Miracle or Myth? The Striking Limitations of Testimonial Evidence

Рет қаралды 8,961

Күн бұрын

Support Paulogia at
/ paulogia
www.paypal.me/p...
Paulogia Channel Wish-List
www.amazon.ca/...
Paulogia Merch
teespring.com/...
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @paulogia
Paulogia Audio-Only-Version Podcast
paulogia.buzzs...
Follow Paulogia at
/ paulogia0
/ paulogia0
/ discord
Send me cool mail!
Paulogia
PO Box 1350
Lantz Stn Main, NS
B2S 1A0
Canada

Пікірлер: 55

@itsmedjoom987 6 ай бұрын

Finally, a time where I can agree with Joe Rogan.

@bitcoinweasel9274 6 ай бұрын

Feels icky, but yeah.

@rammsteinrulz16 6 ай бұрын

Jesus, is your only experience of Joe from the last 5 years?

@itsmedjoom987 6 ай бұрын

@@rammsteinrulz16 no. The entire time. He’s only gotten worse tho with the conspiracy shit

@rammsteinrulz16 6 ай бұрын

@@itsmedjoom987 well I agree, but you cant say you've known him him the whole time and disagreed with him the whole time Over 1000 episodes an hour long and not a single comment out of a single episode you can agree with? I call bs

@itsmedjoom987 6 ай бұрын

@@rammsteinrulz16 thing is, there’s sometimes where he seems agreeable to be with, but then he goes off on the conspiracy theory shit or softballs ppl on his show like he did with crowder as an example letting them say outrageous shit. Or having jones on for years as he kept saying how sandy hook was a conspiracy by the gov to take away guns and calling the families traitors or some shit. Have I watched every episode of his podcast? No and I don’t have to in order to see what he believes and the bs he says about vaccines and so on.

@probablynotmyname8521 6 ай бұрын

By stephens logic, my claim that hitler once bungee jumped from the statue of liberty was a real historical event.

@ianfirth33 6 ай бұрын

I got this in Theological college, you still just have hearsay evidence. This is all we ever had.

@goldenalt3166 6 ай бұрын

But look at that testimony, most of it doesn't support a physical resurrection. And the parts that do conflict with the other parts. At best you can some other kind of incarnation.

@roblovestar9159 6 ай бұрын

Yep. Exactly.

@probablynotmyname8521 6 ай бұрын

I wasnt born religious but i am left handed.

@vinnyrac 6 ай бұрын

I highly recommend James Tabor's recent youtube video on his channel entitled, "What Christian Apologists Miss about Jesus' Empty Tomb." I was glued to my seat.

@kevvoo1967 5 ай бұрын

Proof proof proof. In that order.

@hatuletoh 6 ай бұрын

It's a damn shame god couldn't have waited just, like, 1800 or 1900 more years to incarnate, when rudimentary photography existed, and so much more of the world was literate. Not to mention telegraphs--they really would have helped spread the word. I mean, he left the human race hanging for at least 100K years between the Garden of Eden and the sacrifice of himself to himself so he wouldn't be angry about his creations that he didn't give the ability to understand right and wrong doing wrong, so what were a couple more millenia? Or maybe he was dead set (no pun intended) on dying by crucifixion, and he knew the human race was going to be much too delicate by 1800 to nail him to a cross, no matter how much shit he stirred up? Perhaps he just REALLY didn't want to get involved in the whole slavery debate that was getting pretty contrary to biblical mandates by the 19th century? He wanted to be on earth at a time when his "slaves, obey your masters" advice would be universally agreeable. Well, except to the slaves.

@davidhoffman6980 4 ай бұрын

Where on earth did you come up with that 100,000 number?

@daniellowry660 4 ай бұрын

Paul makes leap from possibility to probability he has to give some sort of argument for why miracles cannot overcome a low prior otherwise all he's doing is footstomping on Humes grave

@Fmj168 4 ай бұрын

Prove George Washington existed

@davidhoffman6980 4 ай бұрын

Well we have his signature for one.

@DanildFlamme 6 ай бұрын

Now I know we are talking about miracles specifically, since they are more unlikely to happen, however it still applies to all other types of events... Testimonies can be flawed, and oftentimes they can be heavily biased. There is an old saying (I forgot where I heard it though), that goes something a bit like: "History is written by those who were victorious". So unless we know the story from BOTH sides of a conflict in history, we should be really careful about how we start interpreting it.

@MrMortal_Ra 6 ай бұрын

(I’m an atheist) “Because people said it did” no. Because of the historical evidence and best most likely explanation that would make the best sense of that data, and also be consistent with the eyewitness testimony as well as taking into consideration the factors and context of those eyewitness testimonies, to then reach the most likely less ad hoc explanation.

@matthewlysne 6 ай бұрын

This is asking the wrong question or asking it with false logic. The eyewitness question is whether the people who claimed to see Jesus alive after he was removed from the cross (entombed) were correct or incorrect-and not whether he was “raised from the dead.” There were a lot of witnesses. That raises the question as to whether he was dead in the first place, so heathens fear not. But there is a false logic at play here, which is to assume that believing the witnesses of Jesus outside the tomb necessarily means a miracle occurred.

@slickmcCool 6 ай бұрын

What witnesses? There are none we know of

@luis_sa78 6 ай бұрын

You say there were a "lot" of eyewitnesses. No, there were not. There are two at best.

@justsomeguy859 4 ай бұрын

Dude never came back to tell us what witnesses he was talking about.

@JTFtheTheoPhPoliticalHistorian 6 ай бұрын

As a Christian, it's MAINLY based of Faith, not facts. Because it's MAINLY spiritual with some physical when it comes to Christianity.

@liamdoyle2828 4 ай бұрын

Oh goodness. So Hannibal of Carthage suddenly doesn't exist because we only have claims that he crossed the Alps on elephants? This is the epitome of historical ignorance when someone says that.

@davidhoffman6980 4 ай бұрын

Are you saying if he didn't cross the Alps, then he didn't exist at all? I've never crossed the Alps and I still exist.

@greyeyed123 6 ай бұрын

That's just, like, your opinion, man.

@immasurvivor 6 ай бұрын

Jesus probably was real. He wasnt the son of any god though, he was a revolutionary at best, cult leader at worst, likely a little bit of both.

@MrMortal_Ra 6 ай бұрын

“He was a revolutionary at best” that’s a minor position and the majority of the New Testament scholars would accept and agree with Bart’s Ehrman’s position that Jesus was most likely an apocalyptic preacher. Further more, there’s nothing in our sources that would point in the most likely direction being Jesus wanting to lead a revolt of some sort. “Cult leader at worst” if anything being a cult leader is less harmful than a “revolutionary”.

@starfishsystems 6 ай бұрын

@@MrMortal_Ra Your argument is charming but appears to be speculative.

@MrMortal_Ra 6 ай бұрын

@@starfishsystems “Your argument” this isn’t really an argument. “Is charming”….? Thanks….? “But appears to be speculative” how so?

@kealelemos3510 6 ай бұрын

What you’re saying is true; in the realm of testimony lying or being mistaken is more likely but in the realm of psychology it’s becomes very hard to explain hundreds of people being mistaken or lying about the same account with no incentive to to do so, in fact, the opposite, many of those people were persecuted and some were even killed, taking that “lie” to their grave.

@MrMortal_Ra 6 ай бұрын

Agreed. However, no educated sane person would ever even suggest that the disciples just merely lied. But we do say that they were mistaken.

@JackgarPrime 6 ай бұрын

We don't have re words of hundreds of accounts, though. We have the testimony of Peter and Payl, and while there was a CLAIM that 500 people saw it, there's no record of testimony of these witnesses.

@starfishsystems 6 ай бұрын

A SINGLE anonymous indirect account of a bunch of people saying ANYTHING about ANYTHING would be suspect. It is just about the WEAKEST POSSIBLE FORM of evidence there is, for even the most ordinary commonplace claim. And the claim is anything but ordinary. If I pick up a scrap of paper and on it is written, "My name is anonymous and I just overheard a whole crowd of people say that they saw an alien spaceship buy out the entire fall collection worldwide from JC Penney," would you regard that as credible evidence? If your answer is YES, seek professional help. I'm serious. There is something wrong with your brain.

@riluna3695 6 ай бұрын

The only way of which I'm aware that you can get "hundreds of people" attesting to the resurrection is by a comment from a singular person who says offhandedly that 500 other people also say they see it. So when you parse it out, this isn't actually several hundred individual sources, this is ONE source that gives a one-time account of that many people, with no details of any kind. We don't know if these people all saw exactly the same thing or if they saw mutually exclusive things and just didn't realize. We don't know if they saw anything at ALL, and perhaps some or all of them were just riding the wave and adding testimony for their own personal reasons, or if they had convinced themselves that they really had seen, like many religious people do even to this day. And we can't even be completely sure this is anything other than a false claim made by just one bad actor. They don't even have to be the one who wrote it down, they could be one of the sources that that person spoke to and who they believed and cited. The point is that there are dozens, perhaps hundreds of unique and mutually-exclusive interpretations of the evidence we see in the bible that gets us to the astoundingly high number of witnesses. It could be slightly, very, or even entirely overblown, and we have no good way to know. Thus it cannot serve as powerful evidence of a resurrection, and is at most a few drops of evidence water in the bucket that needs to be filled to show the truth of this claim. And when you go through the rest of the bible looking for more to add to it, you find that a lot of these supposed evidence pools are similarly shallow if you apply proper scrutiny to it. They only look deep when you're standing outside it looking down in. Actually wade into the claims being made, and you find nothing more than a puddle at most. I recommend you try this yourself with the claims of martyrdom. You'll find that beyond about two or three examples, all of these claims are either pulled from apocryphal books that contain things no modern Christian would accept as true, or their death had nothing to do with being commanded to deny their faith in the resurrection. And "two or three people genuinely believed" is nowhere near as convincing as "several hundred people in that time all saw Jesus after his death, and they were all ironclad in that belief even under the threat of death." I find that it says a lot about a group's priorities when they feel the need to overinflate the evidence of their position to such extremes. And just to be clear, it speaks very poorly on their interest in the truth, implying a desire to be right at all costs. To "win the debate against the enemy" rather than to be right for truth's own sake. And that's the surest way to fill your worldview with falsehoods.

@slickmcCool 6 ай бұрын

All we have are stories of eyewitness, not any evidence of them.

@thehollyballs 6 ай бұрын

Well, it also happened a long time ago, so either way, all there is is testimony. You can't definitively say one way or the other that something did or didn't happen with only testimony. It works both ways. Sure, it's more likely to be the latter, but how do you know? Were you there? No. Me either. No one alive today was there when it was claimed to have happened. So we just don't know. But some folks have what is called faith. If you don't have it, then just move on. Pretty simple.

@coruscanta 6 ай бұрын

“But some folks have what is called faith. If you don’t have it, then just move on. Pretty simple.” This really has no place here. It’s unreasonably dismissive and looks like it comes from a place that’s quite ignorantly unempathetic to a lot of these kinds of conversations. If you wanna say “it’s irresponsible to be incredibly confident either way on some of these historical occurrences” then I think most people here would back you up on that. But the “were you there” is an incredibly bad objection in this circumstance.