple. ANY explanation that doesn't require the suspension of reality is ALWAYS preferred to one that does. It is that simple unless evidence can be provided contradicts that reasoning - and veritas48's series doesn't come close.
You shouldn't. That's the point. Unless you can verify my honesty by independent means then you have to take my lead2gold claims with a pinch of salt.
Why is that you struggle to realise the parallel between the lead2gold claims and the resurrection? From a purely logical perspective?
Actually you do have reason to suspect they are liars/mistaken.
You dismiss my lead2gold because you think it impossible. It contradicts what you know about the world. Ergo, your conclusion to speculate me a liar makes logical sense.
This reasoning also applies to the relevant biblical authors.
"Actually you do have reason to suspect they are liars/mistaken.
You dismiss my lead2gold because you think it impossible. It contradicts what you know about the world. Ergo, your conclusion to speculate me a liar makes logical sense."
I dismiss your claim because I certainly would need more than your testimony alone.
in otherwords, I don't have enough evidence. the unlikelyhood isn't the only reason I reject it.
it's like a sophist trick. they believe in the resurrection because it's _more_ likely than the swoon alternative. but they also say that it was a miracle, the foundational miracle of the religion in fact. miracles are, by definition, instances of the impossible happening. so suddenly the impossible is more plausible than the simply unlikely. hmmm...
"..if i did i wouldnt say it didnt happen because it is unusual."
Yes. And you're still missing something here:
If a friend of a friend tells you an incredible story, you justify your decision to trust him or not based on a likelihood assessment, derived from experiences you've had in the past: has this person lied before?, have you experienced anything like what he's describing before?, etc. Assessing any historical claim (including J's res') involves a similar process.
"..uh evidence..ur analogy is irrelevant cos u have to prove its a lie anyway"
You got confused somewhere along the way. I did not say that the person was lying, nor do I need to prove that they are.
I described the underlying mechanism by which (under ideal conditions) a rational person decides whether or not to accept a truth claim, since you don't seem familiar with it.
"maybe it wasnt to u exactly however i think it was a response to a video that mentioned u and whether not specific for u transparently can apply to u"
Then its a shame you've been unable to echo his decisive critique here.
"Ur argument weakly wittles down to 'its unusual so i dont believe it'"
If it matters to you to understand what your opponents are actually saying you need to watch this vid again because you haven't understood the argument.
It is a ridiculously simple argument that I have used IRL for years now.
If you try to use science and experiential knowledge of death to conclude that the apparent death theory is unlikely, then you are faced with an even bigger problem because this same science and experiential knowledge of death forces you to conclude that the resurrection is even more unlikely.
You violate the premises you use to determine likelihood in order to make critiquing the apparent death theory work.
Firstly, equivocating between "I believe in the resurrection" and "I believe I tripped" because they are both 'unusual' just makes you look like an idiot.
Secondly, and this is irrelevant to the video, yes -- I do not believe the resurrection happened because it isn't 'normal'. The fact that you even have an awareness that the resurrection isn't 'normal' should sound alarm bells.
Finally, it is your burden to show that physical reality suspended. It is not my job to evidence that it did not.
When you use the word 'unusual' with regard to resurrection what you mean is 'evidentiary unsupported, in contradiction to experiential knowledge of death as recorded by civilisations the world over, in direct violation of known laws of physics/biology as revealed by science over the course of centuries and against all compiled medical and medicinal knowledge humanity has thus discovered'.
Given that, then yes -- I do not believe the resurrection happened because it is 'unusual'.
it is supported by evidence..unfortunately i prefer to trace evidence on more obscure subjects in Scripture so i cant make an enormously strong case at least in expressing evidence to u but from what ive seen the case for it is certainly infinitely stronger than against and to argue lack of evidence is not an argument from knowledge but an argument from lack of knowledge
"and to argue lack of evidence is not an argument from knowledge but an argument from lack of knowledge"
My response -- "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"
Also you are again shifting the burden of proof.
Also, I do have evidence against the resurrection -- specifically everything I have read, seen, heard and experienced in my life that contradicts that such a thing is even possible. Also, science. Also, reality.
The fields of biology, physics, medicine and chemistry spanning 200+ years of empirical evidence, experimentation and research that supports the contention that dead people don't come back to life and slowly rise skyward.
im talking about historical claims as Scripture focuses often on specific moments so that is a better place to look seriously what has science to say on the subject history is more vocal
I turned a chunk of lead into gold last week. I wrote it down in my diary. Therefore it is a matter of historical fact and it does not matter that it contradicts the discoveries of science.
^ Tell me one thing you can say in opposition to the above argument that doesn't also apply to you last comment.
"what has REALITY to say on the subject history is more vocal"
Lets hypothesise a bit on number 2. Suppose that my brother came forward as a witness. As previously mentioned I do have supporting documentary evidence (my diary).
Can you disprove my lead into gold claim without disproving the resurrection?
To my knowledge there was no people in the bible who reported actually seeing the resurrection itself. And doesn't the bible report a story that is consistent with BOTH the apparent death and the resurrection?
But my point still stands - there is no logical argument or evidence that you can present that casts doubt on my lead2gold claims that doesn't also apply to the resurrection story.
"At no point during the argument presented in this video do I see any premise of god's non-existence being referenced."
it was implicitly stated when he said that "there is no naturalistic explanation for the resurrection". if you seriously wish to posit that to the author of this video, the existence of God is an open question, then you will have to explain why he said that any other hypothesis was more likely than a resurrection.
Assuming god exists - how does that make the likelihood of the resurrection more likely than the apparent death theory?
It is what we know about reality that we use to judge the likelihood of a given event by - this is true regardless of whether or not a god exists. In this case what we know about reality allows to deduce that the apparent death theory is very unlikely, however this same knowledge of reality tells us that the resurrection is even more so.
"then you will have to explain why he said that any other hypothesis was more likely than a resurrection."
You didn't pay attention. Please watch the video again. Of course i'm an atheist, but this argument doesn't need the assumption that a God doesn't exist.
"To my knowledge there was no people in the bible who reported actually seeing the resurrection itself."
and that matters why?
"And doesn't the bible report a story that is consistent with BOTH the apparent death and the resurrection?"
ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!!! the disciples would have thought that Jesus was merely alive, not risen, not a model for the future final resurrection. that is why the swoon theory will never make a resurgence in scholarship.
Protip: If are intent on butting into a discussion then it is usually the done thing to read the previous conversation in order to see its context.
"ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!!! "
Absolutely yes. The point you seem intent on missing is that as ridiculous as the swoon theory is, the theory of the resurrection is even more so. The first relies on very unusual/rare conditions occurring, the latter a suspension of reality.
"Absolutely yes. The point you seem intent on missing is that as ridiculous as the swoon theory is, the theory of the resurrection is even more so. The first relies on very unusual/rare conditions occurring, the latter a suspension of reality."
the swoon theory would require us to posit a collection of scenarios which have never been observed to happen in unison.
So let me get this straight - you reject the swoon theory because it requires a "collection of scenarios which have never been observed to happen in unison".
Yet you accept the rez which requires an event that has never been observed?
"and saying that the resurrection is unlikely assumes the non-existence of God. "
How so? Allah could exist and the rez be false. Shiva could exist and the rez be false. Clearly your premise here is false.
What you fail to realise is that by considering the rez without making an assumption of the existence/nature of god you reach the conclusion that the rez is unlikely. That's it - but that is sufficient for me to dismiss it.
You probably didn't realise this so I'll state it explicitly - by specifying such a specific god you have severely weakened your own argument. The fact that you have to refer specifically to the judeo-christian god shows that you have assumed its existence in order to conclude the resurrection.
The use of the word 'possibility' is merely a thin veneer attempting to disguise the necessity of the assumption made in order to reach the conclusion.
The fact that you have not included the 'possibility' of any contradicting alternatives highlights this. That's not a strawman but an observation and calling out of double speak.
how is the assumption that god exists necessary for the resurrection argument to be cogent? and secondly, I woulden't think that you turned lead to gold because there is no way that you have the necessary technology to make a fission reaction possible in lead.
"how is the assumption that god exists necessary for the resurrection argument to be cogent?"
because it is otherwise a violation of the nature of reality.
"I woulden't think that you turned lead to gold because there is no way that you have the necessary technology to make a fission reaction possible in lead."
Indeed - hence why I say that 'god did it'. Why bother providing an explanation when I dismiss the laws of physics by postulating god?
"because it is otherwise a violation of the nature of reality."
this can only be a violation of "natural reality" if god doesn't exist. this is what I was trying to get at with my rebuttal.
"by postulating god?"
how would that even make any sense whatsoever in the context? and once again, I have far too little evidence to even consider that you might have actually turned lead to gold.
actaully you and bitbutter here are assuming that god does not exist, I am not assuming that god does exist.
and secondly, perhaps you can do yourself a favor and watch veritas48's series on the resurrection, and then watch any of my dozens of videos defending the resurrection. you will find there to be a preponderance of evidence for the resurrection.
"actaully you and bitbutter here are assuming that god does not exist, I am not assuming that god does exist."
Psychological projection? Both the resurrection and the swoon theory are unlikely. But since the resurrection requires a greater violation of what we know about the world it is therefore the least likely. This conclusion not made any assumptions about god. Your reasoning however specifically requires the presumed existence of the very god associated with the resurrection.
"you will find there to be a preponderance of evidence for the resurrection."
As already pointed out, I find this so-called evidence is as consistent with the swoon theory as it is the resurrection. To refute the swoon theory you are forced to make an appeal to naturalism. But this very same appeal to naturalism is even more corrosive to your intended conclusion.
To circumvent this you are forced to assume your god, and thus your conclusion.
"Ermmm...no. I don't see why you think this. The swoon theory is unlikely but it is at least physically possible despite its improbability. This is why I take it over the resurrection."
the swoon theory would require that Jesus made a full recovery after only 3 days.
"I explained to you why the swoon theory isn't plausible"
And the reasons you gave are even more detrimental to your claimed resurrection. This was the entire point of the video.
"so you're invoking the supernatural in endorsing the swoon theory?"
Ermmm...no. I don't see why you think this. The swoon theory is unlikely but it is at least physically possible despite its improbability. This is why I take it over the resurrection.
"This reasoning counts against BOTH the resurrection and swoon theory, so why is it that you only apply it to one of them??"
because the hypothesis "god raised Jesus from the dead" isn't a violation of natural law. I asked tehknologik this one (how does the laws of physics count against the likelyhood of a supernatural agent performing certain "miraculous" actions and I got crickets
"if GOd exists and can intervene in the universe, then it woulden't be a violation of natural law."
It would actually. This is sort of implicit in the definitions of natural and supernatural.
"the swoon theory would require that Jesus made a full recovery after only 3 days. THAT is impossible."
And yet the resurrection makes perfect sense. You cannot claim one event to be impossible in favour of another even more impossible one. Logic doesn't work that way.
"I asked tehknologik this one (how does the laws of physics count against the likelyhood of a supernatural agent performing certain "miraculous" actions and I got crickets"
Unless you can establish that this supernatural agent has certain qualities or preferred modes of action, or if you have not assumed such about it, then it would have absolutely no effect on the calculated likelihood of specific events. Are you assuming such qualities perchance?
"To refute the swoon theory you are forced to make an appeal to naturalism. But this very same appeal to naturalism is even more corrosive to your intended conclusion."
well put.. for the 20th time ;) you have more patience than i do. Good luck!
It seems you have taken the arguements against the apparent death theory and turned them into Hume's traditional argument against miracles.
Christian apologists that responded to Hume would likely point out that the apparent death theory lacks the theological context of the resurrection theory, a stance which only need assume the existence of God (which is a large or small assumption depending on your stance).
I think you also need to address the fact of the emergence of the Church.
"Christian apologists that responded to Hume would likely point out that the apparent death theory lacks the theological context of the resurrection theory, a stance which only need assume the existence of God (which is a large or small assumption depending on your stance)."
A preexisting, independently established belief in the _Christian_ god, would certainly be enough to rationally accept the resurrection story of Jesus.
Well, if the apparent death theory is true then Jesus would have either had to get out of the tomb himself, or have someone remove him. Jesus would have been in very bad physical condition from the "attempted" crucifixion, and likely could not have got out of the tomb, or even walked (nails in feet) himself. We're left with the theft theory then which lacks expectation or capacity from Jesus' followers and motive from his enemies.
Even if Jesus got out of the tomb he would need medical attention which would likely come from his followers. I think this would hardly inspire them to assume he had been resurrected they would likely understand he had survived the cross. The information in John 20:6,7 about the gravecloths in unwrapped condition is difficult to explain with the apparent death theory. Last if Jesus was still alive during the growth of the early church it's odd we see no mention of this in the NT writings. Thx
In general I think explaining why Jesus was seen alive after the crucifixion is different than explaining why the earliest Xtians beleived him to have been resurrected by God for theological reasons.
"..and likely could not have got out of the tomb, or even walked (nails in feet) himself."
Perhaps he was. You know, of course, that legends develop, and how kernels of truth (eg. Jesus was alive after the crucifiction) can be iteratively embellished.
Ask yourself, based on what we know about legends (William Tell, King Arthur etc), if its more likely that a legend developed around Js death (as has happened in other cases), or that a person really came back from the dead after three days.
"The writings of Herodtus enable us to determine the rate at which legend accumulates, and the tests show that even two generations is too short a time span to allow legendary tendencies to wipe out the hard core of historical facts"[1]
Xtianity arose in the very city were Jesus was crucified, were eyewitnesses to Jesus life were still alive, and where enemies of Xtianity would have acted as corrective factors to historical imbesselment.
So you have some evidence that the beginning of a legend would be unlikely, i accept that.
Now please consider my question: based on what we know about legends (William Tell, King Arthur etc), is it more likely that a legend developed around Js death, or that a person really came back from the dead after three days.
"So you have some evidence that the beginning of a legend would be unlikely, i accept that.
Now please consider my question: based on what we know about legends (William Tell, King Arthur etc), is it more likely that a legend developed around Js death, or that a person really came back from the dead after three days.
This is what they call a no-brainer."
it's too bad that the disciples proclaimed the resurrection right from the beginning and had experiences with the risen Lord.
To be honest I'm not familiar with "what we know" about Will Tell, and King A. My answer here will be influenced by my philisophical views on whether or not miracles can occur. If my anser is no, they cannot, I see no reason to even engage in historical discussion on Xtianity's miracle claims. In historical studies of the resurrection, our question should be "what best matches the historical evidence" - irregardless of philispohical presuppostions.
Irregardless: should be 'regardless' (pet peeve, sorry).
"what best matches the historical evidence"
Yes. But how do we determine that? imo we do so by examining our experience of the world. My world has no verified miracles. But plenty of legends, lies and mistakes.
"Yes. But how do we determine that? imo we do so by examining our experience of the world. My world has no verified miracles. But plenty of legends, lies and mistakes."
would someone who lives in a hot climate be justified in not believing in the existence of ice?
"would someone who lives in a hot climate be justified in not believing in the existence of ice?"
Yes! without very strong evidence, much better than anonymous claims in ancient texts, a native of the tropics _should_ be skeptical about the claimed existence of ice.
"imo we do so by examining our experience of the world." This criteria ignores historical facts, it puts all the weight of authenticity on our very limited contemporary personal experience, and imo it is not valid. Yes, we must consider our expereince, but also the explanatory power of our hypothesis given the historical facts, and the explanatory power of rival hypothesis given the historical facts. Thx.
"Yes, we must consider our expereince, but also the explanatory power of our hypothesis given the historical facts,"
You're right, but calling them 'historical facts' can be misleading. These 'facts' are actually truth claims also, and our confidence in them has to scale according to the initial likelihood of the claims they depend on. The res is initially very unlikely, even on theism (see my latest vid) and so our confidence in the supporting truth claims has to diminish accordingly.
By the "facts" I meant empty tomb, origin of Xtian chruch etc. - which I've heard are generally accepted. I've seen your latest video. Why value our initial assessment of truth claims over our later - possibly better informed assessments? Thx for the discussion.
"Why value our initial assessment of truth claims over our later - possibly better informed assessments?"
I'm not suggesting we should. Rather that initial likelihood needs to be assessed together with a posteriori evidence when deciding whether or not to accept a truth claim.
The apparent death theory does not match the historical evidence, but based on your philisopical views, it is still better than the resurrection theory because miracles cannot occur. In my opinion there is independent evidence that God exists, a theologicaly charged background to Christs life, and relevance to the possibility of his resurrection, these 3 points remove my bias of miracles, and combined with the historical evidence, provide a rational background for my faith.
I don't presuppose that miracles cannot occur. Rather, I haven't been convinced by the evidence for them that they ever do occur.
"In my opinion there is independent evidence that God exists"
A personal, imminent God? What kind of thing do you have in mind as evidence (eg. cosmological arguments?)
Without assuming the truth of the NT narrative, do you have reason to expect that this God would arrange for the particular miracle of the resurrection in 1st C Palestine?
"A personal, imminent God? What kind of thing do you have in mind as evidence (eg. cosmological arguments?)" Yep.
"Without assuming the truth of the NT narrative, do you have reason to expect that this God would arrange for the particular miracle of the resurrection in 1st C Palestine?" I don't know why I have to diregard the NT, but I'll play along. I have reason to believe there is now a being capable of such an act - which makes it possible. The OT and NT make it probable. Thx.
The fact that a case can be made for the non-existence of a historical Jesus that doesn't contradict anything we know about how the universe works, or depend on events unlike anything we've seen before, puts it ahead of the resurrection story right off the bat.
Of course. Yet, debating the whys and wherefores of the "resurrection" of a person who likely never existed in the first place seems a waste of effort, to me. It will be difficult to convince a true believer of the fallacy inherent in their position, because they have abandoned logic in their clamor to believe the nonsense. The true believer will usually respond with some lofty statement about how we don't understand "everything" just yet. ;)
I watched both again and it's clear that Veritas48 presents an argument that is a blatant defeater.
We have thousands of scientifically documented cases of apparent death, but not a single scientifically documented case of a resurrection. That is, a person dies and the body gets cold, has rigor mortis, and begins to decay but then comes back to life. IT HAS NEVER BEEN DOCUMENTED.
So Veitas48 argues that resurrection is more likely than apparent death? I just don't understand it.
I guess, as I commented earlier, they just start from "The Bible is True" and then rationalize the fantastic claims it makes.
I start of with what the evidence shows, and go from there. Funny how they borrow our epistemology to justify their beliefs, but we never borrow theirs!
bitbutter, let me see if I get your argument corectly. so you are saying historians judge how unlikley an event is, based upon on infrequently it has happened before and since christians judge the apparrent theory as unlikely, they should apply the same standart to the resurrection?
I believe that whatever definition of 'unlikely' an evidentialist Christian has in mind when they're dismissing the apparent death theory, if they apply that same standard to the resurrection, they have to conclude that it's even more unlikely (unless they're really just assuming biblical accuracy from the outset, in which case they're not evidentialists at all).
Excellent demonstration of how theists are perfectly able to apply logic and reason to all aspects of life, other than their own faith. I was recently reading a number of stories of the early Celtic Saints, many of whom survived decapitation by Vikings, brings to mind Monty Python's Holy Grail, "Pah! Just a flesh wound!"
They would usually wonder around carrying their heads for a few hours before dropping dead. Where their head fell, a sacred spring would usually spring up, check out cephalophore saints in wikipedia. Doubt if any Christians belive these miracles today, but just highlights the problem, when does a miracle become unbelievable?
I imagine I missed it, but where did you show that we should favor physical explanations over metaphysical ones? I do not see how you arrived at this conclusion. As I have said before, I do not see how one can place a higher likelihood on physical causes rather than metaphysical ones, outside perhaps putting some numbers to the problem.
"where did you show that we should favor physical explanations over metaphysical ones? I do not see how you arrived at this conclusion."
I didn't argue that we should. I didn't need to.
Instead I argued that when Veritas48 and Christian scholars say that alternative resurrection theories are unlikely, they do so my appealing to accumulated experience. But if they were to apply this standard consistently, they would have no choice but to reject the resurrection as a historical event.
I realize that your not likely to believe this but it makes sense to me. I haven't heard yet that believers are debunking theorists on what actually happened. What do we know about that day? They say it must have been three days that he was dead but they don't consider that he may have been taken down off the cross the very night he died and began to heal for three days. The believers say they know his position and how deep he was pierced and where. do they?
bababybwoo 2 years ago
on the 3rd day he will rise again ,,, its about the sun over christmas dont you think , chk the stars people ;) lmfao
3kings etc,,, resideing under a cross, , chk it
!__!_!_!_!!!!!
BL4NDY 3 years ago
Daniel Ekechukwu = raised from the dead.
SaintJimmyI 3 years ago
My response for this video is now up. Its my latest video.
Veritas48 3 years ago
Very good. Clear and concise.
JSResponds 3 years ago
Thanks JS.
bitbutter 3 years ago
I must say I am very disappointed that RandyHelzerman claimed that this video "demolished your (veritas48) facts"
migkillertwo 3 years ago
yes, just as I expected, RandyHelzerman's description of this video's subject was dead on, and I would have to say that my rebuttal was dead on. you simply assume that God does *not* exist. you even tried to refute the resurrection by saying that we do not know of any naturalistic principle by which a resurrection could happen.
migkillertwo 3 years ago
"yes, just as I expected"
Your expectations have blinded you to the actual argument contained in the vid. Hint: it hinges on the reasoning that Christian apologists use to rule out alternatives to the res story.
bitbutter 3 years ago
"Your expectations have blinded you to the actual argument contained in the vid. Hint: it hinges on the reasoning that Christian apologists use to rule out alternatives to the res story."
and those methods by which we rule out the naturalistic hypotheses are ruled out by their borderline impossibility (as they've never happened. the physical damage of the crucifixion isn't the only reason that teh swoon theory is bollocks). but no one is positing a naturalistic explanation for the rez
migkillertwo 3 years ago
"and those methods by which we rule out the naturalistic hypotheses are ruled out by their borderline impossibility"
Sorry, i can't make sense of that. Can you rephrase?
bitbutter 3 years ago
the borderline impossibility of the alternate explanation rule them out. the fact that we've never seen them rules out their likelyhood. second, to say that the resurrection is less likely than all competing hypotheses does necessitate the assumption that God does not exist.
migkillertwo 3 years ago
"to say that the resurrection is less likely than all competing hypotheses does necessitate the assumption that God does not exist."
I disagree and ask you to provide a case for this claim.
themadhair 3 years ago
"I disagree and ask you to provide a case for this claim."
we say that the other hypotheses are unlikely because they do not have any plausible mechanisms by which they can happen. however, the resurrection relies on divine intervention. the only way you can say with any certainty that the resurrection is unlikely is to in fact prove that God does not exist, or never intervenes in the universe. bitbutter however takes no time to substantiate any of those claims at all.
migkillertwo 3 years ago
"we say that the other hypotheses are unlikely because they do not have any plausible mechanisms by which they can happen."
Strawman. Please try again.
themadhair 3 years ago
"Strawman. Please try again."
actually if you watch bitbutter's video, towards the end he gives us the sentiment that there is no naturalisitic explanation for the resurrection.
migkillertwo 3 years ago
"the only way you can say with any certainty that the resurrection is unlikely is to in fact prove that God does not exist"
False. Even on Christianity miracles are extremely rare occurrences.
bitbutter 3 years ago
"False. Even on Christianity miracles are extremely rare occurrences."
perhaps in modern times, but not with Jesus' multiple miracles and divine claims about himself. but it's very hard to say that the resurrection is less likely than any competing hypotheses if God does exist.
migkillertwo 3 years ago
^ This fails for two reasons:
1) You have yet to establish that god exists and is the one referred to in the bible. You seem to be heading for a circular argument here.
2) Every civilisation has stories that feature events that were miraculous in nature. These events become less and less when one approaches the age of science. Wonder why that is?
themadhair 3 years ago
1: certainly evidence for the resurrection, which apologists here on youtube have provided ad nauseum, would count as evidence for the existence of the judeo-christian god no?
2: gee, why is that? I mean, even the ancients knew that dead people stayed dead.
migkillertwo 3 years ago
"1: certainly evidence for the resurrection, which apologists here on youtube have provided ad nauseum, would count as evidence for the existence of the judeo-christian god no?"
"the resurrection doesn't assume the existence of god, but merely the possibility of his existence."
Methinks this is one the most clear cut examples of circular logic I have ever seen on YouTube.
themadhair 3 years ago
"Methinks this is one the most clear cut examples of circular logic I have ever seen on YouTube."
identify my conclusion, and identify how it is contained in its premises.
migkillertwo 3 years ago
Premise - god of the bible 'possibly' (that is such a cop out) exists.
Conclusion - the rez happened.
The god of the bible caused the rez by definition.
Did you really need this to be spelled out?
themadhair 3 years ago
"the borderline impossibility of the alternate explanation rule them out. "
How have you come to the conclusion that the naturalistic alternatives are in fact borderline impossible?
I'd be interested to learn how you (presumably) avoided assigning borderline impossibility to the outrageous claim that a person came back to life three days after he died, and floated into the sky.
bitbutter 3 years ago
"How have you come to the conclusion that the naturalistic alternatives are in fact borderline impossible?"
we've never seen anyone survive a crucifixion and then come out of a tomb 3 days later fully recovered.
"I'd be interested to learn how you (presumably) avoided assigning borderline impossibility to the outrageous claim that a person came back to life three days after he died, and floated into the sky."
I don't assume the non-existence of a personal God.
migkillertwo 3 years ago
"we've never seen anyone survive a crucifixion and then come out of a tomb 3 days later fully recovered. "
Do you not see the contradiction here which the video directly addressed? You have just used a body of knowledge to rule an event as unlikely in order to try evidence a claim that the same body of knowledge rules as impossible.
Cognitive dissonance much?
themadhair 3 years ago
"Do you not see the contradiction here which the video directly addressed? You have just used a body of knowledge to rule an event as unlikely in order to try evidence a claim that the same body of knowledge rules as impossible."
allow me to explain the resurrection hypothesis
Jesus was buried. on the third day, God raised him from the dead.
which body of knowledge contradicts that?
migkillertwo 3 years ago
"which body of knowledge contradicts that?"
The very same body of knowledge that allowed you to make this argument:
"we've never seen anyone survive a crucifixion and then come out of a tomb 3 days later fully recovered."
themadhair 3 years ago
okay, I have serious loading problems with this video, but Randyhelzerman told me in this video you say that the resurrection is no matter what less likely than any of the alternative hypotheses.
Now, there is a mind-bogglingly simple reason why this is an absolutely HORRIBLE argument
it relies on the a priori assumption that God does not exist. when we consider that God could exist, then the resurrection suddenly becomes more likely, even more plausible than the alternative hypotheses.
migkillertwo 3 years ago
"when we consider that God could exist, then the resurrection suddenly becomes more likely, even more plausible than the alternative hypotheses."
Really? I fail to see why this should be the case. Care to substantiate how the existence (or non-existence) of a god has any effect on the likelihood of the two scenarios presented? At no point during the argument presented in this video do I see any premise of god's non-existence being referenced.
themadhair 3 years ago
"Really? I fail to see why this should be the case. Care to substantiate how the existence (or non-existence) of a god has any effect on the likelihood of the two scenarios presented?"
because it would provide a way that the resurrection could happen, given that a supernatural entity could not be bound by the laws of physics.
migkillertwo 3 years ago
You appear to have missed the point of this video.
Veritas48 claims that the apparent death theory is wrong by essentially arguing that is physically impossible for that to be the case. The intention of this video is to point out that the same line of argumentation applies even more so to the resurrection. You appear to have missed that.
themadhair 3 years ago
the refutation of a naturalistic cause is simply unnecessary as no one is positing a natural cause. secondly, you seem keen on ignoring my point. if God exists and intervenes in the universe, then we have a mechanism by which a resurrection is possible.
migkillertwo 3 years ago
"the refutation of a naturalistic cause is simply unnecessary as no one is positing a natural cause."
Are you serious? This is a joke right?
"if God exists and intervenes in the universe, then we have a mechanism by which a resurrection is possible."
Possible, yes. Likely, no. And this does nothing to make the case that the rez occurred. If I claim that I turned lead2gold because god exists and provides a mechanism does that make the claim any more valid?
themadhair 3 years ago
"Are you serious? This is a joke right?"
no, I was being serious. I agree with every christian on earth that the resurrection was caused by God's divine intervention.
"Possible, yes. Likely, no. And this does nothing to make the case that the rez occurred."
it provides a possible mechanism by which it would occur.
migkillertwo 3 years ago
"it provides a possible mechanism by which it would occur."
All you have done is to rule ALL mechanisms possible. Unless you can further show that your god(s) behave in certain ways then you rez mechanism is equally likely to be an invisible griffin stealing the body and going for a walk with it. You appear to be be making a lot of assumptions in oder to reach your conclusion.
themadhair 3 years ago
"All you have done is to rule ALL mechanisms possible."
what?
"Unless you can further show that your god(s) behave in certain ways then you rez mechanism is equally likely to be an invisible griffin stealing the body and going for a walk with it."
1: Jesus claimed divinity
2: if a conscious entity created the universe, it follows that this entity probably intervenes in the universe.
"you make lots of assumptions" which premise did I assume a priori?
migkillertwo 3 years ago
"what?"
ANY explanation that defies reality is possible when you postulate a deity.
1) That doesn't make it true. Kim II springs to mind.
2) Assumed creation, assumed deity interferes, assumed deity is that of the bible, assumed deity was responsible for rez - conclude rez.
"which premise did I assume a priori?"
See above.
themadhair 3 years ago
the resurrection doesn't assume the existence of god, but merely the possibility of his existence.
migkillertwo 3 years ago
"If I claim that I turned lead2gold because god exists and provides a mechanism does that make the claim any more valid?"
you would need to actually give evidence for such a claim. you have none, I have evidence.
migkillertwo 3 years ago
"you have none"
Actually I have the diary in which I recorded the event, I have my brother as a witness and I have the two lumps of gold that I created.
How does this evidence compare with your evidence?
themadhair 3 years ago
"How does this evidence compare with your evidence?"
I have 500 witnesses seeing the risen Lord as a group. I have 12 people spreading a belief which flourished despite the fact that it would be viewed by anyone in the ancient world as a laughable absurdity.
migkillertwo 3 years ago
"I have 500 witnesses seeing the risen Lord as a group."
Doesn't contradict the swoon theory.
"I have 12 people spreading a belief which flourished despite the fact that it would be viewed by anyone in the ancient world as a laughable absurdity."
Ever see what some cult groups profess?
themadhair 3 years ago
"Ever see what some cult groups profess?"
christianity didn't start as some mushroom cult, and it flourished where it started.
migkillertwo 3 years ago
But my point still stands - there is no logical argument or evidence that you can present that casts doubt on my lead2gold claims that doesn't also apply to the resurrection story."
other than the fact that you lack any evidence that you turned lead into gold
migkillertwo 3 years ago
"other than the fact that you lack any evidence that you turned lead into gold"
DING DING DING we have a winner....
Now the question I have is why it is so easy for you spot this problem in my claim but not with the claim about the resurrection.
themadhair 3 years ago
"Now the question I have is why it is so easy for you spot this problem in my claim but not with the claim about the resurrection."
probably because Veritas provided evidence.
migkillertwo 3 years ago
"probably because Veritas provided evidence."
You're not getting this are you? The evidence I have seen is consistent with numerous ideas - ranging from Jesus' non-existence, to a hoax, to the apparent death to the resurrection. The problem is that there is no sufficient evidence of sufficient quality available to make a determination on which case is true. In an incomplete information situation then what is possible/likely applies. And this is where the rez falls.
themadhair 3 years ago
"You're not getting this are you? The evidence I have seen is consistent with numerous ideas - ranging from Jesus' non-existence, to a hoax, to the apparent death to the resurrection."
really? how so?
"The problem is that there is no sufficient evidence of sufficient quality available to make a determination on which case is true."
yes, actually there is. you might want to do yourself a favor and re-watch his series.
migkillertwo 3 years ago
"really? how so?"
Because they all require things to occur which are either unlikely or outright impossible.
"you might want to do yourself a favor and re-watch his series."
It is quite simple. ANY explanation that doesn't require the suspension of reality is ALWAYS preferred to one that does. It is that simple unless evidence can be provided contradicts that reasoning - and veritas48's series doesn't come close.
themadhair 3 years ago
"god raised Jesus from the dead"
which part of reality does that contradict?
migkillertwo 3 years ago
"God made my lead into gold."
Back at you.
themadhair 3 years ago
"Back at you."
and now you will need evidence.
migkillertwo 3 years ago
I have my diary, my brother as witness and two lumps of gold. Why do I have repeat this?
themadhair 3 years ago
and precisely why should I trust this given that this is attested by you and you alone?
migkillertwo 3 years ago
and why should I trust your honesty?
migkillertwo 3 years ago
You shouldn't. That's the point. Unless you can verify my honesty by independent means then you have to take my lead2gold claims with a pinch of salt.
Why is that you struggle to realise the parallel between the lead2gold claims and the resurrection? From a purely logical perspective?
themadhair 3 years ago
because we have no reason to assume that our primary sources were liars. in fact, we have every reason to suggest teh opposite.
migkillertwo 3 years ago
Actually you do have reason to suspect they are liars/mistaken.
You dismiss my lead2gold because you think it impossible. It contradicts what you know about the world. Ergo, your conclusion to speculate me a liar makes logical sense.
This reasoning also applies to the relevant biblical authors.
themadhair 3 years ago
"Actually you do have reason to suspect they are liars/mistaken.
You dismiss my lead2gold because you think it impossible. It contradicts what you know about the world. Ergo, your conclusion to speculate me a liar makes logical sense."
I dismiss your claim because I certainly would need more than your testimony alone.
in otherwords, I don't have enough evidence. the unlikelyhood isn't the only reason I reject it.
migkillertwo 3 years ago
So if I mailed you the two lumps of gold, the diary and video testimony of my bother would you change your mind?
I suspect not - but can you envisage a reason for rejecting that evidence that doesn't apply to the rez?
themadhair 3 years ago
it's like a sophist trick. they believe in the resurrection because it's _more_ likely than the swoon alternative. but they also say that it was a miracle, the foundational miracle of the religion in fact. miracles are, by definition, instances of the impossible happening. so suddenly the impossible is more plausible than the simply unlikely. hmmm...
niceonetom 3 years ago
Quite! there's nothing like having your cake and eating it too :)
bitbutter 3 years ago
likelihood has nothing to do with it the answer is yes or no not likely or unlikely
Antisyncretism 3 years ago
Wrong. Likelihood has everything to do with accepting of rejecting a thesis based on incomplete knowledge.
bitbutter 3 years ago
its unlikely ill trip and break my legs tommorow but if i did i wouldnt say it didnt happen because it is unusual...
Togetherforpeace exposed your video and there is no more to be said
Antisyncretism 3 years ago
"..if i did i wouldnt say it didnt happen because it is unusual."
Yes. And you're still missing something here:
If a friend of a friend tells you an incredible story, you justify your decision to trust him or not based on a likelihood assessment, derived from experiences you've had in the past: has this person lied before?, have you experienced anything like what he's describing before?, etc. Assessing any historical claim (including J's res') involves a similar process.
bitbutter 3 years ago
..uh evidence..ur analogy is irrelevant cos u have to prove its a lie anyway
Antisyncretism 3 years ago
"..uh evidence..ur analogy is irrelevant cos u have to prove its a lie anyway"
You got confused somewhere along the way. I did not say that the person was lying, nor do I need to prove that they are.
I described the underlying mechanism by which (under ideal conditions) a rational person decides whether or not to accept a truth claim, since you don't seem familiar with it.
bitbutter 3 years ago
"Togetherforpeace exposed your video and there is no more to be said"
Where did he respond to it?
bitbutter 3 years ago
maybe it wasnt to u exactly however i think it was a response to a video that mentioned u and whether not specific for u transparently can apply to u
Antisyncretism 3 years ago
"maybe it wasnt to u exactly however i think it was a response to a video that mentioned u and whether not specific for u transparently can apply to u"
Then its a shame you've been unable to echo his decisive critique here.
bitbutter 3 years ago
then go see it.
Ur argument weakly wittles down to 'its unusual so i dont believe it'
Antisyncretism 3 years ago
"Ur argument weakly wittles down to 'its unusual so i dont believe it'"
If it matters to you to understand what your opponents are actually saying you need to watch this vid again because you haven't understood the argument.
I won't be replying to your future comments.
bitbutter 3 years ago
agen
"Ur argument weakly wittles down to 'its unusual so i dont believe it'"
as u didnt show otherwise
(ill just pretend u repeated ur last reply)
Antisyncretism 3 years ago
It is a ridiculously simple argument that I have used IRL for years now.
If you try to use science and experiential knowledge of death to conclude that the apparent death theory is unlikely, then you are faced with an even bigger problem because this same science and experiential knowledge of death forces you to conclude that the resurrection is even more unlikely.
You violate the premises you use to determine likelihood in order to make critiquing the apparent death theory work.
themadhair 3 years ago
again u arguing from what is normal and its not Scripture says it was normal either..so what.
I doubt ill trip tommorow but if i do i wont deny that i did because its unusual
Antisyncretism 3 years ago
Firstly, equivocating between "I believe in the resurrection" and "I believe I tripped" because they are both 'unusual' just makes you look like an idiot.
Secondly, and this is irrelevant to the video, yes -- I do not believe the resurrection happened because it isn't 'normal'. The fact that you even have an awareness that the resurrection isn't 'normal' should sound alarm bells.
Finally, it is your burden to show that physical reality suspended. It is not my job to evidence that it did not.
themadhair 3 years ago
so tell me why should something not be believed because its unusual
Antisyncretism 3 years ago
When you use the word 'unusual' with regard to resurrection what you mean is 'evidentiary unsupported, in contradiction to experiential knowledge of death as recorded by civilisations the world over, in direct violation of known laws of physics/biology as revealed by science over the course of centuries and against all compiled medical and medicinal knowledge humanity has thus discovered'.
Given that, then yes -- I do not believe the resurrection happened because it is 'unusual'.
themadhair 3 years ago 2
it is supported by evidence..unfortunately i prefer to trace evidence on more obscure subjects in Scripture so i cant make an enormously strong case at least in expressing evidence to u but from what ive seen the case for it is certainly infinitely stronger than against and to argue lack of evidence is not an argument from knowledge but an argument from lack of knowledge
Antisyncretism 3 years ago
"and to argue lack of evidence is not an argument from knowledge but an argument from lack of knowledge"
My response -- "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"
Also you are again shifting the burden of proof.
Also, I do have evidence against the resurrection -- specifically everything I have read, seen, heard and experienced in my life that contradicts that such a thing is even possible. Also, science. Also, reality.
themadhair 3 years ago 2
i didnt say true until proven not.
There is evidence what is yours against
Antisyncretism 3 years ago
"There is evidence what is yours against"
The fields of biology, physics, medicine and chemistry spanning 200+ years of empirical evidence, experimentation and research that supports the contention that dead people don't come back to life and slowly rise skyward.
Or, more succinctly, reality.
themadhair 3 years ago 2
im talking about historical claims as Scripture focuses often on specific moments so that is a better place to look seriously what has science to say on the subject history is more vocal
Antisyncretism 3 years ago
I turned a chunk of lead into gold last week. I wrote it down in my diary. Therefore it is a matter of historical fact and it does not matter that it contradicts the discoveries of science.
^ Tell me one thing you can say in opposition to the above argument that doesn't also apply to you last comment.
"what has REALITY to say on the subject history is more vocal"
^ Just emphasising your absurdity for posterity.
themadhair 3 years ago
while one could say it were true one could also say this was false. But simply there are a few things to say.
1. U dont believe it yourself
2. There are no witnesses or supporting documents for this account
Antisyncretism 3 years ago
Number 1 is irrelevant.
Lets hypothesise a bit on number 2. Suppose that my brother came forward as a witness. As previously mentioned I do have supporting documentary evidence (my diary).
Can you disprove my lead into gold claim without disproving the resurrection?
themadhair 3 years ago
u are appealing to a 'cooking up the evidence' but this does not follow with the resurrection.
I think a legally good case is on two or three witnesses
Antisyncretism 3 years ago
To my knowledge there was no people in the bible who reported actually seeing the resurrection itself. And doesn't the bible report a story that is consistent with BOTH the apparent death and the resurrection?
But my point still stands - there is no logical argument or evidence that you can present that casts doubt on my lead2gold claims that doesn't also apply to the resurrection story.
themadhair 3 years ago
"At no point during the argument presented in this video do I see any premise of god's non-existence being referenced."
it was implicitly stated when he said that "there is no naturalistic explanation for the resurrection". if you seriously wish to posit that to the author of this video, the existence of God is an open question, then you will have to explain why he said that any other hypothesis was more likely than a resurrection.
migkillertwo 3 years ago
Assuming god exists - how does that make the likelihood of the resurrection more likely than the apparent death theory?
It is what we know about reality that we use to judge the likelihood of a given event by - this is true regardless of whether or not a god exists. In this case what we know about reality allows to deduce that the apparent death theory is very unlikely, however this same knowledge of reality tells us that the resurrection is even more so.
themadhair 3 years ago
"then you will have to explain why he said that any other hypothesis was more likely than a resurrection."
You didn't pay attention. Please watch the video again. Of course i'm an atheist, but this argument doesn't need the assumption that a God doesn't exist.
bitbutter 3 years ago
"To my knowledge there was no people in the bible who reported actually seeing the resurrection itself."
and that matters why?
"And doesn't the bible report a story that is consistent with BOTH the apparent death and the resurrection?"
ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!!! the disciples would have thought that Jesus was merely alive, not risen, not a model for the future final resurrection. that is why the swoon theory will never make a resurgence in scholarship.
migkillertwo 3 years ago
"and that matters why?"
Protip: If are intent on butting into a discussion then it is usually the done thing to read the previous conversation in order to see its context.
"ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!!! "
Absolutely yes. The point you seem intent on missing is that as ridiculous as the swoon theory is, the theory of the resurrection is even more so. The first relies on very unusual/rare conditions occurring, the latter a suspension of reality.
themadhair 3 years ago
"Absolutely yes. The point you seem intent on missing is that as ridiculous as the swoon theory is, the theory of the resurrection is even more so. The first relies on very unusual/rare conditions occurring, the latter a suspension of reality."
the swoon theory would require us to posit a collection of scenarios which have never been observed to happen in unison.
migkillertwo 3 years ago
So let me get this straight - you reject the swoon theory because it requires a "collection of scenarios which have never been observed to happen in unison".
Yet you accept the rez which requires an event that has never been observed?
That makes perfect sense.
themadhair 3 years ago
"Yet you accept the rez which requires an event that has never been observed?"
and saying that the resurrection is unlikely assumes the non-existence of God.
unless you wish to postulate a supernatural swoon theory.
migkillertwo 3 years ago
"and saying that the resurrection is unlikely assumes the non-existence of God. "
How so? Allah could exist and the rez be false. Shiva could exist and the rez be false. Clearly your premise here is false.
What you fail to realise is that by considering the rez without making an assumption of the existence/nature of god you reach the conclusion that the rez is unlikely. That's it - but that is sufficient for me to dismiss it.
themadhair 3 years ago
so sad you weren't able to deduce that I was referring to the judeo-christian god.
migkillertwo 3 years ago
You probably didn't realise this so I'll state it explicitly - by specifying such a specific god you have severely weakened your own argument. The fact that you have to refer specifically to the judeo-christian god shows that you have assumed its existence in order to conclude the resurrection.
themadhair 3 years ago
I actually assumed the possibility of his existence.
migkillertwo 3 years ago
That's weak. That is very weak.
themadhair 3 years ago
implicit appeal to ridicule.
"did you really need this spelled out"
way to strawman my and Veritas48's argument there buddy.
migkillertwo 3 years ago
The use of the word 'possibility' is merely a thin veneer attempting to disguise the necessity of the assumption made in order to reach the conclusion.
The fact that you have not included the 'possibility' of any contradicting alternatives highlights this. That's not a strawman but an observation and calling out of double speak.
themadhair 3 years ago
how is the assumption that god exists necessary for the resurrection argument to be cogent? and secondly, I woulden't think that you turned lead to gold because there is no way that you have the necessary technology to make a fission reaction possible in lead.
migkillertwo 3 years ago
"how is the assumption that god exists necessary for the resurrection argument to be cogent?"
because it is otherwise a violation of the nature of reality.
"I woulden't think that you turned lead to gold because there is no way that you have the necessary technology to make a fission reaction possible in lead."
Indeed - hence why I say that 'god did it'. Why bother providing an explanation when I dismiss the laws of physics by postulating god?
themadhair 3 years ago
"because it is otherwise a violation of the nature of reality."
this can only be a violation of "natural reality" if god doesn't exist. this is what I was trying to get at with my rebuttal.
"by postulating god?"
how would that even make any sense whatsoever in the context? and once again, I have far too little evidence to even consider that you might have actually turned lead to gold.
migkillertwo 3 years ago
"this is what I was trying to get at with my rebuttal."
Is this an admission that the prior assumption of god is necessary to conclude the resurrection given the low quality of the available evidence?
"I have far too little evidence to even consider that you might have actually turned lead to gold."
Why can you see this so easily in a non-biblical event? But yet not in a biblical event?
themadhair 3 years ago
actaully you and bitbutter here are assuming that god does not exist, I am not assuming that god does exist.
and secondly, perhaps you can do yourself a favor and watch veritas48's series on the resurrection, and then watch any of my dozens of videos defending the resurrection. you will find there to be a preponderance of evidence for the resurrection.
migkillertwo 3 years ago
"actaully you and bitbutter here are assuming that god does not exist, I am not assuming that god does exist."
Psychological projection? Both the resurrection and the swoon theory are unlikely. But since the resurrection requires a greater violation of what we know about the world it is therefore the least likely. This conclusion not made any assumptions about god. Your reasoning however specifically requires the presumed existence of the very god associated with the resurrection.
themadhair 3 years ago
"I am not assuming that god does exist"
then why do you continue to assert that the resurrection is contrary to natural law?
"But since the resurrection requires a greater violation of what we know about the world it is therefore the least likely."
one thing we know about the natural world is that no one would ever recover from a roman crucifixion without any medical care in only 3 days.
migkillertwo 3 years ago
"you will find there to be a preponderance of evidence for the resurrection."
As already pointed out, I find this so-called evidence is as consistent with the swoon theory as it is the resurrection. To refute the swoon theory you are forced to make an appeal to naturalism. But this very same appeal to naturalism is even more corrosive to your intended conclusion.
To circumvent this you are forced to assume your god, and thus your conclusion.
themadhair 3 years ago
"As already pointed out, I find this so-called evidence is as consistent with the swoon theory as it is the resurrection."
I explained to you why the swoon theory isn't plausible, but you seem keen on ignoring it.
"But this very same appeal to naturalism is even more corrosive to your intended conclusion.
To circumvent this you are forced to assume your god, and thus your conclusion."
so you're invoking the supernatural in endorsing the swoon theory? then your argument kills itself
migkillertwo 3 years ago
"then why do you continue to assert that the resurrection is contrary to natural law?"
Are you claiming that it ISN'T contrary to natural law??? WTF? There is a reason it is called a miracle you know.
"one thing we know about the natural world is that no one would ever recover from a roman crucifixion without any medical care in only 3 days."
This reasoning counts against BOTH the resurrection and swoon theory, so why is it that you only apply it to one of them??
themadhair 3 years ago
"Are you claiming that it ISN'T contrary to natural law??? WTF? There is a reason it is called a miracle you know."
if GOd exists and can intervene in the universe, then it woulden't be a violation of natural law.
migkillertwo 3 years ago
"Ermmm...no. I don't see why you think this. The swoon theory is unlikely but it is at least physically possible despite its improbability. This is why I take it over the resurrection."
the swoon theory would require that Jesus made a full recovery after only 3 days.
THAT is impossible.
migkillertwo 3 years ago
"the swoon theory would require that Jesus made a full recovery after only 3 days.
THAT is impossible."
A slight tangent: Why do you prefer the res' story over a version of swoon theory combined with a miracle-powered 3 day recovery?
bitbutter 3 years ago
"I explained to you why the swoon theory isn't plausible"
And the reasons you gave are even more detrimental to your claimed resurrection. This was the entire point of the video.
"so you're invoking the supernatural in endorsing the swoon theory?"
Ermmm...no. I don't see why you think this. The swoon theory is unlikely but it is at least physically possible despite its improbability. This is why I take it over the resurrection.
themadhair 3 years ago
"This reasoning counts against BOTH the resurrection and swoon theory, so why is it that you only apply it to one of them??"
because the hypothesis "god raised Jesus from the dead" isn't a violation of natural law. I asked tehknologik this one (how does the laws of physics count against the likelyhood of a supernatural agent performing certain "miraculous" actions and I got crickets
migkillertwo 3 years ago
"if GOd exists and can intervene in the universe, then it woulden't be a violation of natural law."
It would actually. This is sort of implicit in the definitions of natural and supernatural.
"the swoon theory would require that Jesus made a full recovery after only 3 days. THAT is impossible."
And yet the resurrection makes perfect sense. You cannot claim one event to be impossible in favour of another even more impossible one. Logic doesn't work that way.
themadhair 3 years ago
"I asked tehknologik this one (how does the laws of physics count against the likelyhood of a supernatural agent performing certain "miraculous" actions and I got crickets"
Unless you can establish that this supernatural agent has certain qualities or preferred modes of action, or if you have not assumed such about it, then it would have absolutely no effect on the calculated likelihood of specific events. Are you assuming such qualities perchance?
themadhair 3 years ago
"To refute the swoon theory you are forced to make an appeal to naturalism. But this very same appeal to naturalism is even more corrosive to your intended conclusion."
well put.. for the 20th time ;) you have more patience than i do. Good luck!
bitbutter 3 years ago
Exactly themadhair. A very simple idea that's apparently still too complex for some christians.
bitbutter 3 years ago
dont be so insulting
Antisyncretism 3 years ago
He'll stop being insult when you stop being so dense.
themadhair 3 years ago
o plz dont give me conditional respect just respect me
Antisyncretism 3 years ago
It seems you have taken the arguements against the apparent death theory and turned them into Hume's traditional argument against miracles.
Christian apologists that responded to Hume would likely point out that the apparent death theory lacks the theological context of the resurrection theory, a stance which only need assume the existence of God (which is a large or small assumption depending on your stance).
I think you also need to address the fact of the emergence of the Church.
Thanks.
spAdeman1001 3 years ago
"Christian apologists that responded to Hume would likely point out that the apparent death theory lacks the theological context of the resurrection theory, a stance which only need assume the existence of God (which is a large or small assumption depending on your stance)."
A preexisting, independently established belief in the _Christian_ god, would certainly be enough to rationally accept the resurrection story of Jesus.
bitbutter 3 years ago
"I think you also need to address the fact of the emergence of the Church."
Why do you think that?
bitbutter 3 years ago
Well, if the apparent death theory is true then Jesus would have either had to get out of the tomb himself, or have someone remove him. Jesus would have been in very bad physical condition from the "attempted" crucifixion, and likely could not have got out of the tomb, or even walked (nails in feet) himself. We're left with the theft theory then which lacks expectation or capacity from Jesus' followers and motive from his enemies.
spAdeman1001 3 years ago
Even if Jesus got out of the tomb he would need medical attention which would likely come from his followers. I think this would hardly inspire them to assume he had been resurrected they would likely understand he had survived the cross. The information in John 20:6,7 about the gravecloths in unwrapped condition is difficult to explain with the apparent death theory. Last if Jesus was still alive during the growth of the early church it's odd we see no mention of this in the NT writings. Thx
spAdeman1001 3 years ago
In general I think explaining why Jesus was seen alive after the crucifixion is different than explaining why the earliest Xtians beleived him to have been resurrected by God for theological reasons.
spAdeman1001 3 years ago
"..and likely could not have got out of the tomb, or even walked (nails in feet) himself."
Perhaps he was. You know, of course, that legends develop, and how kernels of truth (eg. Jesus was alive after the crucifiction) can be iteratively embellished.
Ask yourself, based on what we know about legends (William Tell, King Arthur etc), if its more likely that a legend developed around Js death (as has happened in other cases), or that a person really came back from the dead after three days.
bitbutter 3 years ago
"The writings of Herodtus enable us to determine the rate at which legend accumulates, and the tests show that even two generations is too short a time span to allow legendary tendencies to wipe out the hard core of historical facts"[1]
Xtianity arose in the very city were Jesus was crucified, were eyewitnesses to Jesus life were still alive, and where enemies of Xtianity would have acted as corrective factors to historical imbesselment.
[1] W.L.Craig, Reasonable Faith (1994), pg285
spAdeman1001 3 years ago
So you have some evidence that the beginning of a legend would be unlikely, i accept that.
Now please consider my question: based on what we know about legends (William Tell, King Arthur etc), is it more likely that a legend developed around Js death, or that a person really came back from the dead after three days.
This is what they call a no-brainer.
bitbutter 3 years ago
"So you have some evidence that the beginning of a legend would be unlikely, i accept that.
Now please consider my question: based on what we know about legends (William Tell, King Arthur etc), is it more likely that a legend developed around Js death, or that a person really came back from the dead after three days.
This is what they call a no-brainer."
it's too bad that the disciples proclaimed the resurrection right from the beginning and had experiences with the risen Lord.
migkillertwo 3 years ago
To be honest I'm not familiar with "what we know" about Will Tell, and King A. My answer here will be influenced by my philisophical views on whether or not miracles can occur. If my anser is no, they cannot, I see no reason to even engage in historical discussion on Xtianity's miracle claims. In historical studies of the resurrection, our question should be "what best matches the historical evidence" - irregardless of philispohical presuppostions.
spAdeman1001 3 years ago
Irregardless: should be 'regardless' (pet peeve, sorry).
"what best matches the historical evidence"
Yes. But how do we determine that? imo we do so by examining our experience of the world. My world has no verified miracles. But plenty of legends, lies and mistakes.
bitbutter 3 years ago
"Yes. But how do we determine that? imo we do so by examining our experience of the world. My world has no verified miracles. But plenty of legends, lies and mistakes."
would someone who lives in a hot climate be justified in not believing in the existence of ice?
migkillertwo 3 years ago
"would someone who lives in a hot climate be justified in not believing in the existence of ice?"
Yes! without very strong evidence, much better than anonymous claims in ancient texts, a native of the tropics _should_ be skeptical about the claimed existence of ice.
You're catching on ;)
bitbutter 3 years ago
that's ridiculous to think that someone is justified in believing an evidently false assertion.
migkillertwo 3 years ago
"imo we do so by examining our experience of the world." This criteria ignores historical facts, it puts all the weight of authenticity on our very limited contemporary personal experience, and imo it is not valid. Yes, we must consider our expereince, but also the explanatory power of our hypothesis given the historical facts, and the explanatory power of rival hypothesis given the historical facts. Thx.
spAdeman1001 3 years ago
"Yes, we must consider our expereince, but also the explanatory power of our hypothesis given the historical facts,"
You're right, but calling them 'historical facts' can be misleading. These 'facts' are actually truth claims also, and our confidence in them has to scale according to the initial likelihood of the claims they depend on. The res is initially very unlikely, even on theism (see my latest vid) and so our confidence in the supporting truth claims has to diminish accordingly.
bitbutter 3 years ago
By the "facts" I meant empty tomb, origin of Xtian chruch etc. - which I've heard are generally accepted. I've seen your latest video. Why value our initial assessment of truth claims over our later - possibly better informed assessments? Thx for the discussion.
spAdeman1001 3 years ago
"Why value our initial assessment of truth claims over our later - possibly better informed assessments?"
I'm not suggesting we should. Rather that initial likelihood needs to be assessed together with a posteriori evidence when deciding whether or not to accept a truth claim.
bitbutter 3 years ago
The apparent death theory does not match the historical evidence, but based on your philisopical views, it is still better than the resurrection theory because miracles cannot occur. In my opinion there is independent evidence that God exists, a theologicaly charged background to Christs life, and relevance to the possibility of his resurrection, these 3 points remove my bias of miracles, and combined with the historical evidence, provide a rational background for my faith.
P.S. I have a brain
spAdeman1001 3 years ago
I don't presuppose that miracles cannot occur. Rather, I haven't been convinced by the evidence for them that they ever do occur.
"In my opinion there is independent evidence that God exists"
A personal, imminent God? What kind of thing do you have in mind as evidence (eg. cosmological arguments?)
Without assuming the truth of the NT narrative, do you have reason to expect that this God would arrange for the particular miracle of the resurrection in 1st C Palestine?
bitbutter 3 years ago
"A personal, imminent God? What kind of thing do you have in mind as evidence (eg. cosmological arguments?)" Yep.
"Without assuming the truth of the NT narrative, do you have reason to expect that this God would arrange for the particular miracle of the resurrection in 1st C Palestine?" I don't know why I have to diregard the NT, but I'll play along. I have reason to believe there is now a being capable of such an act - which makes it possible. The OT and NT make it probable. Thx.
spAdeman1001 3 years ago
There's scant evidence for "Jesus" to have existed, anyway, so resurrection? Rubbish.
fizzybgood 3 years ago
The fact that a case can be made for the non-existence of a historical Jesus that doesn't contradict anything we know about how the universe works, or depend on events unlike anything we've seen before, puts it ahead of the resurrection story right off the bat.
bitbutter 3 years ago
Of course. Yet, debating the whys and wherefores of the "resurrection" of a person who likely never existed in the first place seems a waste of effort, to me. It will be difficult to convince a true believer of the fallacy inherent in their position, because they have abandoned logic in their clamor to believe the nonsense. The true believer will usually respond with some lofty statement about how we don't understand "everything" just yet. ;)
fizzybgood 3 years ago
The best argument I've seen in a while.
sssswwwsssss 3 years ago
Thanks, do you mind if I call you sws?
bitbutter 3 years ago
Not at all. That's what I would do.
sssswwwsssss 3 years ago
I watched both again and it's clear that Veritas48 presents an argument that is a blatant defeater.
We have thousands of scientifically documented cases of apparent death, but not a single scientifically documented case of a resurrection. That is, a person dies and the body gets cold, has rigor mortis, and begins to decay but then comes back to life. IT HAS NEVER BEEN DOCUMENTED.
So Veitas48 argues that resurrection is more likely than apparent death? I just don't understand it.
UnBeguiled 3 years ago
"So Veitas48 argues that resurrection is more likely than apparent death? I just don't understand it."
Yes and ThatChristian seems to be saying the same thing. I'm also a bit baffled.
bitbutter 3 years ago
I guess, as I commented earlier, they just start from "The Bible is True" and then rationalize the fantastic claims it makes.
I start of with what the evidence shows, and go from there. Funny how they borrow our epistemology to justify their beliefs, but we never borrow theirs!
That would be a great video topic. Make it.
UnBeguiled 3 years ago
bitbutter, let me see if I get your argument corectly. so you are saying historians judge how unlikley an event is, based upon on infrequently it has happened before and since christians judge the apparrent theory as unlikely, they should apply the same standart to the resurrection?
darklink0112 3 years ago
Yes that's about it.
I believe that whatever definition of 'unlikely' an evidentialist Christian has in mind when they're dismissing the apparent death theory, if they apply that same standard to the resurrection, they have to conclude that it's even more unlikely (unless they're really just assuming biblical accuracy from the outset, in which case they're not evidentialists at all).
bitbutter 3 years ago
Excellent demonstration of how theists are perfectly able to apply logic and reason to all aspects of life, other than their own faith. I was recently reading a number of stories of the early Celtic Saints, many of whom survived decapitation by Vikings, brings to mind Monty Python's Holy Grail, "Pah! Just a flesh wound!"
shoyhoy 3 years ago
!! Were their heads stuck back on somehow? did the bodies go about their business headless? or was it a kind of sci-fi talking head scenario?
bitbutter 3 years ago
They would usually wonder around carrying their heads for a few hours before dropping dead. Where their head fell, a sacred spring would usually spring up, check out cephalophore saints in wikipedia. Doubt if any Christians belive these miracles today, but just highlights the problem, when does a miracle become unbelievable?
shoyhoy 3 years ago
I imagine I missed it, but where did you show that we should favor physical explanations over metaphysical ones? I do not see how you arrived at this conclusion. As I have said before, I do not see how one can place a higher likelihood on physical causes rather than metaphysical ones, outside perhaps putting some numbers to the problem.
ThatChristian 3 years ago
"where did you show that we should favor physical explanations over metaphysical ones? I do not see how you arrived at this conclusion."
I didn't argue that we should. I didn't need to.
Instead I argued that when Veritas48 and Christian scholars say that alternative resurrection theories are unlikely, they do so my appealing to accumulated experience. But if they were to apply this standard consistently, they would have no choice but to reject the resurrection as a historical event.
bitbutter 3 years ago