5. The Resurrection of Jesus (A Miracle?)

Join us at: www.inspiringph...
To help support this ministry click here: www.patreon.co...
In this section, we look at the biggest objection to the resurrection, which is that miracles should be the least probable explanation regardless of the evidence. We will show that is nothing more than circular reasoning.
Sources:
N. T. Wright - The Resurrection of the Son of God
Mike Licona - The Resurrection of Jesus
Gary Habermas and Mike Licona - The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus
JP Holding - Defending the Resurrection
Antony Flew and Gary Habermas - Did the Resurrection Happen?
E.P. Sanders - Jesus and Judaism
E.P. Sanders - The Historical Figure of Jesus
Richard Bauckham - Jesus and the Eyewitnesses
J Warner Wallace - Cold Case Christianity
David A. deSilva - Honor, Patronage, Kinship, & Purity
Richard Bauckham - Gospel Women
*If you are caught excessively commenting, being disrespectful, insulting, or derailing then your comments will be removed. If you do not like it you can watch this video:
• For the Censorship Whi...
"Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use."

[@ericpeterson6520]

Saying that almost all historical people were not risen from the dead, therefore it's so improbable as to be dismissed, is like saying that almost all historical cities were not flattened by nuclear weapons, therefore all evidence that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were nuked should be dismissed because cities being nuked is too improbable

[@atheistlehman4420]

+Turtles Tortellini Except that we have nuclear weapons, and we actually understand how they work. We have no equivalent for resurrections.

[@derezzed83]

+Atheist Lehman That was InspiringPhilosophy's point! The background probability that Jesus rose from the dead is much higher if we have good reasons to suppose a good God exists who would have reasons to intervene in the world. In the same manner, the evidence for Jesus resurrection raises the probability that a God exists. So these two believes support each other like a web.

[@atheistlehman4420]

derezzed83 *The background probability that Jesus rose from the dead is much higher if we have good reasons to suppose a good God exists who would have reasons to intervene in the world.* So if we assume a God exists, the background probability rises... What on Earth makes you think that such an assumption is justified? Given that I reject that your God exists, and actually think that your God is a logical impossible, you really haven't done anything to help support the resurrection "hypothesis." In your original post you mentioned the nuking of two Japanese cities, and yet you seem to completely miss my point that we have a very good understanding of how nuclear bombs work, we can make nuclear bombs, and we could even recreate the events in question if we wanted to. There is simply no such analog with the resurrection. The resurrection is just a claim, with no credible justification behind it! *In the same manner, the evidence for Jesus resurrection raises the probability that a God exists.* This is simply circular reasoning. I wonder, sometimes, about the intellectual honesty of Christians. *So these two [beliefs] support each other like a web.* And they also crumble like a house of cards, since neither of them can be shown to be fact!

[@disruptusmaximus9217]

*derezzed83 : **_"In the same manner, the evidence for Jesus resurrection raises the probability that a God exists."_* I can accept that the resurrection of Jesus happened, but it really doesn't do anything for the existence of God. People die and come back from the dead more often than you think with no connection establishing supernatural causation. www.cnn.com/2014/02/28/us/dead-man-comes-back-life/ www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30048087 www.thesun.co.uk/news/2379689/south-africa-crash-victim-found-alive-two-days-mortuary-fridge-family-id-body/ www.rt.com/news/327498--dead-russian-man-vodka/ www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2254595/Grandmother-dead-spending-days-morgue.html It's an extraordinary occurrence, but it happens.

[@davelikesbacon]

@@disruptusmaximus9217 the first article you posted states a pace maker is credited to restarting the mans heart. The other articles basically state these were mistaken cases of death. A couple mentioned have little detail to go by. Although documented cases have occurred they are usually with in a reasonable amount of time when declared dead and/or are brought back due to an outside source such as CPR or pace makers. Jesus was confirmed dead by the Romans. These guys were professional killers and would have not mistaken a living man for a dead one or they would have been put to death. They flogged him over 30 times causing hypovolemic shock. When he died they thrusted a spear through his side piercing his lungs and heart causing water and blood to drain. Then he's buried and rises from the dead 3 days later. Not even in the ball park of possible without devine intervention and not even close in resemblance to any story you posted. Most were just human error. www.google.com/amp/s/www.gotquestions.org/amp/blood-water-Jesus.html

[@deegobooster]

The cumulative case for christianity is rock hard. Virtually unconquerable. It would take a miracle to bring it all down now.

[@folahanadelakun7188]

amen

[@TheJimtanker]

+Deego the Great Unless you live in reality. There is NO credible evidence of any of the supernatural claims in the bible.

[@deegobooster]

TheJimtanker You've examined every supernatural claim?

[@TheJimtanker]

+Deego the Great There has never been any credible evidence presented to prove a claim of the supernatural. If you can then you'll be the first.

[@deegobooster]

TheJimtanker There's plenty of evidence. I'm assuming you mean "scientific evidence" don't you? Do you realise that science doesn't concern itself with the super natural? Science, by definition, cannot observe or measure anything supernatural.

[@geras.3813]

LOOOL I've been re-watching this series for years and I JUST noticed the letters on the top of the competing theories comparison chart spell "HE LIVES". Damn IP, you're clever, subliminal messaging at its finest. :P

[@ericbrown6203]

hey do u plan to debunk the "the Bible isn't the evidence it's the claim" objection.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

+Eric Brown I kind of have been doing in that in this series.

[@macwade2755]

Happy Easter InspiringPhilosophy!

[@jcfreak73]

very good video bit you don't mention the ad hoc nature of Ehrman's definition of miracle. no one who defends the resurrection uses that definition. And if he insists on it, we can merely say that the resurrection then isn't a miracle, but rather a Divine intervention.

[@michaelcooper2141]

awesome job

[@jemimahkendall6579]

He is missing the point of the idea of a miracle, that's the whole base of the Christian faith, witness of a miracle.

[@nicholasflamel1134]

Go to a magic show. You will witness several "miracles" in under an hour.

[@nicholasflamel1134]

@Daniel U Magic is also logically POSSIBLE if miracles are. You have EVIDENCE for neither, so this is just an exercise in imagination. Invisible unicorns are logically POSSIBLE, but that doesn't mean we should spend a minute seriously thinking they actually exist.

[@midimusicforever]

Jesus rose from the dead!

[@blahblahblacksheep6347]

The Hannibal example is a red herring. We could use experiments to replicate Hannibal’s crossing because the laws of physics were verifiably not violated. The resurrection is different in that there is no way to experiment at all to assess the likelihood of a resurrection. There are more experimental variables with Hannibal’s crossing than a resurrection. Therefore, Hannibal’s crossing is more likely than the resurrection. There is a self evident nature in Hannibal’s crossing of partnership with the laws of physics as we know them today. But nearly no participation in a biological resurrection. That said, as a Christian, It just comes down to...an improbability is still a possibility. It’s that simple.

[@MuhammadsMohel]

And yet abiogenesis is God, or Nature, bringing things to Life in an improbable fashion 🤔 but the very manifestation of that force can't bring Itself to Life?

[@artemisiachristodoulaki6305]

Personally , I think that abiogenesis , while lots of people claim that it could "replace" God with regards to the creation of life, is actually evidence that the physical laws themselves were sort of fine tuned so that life would eventually arise . So instead of disproving God , it actually brings us closer to him .

[@AudioGardenSlave123]

IP have you done a video on the inverse gamblers fallacy? If not can you make a video explaining it, its supposed to give evidence against the multiverse theory.

[@dooganchode9447]

Nothing supernatural exists for you to appeal to; therefore possibility hasnt been demonstrated and it's less likely that would be the explanation. There all your world salad dismantled by simple epistemology.

[@ea-tr1jh]

This argument is literally the definition of circular reasoning.

[@dwightgordon803]

Funny you should put up a picture of the moon landing, since there are those who apply exactly this circular logic in their argument that it occurred on a movie set.

[@noelj62]

In this video: "Many of these additional miracles can be found to be lacking in evidence and even have contrary evidence to counteract them." In previous video: "Differences in accounts do not prove that an event did not happen." + Does it mean that many (if not all) miracles of other religions can be dismissed based on their contradictory evidence; but the contradictory resurrection accounts strengthen the probability of the resurrection event. + Keeping in mind that reliable evidence for miracles are mostly accounts of the "eye-witnesses" or some suspicious video. + Living in a multi-religion society myself, I've never heard of Christians accepting doubt-free miracles of other Christians nor those of Muslims for that matter. + The miracle of the Holy Fire in Jerusalem takes place next Saturday. It's supposed to be the living proof of the resurrection. Any investigation on this particular case to support the resurrection theory?

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

+noelj62 What? Did you seriously confuse contradictions of the same account with contrary evidence? The resurrection accounts, if there are contradictions, all tell the same general ideas. Certain miracles, like in Mormonism have people telling the exact opposite of what happened. We don't find that in early Christianity.

[@noelj62]

+InspiringPhilosophy: I forgot to mention previously that you do a good job in your recent videos. However, your evidence is the account of the evangelists and they don't differ slightly, they contradict each other. The four accounts converge at one essential point: no corps in the tomb. Apart from it, they diverge drastically on points such as: The time of day the women went to the tomb; The rolling of the stone (be it round or not is also an issue); Number of women and their identities; Number of persons seen at the tomb, what they have said, their locations. In my opinion, this evidence is circumstantial at best. It needs a physical matter or marks to confirm it, or even better, the testimony of independent parties. For instance, Matthew (53:27) tells us of risen saints appearing to people in the holy city after the resurrection. This can corroborate the circumstantial evidence and it'll make it stronger.

[@noelj62]

+InspiringPhilosophy: I forgot to mention previously that you do a good job in your recent videos. However, your evidence is the account of the evangelists and they don't differ slightly, they contradict each other. The four accounts converge at one essential point: no corps in the tomb. Apart from it, they diverge drastically on points such as: The time of day the women went to the tomb; The rolling of the stone (be it round or not is also an issue); Number of women and their identities; Number of persons seen at the tomb, what they have said, their locations. In my opinion, this evidence is circumstantial at best. It needs a physical matter or marks to confirm it, or even better, the testimony of independent parties. For instance, Matthew (53:27) tells us of risen saints appearing to people in the holy city after the resurrection. This can corroborate the circumstantial evidence and it'll make it stronger.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

+noelj62 Okay, lets look at some of these. Where does each Gospel say it was only 1 women at the tomb, or only two? Luke gives an unidentified amount. John says there was an untold amount with Mary (John 20:2). Matthew and Mark do not say the 3 or two women they list were the only ones there. So none of them contradict they just give a different perspective and list different witnesses. A contradiction would only be necessary if one account said "only these women were there." But none of them do this. All of thee can be worked out quite easily, like who supposedly contradicts on the time and day they women went?

[@noelj62]

***** Luke (24:10) mentions four women and others. Mark (16:1) mentions three. Matthew (28:1) clearly mentions two coming at dawn. In John (20:2), Mary refers to herself as “we”; but in John (20:13) “and I don't know”. It can be debatable whether or not she was using the “royal we”. It’s used in the book of Genesis to refer to God. It’s widely used in Arabic common dialects and in the Qur’an as God/Allah refers to himself as “Nahnu”. Whatever the case is, John (20:1) mentions Mary Magdalene when it was yet dark. Just to clear it out, in my previous comment I mentioned “time of day” not “time and day”. John says it was still dark; yet Matthew says it was dawning (light filling the sky before sunrise). But I won’t give it much weight. Finally, I wonder that if there were more women, wouldn’t it be +1 for the testimony just like the 500 brethren in St. Paul’s 1 Corinthians 15. Thank you for your responses; I’ll stick with the popular proverb: “God, do help each one with his own faith”. Best regards,

[@thegoblin957]

Why should I assume the existence of the supernatural? Even if we grant all your arguments such has Kalam and your abuse of quantum mechanics this at best proves a deistic entity or any of the other gods humans have worshiped. So even then we would have no reason to think the supernatural intervened in this case. So unless any new science comes around and or you somehow prove the Christians gods existence your claim is a scientific impossibility

[@meaquidemsententia]

Just because someone brings up examples of other alleged miracles is to demonstrate that we may as well treat those miracles as true based on testimony. It doesn't mean those who bring up examples are themselves accepting those miracles. In a Christian mindset, other miracles may be treated as demonic in origin, or may be disregarded for natural reasons, ironically enough. I was expecting more from this video.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

Either way, it doesn't refute the evidence for the resurrection, since that is based on more than testimony.

[@meaquidemsententia]

+InspiringPhilosophy Of course not. It merely puts miracles of any kind into question.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

meaquidemsententia Why? How does this give a better explanation for the evidence against the resurrection hypothesis?

[@meaquidemsententia]

+InspiringPhilosophy Skepticism is a good approach when it comes especially to events we normally don't observe everyday. Events that happen are typically attempted to be explained from a natural point of view, much like Hannibal. This event isn't miraculous in the sense one would describe religiously, although one could say it was extraordinary. I can't think of a natural explanation of the resurrection, though.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

Only if the evidence favors such a view. If one does not, then we go where the evidence points us, so that happens with the resurrection argument.

[@r5zoeirabr651]

This is a disonhest video,you twisted what he said and that's not how probability works!

[@matthewstofer7500]

There's really only one thing I like about being an Atheist. I can say that I'm at least skeptical of nonsense. You cannot be skeptical of nonsense and be intellectually consistent as a Christian. Just take the word "nonsense" and replace it with the word "miracle".

[@nicholasflamel1134]

If miracles were NOT the most improbable thing, why would they be called "miracles"?

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

Because they are not caused by natural agents or events.

[@nicholasflamel1134]

***** You have no evidence for the miracles happening OR for the Unnatural agents or Unnatural events you are pretending to know about.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

Nicholas Flamel Yes i do, see the full series you are commenting on...

[@nicholasflamel1134]

***** Sure. Just provide reference to the evidence so we can verify it... I mean, unless you are just PRETENDING to know of evidence... in which case you WON'T be able to provide reference to it here...

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

Nicholas Flamel I did: kzbin.info/www/bejne/d2HMdYGCrdKKjK8 I gave evidence and references.

[@VidBint]

At the risk of being redundant, thank you a million times over for this video!! I was a MASSIVE Bart Ehrman fan girl during my atheist/ skeptic days!! I had his Teaching Company lectures & a couple books. Even got to see him give a talk at OSU 14 yrs ago & ask a couple questions. I used to think that being “skeptical” meant his analysis was somehow unbiased, especially since he was a former evangelical & lost his faith. I thought that was some sort of testament to the triumph of rationality. It never really occurred to me that he had a vested in justifying he lack of faith. It pains me to know that I need a series like this to help detangle the mess in my brain as I struggle to fully embrace the total divinity of Christ. But again, I thank God for pointing me in your direction. You seem to provide me with exactly what I need! 🕊️

[@MohamedAli-nf1rp]

How would you go from bart ehrman fan to this

[@VidBint]

@@MohamedAli-nf1rp it took a very very very very long time & trying nearly everything else I could think of before realizing the futility of it all, science, politics, spirituality, when it isn’t connected to the person of Jesus Christ

[@MohamedAli-nf1rp]

@VidBint okay see the issue is, Bart Ehrman points are true, there is no evidence for the ressurection, The most we could come to is 1.There existed a man named Jesus 2. He went around preaching, got on the wrong side of Rome, got crucified 3. His followers had christphonies and proclaimed He was raised by god. How can any of that make you come to the understanding that it happened. If I made the claim the bible is making today with the exact evidence even, no one would believe me

[@nanunutsunl5345]

@@MohamedAli-nf1rp I suggest you watch more of inspiring philosophys videos on the resurrection as they seem to answer your questions Jesus Loves you

[@MohamedAli-nf1rp]

​@@nanunutsunl5345 I did and it wasn't very good

[@eddie0009]

They have tried, for 2000 years, tried and tried. But Christ was right " I WILL BUILD MY CHURCH, AND THE GATES OF HELL SHALL NOT PREVAIL AGAINST IT "

[@ryanconner7567]

AMEN

[@JesusChristisKing-m6p]

Amen

[@nawfalelric2933]

My favorite author, theologian or whatever you want to call him is CS Lewis, and one thing I admired about him is that he took every argument very seriously and handled it with such care, despite how easy the answer could be. That's what I saw in this video, an argument took care of carefully and seriously, even though it could have took a much shorter time. Especially since a lot of your other videos alone can explain this.

[@nicholasflamel1134]

He wrote fantasy novels. The bible is a fantasy novel. You have ZERO evidence for ANY of the supernatural claims the bible makes.

[@webslinger527]

@@nicholasflamel1134 did u not Watch the video or did you just skip over it. Also most ofHistorians agree that after king David most of what the Bible says we can historically trace so no it is not a fantasy book and most of the miracles happen thousands of years ago most of the history we do have from the Middle East is your copy or a very very rare piece of evidence and considered Hebrews couldn’t write for a long time it’s not surprising that it’s hard to verify these claims. Also what nation would write about these miracles take Egypt for example who would admit their gods are Falls, traditions traditions are a lie, The priests or lies their whole culture would be destroyed. They were just buried away or try to get rid of much evidence as possible this is not out of possibility because we know Egyptian kings if they did not like the previous king will try to get rid of as much evidence of that even existed so imagine that times 100.

[@webslinger527]

@@nicholasflamel1134 Also ironically enough if there is a miracle in some form of text you would you say Christians road and it’s biased even know what to believe a miracle you have to be Christian or become a Christian afterward. So in someway it’s kind of a strawman. Historian : there was a miracle. Atheist : he’s biased I want to unbiased source that it was a miracle. Now repeat that over and over again and then any claim that was there is gone.

[@kernlove1986]

No, everything should be taken seriously so that they have no house to build on.

[@cerebralfaithvideo]

Watching your resurrection series again for like, the third time. :-) Sometimes when skeptics say "Most people who die stay dead, therefore, Jesus probably stayed dead too", I sometimes respond with "Most dead people don't leave behind an empty grave, appear alive to their friends' postmortem, appear to a couple of their enemies, and 500 people at once." In my opinion, the minimal facts + the fact that no naturalistic theory ever proposed can explain the minimal facts while the resurrection can + The Existence of God + The reliability of The New Testament are more than enough to overcome the a prior probability of Jesus rising from the dead. That no naturalistic explanation can explain the empty tomb, the appearances to the disciples, the appearance to Paul, and the appearance to James, while "He is risen" can, makes for an inference that the resurrection occurred (since there's no other explanation that works). Plus you can just argue in the other direction as I sometimes do and point out that for most dead people, you don't have them leaving empty graves behind and appearances to multiple groups of people. There's an a prior probability against the minimal facts even BEING facts if Jesus didn't actually rise. And when you combine this a historical case for the reliability of The New Testament documents and the case for theism, Ehrman's Miracle Improbability argument just gets weaker and weaker. That a prior improbability just becomes irrelevant.

[@spedkaone]

As an atheist and armchair philosopher, I agree with most of what you have to say in this video. The argument that something is impossible because it's never happened is not a good argument in itself.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

+Spedka Thanks!

[@mc_pyro5269]

+InspiringPhilosophy Except that is not what Ehrman says. He even says that they are not impossible. Nice strawman

[@bonnie43uk]

+InspiringPhilosophy IP, why do you think God never heals any amputees?, certainly none that we know of. As an atheist, this would be a complete game changer for me, God doesn't have to do anything for my benefit, I know that, but I can't think of a good reason why he would choose not to, especially in the light of millions of other miracle claims, he intervenes every day to heal all kinds of ailments (which we conveniently cannot prove conclusively if it *was* a miracle), but something which would strongly lean towards a miracle in the true sense.. something which defies the known laws of physics, God chooses not to. I'm not asking God to specifically do it for my benefit, but to do it for the poor victim. My witnessing it would crush my atheism, and draw me closer to Jesus. It's surely win/win for God.

[@mc_pyro5269]

if god proved himself to be real that would interfere with your free will.Also god discriminates against anyone with any physical defect. Leviticus 21:18

[@bonnie43uk]

+Mc_Pyro I'm sure that some people would not be persuaded by an amputee being healed, there are those people who are very difficult to persuade. I myself *would* be persuaded, and so would many other non believers, surely God would want us to know him, isn't that the whole point of our existence according to Christianity?. I can't see how God proving himself to be real would interfere with my free will, .. I have the free will to disregard the evidence don't I?. Also, I'm told by many Christians that "You know that God is real, but you choose to willingly ignore him" ..it's the very fact that I'm skeptical that I choose to withhold my belief in him until I see more convincing evidence. I'm not sure that many Christians would agree with you saying God discriminates against anyone with a physical defect, why would Jesus heal lepers as written about in the bible, also blindness is a physical defect, and he healed them didn't he?. Why would God discriminate against any of his creation? Are they unworthy of healing?. I would imagine that all healings are possible with God, ..except amputees, which strongly suggests to me he's not real. I'd be more than happy to be proved wrong though. :-)

[@GamingJava101]

Awesome video. It's a shame people choose to remain intellectually dishonest instead of pursuing the truth.

[@biblefacts7794]

I agree

[@seano312]

You've defined truth as that which is consistent with your world view...how intellectually honest of you

[@webslinger527]

@@seano312 complete strawman in no way is this the only shapes his worldview, he uses evidence from both atheists and Christians and history to make a claim and is backed up by the evidence hate it as much as you want you can ignore the facts.

[@seano312]

@@solideogloriaapologetics8901 not explicitly but it is 100% implied. I can even tell looking at this 4yrs later lmao.

[@seano312]

​@@webslinger527 Wow replying 4yrs later... a) I don't think you understand what strawman means based on how you have used it. b) I haven't seen an argument for the resurrection that doesn't rely on some form of special pleading / hidden assumptions. It is really only convincing to people who ALREADY believe in the resurrection and all the assumptions that come with it. Even if the resurrection happened the arguments for its 'truth' leave so much to be desired. c) I was replying to 'gamingjava101's comment, not the video itself btw. d) Why are you trying to paint me as a hater? Do you think I'm a hater? Or is that an emotional response from yourself because I haven't come to the same conclusion as you? e) The guy I replied to said 'instead of pursuing truth' and you have made the same mistake by saying 'ignore the facts'. Both statements directly imply that the facts/truth is on your side. There are facts we can agree on - i.e Jesus existed, jesus was crucified etc. But saying Jesus resurrected is a 'fact' or the 'truth' and that those who remain unconvinced are ignoring the facts or the truth is absurd.

[@AuthorRisaFey]

I never can get enough of these videos, AH!

[@dooganchode9447]

Confirmation bias is a bitch isn't it?

[@Technoshirt]

doogan chode cope

[@webslinger527]

@@dooganchode9447 what are u taking about? Bias? How So he quotes from atheist and Christians,and uses historical evidence from both sides also. How can that possible to be bias

[@kylealandercivilianname2954]

Funny how when atheist argue against God they often claim "well there are other miracles in other religions" well that only debunks naturalism more if atheist make this claim.

[@mc_pyro5269]

+Kyle Alander CivilianName295 How does pointing out that other religions make similar claims prove magic?

[@kylealandercivilianname2954]

+Mc_Pyro I don't know any Christian that thinks miracles are magic. I study Christian apologetics and systematic theology so I know almost all the common arguments that atheist like you like to use and it's really embargo sing when fundy atheist can't even define terms. But to answer your question we like to call it supernatural event. And I would rather believe in that than the stupidity of naturalism and materialism.

[@mc_pyro5269]

The world being the way it is seen is stupider than talking snakes and demon possession? What is your definition of miracle and of magic?

[@kylealandercivilianname2954]

+Mc_Pyro a miracle by definition is a surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore considered to be the work of a divine agency. So your going by only what your 5 human senses tell you ok. Well then you must only believe in things that you see the problem with this is that it is an immaterial concept so the moment you say "I only believe in what I see" you are contradicting yourself and is a self refuting statement and belief. It violates the law of non-contradiction and therefor is a worldview that is illogical

[@mc_pyro5269]

What is your definition of magic? We will pretend that is what I said about the universe. Explain how a concept formed by my material brain contradicts that view. I am currently watching your videos on the creation account in genesis. So far my opinion is that you know that the bible is not literally true in that part so you are coming up with ad hoc explanations. What do you mean by multiverse? It is not very clear what you are talking about since you mention aliens on other planets.

[@repentantrevenant9776]

The fact that Ehrman makes this argument is actually a really compelling case for Christianity. He’s essentially saying “even if Christianity were true, I wouldn’t believe it.” In the words of G.K. Chesterton: “Somehow or other an extraordinary idea has arisen that the disbelievers in miracles consider them coldly and fairly, while believers in miracles accept them only in connection with some dogma. The fact is quite the other way. The believers in miracles accept them (rightly or wrongly) because they have evidence for them. The disbelievers in miracles deny them (rightly or wrongly) because they have a doctrine against them.”

[@CaptainCrunchOwns]

“[M]y belief that miracles have happened in human history is not a mystical belief at all; I believe in them upon human evidence as I do in the discovery of America. . . . Somehow or other an extraordinary idea has arisen that the disbelievers in miracles consider them coldly and fairly, while believers in miracles accept them only in connection with some dogma. The fact is . . . [t]he believers in miracles accept them (rightly or wrongly) because they have evidence for them. The disbelievers in miracles deny them (rightly or wrongly) because they have a doctrine against them. . . . If it comes to human testimony there is a choking cataract of human testimony in favor of the supernatural. . . . It is we Christians who accept all actual evidence-it is you rationalists who refuse actual evidence, being constrained to do so by your creed. But I am not constrained by any creed in the matter, and looking impartially into certain miracles of mediaeval and modern times, I have come to the conclusion that they occurred. All argument against these plain facts is always argument in a circle. If I say, ‘Mediaeval documents attest certain miracles as much as they attest certain battles,’ they answer, ‘But mediaevals were superstitious’; if I want to know in what they were superstitious, the only ultimate answer is that they believed in the miracles. If I say ‘a peasant saw a ghost,’ I am told, ‘But peasants are so credulous.’ If I ask, ‘Why credulous?’ the only answer is-that they see ghosts.” - G. K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy

[@jameslillie5445]

+Captain Crunched Can you give me some examples of the specific midevil miracles your referencing? I'm starting a collection. :)

[@CaptainCrunchOwns]

+James Lillie That was a quote from Chesterton. The miracles I'm aware of I have experienced myself or seen happen to people close to me. I have my own journaled compilation but it's not really fleshed out yet.

[@jameslillie5445]

Cool! That's wonderful to hear that God's apparently moving over there. ^_^ There's a ton more that I want to know about that but I can't really think of what to ask right now. :)

[@nicholasflamel1134]

Oops. You kept TALKING about all this evidence for miracles, but you forgot to actually SHOW us any evidence for them. You are just PRETENDING to know things you do not know. Grow up.

[@thenopasslook]

Support him on Patreon

[@BlindGinger]

Great video, I could never figure this stuff out on my own, glad to know your here to back up my Catholic faith!

[@nicholasflamel1134]

Glad someone gave you a false sense of security even though neither of you have ANY evidence for any of the bible's supernatural claims. Have fun continuing to live comfortably in a delusion cult that systematically hides the abuse of thousands of children.

[@nicholasflamel1134]

@Daniel U Par for the course. Theists ALWAYS say that there is evidence... if only we would go look harder, but you NEVER actually provide reference to the evidence so that it can be examined an verified. You didn't even mention what the evidence was. If I had evidence for something supernatural, I would have a detailed explanation of it and I would be on every talk show in the world showing it to people. It would literally change the world we live in. You don't have any evidence for ANYTHING supernatural regarding a god, and that is why you LIE and PRETEND the evidence is somewhere else, if we would just do YOUR homework and go look harder. Classic passing of the burden of proof. Only LYING FRAUDS need to use that tactic.

[@nicholasflamel1134]

@@juanventer5145 Who said ANYTHING about naturalism? I said you have no evidence for your invisible GOD. So predictable that you would immediately try to build a strawman position that I did not take, since YOU KNOW you have no evidence to support your own position that some invisible god exists. What an intellectual coward you must be.

[@nicholasflamel1134]

@@juanventer5145 What are you even talking about? You said there was no reason to suppose naturalism. That isn't evidence for a god in ANY way, shape, or form. Apparently you don't even know what the word evidence means. You are also IMAGINING that I am emotional. I capitalize words for EMPHASIS. If I were shouting, which I guess is what you are imagining, there is a punctuation mark that denotes that in the english language... called an exclamation mark. You PRETEND that I have taken some stance on naturalism, which I did not. You IMAGINE that I am all emotional and distraught. Why not stop PRETENDING to know things you do not know and address the issue I raised to begin with. You have ZERO evidence that your invisible god exists. I'm sure you won't actually address that because you are going to do what ALL theists seem to do, and try to divert, and distract, and derail onto other topics so you don't have to face your failure to support your own supernatural claims. Only pathetic frauds who know they are pathetic frauds do that. Lets see what YOU do.

[@nicholasflamel1134]

@@juanventer5145 Where what evidence points? I already said multiple times that you have ZERO evidence that your god is real. You have failed to provide ANY evidence to support your position that a god exists. You haven't even attempted to provide evidence for your god. At this point you are simply LYING and PRETENDING to know things you do not know. The ONLY person you may be fooling is yourself. It is sad to watch.

[@tahzibizimungu7677]

1:08 Why do people forget Peter walking on water😂

[@grubblewubbles]

Oh lord... i just realized in the clip shown in this video how much Erhman's voice sounds like the Nostalgia Critic

[@josephscuruchi9762]

hey inspiringphilosophy I really have benefited from your videos. I know you receive this question a lot but what program do use to make these videos? thanks and keep up the great work

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

+Joseph Thanks, I use final cut. It is really good for making text files fast, so i prefer that. When I need graphics that are more complex I use Adobe after effects.

[@drummersagainstitk]

Please Please Please! cut the background music from all future posts. It detracts a great deal from the presentation on any of the issues presented. Keep up the great work.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

+drummersagainstitk Thanks, but without it more people complain the videos are boring and dry.

[@endriasy3807]

C'mon it's not that bad

[@drummersagainstitk]

The complaints of the subject matter needing musical enhancement in order not to be boring is baseless. A dash of entertainment background noise is a way of making the subject matter more palatable. Maybe better music. Test out Stravinsky or Shostokovich string pieces. They can give brevity to your monologues.

[@pureone8350]

Bro, it not bothering in the slightest

[@VierthalerStudios]

I like the music.

[@karl5722]

I love IP's videos but really this time the music is horrible. Please don't ever put it again!

[@zyo2502]

We love your videos!

[@AdianBlack]

If God exists than there is a 100% chance that He will do what He said. The resurrection is extremely probable.

[@chaosinorder9685]

I saw some of this in WLC's rebuttal, but it is still interesting.

[@evanminton8315]

I watched all these videos in one sitting this morning. Superb work as always! As I was digesting all this information, something occurred to me. Ehrman's proposal for how Christianity started in part 5 would, if taking his probability argument in part 4 of your Resurrection series, undermine his proposal in part 4. As you pointed out, there were a lot of would-be messiahs in the first century, but they ended up getting killed and their followers fell away into obscurity. If we're to reject something on the basis of unlikely a prior probability (regardless of the evidence), if we can't believe Jesus rose from the dead because most other people stay dead, then we must also reject Ehrman's earlier proposal as Simon Bar Giora and other so-called messiahs didn't have followers search the Old Testament to try to make sense of his death. There's no resurrection proclamation for all other messiahs that got themselves crucified. Ehrman is utterly inconsistent.

[@krwchen]

Agnostic here. Wouldn't you say that you need more evidence to support a miraculous claim than a claim that fits into our current understanding of natural law? You used an image of the moon landing to highlight a point. However, this event, while novel at the time, did not go against the contemporary understanding of natural law. However, the resurrection is not so. While it isn't disproven by natural law, it goes against our current understanding. Does it not follow that one would need more evidence to justify or believe this claim?

[@shunoinori]

He does that in the 2nd part of this series (2. The Resurrection of Jesus (The Historical Evidence)): kzbin.info/www/bejne/d2HMdYGCrdKKjK8 That Jesus really did rise from the dead leaves itself as the only possible explanation. Every other competing theory about the resurrection lacks explanatory power.

[@HegelsOwl]

@@shunoinori "That Jesus did rise from the dead leaves the only possible explanation." Um. Explanation of what? What anomaly raises a question for Science which only Jesus' R can explain? You don't have an argument--because you don't have a question.

[@HegelsOwl]

@ Noodlenose It's your turn to watch the vid, and see that, in fact, there's no valid question of interest to Science to be explained with an hypothesis.

[@HegelsOwl]

@ Noodlenose Well, did you watch the vid and see that what I've stated is true? It doesn't seem possible that such world-class philosophers as Gary Habermas could be so incompetent, but it is self evident that he, in fact, has no hypothesis explaining any anomaly of interest to Science, nor of interest to human action. Is this not correct?

[@lease2coach170]

Resurrection? Okay, for discussion’s sake I’m willing to posit that JC died and returned to life. No tricks, no coma or catatonia: he was straight-up _dead_, then lived again. Hey, why not-according to the Bible, there was a lot of that going on then (Mat 27:52-53)! All of which proves…what? That JC was very special or very lucky? Yes, for sure! That there is a “god” that created the universe--a universe with _more stars than there are grains of sand on all the beaches of Earth_? That JC was a son of that being? Oh, and somehow also that “deity” himself? No, there is no logical step by which those conclusions automatically follow. And in any case: If you want to convince people that there's a supernatural being operating in the universe nowadays--occasionally breaking the laws of physics (to work miracles), and requiring love, worship, and obedience--you're going to have to give some _current_ evidence for it. JC's (alleged) resurrection, two thousand years ago, doesn't qualify.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

First, miracles do not break the laws of physics. That is an old 18 century argument that has been debunked: kzbin.info/www/bejne/aJm0cpxmqpqFqZI Second, the inference Jesus's teachings are more likely true since he said he who was and where he came from. If Jesus did raise from then God is the mostly likely candidate since Jesus said that is who did it.

[@lease2coach170]

***** We will have to agree to disagree about the definition of "miracle." Word games do not elucidate the question, and that's really all that your video on the subject (and others, to be fair!) comes down to. More to the point: a resurrection can only *honestly* stand as evidence for itself. (Note that I posited that a resurrection actually did occur.) But let us say that, in fact, the resurrection _was_ the result of a deity's action. That in no way stands as evidence for (or against!) that deity's having also created our universe, for instance. They are simply separate questions. However, I know that you are a true believer and I do not attempt to change your beliefs (not that I think I could). I recognize that, starting from belief, you can/will always come up with arguments that you think justify it. This is the nature of true belief: it _must_ be true, therefore all arguments (and appropriate definitions) lead to it. So I will not post again in this sequence. (You can have the last word!) However, I will continue to post my points on such videos occasionally, and will leave it to others to consider whose reasoning they regard as specious. Peace to all. Out.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

However, considering we use arguments from natural theology, like the contingency and digital physics arguments to infer to theism, and considering it is more parsimonious to infer one being to explain these different things, the different arguments work like puzzle pieces in explaining reality. If the God who rose Jesus from the dead can also fit the inference of the contingency argument then we can invoke Occam's Razor.

[@buckhunter6560]

To paraphrase Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, "when you eliminate the impossible (like all the theories against the Resurrection), whatever remains (the Resurrection Theory), however improbable (even Erman's definition), must be the truth." Ergo the Resurrection Theory is true.

[@HegelsOwl]

True of what? What anomaly raises a question for Science which only Jesus' R can explain? You don't have an explanation, because there isn't a question, sir. Try again.

[@buckhunter6560]

@@HegelsOwl Did you watch the video? It is not a question of science that is being discussed. Science is a method that answers the question "how?" for observed phenomena. The question asked in the video regards accounting for the historical information we have on the historical Jesus and the formation of the Christian church. This video is one in a series exploring all critical alternate hypotheses meant to explain the same information. The series has shown the other explanations as impossible. Erman claims that miracles are highly improbable. I take those facts and present the conclusion succinctly using Doyle's words. It doesn't matter how improbable Jesus' resurrection is. Since all other alternatives are impossible, then only the Resurrection Theory can explain all the historical data we have without self-contradiction. Even if you haven't seen this entire video series, and only watched this one all the way through, I fail to understand how you think that it's a scientific question that was being discussed rather than a historical one.

[@HegelsOwl]

@@buckhunter6560 Thank you, Mr. Hunter, for taking your valuable time to respond. It should be noticed that the subject of history is one of the human sciences. The only anomaly concerning the historical question of Christianity, which might be of interest to Science, is Christianity's centuries-long suicide cult. So far, only John Dominic Crossan has realized this, and has provided an explanation. I'm a credentialed existentialist philosopher of some four decades, and I also have an explanation for this anomaly. It is, in fact, a methodological proof that Jesus was a "risen messiah," but not at all the one of Christian belief. The proof is so elegant that it fits well under the 1600-word YT limit. One of the major problems, in fact, with TR's (Team Resurrection's) "argument," aside from not having a question of interest for Science, is that it doesn't have a methodology to exclude personal bias in selecting and interpreting facts. This is perhaps best high-lighted with the fact that TR has excluded the fact from its "facts" that evangelism, during Paul's day, was being used to dupe Romans into paying for a Jewish army for their own destruction (Josephus, "Wars," 6.6.2). TR's "methodology" has even pretended that "the persecution threat" proscribed scamming, when the flocks of scammers themselves, all through the NT, handily refute this very careless proposition (e.g., Rom., 16.18; 2Cor., 2.17; Philipp., 3.2; Eph., 4.14; Ti., 1.11; 2Pet., 2.1-3; 1Jn., 2.18; 4.16). TR's "methodology," obviously, is childish personal bias. TR's "argument," besides, is defeated with the fact that it requires Matthew's ad hoc conspiracy theory (28.14ff) to "explain" BOTH why the Sanhedrin did not believe, but especially why there wasn't what there sure should have been--a persecution of Christians on the capital-offence charge of grave-robbing. I mean, both the unbelief of the Apostles AND Sanhedrin, before Jesus' alleged R, are facts for TR's "argument:" Correct? But, after Jesus' alleged R, only the Apostles believed: This is what is PREDICTED if the Apostles were lying about a literally-resurrected Jesus. This is validated with its proof-by-contradiction, of course. Thus, not by far does TR have even a valid argument for its strictly hypothetical question, "Did Jesus raise from the dead?"--of no interest to Science at all, and therefore of no intrinsic value for human action.

[@buckhunter6560]

@@HegelsOwl wow, that's a lot of sophistry to pack into one comment. Since I have a life, I'll wrap up my contribution to this thread by addressing some key points. I agree that history is one of the sciences insofar as one uses an archaic idea of science, namely as being a loose synonym of philosophy. However, since hypotheses about historical events cannot be tested in a controlled, repeatable manner, then it is not a science by today's definition. It is a liberal art, only some aspects of which can science be applied (i.e. radio carbon dating a manuscript). I infer from the way you talk about the interests of science, and other such language, that you hold science up as chief among human endeavors. As a "credentialed existentialist philosopher" (which I assume means a professor of existential philosophy), you must be aware that science doesn't stand preeminent over all other disciplines, but is servant to many in the same way that mathematics is servant to science. If you do, in fact, exalt science in the way you seem then we may not have enough common ground to have a meaningful discussion on subjects like this. Regarding Christianity being a "suicide cult", I must point out that there is a great fundamental difference between holding faith in one's God as taking precedence over his own life while not pursuing martyrdom, and joining a terrorist group because of the likelihood of being killed by an enemy because of the belief that being killed in action is the surest way to paradise. Given that distinction, would you have the same brazenness to call Islam a suicide cult if you were discussing with a Muslim the ascension of Mohamed? Your long paragraph is just nonsense using cherry-picked misinterpreted Bible verses and ahistorical assertions. However, the two following it contain common misunderstandings that I'll address. The passage you cite in Matthew (the entire context, not just one verse) is not only not ad hoc, but scholars of ancient history have no reason to doubt it's veracity because it's historical fact that Jesus' body was never found and the stolen body theory is the only 1st century alternative one. This is a problem for those trying to explain this history without a resurrection because Jerusalem was small (and very crowded at the time), so there was no place to hide a body that it wouldn't be found quickly. Addressing the common misunderstanding about this passage, the priests and elders DID know that Jesus rose because they bribed the guards to spread the story of the stolen body instead of instructing them to make every effort to find it. Also stealing a body was not considered part of grave robbing, like stealing buried valuables, until after Christianity's spread to Rome - and even then it became a separate law specifically to combat this spread. Reason being that no one had been alleged to steal a body before. Finally, the disciples didn't immediately believe after the resurrection. The women who witnessed the angels opening the tomb told the disciples, who didn't believe them (women weren't considered credible witnesses in ancient Judea) until - depending on the disciples in question - they either saw the tomb empty, saw the risen Jesus themselves, or heard from men who had until He showed up. Things not how the story wouldn't been told if they were lying. The facts that they admitted the first witnesses were women, admitted they didn't believe at first, and have recorded accounts that differ on some details (instead of having identical accounts because they "got their story straight") only add to the story's credibility by scholarly standards of historical analysis and textual criticism.

[@HegelsOwl]

@@buckhunter6560 Having an UNPROVOKED ad hom as your very first sentence, in response to a perfectly valid argument, says it all about how sincere you are. Uh? Pardon me,sir: You're just a silly little joke.

[@r5zoeirabr651]

Bro,just SHOW the evidence that god exists,simple as that,I've watched most of your videos and haven't seen any!

[@pureone8350]

But he is kinda doing that? Through Jesus's resurrection.

[@user-ps7ij6ge6d]

Leibnizian cosmological argument, digital physics argument, resurrection argument, soul argument, moral argument, these are all discussed on this channel.

[@charlesdarnay1365]

You go IP. I am grateful to God for your talent in deconstructing the fanciful tales that trusted narrative constructors have concocted for the eager masses with itching ears.

[@lionhex6138]

The one thing you always miss is the shroud of Turin because it's the burial shroud of Yeshua/Jesus and scientists say it proves the resurrection scientifically.

[@jelloladyful]

Uh, not exactly, but I think it increasingly figures as an interesting argument for it.

[@jameslillie5445]

+LionHex The Shroud of Turin is great evidence but they would probably use it to attack his credibility because the scientists took an absolutely terrible contaminated sample which threw off the Carbon testing. They'd probably focus on innacurate dating while ignoring all the other evidence. I think it would make a great addition so long as he mentions the questionable sample dating.

[@jelloladyful]

+James Lillie Agreed.

[@1963Syracuse1]

Fantastic will use with my students he,t year here in UK

[@dmurray6828]

Do you believe in aliens and that Mary has shown herself to many believers? This video makes some really great points, and to my surprise, does a good job of dismantling some of Erhman's arguments! But if we are to logically believe in the Resurrection, then there are some pretty wild miracle/supernatural claims that we would also have to accept - including some that are more well supported than the Resurrection. Again, great video...I'm still thinking about all of this....

[@markuswmenezes]

D Murray like which ones?

[@markuswmenezes]

He literally talks about that in the video bro

[@markuswmenezes]

Juan Venter I believe in the resurrection. I'm christian.

[@whatistruth8690]

+ inspiring philosophy, another great follow up to your other recent videos as I pointed them out to a top neurologist from university of Pennsylvania with the videos of the mind you have on your channel, one of the best channels concerning these topics out there, thanks.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

+WHATISTRUTH Thanks, did he tell you what he thought of them?

[@nfn7121]

+InspiringPhilosophy how do I send you a message other than commenting. Was curious if you had a good understanding of Luke 22:36

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

+nfn7121 You can send one on facebook.com/inspiringphilosophy

[@Canadiantheist]

+InspiringPhilosophy hey, I was thinking about ur evolution video and I was wondering how u would address the argument that science discredits the existence of century old humans.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

The Asian Theist What do you mean? Do you mean the long age patriarchs in Genesis?

[@lvpallmann306]

Great video. Keep it up!

[@donaldkeith139]

Miracles are very improbable. Therefore they are impossible. 😑

[@johnwheeler3071]

This was spoilt by the background music, I couldnt here myself think.

[@DeadEndFrog]

Lmao, Good luck finding someone who has value-free proposition The video itself tries to distract from the fact that something is physically improbable with some trite explenation of historical improbable events that do follow common physical laws

[@deepstrasz]

Lost me on this one. Seems like magical thinking.

[@BGC360]

Which church is behind to this video By the art slides is not hard to figure it out...as it was and still working, a little phisicology will move masses of humans with apes brains.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

No church, just me.

[@philippaul6039]

I like your videos but aren't you going about this the wrong way? You talk about showing unbelievers all this evidence to prove God but God himself said all humans know he exists.

[@jameslillie5445]

+Philip Paul You're correct but I defend IP's stance because some people don't seem to know that they know. You know? I mean science has proven as well that having a belief in God is our default setting but people have faulty science shoved in their face while getting mocked and it's enough to make them turn away from what they know. I agree with you that Evidence alone isn't enough, we need to show them God through us but I think it helps.

[@philippaul6039]

***** God says his existence is made so clear to us that we're without excuse for our sin against him. God says its been CLEARLY shown to us ever since the beginning of the world. The proof of all these things is more like the icing on the cake that comes after you've been saved. No amount of evidence could prove God to an Atheist because it could always be explained away as something else. There was a girl who asked a Christian teacher to give her evidence that Jesus rose from the dead. He started giving her all the different kinds of evidence and after awhile he convinced her that he rose from the dead. She said "You proved that this guy rose from the dead, but you didn't prove that he's God". Unless you start with the fact that God exists anything in the Bible could be explained away.

[@chipan9191]

+Philip Paul the point of his videos aren't to convince unbelievers. they're to inform believers in order to allow them to defend their faith from scrutiny. it's like apologetics.

[@philippaul6039]

chipan9191 And who do they defend their faith from? You'd use this sort of evidence to defend our faith against Atheists and so on. Again I go back to what the Bible says.

[@chipan9191]

Philip Paul you know what really turns people away from Christianity? people who are asked hard questions by atheists and get a response of 'well, I guess you just gotta have faith.' even to agnostics and even many Christians this looks like a copout. when someone asks why there seems to be 4 different stories about the resurrection that conflict with one another you think that response is appropriate? or do you think it would be better to use apologetics? if you're truly a disciple, you have to be willing to learn enough to answer these questions intelligently, not just throw a generic copout answer.

[@SantaIsMyLord]

There's no waynyou've gone this long without knowing you've misrepresented Hume.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

+SantaIsMyLord I've heard this before and I am not convinced. The attempt to say Hume was only talking epistemically doesn't work. His conclusions are clearly metaphysical even though he starts out in epistemology. John Earman calls Hume out on this and says he is the source for this modern confusion.

[@Acerthorn]

2:39 What's a priora?

[@grubblewubbles]

Without considering it

[@sigmundcx7883]

Your argument indicates that you don't know the definition of probability. As difficult as it might be to get elephants over the alps, no one thinks it couldn't be done. A man dead getting up, no one thinks it can happen; probability approaching zero. What is more probable: a dead man getting up, or someone mistakenly believing a dead man got up. That doesn't mean the resurrection didn't happen.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

Given the evidence associated with the resurrection, a resurrection is more likely. You don’t calculate probably without including the relevant evidence for an event.

[@sigmundcx7883]

@@InspiringPhilosophy Learn the definition of probability and apply it to your scenario. Talk to a statistician or math professor. The likelihood of a man 3 days dead getting up is as likely as an iron bar floating in fresh, lukewarm water. That doesn't mean it didn't happen.

[@sigmundcx7883]

@Christian Slayer While I assume (hope) you are being ironic, I will comment. Your saying "[M]iracles DO happen" doesn't make it true. That's the problem with miracles. The only proof we ever have is somebody saying it happened but never any physical evidence.

[@obamatime1634]

@@sigmundcx7883 Any physical evidence given would not be considered for a super natural conclusion, because all you guys do is say there is no evidence for the super natural, then when it is presented, you say there has to be a natural explanation and that we are assuming the super natural happens

[@sigmundcx7883]

@The Cringe A truly supernatural event has no natural explanation for what we see, hear, etc. For example two interlocking solid rings of two different types of wood. Problem is: There has never been any evidence of a supernatural event. Miracles may happen, but as a wise man once said "If there is no reason to believe , there is no reason to believe."

[@riizentheovercomer5405]

im going to tell my father on them

[@denonamp]

HEY I KNOW U DONE THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT WILL YOU DO THE OLD TESTAMENT TO ?

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

+Kyle Howarth yes

[@denonamp]

Cool looking forward to that series is that your next thing or what is your next series

[@Wheels-of-terror]

+inspiringphilosophy are there certain books that you would recommend on apologetics like these videos?

[@randymahan546]

I think he puts his sources in the description

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

+Kyle Williams Yes see the information section.

[@nicholasflamel1134]

Any of the children's fairy tale books would contain as much fact as these videos. Just pick one. Little Red Riding Hood, Chicken Little, The Three Little Pigs....

[@nicholasflamel1134]

@Daniel U If you are going to PRETEND that you have evidence for the supernatural events in the bible, just tell us what it is. Don't try to push YOUR burden of proof off onto someone who is NOT making supernatural claims. We aren't here to do YOUR homework.

[@dyvel]

I rose from the dead. Twice.

[@mc_pyro5269]

This could have been half as long and had the same amount of information in it. Ehrman says that historians determine what most likely happened in the past and the definition of miracle he is using is the least probable event. What definition should he use for the word miracle? And I still have not seen this much talked about "evidence" for the resurrection. Pointing out that all religions make claims of supernatural events is not proof of supernatural events. This is the weakest of your videos I have seen it felt like you rushed to meet a deadline on this one.

[@deegobooster]

+Mc_Pyro Each video isn't meant to be taken on it's own. It's a cumulative case. Think of it as one big video split into small parts. But I guess that doesn't matter since you have preconceived ideas on what reality should be like.

[@mc_pyro5269]

+Deego the Great I have seen several of the videos and I understand he talks about one aspect of it in each one. In the video about the authorship of the gospels he presents hearsay as if it were objective facts. In this video he changes Ehrman's statement and attacks that then claims to have refuted Ehrman. Improbable and impossible do not mean the same thing.

[@mc_pyro5269]

+athfuhshgh No where in that comment do I say "good" evidence. Nothing I have seen would be admissible in court.

[@LogosTheos]

+athfuhshgh "SkepDick" LOOOOOL

[@mc_pyro5269]

LogosTheos Oh yes so brilliant calling someone a dick for not having an imaginary friend so highbrow.

[@chosenskeptic5319]

presuppositional assertions, more special pleading 🥺

[@leonardu6094]

What presuppositional assertions were made here?

[@chosenskeptic5319]

leonard u 🙂 see my new post explaining the presuppositional assertions

[@leonardu6094]

@@chosenskeptic5319 what post?

[@chosenskeptic5319]

leonard u 🙂 The appeal to probability, the violation to divine law (miracles), claims by others, the statement that no other theory comes close, the if’s, declaring a world view, the inclusion of God, etc etc etc are assertions not evidence. Scripture declares the tomb as empty. Any other claims in the Bible are assertions by unknown authors regurgitating second hand claims. I believe in the resurrection of Jesus, because the tomb is empty. It is belief that was given by God that I cling to faith that the resurrection is true. Could there have been grave robbers? It’s a probability, a claim, a theory, a what if’s, the exclusion of God, etc etc etc. are also assertions, not evidence.

[@leonardu6094]

@@chosenskeptic5319 Your response reads like someone who doesn't understand the process of investigating historical claims. I seriously thought you were going to offer something substantive. It's hard for me to write a response, because you didn't actually say anything. i was under the impression you were bringing up a specific problem with the video.

[@Dhavroch]

Actually a big fan of Bart Ehrman. By being a serious scholar on New Testament history, his course that I bought online years ago wholly changed my mind about the validity of the New Testament, having used to think it was a load of made up crap.

[@nicholasflamel1134]

I have read Ehrman's books. He presents ZERO evidence for the supernatural claims made by the bible. He simply accepts the STORIES because his job depends on him continuing to accept the STORIES for no good reason. Disagree? Then tell me what EVIDENCE you know about for jesus being a magic god-man who actually rose from the dead. Should be simple right? We will all sit back and watch you fail to provide ANY evidence for your claim.

[@Dhavroch]

@@nicholasflamel1134 Now who's lying? Bart Ehrman is an agnostic leaning towards atheism... he rejects supernaturalism. You would know this if you had actually read or listened to his work.

[@nicholasflamel1134]

@@Dhavroch Don't LIE. I never said he believed in god. I said he accepts the STORIES about JESUS existing as a person. The college is willing for him to be a non-literalist, non-evangelical, but they are NOT willing to allow him to say there is no evidence that jesus ever existed. If there were some form of actual evidence, I am sure he would have written it in one of this books, and you would be quoting it at me right now. Instead, you cannot cite ANY evidence that jesus existed, and you also do not know that agnostic and atheist are answers to two different questions, not points on the same scale. Stop PRETENDING to know things you do not know.

[@Dhavroch]

@@nicholasflamel1134 The vast majority of historians accept the existence of Jesus, atheist or not. Silly atheist myth of his non-existence. Do some study beyond the internet dude.

[@nicholasflamel1134]

@@Dhavroch The vast majority of historians also used to accept the story of Noah's Flood, and the Exodus from Egypt. NO serious historian still thinks the biblical account of those is accurate. Thing is, there was NEVER any evidence to support the bible's supernatural version of those stories, just like there is NO evidence to support the claims of the jesus story. YOU have failed to provide ANY evidence to support the existence of jesus or god, and instead continue to play these COWARDLY little games to avoid any personal responsibility for supporting your baseless beliefs.

[@thehermeticgod8386]

Miracles are ALWAYS improbable Natural is some kind of model that predicts the data purported to be explained. Usually it's some kind of hand waving or demand we just accept the assertion that "miracle" explains the data. There must be a model from which we can derive expectations (e.g. a model with lawlike relations), or we have statistical generalisations based on past empirical experiences (e.g. that humans feel hunger, or that dogs are commonly loyal to good owners). For the former, it's is obviously the bread and butter of the sciences, this is what natural explanations in the sciences are all about, creating models from which we can derive either probabilistic or logical entailments about data, and for the latter, we can explain things in this fashion because it is based of such explanations being true in past similar circumstances, where such explanations proceeds from known phenomena, known entities, and known relations, or combinations thereof. From my experience miracles simply do not meet the above standards for an explanation, they provide no method from which we can derive entailments from the model (or even present a specific model), often they derive from an intuitive appeal to some unknown intention within an entity not independently established to exist or have such intentions (e.g. the intentions of a god, the intentions of a sprit etc), or they fail to proceed from any statistical generalisation about past phenomena, e.g. when X occurs Y sometimes, usually, or often occurs. Appeal to the intentions of an immaterial being does not explain data purported to be evidence for a miracle. Such an explanation can't proceed from any statistical generalizations about how such effects are explained by such causes, and doesn't present a model from which you can derive any entailments about the world, e.g. the matter in Jesus' body with do X when God's intentions are Y, because of some lawlike relation between matter in Jesus' body and God's intentions. This is why the hypothesis of the resurrection simply can't explain the asserted events of the disciples visually with their eyes seeing Jesus, or hearing Jesus or touching Jesus. As all such explanations must proceed from the assumption of objects we have either a model for which we can derive entailments from (e.g. that Jesus is made from specific kind of matter that can interact with the EM field can cause photons to enter the disciples eyes), or from some kind of statistical generalisation about how resurrection bodies have in our experience explained observations before. Jesus' body is asserted to be able to walk through walls, appear and disappear at will, defy gravity and go to heaven, walk on water. No model is given that generates the expectations that would explain the purported data used to draw such conclusions, and there is no prior experience from which we can draw statistical generalisations about what resurrection bodies can do in the absence of a model. There are even deeper problems, the discovery of deep lawlike relations between our experiences, e.g. the standard model of particle physics severely limit the kinds of materials that Jesus could be made of such that with our eyes we could still see him, and all known materials he could be made from don't posses the ascribed attributes, e.g. walking through walls, defying gravity, except through pain of inordinately low probabilities.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

If you presuppose something is improbable you will never follow the evidence, you’ll subtly presuppose naturalism in all and take any possibly as long as it is natural. You’ll just argue in a circle

[@visionaryhera]

One issue I have with your circle thingy you made is that no, actually, "miracles don't occur" can also be a *positive* claim, for which there *is* evidence, and it's not just relying on "miracles probably don't occur". Instead, the syllogism would look like so: Miracles/Supernatural very likely don't occur -> because there is no overwhelming evidence that miracles occur when we would expect for their to be overwhelming evidence, AND because there is incredible amounts of evidence that miracles *don't* occur, (which typically gets them to be classified as miracles in the first place.) For example, something quite extraordinary like walking as water as Dr. Bart Ehrman pointed out is basically impossible, and technically very very very improbable only because we can't know anything 100% and unfalsifiable claims can probably always be made. This fact of normal everyday existence that no one walks on water and we have no reliable evidence of it ever happening indicates walking on water is indeed very very very unlikely, and you need an incredible amount of evidence as well as a robust totally reliable alternative explanation of how such a thing happened would be expected - not just a "more likely" story. (Ignoring the resurrection itself because the resurrection is what makes the theory unlikely in the first place.) What we have instead is a semi-historically accurate Bible, that likely accurately retells the *story* of what the disciples *supposedly said* happened. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Both theories, naturalist and supernatural have evidence, don't get me wrong, but when I frame typical/expected behavior (based off our naturalistic presuppositions of intuition (our minds), logic, and rationality) as positive evidence against abnormal behavior, (which makes sense in other applied contexts such as not believing your barber can fly just cause he told you,) it becomes clear which is more likely in terms of the resurrection since the resurrection in fact, framed like this, has massive amounts of evidence stacked against it from the get go even if it itself is evidence for itself. They're both possible theories, don't get me wrong, but one goes against all evidence we have regarding what's possible when it makes it's claim that Jesus was able to rise from the dead. This ignores, of course, the fact that Jesus rising doesn't even mean the biblical resurrection and Christian theology is correct. Maybe Jesus is an alien - it seems just as unfalsifiable as the claim he's the son of god. There are many conceivable reasons why aliens would prop up such a figure, ironically, the argument against such a theory - aliens would've been much more deliberate and efficient and would have just taken over the world - is a double edged sword since it also attacks your god. Keep in mind, there are basically infinite explanations that are equally likely. You also made some illogical arguments about other religions' myths being real, because no, you do have to believe they're wrong to some extent as they make their own claims and typically these claims go against your own. You can agree they happened, but if you think "yeah but it was satan" is a compelling counterargument that accounts for them what do you think they shall say regarding the resurrection in return? After all, why wasn't is satan or demon that died on the cross? Perhaps an evil roman pagan Titan/god or whatnot manifested and led loyal members of the faith astray through the story of Jesus? Ultimately, you're going to have to make a choice based on preference alone. That, we call "Blind Faith".