to ever see, some of the brightest minds in the world are Christian in basically l respective fields INCLUDING philosophical and ethical studies my friend.
Jesus spoke well of you when He said "A servant is not greater than his master, if they hated Me, they will hate you also"
Shame on you on resorting to ad Hominem attacks instead of actual substance to your arguments
God be with and bless you man, I mean that sincerely, I really do.
Not to sound judgemental, but i hate to think that my kids are gonna grow up in a world where such hate and discriminational mentalities are floating around, like seriously? call him what you want but the fact that you're attributing this to him being a Christian is just horrific, even if it's only being said as a joke
you sir just revealed more things about your irrationality, unintelligibility, and character in those few lines of your comment than i cared
can everyone stop calling him names like ugly etc its really spitefuly and out of order, the guys just made a video about the ressurection of christ , agree or disagree but leave him alone dont personly attack him its harsh
Can you give evidence outside the bible? I have a hard time finding independent sources of information regarding jesus's resurrection. Could someone point me to non bible related evidence (if you have anything scholarly that would be great).
This is referred to as ad hominem, that is, a personal attack that has nothing to do with the arguments presented. It is always telling when people resort to ad hominem, because it means they are completely incapable of replying to the arguments put forth, so they decide to critique something easy instead. Kabane's facial features are subjective to personal opinion, which of course makes this an easy and cheap shot. For the record, I like his hair, and I think he looks cool.
Your christian so that you can use this excuse for not getting laid "I am going to wait til after marriage...". Your christian because you're ugly and you're an outcast... you're christian because you're mind can't handle anything beyond you're intellect... which would be any kind of science...
I would like to keep arguing... but i can't stop laughing at how ugly you are... i am so sorry but seriuosly whyd you have to have such a close up?... HAHAHAHA
Four: Jesus appeared! This begs-the-question because the Corinthians and others only provided evidence of their claims!
Questioning why ancient people would make such a claim, that Jesus rose from the dead and appeared to them, is not enough to deduce that their claims are valid!
Conclusion: An exhaustive list of the alleged appearances of a risen Jesus cannot be the core evidence of the very claim that Jesus actually did appear to anyone without appealing to Question-Begging!
Two (revisited): It was hasty of me to concede that Jesus was buried when it was more than likely that he rotted off the bone like other convicted criminals who were crucified in the ancient Roman world. Why was Jesus the exception to the rule? Why did Pilate return the body of Jesus to his loved ones as apposed to disposing of the body in a mass grave for criminals as was the standard? Even the Gospels have a conflicting accounts on how many women anointed Jesus?
Why someone of your intellect would respond to TheNotSoAmazingAtheist is beyond me! To be clear, TJ is a sheep-herding ignoramus fool whose videos are not even worth watching!
The bottom line is that if you cannot address legitimate criticisms of your beliefs and arguments in favor of the Resurrection of Jesus then perhaps your beliefs are not worth believing! (Rev. Turner)
You could have made a stronger case by discrediting the well established criticisms of The Resurrection of Jesus!
(Still) The bottom line is that if you cannot address legitimate criticisms of your beliefs and arguments in favor of the Resurrection of Jesus then perhaps your beliefs are not worth believing! (Rev. Turner)
(Still) You could have made a stronger case by discrediting the well established criticisms of The Resurrection of Jesus!
Dude, I HAVE addressed your criticisms. The reason why I referred you to my rebuttal to TAA is because I address your criticisms there, because they are identical to his.
These criticisms I mention are neither TJs nor mine, they are well established criticisms from New Testament scholars like John Shelby, Jeffery Jay Lowder, Evan Fales, Robert M. Price and many others. The more you avoid this and attempt to redirect my attention to a NotSoAmazing video the less credibility you have! After all, are apologetics meant to convince church choirs or atheists and other non-Christians? You have not addressed these questions in this video!
Dude, youre not dumb, stop playing so! Why did Pilate give the body of Jesus back to his loved ones or followers as apposed to letting it rot off the bone and disposing of it in mass graves for criminals? Why was Jesus the only known exception? How many women anointed Jesus body after death but before burial? You have discussed how the appearances of Jesus could have been possible, but you HAVE NOT discredited the skepticisms of how it may not be the case. What videos?
please remember kabane that you are quoting your holy scripture. please remember that it has been altered since it was written. and please remember the superstitious nature of the people in question and the fact that their leader was just executed.
now compare that to modern day religious people who suffer some major dissapointment and how they react, and the idea that they thorght he was ressurected sounds much more reliable.
and then theres the whole claims of magic thing...
What is my opinion of religion in general? There are many who need something to explain the unexplainable and some who decide to be the voice of that something.
The bible - especially the NT - is a rehash of mistold legends that predate even the Torah by several thousand years, and it doesn't take much investigation to unearth them.
For this reason, some religions actively discourage education of the sciences.
You are accepted for what you believe and expelled for what you know.
That's always been my suspected belief. Though I'll admit I probably haven't studied the bible as well as others, though I am planning to.
It seems sad in my opinion. We're an advanced civilization and yet our potential seems to be disheartened with institutions like religion. It seems we've come to a point where we value faith in our society over actual fact.
Assuming your sources are bullshit free(which I doubt, based on the highly unlikeliness of the event), then you would be correct in historically proving the Resurrection. However, on the basis of science, probability, or just plain common sense, your argument for proving this ridiculous myth of resurrection falls apart. The claims in the bible itself are far more ridiculous than any aim at trying to compare the biblical Jesus tale to another myth.
I like how you use the word "propagated" when referring to such an enlightened and brilliant thinker. Simply put, you cant scientifically prove any claimed "supernatural" event because it defies the laws of the natural world. In your case you will say "I have FAITH in the supernatural so i will accept these historical accounts as evidence." In my case, i will search for any alternative that can be argued in the real world. The supernatural has no basis in the real world and can not be argued.
This video is full of circular reasoning. The bible proves the bible stuff. Just because it says it in the this 2000 year old book doesn't mean it is true. There is no secular evidence out of the bible for the resurrection.
Oh. My. God. This is idiocy. Go watch my video on this nonsensical "u r using circular reasoning bcuz u kwote da bibble" argument. Please. When people use that argument, I am honestly tempted to block them for stupidity. Not because I'm scared. Go read all my comments, I allow plenty of critique, but when I hear these soundbites that have been refuted multiple times, I see no real benefit.
I think that you supplant scripture for physical evidence. This is indeed a form of circular reasoning and it would never hold any weight in a truly forensic setting. It is interesting that solid refutations such as this are met, by you, with spite and threats of blocking the users from whom the argument is presented. As such, I hardly regard Kujien's comment as 'stupid' but do regard your petty, disingenuous reply as most unenlightened.
I agree, you're not using any real solid evidence here, you're only using the bible.
We could use scripture as evidence if it was a more common logical story, but this a miracle by all accounts - you will need much more than scripture to prove it.
I'm using a specific biblical text here that was demonstrated to be very reliable in my video on the empty tomb - that is the 1 Corinthians 15 creed. Secondly, you need to provide arguments for your assertions. You assert that scripture (no matter how well it passes historical criteria) cannot be used to demonstrate miracles. Why? What is fundamentally different about a canonized text than a non canonized text?
I have provided my arguments but I'm not the one making the claims here lol, I'm simply skeptic to yours.
Passing historical criteria? Are you saying everything in the bible is fully supported?
The problem here is that it's a miracle, not a regular occurrence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Scripture will not buy me out, I require much more to believe a man who was brutally killed and dead for 3 days came back from the dead of his own bodily will.
Really? Why?Plus, could you tell me what classifies as extraordinary? Isn't that just subjective? It's a nice line, but it's baseless and meaningless.
"Scripture will not buy me out, I require much more to believe a man who was brutally killed and dead for 3 days came back from the dead of his own bodily will."
Being canonized does not make a document unreliable.
Lol you seem intelligent. Do I really have to explain this to you?
Anything Miraculous counts as extraordinary. A man coming back from the dead after 3 days from a brutal murder is extraordinary. Especially if he did it all on his bodily own. There is no explanation to this by any kind of medical terms, you need to explain how it's even possible.
I'm not saying the documents are unreliable, I'm saying you need monumental evidence to convince someone of this miracle. They just aren't enough.
What counts as extraordinary evidence? And why should we accept ECREE? What law of the universe dictates that objectively extraordinary claims produce objectively extraordinary evidence? I see no reason to accept ECREE.
"There is no explanation to this by any kind of medical terms"
That's for you to tell me, I'm not the one whose making the claim. You are faced with the burden of proof here.
Why should we accept that principle? How the hell do you plan to prove a miracle without proper evidence? It isn't a transcendent law, it's common logic.
"This is why it is referred to as a miracle."
"Again. Why not?"
How do you still not understand this? This is an amazing event! And yet there is no support for it. To prove it, you need to give me some solid hard evidence.
You missed my point. I was pointing out that what counts as extraordinary evidence varies from person to person. It is subjective. I consider my evidence extraordinary. I prove a miracle using the evidence presented in this video. I consider it proper. You say it's common logic. I disagree, as there is no process which demands that extraordinary events produce extraordinary evidence. You say there is no support for it. That is begging the question....
If the courts treated evidence the way you're explaining, we'd live in chaos lol.
This is very simple, either the evidence properly supports the claims, or it doesn't. There isn't any room for bias, faith, or excuse here. Reality does not work that way.
There isn't a need for any process, it's common logic. How exactly do you plan to prove a claim without proper evidence? How do you still not grasp this?
We aren't in a court. We are in history. I am treating the gospels the way we treat other documents, and with the same historical criteria.
I didn't say that I could prove a claim without proper evidence. The question is what do we consider proper evidence? You cite the vague word "extraordinary". But what counts as extraordinary evidence is hopelessly subjective.
Yet with a claim of this magnitude, we should very well treat it as it would in a courtroom. This is how you treat evidence.
It isn't vague, it's explaining you need much more than just scripture. This is a miracle of amazing proportions. How are you going to prove it with scripture alone?
I wouldn't even lend the same standard to the bible, being factually incorrect on so many different things, but that's just me.
Uh, we have a man coming back from the dead 3 days after being brutally murdered. This claim alone supports a MASSIVE global institution. Yet, when in history has such a thing ever been observed? Don't try to squelch the purpose or amount of evidence here, it is very much needed.
Because actual history facts are verifiable and are reasonable. You HAVE to treat a miracle this grand differently to properly prove it, or else, why should I believe you?
You wanted a link? I'm not drawing this from a website, I'm using my own logic. I explained why I thought it needed much more support. Perhaps your bias is blinding you here. Again, this is an incredible miracle, you need much more than scripture to prove it. How is this so hard to understand? lol
I'll agree, it seems untenable. I wish it wasn't. I wish something solid was left behind. I wish your God would reveal himself and clear up all this confusion.
No, no, no. I wasn't referring to a weblink, but a connection between your premise and conclusion. Your argument:
Miracles are grand.
Therefore, we can't analyze them by the same standards of history
That's a non sequitur. The premise and conclusion have no connection. My bias isn't blinding me. I have taken classes in formal logic, which is why subtleties like a broken syllogism are obvious to me.
Scripture is only the name we apply to documents that Christians consider inspired. Secular scholars consider them simple historical documents, and they analyze them like we do other documents. The question is, why does something being put in the Bible make it different than other documents? Before it was in the Bible, would we be able to analyze it differently?
When you brutally beat and torture someone, you often kill them lol. We can both agree that Jesus was killed.
The human body cannot restore its basic functions all of its own bodily will. I think we can safely say that Jesus had no outside medical attention either.
Therefore, it is impossible to come back from the dead, especially after being tortured and beaten to death.
You have a missing premise. You are building an airtight case that it is impossible to come back from the dead naturally. However, this is not what I am arguing. I am arguing that it was a miracle. In order for your conclusion to be valid, you need to show that miracles are impossible. Your position, presumably agnosticism, does not allow for the naturalist assumptions that you are making.
You're basically asking me to disprove miracles. On the contrary, that burden isn't left on me. It is you who has to prove them. All I'm doing is questioning your methods.
I agree it seems impossible to prove, and it should be, what you're claiming is physically impossible to begin with.
I'll give you that it's a miracle, of course, I totally agree, and I wish we could somehow verify it. It really does seem like a great inspiring story.
I am, because you have used your hidden premise of miracles being impossible to justify your claim that the rez cannot happen. All premises, even missing ones, must be demonstrated.
I never said it was impossible to prove. I said you were making naturalistic assumptions that are invalid under your claimed agnostic beliefs.
We can verify it through history. You have claimed that we can't show miracles through history, but haven't said why.
Lol please, that's a crap sorry argument. I shouldn't have to demonstrate that a miracle cannot happen when it's you whose claiming the miracle in the first place. If you can't prove this miracle, don't turn it around on me to disprove, I don't carry this burden here.
And I can safely make those naturalistic assumptions because they are based on logic and reason. Exactly how can someone return from the dead of their own bodily will? This you have consistently failed to explain.
"I shouldn't have to demonstrate that a miracle cannot happen"
Yes, because your hidden premise is that they are impossible. You use this premise to show that the resurrection cannot happen. That is, you presuppose the impossibility of miracles before assessing the evidence for the resurrection.
"And I can safely make those naturalistic assumptions because they are based on logic and reason."
Okay, present the logic behind the assertion that miracles are a priori impossible.
"Exactly how can someone return from the dead of their own bodily will? This you have consistently failed to explain. "
First, it was the Father who raised Jesus from the dead, not Jesus himself. Second, it was miraculous. Of course you are going to say that's false if you presume that miracles are impossible, but that is a statement you have yet to prove.
Note, you are stating miracles are impossible. That is a positive assertion that must be proven.
You're really stuck on this aren't you? lol, medical fact doesn't seem to have sunk in I suppose.
A hidden premise? No, coming back from the dead is impossible. Don't sit there and question my skepticism when you've yet to show me how it's possible. I've seen your evidence, scripture, lol, and it in no way proves this miracle.
You're basically asking me to disprove it without showing any real solid evidence here. You face the burden of proof here not I.
Dude, it's impossible naturally. It is possible supernaturally. So when you are methodologically agnostic, if we find the effect, the cause is implicit.
"You face the burden of proof here not I. "
I've already filled my burden by showing the evidence for the resurrection, which implies that miracles are possible. You try to negate that evidence by saying they are impossible. That is not agnosticism, that is strong atheism.
The logic? Okay, when you die, especially after being brutally murdered and being dead for three days, the body at this point, has ceased all function. The body has already started to decay, there's no way it's going to come back to life. Call a hospital, ask them lol.
Are you deaf or something? It's impossible NATURALLY. Your arguments are reduced to non sequiturs when it's revealed that I believe it happened supernaturally.
Okay then so you concede it can't happen by natural means? Okay then, please, by all means go on and prove to us that it happened supernaturally. Show me how this is possible.
Oh, so you have evidence that God exists? Please, before demanding I disprove your claims, show me your evidence, prove your claims sir instead of so boldly questioning my skepticism, you forget yourself.
You have yet to satisfy the burden of proof and your* arguments are being based of wild assumptions and yet you turn around and slant at my questioning.
I don't have to disprove the possibility of miracles in general, you have to show me how any of your claims are possible.
Any claim contrary to this REQUIRES solid evidence and support simply because by all medical standards it is physically impossible by the given circumstances.
A written document, simply isn't enough to prove this miracle. And seeing as there's really nothing else to go on, I would suggest building a time machine lmao.
You've jumped a premise again. You state that miracles require more than written texts. Why? It may sound nice to assert it, but this is another broken syllogism.
"My premise is that it's impossible by any medical standard for someone who has died of a brutal torture to back from the dead after 3 days."
Come back from the dead naturally, yes. I never denied that. But the question is, are miracles impossible? If you are agnostic towards the possibility, then your syllogism fails. If you say, "No, they aren't possible", then you need to show why.
"I'm not uncertain of the claim, I know the claim isn't possible.
I've just explained why it isn't possible lol. Do you often resort to dancing around these points in debate? "
You've shown it isn't possible naturally and then you presumed that miracles are not an option. You have yet to show that they aren't an option. I've taken this one straight on several times. Why are miracles not an option?
Oh boy, you're basically pulling the "disprove God" move here. How do I prove miracle's aren't possible?
Well, on the definition generally speaking, I do believe in coincidence, and sometimes that can be beneficial. Miracles can be an option in some instances, say, you're stuck in the middle of no where and a chopper happens to fly over and rescues you, okay then.
However, someone coming back from the dead after a brutal murder seems EXTREMELY unlikely for the reasons I've already stated.
"Oh boy, you're basically pulling the "disprove God" move here. How do I prove miracle's aren't possible?"
You can't. So don't say they don't happen therefore you are wrong. To use a negative as a foundation, you must prove a negative. You aren't understanding the distinction.
"
However, someone coming back from the dead after a brutal murder seems EXTREMELY unlikely for the reasons I've already stated. "
You've stated reasons why it is unlikely naturally.
So you think the world is flat and an elderly man was able to construct an arc that helped in the survival of millions of species from a global flood that only lasted 40 days? Exactly where is the credibility?
Funny, when I go to a book store, I don't see an entire series of the bible, I see one book lol.
I will not argue other parts of the Bible here. The topic has to be kept narrow for this to be manageable on youtube.
"Funny, when I go to a book store, I don't see an entire series of the bible, I see one book lol. "
Honestly man, I am hoping this is a joke. There are 66 books in the Bible. Each was written separately. LATER, they were collected and compiled into one collection, but they were not one book at the time of their writing.
You are free to believe this story, but to prove it as fact you need evidence.
A relm such as science doesn't just go around tacking things as fact or fiction. They have to do tests - they have to verify and work their way towards a supported conclusion. There is no room for bias or faith here especially if you seek to convince a skeptic.
...The fact that the apostles sincerely believed that they saw the risen Jesus is acknowledged by virtually all secular scholars. The fact that the tomb is empty is acknowledged by 75% of secular scholars. This claims are not fringe, but mainstream, accepted, well documented facts. The question is what explains the facts best? Thus my answers to alternative theories. All history is biased. This includes Livy, Philo, Tacitus, etc. Faith means trust based on evidence. See my videos on it.
Faith does indeed mean trust but this goes far beyond that.
The arguments you're presenting are somewhat weak. I can easily believe that the apostles believed they saw a risen Jesus too just from scripture, it doesn't mean it's factually supported or it even happened. An empty tomb is an even worse argument to support the resurrection.
Sure, I'll sum up here. The Greek word translated faith is pistis, which is a technical Greek term for forensic proof. It is not blind.
Again, I am treating the biblical documents not with a presupposition of inerrancy, but with the same historical criteria as are used on other documents. Why can't I use the same criteria? It is because the 1c15 creed passes these criteria so well that nearly all secular historians accept it as factually accurate.
No, history is based on what we can gather from facts. Logic and reason are applied here with skepticism of extreme prejudice.
We don't just accept anything with the excuse of bias and faith, that's not how reality works. We have to test and verify and base a conclusion off of the facts presented, not what we hope they are.
What you're doing is starting with the conclusion and drawing facts to support it, when you should be doing the opposite.
"What you're doing is starting with the conclusion and drawing facts to support it, when you should be doing the opposite."
Where am I doing that? Where did I presuppose any of my conclusions? I didn't. I'm not presupposing inerrancy. I'm not using faith as an excuse, I never once appealed to blind faith. I test and verify facts using standard historical criteria.
Yes you are, you're starting with the claim that Jesus rose from the dead. You believe this with a bias, and in your videos you draw different points to help prove the already presupposed conclusion of that resurrection.
You're starting at the opposite end of Scientific Method, which is incorrect.
You're still stuck on using scripture as evidence. you don't seem to grasp how you need much more than that to prove such a miracle. Just because you accept it so easily, doesn't mean it's solid.
"Yes you are, you're starting with the claim that Jesus rose from the dead."
Um, no. I actually was effectively agnostic until I researched the evidence for the resurrection of Christ.
"
You're still stuck on using scripture as evidence"
Dude, don't try to criticize me for using it as evidence until you explain why scripture is fundamentally different than other historical documents. I have asked you this question over five times now, and you have not answered it once.
"So you went from not knowing to just accepting it? Not to mock you in any way, but a little bit of skepticism is never a bad thing lol."
Don't presume that the other side can't be skeptical. I was skeptical. It's just that I understand the criteria of history and why we need to analyze the Bible by the same standards as other documents.
"I think I've answered it more than just once by now, go read them again. "
I read them again. You didn't answer. Quote yourself on it.
I am presuming your lack of skepticism because you're carrying a belief without proper support. I have no problem with you believing it, but to convince me it is a fact is a whole different ball game.
"Anything Miraculous counts as extraordinary. A man coming back from the dead after 3 days from a brutal murder is extraordinary. Especially if he did it all on his bodily own. There is no explanation to this by any kind of medical terms, you need to explain how it's even possible."
"I am presuming your lack of skepticism because you're carrying a belief without proper support."
Proper support being defined by you?
On extraordinary. It isn't what counts as an extraordinary claim, it is what counts as extraordinary evidence. I consider my evidence extraordinary. You don't. But is there an objective way to show whether it is or isn't? No. So it's a subjective standard that is worthless.
It's not subjective nor is it my opinion. There is nothing extraordinary about a historical document.
An objective way to prove this? I'm not sure. I wish there was more to go on but it seems there's very little if any exists. From this, either proper evidence just wasn't left, or it didn't happen.
Exactly how you plan to prove it isn't my decision to make though. I don't carry that burden so I'm not the one you should be questioning lol.
"There is nothing extraordinary about a historical document."
I disagree. Objectively show me that you're right. Extraordinary evidence is still subjective.
"From this, either proper evidence just wasn't left, or it didn't happen."
Proper evidence in history should be considered evidence that meets the criteria of authenticity, agreed on by both Christian and secular scholars. Here it does, and thus is considered proper evidence
Okay, does a Harry Potter book prove the existence of magic? We need to be able to test and verify this sort of claim, especially on one of such a high caliber. If we can't do that, how do you plan to prove it as fact to me?
So scripture is good enough evidence to prove a resurrection? I disagree with you and any of those scholars who I doubt ever came to such a solid conclusion. You might as well be saying - Magic exists, because I've read many stories about it.
I try to be above that but it seems you aren't getting it any other way. =/
How are they different? How is your story so different from any of the others?
I said I DISAGREED with those scholars. Sure, they may have said "Ok these people probably believed that they saw something." Does that make a human resurrection fact? No, because we can't verify any of that, ESPECIALLY that, because it's such an abnormal occurrence.
You can take things at face value but I certainly do not.
Getting tired of me? lol yeah the feelings actually mutual. I've responded though I still doubt it'd get anywhere more than what we've gotten here.
I bet they are highly respected and they have every right to believe in the resurrection just as you do. However, belief and fact are two different things. It's nice to believe in it and it seems like a very inspiring story but to me scripture just isn't enough.
0:38: "The first piece of evidence for the appearances is the same book that states the appearances happened".
Let's be honest. I write a book a story, if you will. In chapter 1 I write how a man flew up to heaven on a winged horse. In chapter 2, I write about how people saw it.
All my readers (followers) then use chapter 2 as EVIDENCE that the events I write about in chapter 1 are true.
This is circular reasoning and doesn't work for the reasons I've pointed out above.
I didn't say the bible was one book. Again, you jump to conclusions and look like the idiot yourself.
The bible, even though it is a library of books - cannot be used to justify itself.
By the same logic, the Koran is true. Why do you not accept the Koran as the legitimate word of God? It says that Jesus was a prophet, but not the last prophet of God, Muhammed (peace be upon him and all that).
Tell me. Why do you reject the Koran and the Hadith?
Uh, no, you treated it like it was. It is a compilation of books, therefore 1 Corinthians may be used to collaborate other books as 1 Corinthians and Matthew are totally separate. I reject the Qu'ran because I have no reason to believe it. By the way, the Qu'ran may be treated as one book because it isn't a compilation of texts. I reject the Hadith because of their late dates.
I reject the bible because it is not a trustworthy historical record. Furthermore, it is an immoral and disgusting text that has been used to subjugate minority groups for such a long time.
It contains numerous (large!) inconsistencies.
It has been argued that the Koran contains far less inconsistencies than the bible and is more accurate on issues of Science.
Ultimately, they are both made up stories and can be rejected as such.
The problem here is a simple misunderstanding of logic. It doesn't matter how many items there are in the logical circle unless at least one of those items can be relied upon without reference to another item. In short, all the books in the bible make "claims", invariably citing each other as the "source". None of them go any way to providing any external evidence. Healings, Miracles, Creation = As your generation says, "EPIC FAIL".
Your guys version of Christianity which includes hostility, elitism and name calling is a refreshing change from the mild mannered version in my country.
"Your guys version of Christianity which includes hostility, elitism and name calling is a refreshing change from the mild mannered version in my country."
distinctive blend, I am sorry that you think we are being "elitists" but we really treat morons like this because they are morons.
but I think it is nice for you to know how the two of us (Kabane and I) feel when we hear these new atheists spout their elitist propaganda and sometimes say that they are too smart to debate us.
Yet you continue to be an elitist and try to start pissing contests. You continue to dodge the natural laws by saying I'm making the positive claim (when I'm not) and you seem to imply that the null hypothesis is merely ignorance when it's role is vital in the scientific method.
"Yet you continue to be an elitist and try to start pissing contests."
I guess any debate is a pissing contest.
"You continue to dodge the natural laws"
again, the natural laws are not proven to be immutable.
"by saying I'm making the positive claim (when I'm not)"
YES, YOU ARE making a positive claim. YOU have to prove that the laws of nature are immutable if you wish to argue from the immutability of the laws of nature.
"but I'm curious, why is immutability the null hypothesis?"
For the same reason we start off with "the drugs don't work".
Ok forget the argument part for a moment. Are you not making the positive claim by stating that the laws of nature CAN be broken? (which to me would be the same as the claim "the drugs work")
Hey guess what! This is not the scientific method! We are not doing science! We are doing history! Atheists seem to have this idea that the only truth-discipline is science. Stop whining about elitism. I suppose you've never heard Richard Dawkins spout his nonsense with his nose high in the air?
No, stupid, I supplied evidence, now you have to refute it. Whining "bias" like you did on my other videos doesn't prove a thing other than that you need to be trained in what constitutes a valid argument.
Thank you for your reply. I was referring to "confirmation bias" "a tendency to search for or interpret new information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions and avoids information and interpretations which contradict prior beliefs" This is evident in your video and the video you were refuting. It is intrinsic to a valid argument.
Except that I provided evidence in the video, moron. I'll call you a moron as long as you act like one. Continuing to stomp your foot and declare that the burden is on me to provide evidence when I have provided evidence is extraordinarily moronic.
You call it evidence Kabane, but you know your source for this "evidence" also states that things didn't die before the fall.. how does that fit in with your quirky "theistic evolution"?
I'm sure it's fun to try and prove your myths but many people have tried and yet it's still called faith ^^
Um. No. Genesis and the books of the New Testament are SEPARATE sources. The Bible is not one book, stop treating it like one. I've dealt with your assertion about death before the fall over on my other channel. Read my VFX debate. THat's where I give an extended defense biblically of theistic evolution.
Oh so you now pick and choose which book/books you agree with? Aren't they all inspired by the same God? Why would any even be a little bit wrong? Or why would some be literal fact and others not?
The assertions are yours Kabane, you haven't addressed my points. You have to juggle the whole lot around to make it fit, you know your book/books are fables.
Besides you wouldn't need to defend it if the evidence was there.
Some evolutionists must defend the evidence for evolution against attacks by creationists. but if the evidence was there, it woulden't need to be defended.
What are you talking about? Kabane like myself and most of the civil world don't believe in the absurdness that is creationism. Believing a supernatural deity used some divine magic and created all the animals is BS.
The only reason scientists need to defend evolution is NOT because the evidence is lacking, but because a small group of people get really upset when evidence goes against their holy books.
Creationist think they know better than evidence, go figure.
I hope Kabane's lack of response didn't stroke your ego distinctive blend, but I felt compelled to respond to this BS of yours. first off, Kabane not arguing from inspiration, but merely subjecting the New Testament documents to the same rigors and benefits that other ancient works of history recieve. secondly, your statement that kabane would not need to defend the evidence if it was there is incredibly absurd. Could this not just as easily be said about darwinian evolution and creationists?
"Kabane not arguing from inspiration, but merely subjecting the New Testament documents to the same rigors and benefits that other ancient works of history recieve"
That's false, he uses the new testament to prove the new testament. The only sources I've seen him reference are biblical ones.
However I might be wrong on that because I haven't watched all of his videos (there's alot!), but if not he is using circular reasoning/question begging.
and? your point has still been refuted thousands of times by every single apologist. sorry buddy, but this argument is repeated so often it pisses me off to no end every time I hear it uttered (and I doubt that kabane is pissed off to a lesser extent)
I'm just saying the bible isn't a reliable source, sure maybe some of the people really did live but that is no reason to accept what they say is true. 2000 years ago we weren't that smart and had a habit of chalking anything we didn't know up to a God.
"I'm just saying the bible isn't a reliable source"
if you want to say that the new testament documents are unreliable sources, you need to provide evidence. and since the evidence quite clearly indicates eye-witness authorship or close connection with eye-witnesses, you have quite a burden of proof to fill.
"2000 years ago we weren't that smart and had a habit of chalking anything we didn't know up to a God."
Wow what an argument. A poll taken indicates 60 percent of the American people believe in ghosts. So why do you consider modern people so much more advanced?
to ever see, some of the brightest minds in the world are Christian in basically l respective fields INCLUDING philosophical and ethical studies my friend.
Jesus spoke well of you when He said "A servant is not greater than his master, if they hated Me, they will hate you also"
Shame on you on resorting to ad Hominem attacks instead of actual substance to your arguments
God be with and bless you man, I mean that sincerely, I really do.
HUMPZ69 1 year ago
@ArianRohani
Not to sound judgemental, but i hate to think that my kids are gonna grow up in a world where such hate and discriminational mentalities are floating around, like seriously? call him what you want but the fact that you're attributing this to him being a Christian is just horrific, even if it's only being said as a joke
you sir just revealed more things about your irrationality, unintelligibility, and character in those few lines of your comment than i cared
HUMPZ69 1 year ago
How old are you, Kabane?
MrJurekGG 1 year ago
so... Since the Garfield comics were written in widely read scripture (aka newspaper) does this make Garfield a real talking cat?
69Thrasha69 1 year ago
can everyone stop calling him names like ugly etc its really spitefuly and out of order, the guys just made a video about the ressurection of christ , agree or disagree but leave him alone dont personly attack him its harsh
JordanDinstrumentals 1 year ago
dude, this video is such a brutal facepalm, my hand is getting red.
NegativeNick 1 year ago
Can you give evidence outside the bible? I have a hard time finding independent sources of information regarding jesus's resurrection. Could someone point me to non bible related evidence (if you have anything scholarly that would be great).
yeroptok 1 year ago
You are ugly.
DexterHolland412 2 years ago
Your a 30 year old man... Get a life...
Fusion840 2 years ago
This is referred to as ad hominem, that is, a personal attack that has nothing to do with the arguments presented. It is always telling when people resort to ad hominem, because it means they are completely incapable of replying to the arguments put forth, so they decide to critique something easy instead. Kabane's facial features are subjective to personal opinion, which of course makes this an easy and cheap shot. For the record, I like his hair, and I think he looks cool.
cameronversluis 2 years ago
answer me this and will become on of your cult members.........why?
Jeetkunedo1000 2 years ago
I am sorry, I hope you get sane and forget about god and meet the potential of what you can be. The concept of god will just hold you back.
ArianRohani 2 years ago
Your christian so that you can use this excuse for not getting laid "I am going to wait til after marriage...". Your christian because you're ugly and you're an outcast... you're christian because you're mind can't handle anything beyond you're intellect... which would be any kind of science...
ArianRohani 2 years ago
First, even if true, genetic fallacy. Second, no. My excuse for not getting laid is because I'm asexual. :D
Third, I'm actually not an outcast, though I can't prove that to you.
Fourth, I started my YT career defending biological evolution from the silliness of people like Kent Hovind....can I handle that?
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
I would like to keep arguing... but i can't stop laughing at how ugly you are... i am so sorry but seriuosly whyd you have to have such a close up?... HAHAHAHA
ArianRohani 2 years ago
haahah I love you brosiv.
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
jackass
ThePeacefulAtheist 2 years ago
Oooh, scathing ad hominem! The "Peaceful" Atheist cannot refute Kabane, and he decides instead to go for a cheep shot! The crowd boos! ;-)
cameronversluis 2 years ago
Well, I am glad that you just learned what an ad hominem is in your 5th grade english class, but the fact remains that this kid is ugly and I am not.
DexterHolland412 2 years ago
Actually, I just turned 17 and I'm in my second year of college.
cameronversluis 2 years ago
I realize that the basic four-line formula you lay out is only a retelling of the stories in the Bible
The formula:
One: Jesus died! Fair enough, there are enough data to suggest that Jesus did live 2000 or so years ago, and so hes most probably dead now!
Two: Jesus was buried! Ill give you this one ONLY because burying the dead is so common!
Three: Jesus rose! This begs-the-question because the Corinthians only provided evidence of their claim that Jesus arose from the dead!
JohnHasSeriousQ 2 years ago
Four: Jesus appeared! This begs-the-question because the Corinthians and others only provided evidence of their claims!
Questioning why ancient people would make such a claim, that Jesus rose from the dead and appeared to them, is not enough to deduce that their claims are valid!
Conclusion: An exhaustive list of the alleged appearances of a risen Jesus cannot be the core evidence of the very claim that Jesus actually did appear to anyone without appealing to Question-Begging!
JohnHasSeriousQ 2 years ago
Two (revisited): It was hasty of me to concede that Jesus was buried when it was more than likely that he rotted off the bone like other convicted criminals who were crucified in the ancient Roman world. Why was Jesus the exception to the rule? Why did Pilate return the body of Jesus to his loved ones as apposed to disposing of the body in a mass grave for criminals as was the standard? Even the Gospels have a conflicting accounts on how many women anointed Jesus?
JohnHasSeriousQ 2 years ago
Been there, done that. See my rebuttals to the Amazing Atheist.
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
Why someone of your intellect would respond to TheNotSoAmazingAtheist is beyond me! To be clear, TJ is a sheep-herding ignoramus fool whose videos are not even worth watching!
The bottom line is that if you cannot address legitimate criticisms of your beliefs and arguments in favor of the Resurrection of Jesus then perhaps your beliefs are not worth believing! (Rev. Turner)
You could have made a stronger case by discrediting the well established criticisms of The Resurrection of Jesus!
JohnHasSeriousQ 2 years ago
Your personal opinion of TAA is irrelevant. TAA made the exact same objection about the burial as you did.
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
Fair enough!
(Still) The bottom line is that if you cannot address legitimate criticisms of your beliefs and arguments in favor of the Resurrection of Jesus then perhaps your beliefs are not worth believing! (Rev. Turner)
(Still) You could have made a stronger case by discrediting the well established criticisms of The Resurrection of Jesus!
JohnHasSeriousQ 2 years ago
Dude, I HAVE addressed your criticisms. The reason why I referred you to my rebuttal to TAA is because I address your criticisms there, because they are identical to his.
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
These criticisms I mention are neither TJs nor mine, they are well established criticisms from New Testament scholars like John Shelby, Jeffery Jay Lowder, Evan Fales, Robert M. Price and many others. The more you avoid this and attempt to redirect my attention to a NotSoAmazing video the less credibility you have! After all, are apologetics meant to convince church choirs or atheists and other non-Christians? You have not addressed these questions in this video!
JohnHasSeriousQ 2 years ago
I'm not avoiding this. I've answered the existence in the tomb in those videos. Watch them. It's actually Crossan's thesis.
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
Dude, youre not dumb, stop playing so! Why did Pilate give the body of Jesus back to his loved ones or followers as apposed to letting it rot off the bone and disposing of it in mass graves for criminals? Why was Jesus the only known exception? How many women anointed Jesus body after death but before burial? You have discussed how the appearances of Jesus could have been possible, but you HAVE NOT discredited the skepticisms of how it may not be the case. What videos?
JohnHasSeriousQ 2 years ago
please remember kabane that you are quoting your holy scripture. please remember that it has been altered since it was written. and please remember the superstitious nature of the people in question and the fact that their leader was just executed.
now compare that to modern day religious people who suffer some major dissapointment and how they react, and the idea that they thorght he was ressurected sounds much more reliable.
and then theres the whole claims of magic thing...
932016 2 years ago
How old are you? I'm just asking.
You like about 12. No insults.
LolzPremiumRoast 2 years ago
Excellent video once again, Kabane!
NHfilms 2 years ago
@rb718.
What is my opinion of religion in general? There are many who need something to explain the unexplainable and some who decide to be the voice of that something.
The bible - especially the NT - is a rehash of mistold legends that predate even the Torah by several thousand years, and it doesn't take much investigation to unearth them.
For this reason, some religions actively discourage education of the sciences.
You are accepted for what you believe and expelled for what you know.
mghills 2 years ago
That's always been my suspected belief. Though I'll admit I probably haven't studied the bible as well as others, though I am planning to.
It seems sad in my opinion. We're an advanced civilization and yet our potential seems to be disheartened with institutions like religion. It seems we've come to a point where we value faith in our society over actual fact.
rba718 2 years ago
I was a christian for the first 54 years of my life.
I am a Doctor of Theology and translate ancient scripts and runes.
I read, write and speak 11 languages mother-tongue and know the bible, the torah, the quran and several other religious books.
I celebrate my 82nd birthday tomorrow and my 28th year as an atheist.
mghills 2 years ago
Happy birthday? That doesn't address any of my arguments.
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
Wow, most atheists and theists a like don't even go as far to as read the bible lol. Happy early birthday.
Btw, sine you've gone through the actual whole mess of all that scripture and all of the research, what's your opinion on religion in general?
rba718 2 years ago
Was wondering where you were, and I just thought I'd note this from your profile.
"My derisive style towards certain atheists is due to the fact that they are smug, ignorant, and dangerous."
Lol we're dangerous? Yes we're a threat! Like socialist terrorists! lmao
Are you still up for that debate?
rba718 2 years ago
Yes, but it's a public text debate on theologyweb. PM me about it.
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
Btw, sorry for the delay in my response. Fam spent the weekend over at my house and they like to hog up everything lol.
rba718 2 years ago
I have enjoyed watching your videos a lot, it helps to reassure our faith even though its already solid.
jbowes89 2 years ago
LOOOL Kelly Ozbourne, just playing.
darpachief 2 years ago
Assuming your sources are bullshit free(which I doubt, based on the highly unlikeliness of the event), then you would be correct in historically proving the Resurrection. However, on the basis of science, probability, or just plain common sense, your argument for proving this ridiculous myth of resurrection falls apart. The claims in the bible itself are far more ridiculous than any aim at trying to compare the biblical Jesus tale to another myth.
brandonshred1 3 years ago
Your argument is that propagated by David Hume. Read Hume's Abject Failure and get back to me.
KabaneTheChristian 3 years ago
I like how you use the word "propagated" when referring to such an enlightened and brilliant thinker. Simply put, you cant scientifically prove any claimed "supernatural" event because it defies the laws of the natural world. In your case you will say "I have FAITH in the supernatural so i will accept these historical accounts as evidence." In my case, i will search for any alternative that can be argued in the real world. The supernatural has no basis in the real world and can not be argued.
brandonshred1 3 years ago
He was intelligent, but he was wrong. Now read the book and get back to me.
KabaneTheChristian 3 years ago
Comment removed
brandonshred1 3 years ago
This video is full of circular reasoning. The bible proves the bible stuff. Just because it says it in the this 2000 year old book doesn't mean it is true. There is no secular evidence out of the bible for the resurrection.
Kujien 3 years ago
Oh. My. God. This is idiocy. Go watch my video on this nonsensical "u r using circular reasoning bcuz u kwote da bibble" argument. Please. When people use that argument, I am honestly tempted to block them for stupidity. Not because I'm scared. Go read all my comments, I allow plenty of critique, but when I hear these soundbites that have been refuted multiple times, I see no real benefit.
KabaneTheChristian 3 years ago
I think that you supplant scripture for physical evidence. This is indeed a form of circular reasoning and it would never hold any weight in a truly forensic setting. It is interesting that solid refutations such as this are met, by you, with spite and threats of blocking the users from whom the argument is presented. As such, I hardly regard Kujien's comment as 'stupid' but do regard your petty, disingenuous reply as most unenlightened.
massspectrician 3 years ago
Show me how it is circular. Here is the logic, laid out formally:
If something is attested in a reliable historical text, we may consider it true.
The 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 creed is a reliable historical text.
The appearances are attested in the 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 creed
Therefore, the appearances may be considered true.
You can attack the premises, but the logic is sound. It is not at all circular.
Kabane52 2 years ago
I agree, you're not using any real solid evidence here, you're only using the bible.
We could use scripture as evidence if it was a more common logical story, but this a miracle by all accounts - you will need much more than scripture to prove it.
rba718 2 years ago
I'm using a specific biblical text here that was demonstrated to be very reliable in my video on the empty tomb - that is the 1 Corinthians 15 creed. Secondly, you need to provide arguments for your assertions. You assert that scripture (no matter how well it passes historical criteria) cannot be used to demonstrate miracles. Why? What is fundamentally different about a canonized text than a non canonized text?
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
I have provided my arguments but I'm not the one making the claims here lol, I'm simply skeptic to yours.
Passing historical criteria? Are you saying everything in the bible is fully supported?
The problem here is that it's a miracle, not a regular occurrence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Scripture will not buy me out, I require much more to believe a man who was brutally killed and dead for 3 days came back from the dead of his own bodily will.
rba718 2 years ago
I'm using the 1 Corinthians 15 creed, which passes all historical criteria.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. "
Really? Why?Plus, could you tell me what classifies as extraordinary? Isn't that just subjective? It's a nice line, but it's baseless and meaningless.
"Scripture will not buy me out, I require much more to believe a man who was brutally killed and dead for 3 days came back from the dead of his own bodily will."
Being canonized does not make a document unreliable.
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
Lol you seem intelligent. Do I really have to explain this to you?
Anything Miraculous counts as extraordinary. A man coming back from the dead after 3 days from a brutal murder is extraordinary. Especially if he did it all on his bodily own. There is no explanation to this by any kind of medical terms, you need to explain how it's even possible.
I'm not saying the documents are unreliable, I'm saying you need monumental evidence to convince someone of this miracle. They just aren't enough.
rba718 2 years ago
What counts as extraordinary evidence? And why should we accept ECREE? What law of the universe dictates that objectively extraordinary claims produce objectively extraordinary evidence? I see no reason to accept ECREE.
"There is no explanation to this by any kind of medical terms"
This is why it is referred to as a miracle.
"They just aren't enough. "
Again. Why not?
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
That's for you to tell me, I'm not the one whose making the claim. You are faced with the burden of proof here.
Why should we accept that principle? How the hell do you plan to prove a miracle without proper evidence? It isn't a transcendent law, it's common logic.
"This is why it is referred to as a miracle."
"Again. Why not?"
How do you still not understand this? This is an amazing event! And yet there is no support for it. To prove it, you need to give me some solid hard evidence.
rba718 2 years ago
You missed my point. I was pointing out that what counts as extraordinary evidence varies from person to person. It is subjective. I consider my evidence extraordinary. I prove a miracle using the evidence presented in this video. I consider it proper. You say it's common logic. I disagree, as there is no process which demands that extraordinary events produce extraordinary evidence. You say there is no support for it. That is begging the question....
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
If the courts treated evidence the way you're explaining, we'd live in chaos lol.
This is very simple, either the evidence properly supports the claims, or it doesn't. There isn't any room for bias, faith, or excuse here. Reality does not work that way.
There isn't a need for any process, it's common logic. How exactly do you plan to prove a claim without proper evidence? How do you still not grasp this?
rba718 2 years ago
We aren't in a court. We are in history. I am treating the gospels the way we treat other documents, and with the same historical criteria.
I didn't say that I could prove a claim without proper evidence. The question is what do we consider proper evidence? You cite the vague word "extraordinary". But what counts as extraordinary evidence is hopelessly subjective.
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
Yet with a claim of this magnitude, we should very well treat it as it would in a courtroom. This is how you treat evidence.
It isn't vague, it's explaining you need much more than just scripture. This is a miracle of amazing proportions. How are you going to prove it with scripture alone?
I wouldn't even lend the same standard to the bible, being factually incorrect on so many different things, but that's just me.
Is that your opinion I'm hearing?
rba718 2 years ago
"Yet with a claim of this magnitude, we should very well treat it as it would in a courtroom."
Link your premise and conclusion
"It isn't vague, it's explaining you need much more than just scripture."
Again. Why is scripture fundamentally different than other historical documents?
"I wouldn't even lend the same standard to the bible, being factually incorrect on so many different things, "
Even if I granted that (which I do not), the Bible is not one book. Don't treat it like one.
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
Uh, we have a man coming back from the dead 3 days after being brutally murdered. This claim alone supports a MASSIVE global institution. Yet, when in history has such a thing ever been observed? Don't try to squelch the purpose or amount of evidence here, it is very much needed.
Because actual history facts are verifiable and are reasonable. You HAVE to treat a miracle this grand differently to properly prove it, or else, why should I believe you?
rba718 2 years ago
"Because actual history facts are verifiable and are reasonable. You HAVE to treat a miracle this grand differently to properly prove it"
Your rhetoric sounds reasonable to some, but it is logically untenable. You have failed to link your premise and conclusion.
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
You wanted a link? I'm not drawing this from a website, I'm using my own logic. I explained why I thought it needed much more support. Perhaps your bias is blinding you here. Again, this is an incredible miracle, you need much more than scripture to prove it. How is this so hard to understand? lol
I'll agree, it seems untenable. I wish it wasn't. I wish something solid was left behind. I wish your God would reveal himself and clear up all this confusion.
rba718 2 years ago
No, no, no. I wasn't referring to a weblink, but a connection between your premise and conclusion. Your argument:
Miracles are grand.
Therefore, we can't analyze them by the same standards of history
That's a non sequitur. The premise and conclusion have no connection. My bias isn't blinding me. I have taken classes in formal logic, which is why subtleties like a broken syllogism are obvious to me.
"How is this so hard to understand? lol"
Because you never supported it.
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
Oh okay, let me redo this then.
rba718 2 years ago
Scripture is only the name we apply to documents that Christians consider inspired. Secular scholars consider them simple historical documents, and they analyze them like we do other documents. The question is, why does something being put in the Bible make it different than other documents? Before it was in the Bible, would we be able to analyze it differently?
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
It isn't so much that it's in the bible, it's what it claims. Very simple.
rba718 2 years ago
Okay then, sorry if it's a bit rusty.
When you brutally beat and torture someone, you often kill them lol. We can both agree that Jesus was killed.
The human body cannot restore its basic functions all of its own bodily will. I think we can safely say that Jesus had no outside medical attention either.
Therefore, it is impossible to come back from the dead, especially after being tortured and beaten to death.
(cont)
rba718 2 years ago
You have a missing premise. You are building an airtight case that it is impossible to come back from the dead naturally. However, this is not what I am arguing. I am arguing that it was a miracle. In order for your conclusion to be valid, you need to show that miracles are impossible. Your position, presumably agnosticism, does not allow for the naturalist assumptions that you are making.
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
You're basically asking me to disprove miracles. On the contrary, that burden isn't left on me. It is you who has to prove them. All I'm doing is questioning your methods.
I agree it seems impossible to prove, and it should be, what you're claiming is physically impossible to begin with.
I'll give you that it's a miracle, of course, I totally agree, and I wish we could somehow verify it. It really does seem like a great inspiring story.
rba718 2 years ago
"You're basically asking me to disprove miracles"
I am, because you have used your hidden premise of miracles being impossible to justify your claim that the rez cannot happen. All premises, even missing ones, must be demonstrated.
I never said it was impossible to prove. I said you were making naturalistic assumptions that are invalid under your claimed agnostic beliefs.
We can verify it through history. You have claimed that we can't show miracles through history, but haven't said why.
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
Lol please, that's a crap sorry argument. I shouldn't have to demonstrate that a miracle cannot happen when it's you whose claiming the miracle in the first place. If you can't prove this miracle, don't turn it around on me to disprove, I don't carry this burden here.
And I can safely make those naturalistic assumptions because they are based on logic and reason. Exactly how can someone return from the dead of their own bodily will? This you have consistently failed to explain.
rba718 2 years ago
"I shouldn't have to demonstrate that a miracle cannot happen"
Yes, because your hidden premise is that they are impossible. You use this premise to show that the resurrection cannot happen. That is, you presuppose the impossibility of miracles before assessing the evidence for the resurrection.
"And I can safely make those naturalistic assumptions because they are based on logic and reason."
Okay, present the logic behind the assertion that miracles are a priori impossible.
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
"Exactly how can someone return from the dead of their own bodily will? This you have consistently failed to explain. "
First, it was the Father who raised Jesus from the dead, not Jesus himself. Second, it was miraculous. Of course you are going to say that's false if you presume that miracles are impossible, but that is a statement you have yet to prove.
Note, you are stating miracles are impossible. That is a positive assertion that must be proven.
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
You're really stuck on this aren't you? lol, medical fact doesn't seem to have sunk in I suppose.
A hidden premise? No, coming back from the dead is impossible. Don't sit there and question my skepticism when you've yet to show me how it's possible. I've seen your evidence, scripture, lol, and it in no way proves this miracle.
You're basically asking me to disprove it without showing any real solid evidence here. You face the burden of proof here not I.
rba718 2 years ago
"No, coming back from the dead is impossible."
Dude, it's impossible naturally. It is possible supernaturally. So when you are methodologically agnostic, if we find the effect, the cause is implicit.
"You face the burden of proof here not I. "
I've already filled my burden by showing the evidence for the resurrection, which implies that miracles are possible. You try to negate that evidence by saying they are impossible. That is not agnosticism, that is strong atheism.
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
Okay and you're going to prove it's possible supernaturally? Yeah, good luck with that.
Please, you haven't even explained how the claim is even possible. What, you want me to feel bad and believe you on a whim? lol
I never claimed any of these labels, so stop placing them on me lol.
rba718 2 years ago
The logic? Okay, when you die, especially after being brutally murdered and being dead for three days, the body at this point, has ceased all function. The body has already started to decay, there's no way it's going to come back to life. Call a hospital, ask them lol.
rba718 2 years ago
"going to come back to life. "
Are you deaf or something? It's impossible NATURALLY. Your arguments are reduced to non sequiturs when it's revealed that I believe it happened supernaturally.
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
Technically this is text, so I'd be blind.
Okay then so you concede it can't happen by natural means? Okay then, please, by all means go on and prove to us that it happened supernaturally. Show me how this is possible.
rba718 2 years ago
Comment removed
rba718 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Oh, so you have evidence that God exists? Please, before demanding I disprove your claims, show me your evidence, prove your claims sir instead of so boldly questioning my skepticism, you forget yourself.
You have yet to satisfy the burden of proof and your* arguments are being based of wild assumptions and yet you turn around and slant at my questioning.
I don't have to disprove the possibility of miracles in general, you have to show me how any of your claims are possible.
rba718 2 years ago
Any claim contrary to this REQUIRES solid evidence and support simply because by all medical standards it is physically impossible by the given circumstances.
A written document, simply isn't enough to prove this miracle. And seeing as there's really nothing else to go on, I would suggest building a time machine lmao.
rba718 2 years ago
You've jumped a premise again. You state that miracles require more than written texts. Why? It may sound nice to assert it, but this is another broken syllogism.
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
Lol can you define a broken syllogism to me?
rba718 2 years ago
Sure, it means when your conclusion has no connection to your premise.
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
Go read that shit again bro.
My premise is that it's impossible by any medical standard for someone who has died of a brutal torture to back from the dead after 3 days.
I can easily conclude that it more than likely didn't even happen, and if it did, you need to explain how it's even possible.
rba718 2 years ago
"My premise is that it's impossible by any medical standard for someone who has died of a brutal torture to back from the dead after 3 days."
Come back from the dead naturally, yes. I never denied that. But the question is, are miracles impossible? If you are agnostic towards the possibility, then your syllogism fails. If you say, "No, they aren't possible", then you need to show why.
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
I'm not uncertain of the claim, I know the claim isn't possible.
I've just explained why it isn't possible lol. Do you often resort to dancing around these points in debate?
rba718 2 years ago
"I'm not uncertain of the claim, I know the claim isn't possible.
I've just explained why it isn't possible lol. Do you often resort to dancing around these points in debate? "
You've shown it isn't possible naturally and then you presumed that miracles are not an option. You have yet to show that they aren't an option. I've taken this one straight on several times. Why are miracles not an option?
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
Oh boy, you're basically pulling the "disprove God" move here. How do I prove miracle's aren't possible?
Well, on the definition generally speaking, I do believe in coincidence, and sometimes that can be beneficial. Miracles can be an option in some instances, say, you're stuck in the middle of no where and a chopper happens to fly over and rescues you, okay then.
However, someone coming back from the dead after a brutal murder seems EXTREMELY unlikely for the reasons I've already stated.
rba718 2 years ago
"Oh boy, you're basically pulling the "disprove God" move here. How do I prove miracle's aren't possible?"
You can't. So don't say they don't happen therefore you are wrong. To use a negative as a foundation, you must prove a negative. You aren't understanding the distinction.
"
However, someone coming back from the dead after a brutal murder seems EXTREMELY unlikely for the reasons I've already stated. "
You've stated reasons why it is unlikely naturally.
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
So you think the world is flat and an elderly man was able to construct an arc that helped in the survival of millions of species from a global flood that only lasted 40 days? Exactly where is the credibility?
Funny, when I go to a book store, I don't see an entire series of the bible, I see one book lol.
rba718 2 years ago
I will not argue other parts of the Bible here. The topic has to be kept narrow for this to be manageable on youtube.
"Funny, when I go to a book store, I don't see an entire series of the bible, I see one book lol. "
Honestly man, I am hoping this is a joke. There are 66 books in the Bible. Each was written separately. LATER, they were collected and compiled into one collection, but they were not one book at the time of their writing.
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
You are free to believe this story, but to prove it as fact you need evidence.
A relm such as science doesn't just go around tacking things as fact or fiction. They have to do tests - they have to verify and work their way towards a supported conclusion. There is no room for bias or faith here especially if you seek to convince a skeptic.
rba718 2 years ago
...The fact that the apostles sincerely believed that they saw the risen Jesus is acknowledged by virtually all secular scholars. The fact that the tomb is empty is acknowledged by 75% of secular scholars. This claims are not fringe, but mainstream, accepted, well documented facts. The question is what explains the facts best? Thus my answers to alternative theories. All history is biased. This includes Livy, Philo, Tacitus, etc. Faith means trust based on evidence. See my videos on it.
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
Don't forward me to your other videos lol.
Faith does indeed mean trust but this goes far beyond that.
The arguments you're presenting are somewhat weak. I can easily believe that the apostles believed they saw a risen Jesus too just from scripture, it doesn't mean it's factually supported or it even happened. An empty tomb is an even worse argument to support the resurrection.
rba718 2 years ago
Sure, I'll sum up here. The Greek word translated faith is pistis, which is a technical Greek term for forensic proof. It is not blind.
Again, I am treating the biblical documents not with a presupposition of inerrancy, but with the same historical criteria as are used on other documents. Why can't I use the same criteria? It is because the 1c15 creed passes these criteria so well that nearly all secular historians accept it as factually accurate.
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
No, history is based on what we can gather from facts. Logic and reason are applied here with skepticism of extreme prejudice.
We don't just accept anything with the excuse of bias and faith, that's not how reality works. We have to test and verify and base a conclusion off of the facts presented, not what we hope they are.
What you're doing is starting with the conclusion and drawing facts to support it, when you should be doing the opposite.
rba718 2 years ago
"What you're doing is starting with the conclusion and drawing facts to support it, when you should be doing the opposite."
Where am I doing that? Where did I presuppose any of my conclusions? I didn't. I'm not presupposing inerrancy. I'm not using faith as an excuse, I never once appealed to blind faith. I test and verify facts using standard historical criteria.
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
Yes you are, you're starting with the claim that Jesus rose from the dead. You believe this with a bias, and in your videos you draw different points to help prove the already presupposed conclusion of that resurrection.
You're starting at the opposite end of Scientific Method, which is incorrect.
You're still stuck on using scripture as evidence. you don't seem to grasp how you need much more than that to prove such a miracle. Just because you accept it so easily, doesn't mean it's solid.
rba718 2 years ago
"Yes you are, you're starting with the claim that Jesus rose from the dead."
Um, no. I actually was effectively agnostic until I researched the evidence for the resurrection of Christ.
"
You're still stuck on using scripture as evidence"
Dude, don't try to criticize me for using it as evidence until you explain why scripture is fundamentally different than other historical documents. I have asked you this question over five times now, and you have not answered it once.
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
So you went from not knowing to just accepting it? Not to mock you in any way, but a little bit of skepticism is never a bad thing lol.
I think I've answered it more than just once by now, go read them again.
rba718 2 years ago
"So you went from not knowing to just accepting it? Not to mock you in any way, but a little bit of skepticism is never a bad thing lol."
Don't presume that the other side can't be skeptical. I was skeptical. It's just that I understand the criteria of history and why we need to analyze the Bible by the same standards as other documents.
"I think I've answered it more than just once by now, go read them again. "
I read them again. You didn't answer. Quote yourself on it.
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
I am presuming your lack of skepticism because you're carrying a belief without proper support. I have no problem with you believing it, but to convince me it is a fact is a whole different ball game.
"Anything Miraculous counts as extraordinary. A man coming back from the dead after 3 days from a brutal murder is extraordinary. Especially if he did it all on his bodily own. There is no explanation to this by any kind of medical terms, you need to explain how it's even possible."
rba718 2 years ago
"I am presuming your lack of skepticism because you're carrying a belief without proper support."
Proper support being defined by you?
On extraordinary. It isn't what counts as an extraordinary claim, it is what counts as extraordinary evidence. I consider my evidence extraordinary. You don't. But is there an objective way to show whether it is or isn't? No. So it's a subjective standard that is worthless.
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
It's not subjective nor is it my opinion. There is nothing extraordinary about a historical document.
An objective way to prove this? I'm not sure. I wish there was more to go on but it seems there's very little if any exists. From this, either proper evidence just wasn't left, or it didn't happen.
Exactly how you plan to prove it isn't my decision to make though. I don't carry that burden so I'm not the one you should be questioning lol.
rba718 2 years ago
"There is nothing extraordinary about a historical document."
I disagree. Objectively show me that you're right. Extraordinary evidence is still subjective.
"From this, either proper evidence just wasn't left, or it didn't happen."
Proper evidence in history should be considered evidence that meets the criteria of authenticity, agreed on by both Christian and secular scholars. Here it does, and thus is considered proper evidence
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
Okay, does a Harry Potter book prove the existence of magic? We need to be able to test and verify this sort of claim, especially on one of such a high caliber. If we can't do that, how do you plan to prove it as fact to me?
So scripture is good enough evidence to prove a resurrection? I disagree with you and any of those scholars who I doubt ever came to such a solid conclusion. You might as well be saying - Magic exists, because I've read many stories about it.
rba718 2 years ago
"Okay, does a Harry Potter book prove the existence of magic?"
No, HP is intended fiction. Don't use stupid arguments like that, I think you're above that.
"how do you plan to prove it as fact to me?"
By showing credible historical documents.
"So scripture is good enough evidence to prove a resurrection?"
Yes, because it isn't fundamentally different from other ancient documents.
"you and any of those scholars"
You doubt they exist? Habermas, Wright, Evans, Craig, Blomberg, Witherington, etc
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
I try to be above that but it seems you aren't getting it any other way. =/
How are they different? How is your story so different from any of the others?
I said I DISAGREED with those scholars. Sure, they may have said "Ok these people probably believed that they saw something." Does that make a human resurrection fact? No, because we can't verify any of that, ESPECIALLY that, because it's such an abnormal occurrence.
You can take things at face value but I certainly do not.
rba718 2 years ago
On the scholars, they believe in the resurrection, not just the appearances. They are highly respected in their fields.
Reply to my debate challenge or stop commenting.
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
Getting tired of me? lol yeah the feelings actually mutual. I've responded though I still doubt it'd get anywhere more than what we've gotten here.
I bet they are highly respected and they have every right to believe in the resurrection just as you do. However, belief and fact are two different things. It's nice to believe in it and it seems like a very inspiring story but to me scripture just isn't enough.
rba718 2 years ago
I'm sorry but you resemble ozzy ozborn's daughter. I admire your intellegence though.
skunksnag 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SUCK MY DICK
warhero138 3 years ago
0:38: "The first piece of evidence for the appearances is the same book that states the appearances happened".
Let's be honest. I write a book a story, if you will. In chapter 1 I write how a man flew up to heaven on a winged horse. In chapter 2, I write about how people saw it.
All my readers (followers) then use chapter 2 as EVIDENCE that the events I write about in chapter 1 are true.
This is circular reasoning and doesn't work for the reasons I've pointed out above.
Now please stop.
deconverts 3 years ago
Go watch the video "Re: The Bible Proves the Bible"
In short, the Bible isn't one book, stop pretending it is, you look like an idiot when you do.
KabaneTheChristian 3 years ago
I didn't say the bible was one book. Again, you jump to conclusions and look like the idiot yourself.
The bible, even though it is a library of books - cannot be used to justify itself.
By the same logic, the Koran is true. Why do you not accept the Koran as the legitimate word of God? It says that Jesus was a prophet, but not the last prophet of God, Muhammed (peace be upon him and all that).
Tell me. Why do you reject the Koran and the Hadith?
deconverts 3 years ago
Uh, no, you treated it like it was. It is a compilation of books, therefore 1 Corinthians may be used to collaborate other books as 1 Corinthians and Matthew are totally separate. I reject the Qu'ran because I have no reason to believe it. By the way, the Qu'ran may be treated as one book because it isn't a compilation of texts. I reject the Hadith because of their late dates.
KabaneTheChristian 3 years ago
I reject the bible because it is not a trustworthy historical record. Furthermore, it is an immoral and disgusting text that has been used to subjugate minority groups for such a long time.
It contains numerous (large!) inconsistencies.
It has been argued that the Koran contains far less inconsistencies than the bible and is more accurate on issues of Science.
Ultimately, they are both made up stories and can be rejected as such.
deconverts 3 years ago
First, appeal to outrage. Second, appeal to consequences. Third, all contradictions have been answered.
KabaneTheChristian 3 years ago
Seen as suggested.
The problem here is a simple misunderstanding of logic. It doesn't matter how many items there are in the logical circle unless at least one of those items can be relied upon without reference to another item. In short, all the books in the bible make "claims", invariably citing each other as the "source". None of them go any way to providing any external evidence. Healings, Miracles, Creation = As your generation says, "EPIC FAIL".
This is merely an arguementative strategy.
deconverts 3 years ago
Who said one can't be relied upon without reference to another? I never said that, idiot. Go watch my video "The Authorship and Date of Matthew"
KabaneTheChristian 3 years ago
great series kabane, I am thinking of doing a similar kind of series on the evidence of the resurrection.
You are a great mind brother
JaneyLife20 3 years ago
Your guys version of Christianity which includes hostility, elitism and name calling is a refreshing change from the mild mannered version in my country.
DistinctiveBlend 3 years ago
"Your guys version of Christianity which includes hostility, elitism and name calling is a refreshing change from the mild mannered version in my country."
distinctive blend, I am sorry that you think we are being "elitists" but we really treat morons like this because they are morons.
but I think it is nice for you to know how the two of us (Kabane and I) feel when we hear these new atheists spout their elitist propaganda and sometimes say that they are too smart to debate us.
migkillertwo 3 years ago
Yet you continue to be an elitist and try to start pissing contests. You continue to dodge the natural laws by saying I'm making the positive claim (when I'm not) and you seem to imply that the null hypothesis is merely ignorance when it's role is vital in the scientific method.
DistinctiveBlend 3 years ago
"Yet you continue to be an elitist and try to start pissing contests."
I guess any debate is a pissing contest.
"You continue to dodge the natural laws"
again, the natural laws are not proven to be immutable.
"by saying I'm making the positive claim (when I'm not)"
YES, YOU ARE making a positive claim. YOU have to prove that the laws of nature are immutable if you wish to argue from the immutability of the laws of nature.
migkillertwo 3 years ago
"I guess any debate is a pissing contest."
Not at all, just keep your cool and don't try to insult people..easy.
"again, the natural laws are not proven to be immutable."
That is where the null hypothesis comes in, until proven that they CAN be broken, which is the positive claim.
A good example is new drug trials, we start with saying "this drug doesn't work" (null hypothesis) until it's proven it does.
DistinctiveBlend 3 years ago
"That is where the null hypothesis comes in, until proven that they CAN be broken, which is the positive claim."
no, again, you cannot argue FROM the lack of evidence of mutability.
but I'm curious, why is immutability the null hypothesis?
migkillertwo 3 years ago
"but I'm curious, why is immutability the null hypothesis?"
For the same reason we start off with "the drugs don't work".
Ok forget the argument part for a moment. Are you not making the positive claim by stating that the laws of nature CAN be broken? (which to me would be the same as the claim "the drugs work")
DistinctiveBlend 3 years ago
"For the same reason we start off with "the drugs don't work"."
I should point out that you did not answer my question.
"Ok forget the argument part for a moment. Are you not making the positive claim by stating that the laws of nature CAN be broken?"
I did not say otherwise. However, as Kabane and I have done ad nauseum, we have provided evidence for just such a violation of the laws of nature.
migkillertwo 3 years ago
"I should point out that you did not answer my question."
Well the answer is in the name, it would be called the positive hypothesis otherwise.
"I did not say otherwise. However, as Kabane and I have done ad nauseum, we have provided evidence..."
Ok, so we have established that stating the law of nature are breakable is infact the positive claim, so the burden rests on you to prove it.
Now you claim to have given evidence, but just quoting someone is not evidence nor proof.
DistinctiveBlend 3 years ago
Hey guess what! This is not the scientific method! We are not doing science! We are doing history! Atheists seem to have this idea that the only truth-discipline is science. Stop whining about elitism. I suppose you've never heard Richard Dawkins spout his nonsense with his nose high in the air?
"What's wrong with being elitist"
-Richard Dawkins
KabaneTheChristian 3 years ago
Kabane, do you have school tomorrow? its kind of late on the eastern time zone.
migkillertwo 3 years ago
"Hey guess what! This is not the scientific method! We are not doing science!"
Stating that the laws of nature can be broken is science.
"Stop whining about elitism."
I was just noting how different you guys are, it's refreshing.
"I suppose you've never heard Richard Dawkins spout his nonsense with his nose high in the air?"
Point taken, again it was just an observation.
DistinctiveBlend 3 years ago
"Stating that the laws of nature can be broken is science."
that would make every systematic truth discipline science.
migkillertwo 3 years ago
Kabane must be taken at his word until contrary evidence arises.
dogstevens 3 years ago
No, stupid, I supplied evidence, now you have to refute it. Whining "bias" like you did on my other videos doesn't prove a thing other than that you need to be trained in what constitutes a valid argument.
KabaneTheChristian 3 years ago
Thank you for your reply. I was referring to "confirmation bias" "a tendency to search for or interpret new information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions and avoids information and interpretations which contradict prior beliefs" This is evident in your video and the video you were refuting. It is intrinsic to a valid argument.
dogstevens 3 years ago
Also, I have no obligation to refute anything as it is the role of the believer to prove a claim to the non-believer, not vice versa.
Although I admire your effort, references and haircut I remain unconvinced.
dogstevens 3 years ago
Duh....I already did fulfill the burden of proof moron! The burden has now been shifted to you.
KabaneTheChristian 3 years ago
What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.
And please don't call me a moron. It reinforces my negative beliefs about Christians.
dogstevens 3 years ago
Except that I provided evidence in the video, moron. I'll call you a moron as long as you act like one. Continuing to stomp your foot and declare that the burden is on me to provide evidence when I have provided evidence is extraordinarily moronic.
KabaneTheChristian 3 years ago
Jesus loves me this I know,
for the bible tells me so.
dogstevens 3 years ago
Uh, what's your argument here quoting a childrens song?
KabaneTheChristian 3 years ago
This is the only thing that I am sure of
And that's all that lives is gonna die
And there'll always be some people here to wonder why
And for every happy hello, there will be good-bye
There'll be time for you to put yourself on
This is the time and life that I am living
And I'll face each day with a smile
For the time that I've been given's such a little while
And the things that I must do consist of more than style
There'll be time for you to start all over
dogstevens 3 years ago
This is the time and this is the time and
It is time, time, time, time, time, time, time, time, time...
dogstevens 3 years ago
You call it evidence Kabane, but you know your source for this "evidence" also states that things didn't die before the fall.. how does that fit in with your quirky "theistic evolution"?
I'm sure it's fun to try and prove your myths but many people have tried and yet it's still called faith ^^
DistinctiveBlend 3 years ago
Um. No. Genesis and the books of the New Testament are SEPARATE sources. The Bible is not one book, stop treating it like one. I've dealt with your assertion about death before the fall over on my other channel. Read my VFX debate. THat's where I give an extended defense biblically of theistic evolution.
KabaneTheChristian 3 years ago
Oh so you now pick and choose which book/books you agree with? Aren't they all inspired by the same God? Why would any even be a little bit wrong? Or why would some be literal fact and others not?
The assertions are yours Kabane, you haven't addressed my points. You have to juggle the whole lot around to make it fit, you know your book/books are fables.
Besides you wouldn't need to defend it if the evidence was there.
DistinctiveBlend 3 years ago
Speaking of Shawn, he at least has conviction.
Your particular "theist evolution" is disingenuous.
DistinctiveBlend 3 years ago
Some evolutionists must defend the evidence for evolution against attacks by creationists. but if the evidence was there, it woulden't need to be defended.
do you see why this argument of yours is BS?
migkillertwo 3 years ago
What are you talking about? Kabane like myself and most of the civil world don't believe in the absurdness that is creationism. Believing a supernatural deity used some divine magic and created all the animals is BS.
The only reason scientists need to defend evolution is NOT because the evidence is lacking, but because a small group of people get really upset when evidence goes against their holy books.
Creationist think they know better than evidence, go figure.
DistinctiveBlend 3 years ago
I hope Kabane's lack of response didn't stroke your ego distinctive blend, but I felt compelled to respond to this BS of yours. first off, Kabane not arguing from inspiration, but merely subjecting the New Testament documents to the same rigors and benefits that other ancient works of history recieve. secondly, your statement that kabane would not need to defend the evidence if it was there is incredibly absurd. Could this not just as easily be said about darwinian evolution and creationists?
migkillertwo 3 years ago
"Kabane not arguing from inspiration, but merely subjecting the New Testament documents to the same rigors and benefits that other ancient works of history recieve"
That's false, he uses the new testament to prove the new testament. The only sources I've seen him reference are biblical ones.
However I might be wrong on that because I haven't watched all of his videos (there's alot!), but if not he is using circular reasoning/question begging.
DistinctiveBlend 3 years ago
LOL. I prove that the parts of the NT I cite are reliable. That isn't circular at all.
KabaneTheChristian 3 years ago
kabane, this is one of 2 arguments from skeptics whose stupidity piss me off to no end.
migkillertwo 3 years ago
haha that's rich, I'm not the person who believes in a God or a afterlife.
DistinctiveBlend 3 years ago
and? your point has still been refuted thousands of times by every single apologist. sorry buddy, but this argument is repeated so often it pisses me off to no end every time I hear it uttered (and I doubt that kabane is pissed off to a lesser extent)
migkillertwo 3 years ago
Just what point is that?
I'm just saying the bible isn't a reliable source, sure maybe some of the people really did live but that is no reason to accept what they say is true. 2000 years ago we weren't that smart and had a habit of chalking anything we didn't know up to a God.
DistinctiveBlend 3 years ago
"I'm just saying the bible isn't a reliable source"
if you want to say that the new testament documents are unreliable sources, you need to provide evidence. and since the evidence quite clearly indicates eye-witness authorship or close connection with eye-witnesses, you have quite a burden of proof to fill.
"2000 years ago we weren't that smart and had a habit of chalking anything we didn't know up to a God."
see kabane's video "uneducated goat rapers"
migkillertwo 3 years ago
"see kabane's video "uneducated goat rapers""
Just watched it, not impressed. "In Luke Jesus has to eat before him so they know he is not just a ghost"...yeah, umm do you believe in ghosts?
DistinctiveBlend 3 years ago
Wow what an argument. A poll taken indicates 60 percent of the American people believe in ghosts. So why do you consider modern people so much more advanced?
KabaneTheChristian 3 years ago
"if you want to say that the new testament documents are unreliable sources, you need to provide evidence."
How about that they contain a whole lot of magic and the violation of natural laws?
DistinctiveBlend 3 years ago
"How about that they contain a whole lot of magic and the violation of natural laws?"
are you prepared to throw out Joseph