FranzDuckVideos and David Hume

2 problems I see with your video
1: The people who saw the empty tomb and were convinced of the Resurrection were very aware of the fact that dead people stayed dead
2: Hume's arguments against miracles require us to adopt an incredibly radical form of skepticism which would require us to believe that nothing unusual ever happens

Category:

Education

Tags:

• FranzDuckVideos
• David
• Hume
• Immanuel
• Kant

[AtheistKang]

Hume's argument simply says that we should stick with natural explanations since they are more likely. Our day-to-day experiences tell us that natural events take place more often than supernatural events, so it follows that a natural explanation should be more likely.

Not impossible, but less likely.

If you stumbled across a dead body, and friend A told you that the guy was shot by another human and friend B told you that a fairy shot the guy, which one would be more likely? A or B's?

[migkillertwo]

again, the heart of the argument isn't the impossibility, but mere improbability. My argument still stands. but I dealt with your objection elsewhere. simply put, your anti-supernatural bias is question begging and is historically limited to an extremely small guild of western scholars

[Deliratio]

mig, have you read "Getting their stories straight" from Triablogue?

[DerivedApe]

*You can read it for free at Google books.

Awesome! I'll go and check it out right now.

[migkillertwo]

The Gospels have subtle ways of identifying their sources. I gave a very brief summary in 2 of my videos on the Jesus traditions, but if you want a detailed presentation I would recommend that you read Jesus and the Eyewitnesses. You can read it for free at Google books.

[DerivedApe]

btw how do you know that they were passed on by eyewitnesses?

How do you know that these were not stories told by non eyewitnesses because fe coins were offered to them for information?

Supposed eyewitness tells the account to people which tell it to other people wich tell it to other people...etc.

[DerivedApe]

Which has been demonstrably shown to be not the best way to transmit accurate accounts.

See my video response to sirtheist.

[migkillertwo]

"Tell be from 30 AD to 70 AD how were the stories about Jesus passed down?"

By eyewitnesses repeating memorized tradition.

[legodesi]

"Tell be from 30 AD to 70 AD how were the stories about Jesus passed down?"

They didn't need to be passed "down", if by down, you mean down to a next generation, since an eye-witness writing about Jesus may have been alive 70 AD.

Concerning the mistakes, Mark 16:9-20 and John 8:1-11 are not believed to be in the original texts; they are additions. Aside from those two discrepancies, all other variatians are different spellings of words, diversity in phrasing (all noted in the RSV).

[DerivedApe]

Gospel according to Mark. It has been dated to about 70 AD. Tell be from 30 AD to 70 AD how were the stories about Jesus passed down?

*transmission was fair.

No actually what the manuscripts quite clearly is that theres was mistakes and additions made during the transmission.