Resurrection debate debrief (with Erik Manning)

[@austinapologetics2023]

Nice to see you two collaborating. Two of the best YT apologists.

[@TestifyApologetics]

Thanks again for having me on, Trent! It was fun. If anyone is interested in more details on my qualms with minimal facts, I have a playlist here: kzbin.info/aero/PLbVf0T8-zFVhNhIx3lLZCDRhrdsD7vRS1

[@carlf2842]

Thanks Erik, for that . Just a quick one. It always struck me that the resurrection(the 3 days in the tomb and subsequent 40 days) occured as a demonstrate of God's power and God pointing towards another relhm of existence. Why do people argue about the particulars rather than the substance ?

[@mike-cc3dd]

Waiting for pinecreek to enter the chat and try to debate the comment section.....

[@macroglossumstellatarum3068]

Always love a new video! But this is probably the last debate that needed a debrief, it was hardly a contest 😂

[@reevertoun]

Right. Doug did not even begin to make a case for the Resurrection being unreasonable. Played defense the whole time. Taking game theory optimal lines are certainly tough to exploit but are not the most +ev. W/R to the minimal facts argument: It works quite well in every day life with people who believe in God/spirituality but aren't Christians. The cumulative historical case coupled with good philosophy is needed with youtube anti-apologists that are skeptical of every claim and won't grant God's existence. But honestly they really should just be ignored and we should be having more discussions like this.

[@mrjustadude1]

Yeah Doug has to be one of the worst debaters I've ever seen.

[@reevertoun]

@@mrjustadude1 I actually don't think he did that bad. It's just that he made no case whatsoever. Most confident debaters would resort to yes/no answers. They have knowledge of the subject so they don't have to hide from discourses. It's hard to shut them up actually. Defense wins championships but not debates.

[@mattsmith1440]

@@reevertoun Just curious, you don't have to answer: what exactly makes you think a god exists?

[@michaelscofield1970]

The philosophical argument for the necessity of a pure actuality is by far the strongest one imo

[@marcokite]

Alleluja! Christ is Risen! even in Lent we can proclaim that.

[@pop6997]

This was a slam dunk for Trent. Tbh, it was glaringly obvious from the beginning that a seasoned educated and adult debater was engaging with well to be kind what sounded like a giggly teenager saying, 'We're the same man'....'like hypothetically speaking'.... Eh, no you're not remotely the same.

[@henrythejames7]

Nothing proved that more than Doug saying he wouldn't want to go to heaven even if it's real. I rolled my eyes so hard. It showed he has almost zero understanding of the opposing world view.

[@Greyz174]

@@henrythejames7 he was a christian till like 10 years ago, he knows what people think about heaven

[@gor764]

@@Greyz174 Christianity is in itself non-monolothic, it depends on what type of Christian he was. I know some Christians who have a very metaphysical and abstract take on the afterlife like most Catholics and Orthodox. Then there are some fundamentalists who see heaven as just clouds and winged angels with harps for millions of years.

[@DryApologist]

You should link Erik's channel in the description of the video so that he can get more subscribers.

[@RonaldDPotts1]

That was a fast 40 minutes. I'm very glad where y'all are going with apologetics. We too often easily concede ground for no good reason. We'll willingly cobble ourselves to the view of the interlocutors, and let them assume too much. We're all too willing to play defense all the time.

[@RobRod305]

I haven’t watched this video yet but I think you should make a video on “Did Paul purposely misquote the Old Testament?” Pine creek threw some ridiculous attacks at Paul and insinuated he was dishonest

[@redhawkmillenium]

Not to mention his whole idea that Paul could have been influenced to convert because someone he cared about converted was total speculation with no evidence in Paul's writings.

[@mike-cc3dd]

He insinuated this without evidence too. Funny how atheists require evidence for everything except their own claims

[@vejeke]

He draws these ideas from what the Jews who know their biblical texts well say. Just search "Tovia Singer Pinecreek".

[@petery6432]

Hey Trent, can you link Erik's channel in the description or a pinned comment? It definitely needs to be grown as he has really good stuff.

[@TheCounselofTrent]

Just did! Thanks!

[@resurrectionnerd]

Responding to Trent's opening statement from the debate video: 6:39 _"Since ancient Jews didn't believe the resurrection would take place until the end of the world"_ They believed they were living at the end of the world. 6:53 _"Only a prolonged encounter with an embodied Jesus explains why the disciples preached a resurrection rather than that Jesus' soul was with God in heaven"_ This is false per Paul's own experience which is called a "vision from heaven" in Acts 26:19. This vision caused him to convert to a religion that preached a resurrection. So it is simply not the case that a "prolonged encounter with an embodied Jesus" was required in order to believe in a resurrection. 7:05 _"Given their fierce monotheism.....we would expect the disciples to hallucinate Jesus as a man caught up to heaven and not as the creator himself unless Jesus told them that he had divine power to raise himself from the dead."_ First of all, the earliest formulas in Paul's letters all say it was _God_ who raised Jesus from the dead. Secondly, Jesus is referred to as just a "man" in Acts 2:22-23. If the author thought he was God then the speech would have surely said that since it's talking about the importance of who Jesus was. 7:20 _"The New Testament authors make it clear when someone has a dream or a vision. In Greek horama... and when they think they've seen a ghost or a spirit but none of those words are used to describe Jesus' resurrection body"_ Again, the appearance to Paul was a VISION (Greek optasia) which is the same word used in 2 Cor 12 for experiences he has trouble discerning if it "happened in or out of the body." Notice how he does not say his "appearance" was any different in nature from the others in 1 Cor 15. He uses the same verb "appeared" for each one as if it was understood they were all the same type. Luke 24 is addressing people who _did think_ the resurrected Jesus was a spirit. Otherwise, why mention it? 7:49 _"Luke's track record of reliably recording details in the book of Acts"_ Like how he plagiarizes the line from Euripedes Bacchae _"Why does thou kick against the goads?"_ for Paul's Damascus Road experience? Or how he changes the venue of the resurrection appearances to be in Jerusalem instead of Galilee in his gospel? Or gets the dates of Theudas and Judas the Galilean wrong? Or how he makes up a fictitious census in order to make Jesus fit the prophecies better? 7:58 _"The resurrection was preached within a few weeks....they could have checked the tomb."_ We actually do not know exactly when or where they first preached the resurrection. Trent is just taking the claims from the Bible at face value. The earliest gospels (Mark and Matthew) say Jesus appeared or would appear in Galilee first.

[@Yeatlova]

nerd

[@resurrectionnerd]

@@Yeatlova What an educated response!

[@Yeatlova]

@@resurrectionnerd sounds like something a nerd would say

[@resurrectionnerd]

@@Yeatlova Did Jesus teach you to talk like that to people?

[@Yeatlova]

@@resurrectionnerd yes nerd

[@jerroldwhite2741]

that is such a clear point Erik, "...we have all of this evidence here, but what if we took away some of it hupothetically...would you still find my defendant guilty?" Perfectly on point! I found myself laughing about it in the comments when I watched the debate yesterday.

[@B.S._Lewis]

That's backwards from what the Flying Man does. It adds piece by piece just like a court preceding.

[@sneakysnake2330]

@@B.S._Lewis in fairness, the flying man does technically start by stripping away all of the evidence

[@B.S._Lewis]

@@sneakysnake2330 No it doesn't. The hypothetical begins with just 1 claim. A flying man. Then the evidence is added from there. It is not a Christian specific analogy. The evidence can be tailored to any religion or miracle claim.

[@vaderetro264]

The problem with the 'flying man' test is a viable moment to switch from red to yellow to green on the belief scale, was still far away; it might have required hundreds of questions. Christianity has a 3000-year-long history (including the OT, of course), thousands of prophets, saints, martyrs, and millions of pages spent on the unique depth of the message of Bible. That's why we can rationally support our faith.

[@johnendalk6537]

So do other religions

[@vaderetro264]

@@johnendalk6537 No, they don't. Christianity is unique.

[@philochristos]

Your dream story is interesting. A similar thing happened to me shortly after my dad died. I had a really lucid dream about him. AT some point during the dream, I realized it was a dream, but still seemed very real.

[@ericsonofjohn9384]

Trent, how could you not know about the Testify channel? It's awesome!

[@mareeyo1]

I had never heard of it either but glad I did! Automatically subbed!

[@redhawkmillenium]

I thought Dug's whole graph he used during the cross examination was kind of clever but also disingenuous. He tried to use your answers to say you're "not any different than him" for what point you switch from disbelief to belief. But that's only if he projects his *reasons* for believing or disbelieving onto you. He tried boxing you in to "yes" or "no" questions and moved on before you could actually explain the reason behind each yes or no. In reality it felt like the reasons you would give for your answers would be different than the reasons he would give, meaning you're still different than him in how you come to your conclusion. So yeah, kind of a clever idea, but the way he used it felt like a bit of a disingenuous debate tactic.

[@macroglossumstellatarum3068]

Completely agree, it’s just a way to muddy the waters so that their viewpoints look similar. But I thought Trent handled it well by pointing out the clear differences in the evidence for the flying man and for the resurrection

[@boguslav9502]

I think he was trying to prove that everyone assumes naturalism except when they want to make a special exception for their specific belief. Its extremely disengenious but very clever.

[@ajamusic7322]

When he said, "I just want a yes or no/ I'm gonna trap you/ if you have the truth on your side, you have nothing to worry about," I'd be like, "likewise if youre right and I don't have the truth on my side, then you won't have any issues my my explanations. So no, I'm not going to be boxed in if there's missing context."

[@mozzarellamartyrdom7948]

I don't think it's muddying the waters, I think it's building a shared perspective, and then trying to get at the heart of WHY their viewpoints are different.

[@andytheawesome7592]

To be fair with not asking for reasons, he might’ve just been trying to get through as quickly as possible without running down the time, which is what happened.

[@EpoRose1]

I can’t be the only one who thought of David Copperfield “flying” over the Grand Canyon in 1984 on one of his TV specials… right? Right?

[@brendansheehan6180]

Testify is an awesome channel. Just saying. Everyone should check it out.

[@swoosh1mil]

Thank you Mr. Horn. 👍

[@jonathanbohl]

Thanks!

[@ajamusic7322]

The thing about hypothetical is you can start with them, but they're pointless if you don't eventually move away from them into the substance.

[@resurrectionnerd]

At 1:54:08 in the original debate video Trent says this: _"How do you explain the genesis of Christianity?"_ Here is how to explain the origin of belief in a dying and rising Messiah in the first century without a resurrection actually taking place. All you need to do is combine the empirically observed phenomenon of cognitive dissonance with the specific historical circumstances and beliefs of first century apocalyptic Jews. Step 1: The tradition found in 4Q521 tells us the time of the Messiah will coincide with "wondrous deeds," one of which was raising the dead. This tradition ends up being quoted in Lk. 7: 22 and Mt. 11: 2-5 so we know the Jesus sect had this expectation. Step 2: Jesus was a Messianic figure who preached and predicted the Resurrection. Apologists cannot deny this since their own Scripture says so. This shows that the idea would have been implanted in his followers minds. Step 3: Both Jesus and his followers believed they were living in the end of times which is exactly when the Resurrection was thought to take place. This is supported by the gospels themselves, Paul's letters and other apocalyptic literature that we can compare the gospels to. Step 4: Jesus was suddenly executed. Step 5: Enter cognitive dissonance (which has been empirically observed in other religious groups), plus a little bit of theological innovation and a biased reading of the Old Testament looking for an answer and voila! It was "foretold" all along - 1 Cor 15: 3-4, Rom. 16: 25-26! Thus, we can now see how the Jesus sect applied their already anticipated belief in the Resurrection to Jesus and he became the "firstfruits" of it - 1 Cor 15: 20. Step 6: Soon some of his followers claimed to have visions or spiritual experiences of Jesus which is supported by the fact that Paul calls his experience a "revelation" (Gal. 1: 16) and a "vision from heaven" (Acts 26: 19) which he does not distinguish in nature from the "appearances" to the others in 1 Cor 15: 5-8. This provides a proof that physical experiences on earth with a resurrected body were not required in order to believe a person had been resurrected. Steps 5 and 6 may be interchangeable. If the imminent anticipation of the end times Resurrection was already part of Jesus and his followers background beliefs then it's no wonder some came to the belief Jesus had been resurrected just a "tad bit early." It's straightforward logic - expecting the Resurrection to occur any day now -> Jesus was preaching the Resurrection -> Jesus suddenly dies -> Jesus must have been resurrected! Apologists who maintain that the followers of Jesus would have abandoned the movement should check out other examples where religious/apocalyptic groups have their expectations falsified but then somehow reinterpret the events and update their beliefs in order keep on believing. See Festinger's book "When Prophecy Fails" as well as the origin of the Seventh Day Adventists (The Millerites), Sabbatai Sevi, and the Lubavitch.

[@resurrectionnerd]

@@PaulH Thanks for the kind words Paul. You say you think if the story were true as claimed then we would expect what we see in the gospels. But don't you think it's a little strange that, besides Paul, Jesus is only said to have appeared to people who _were already_ close followers of his before his death? James was a family member and so was in the position of bereavement. Wouldn't we expect Jesus to appear to the Sanhedrin or the Romans for instance and have more records of people who weren't already followers claiming this? Instead, Jesus just appeared to his disciples and gives Paul a vision? If Jesus actually did miraculously heal people why are there no records of this outside the gospels? We would expect those healed to preach about it and their firsthand testimony end up somewhere wouldn't we?

[@gregorybarrett4998]

Why grant a low view of the gospel? For the same reason that a judge assumes the correctness of the assertions in a petition for a restraining order or injunction: these matters can be addressed in their turn, but right now the question is whether justice is best served in granting the restraining order or injunction, in the light of what is meaningful to consider strictly with respect to the relative merits of granting the restraining order or injunction.

[@resurrectionnerd]

At 5:00 in the debate video Trent says this - _"These cases, they involved feeling the presence of a deceased person, not actually interacting with someone."_ Fun fact - the Greek word used for "appeared" (ophthe) in 1 Cor 15 didn't necessarily indicate the physical appearance of a person either. We see the same word being used in the Septuagint when God "appeared" to the Patriarchs but without seeing anything physical or describing a sensory experience. So unless Trent wants to claim these people literally saw the physical body of God then he will have to concede the word can be used in the "feel the presence" sense and so our earliest source is vague in regards to the type of appearances. So when an apologist pulls out the "group appearances" card, it should not be persuasive in the slightest since the earliest source in which they are mentioned (1 Cor 15) does not describe them. On the other hand, if the group appearances _were_ described in 1 Cor 15 as actually seeing a physical person walking around, then in order to doubt that, a skeptic would have to use the hallucinatory explanation - which seems implausible. But since the group appearances *are not described* (all you have is the vague term "appear") then it's not clear that a physical encounter with a resurrected figure on the earth was implied. So instead of shifting the burden onto the skeptic to show these were hallucinations, the proponent of the Resurrection argument actually has the burden to show these encounters were originally understood to be physical interactions with the Resurrected body of Jesus on earth before he went to heaven. Since the term is equally likely to refer to a heavenly/visionary appearance, it doesn't matter how many people were said to experience it. None of the resurrection narratives in the gospels match Paul's appearance chronology from 1 Cor 15 and they all grow more dramatic and fantastic in chronological order as if a legend was evolving. So appealing to the gospels as evidence doesn't help either I'm afraid. Moreover, all the gospels are written in third person. They never say "I saw this happen" and describe it from a firsthand perspective. Only Paul's account is firsthand but the appearance to him was a vision that he does not distinguish from the appearances to the others.

[@EpoRose1]

Pretty sure Trent covers this in his book Counterfeit Christs.

[@toddbyrd9071]

"ophthe" is used throughout the NT to mean something objectively existing and visible and not related to an "experience". Luke 19:16, Matthew 2:7, Mark 1:4, etc. There's no reason to believe the word "opthe" does not indicate that Jesus was "seen" (in the literal sense) after his death.

[@resurrectionnerd]

@@EpoRose1 I think I found the relevant section: _“But Barker’s argument doesn’t work because a person can “appear” to someone without being a ghost or spirit. I can ask my wife, “Are you going to make an appearance at our party tonight?” without expecting her to materialize out of thin air. In the incident with the Macedonian, Luke makes it clear he’s talking about a dream Paul had-“a vision appeared to Paul in the night” (Acts 16:9). But when Paul and the other New Testament authors talk about Jesus appearing to the disciples, they don’t describe those appearances as being part of a vision or dream.”_ This response doesn't work because the appearance to Paul was a vision/revelation (Gal. 1:16, Acts 26:19) or otherwise an ambiguous experience that took place while Jesus was located up in heaven. Yet, Paul uses the same verb (ophthe) for every "appearance" in the list of 1 Cor 15:5-8 without making a distinction. _“Barker’s use of Moses’ and Elijah’s appearing on the Mount of Transfiguration backfires, because the text does not describe a purely visionary experience."_ Matthew 17:9 explicitly calls the experience a "vision" in the Greek (horama). I believe it may also have been interpreted as a vision by the later church fathers too. _“Finally, Paul was a Pharisee, so he believed in a future, bodily resurrection.”_ So believing in a bodily resurrection doesn't mean they actually verified he was, as in they literally saw the bodily resurrected Jesus since we've established that Jesus can "appear" post-resurrection in a vision from heaven and that type of experience was accepted into the list of "appearances" in 1 Cor 15. So Trent would have to establish that Paul also believed the bodily resurrected Jesus appeared on the earth first before ascending to heaven. Paul never makes that clear (we don't get that chronology until the later gospels develop) and so the original nature of the appearances is still ambiguous in our earliest and only firsthand source that mentions them.

[@resurrectionnerd]

@@toddbyrd9071 Are you sure you're looking up the aorist passive form ophthe? Here are all the instances of ὤφθη in the New Testament. Matthew 17:3 and behold appeared (ὤφθη) to them Moses - Called a "vision" (horama) in Mt. 17:9. Mark 9:4 And appeared (ὤφθη) to them Elijah - Same Transfiguration appearance described in Matthew Luke 1:11 appeared (ὤφθη) moreover to him - "an angel appeared" - called a "vision" in Lk. 1:22. Luke 22:43 appeared (ὤφθη) moreover to him - "an angel from heaven appeared" Luke 24:34 Lord and appeared (ὤφθη) to Simon - taken directly from 1 Cor 15:5 but the appearance is not described. Notice how in the clearly physical appearances to the other disciples the word ὤφθη is not used. Acts 7:2 "The God of glory appeared (ὤφθη) to our father Abraham" Acts 7:26 day he (Moses) appeared (ὤφθη) to them as they were fighting together, Acts 7:30 years forty appeared (ὤφθη) to him in - "an angel appeared to Moses in the flames of a burning bush" Acts 13:31 who appeared (ὤφθη) for days - notice how the appearances are not described and compare this to Acts 10:40-41 _"but God raised him from the dead on the third day and caused him to be seen. He was not seen by all the people, but by witnesses whom God had already chosen-by us who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead."_ If they were physical appearances then why wasn't he seen by everyone? Why does the author go out of his way to restrict the appearances to a choice few? Saying God "caused him to be seen" is an odd way of saying they were physical appearances. It sounds more like he was flipping a switch on and off. I take it that Luke was very well aware of the spiritual interpretation of appearances and that explains the polemic against them in Lk. 24. Acts 16:9 to Paul appeared (ὤφθη) a man of Macedonia - (in a vision) Acts 26:16 I have appeared (ὤφθην) to you - in a "vision from heaven" - Acts 26:19 1 Corinthians 15:5 and that he appeared (ὤφθη) to Cephas then - the same verb is used for Paul's vision in the same list. 1 Corinthians 15:6 Then he appeared (ὤφθη) to more than five hundred - the same verb is used for Paul's vision in the same list. 1 Corinthians 15:7 Then he appeared (ὤφθη) to James then - the same verb is used for Paul's vision in the same list. 1 Corinthians 15:8 the untimely birth he appeared (ὤφθη) also to me - which was a vision/revelation - Gal. 1:16, Acts 26:19 1 Timothy 3:16 in [the] Spirit was seen (ὤφθη) by angels was proclaimed Revelation 11:19 heaven and was seen (ὤφθη) the ark - takes place in heaven Revelation 12:1 a sign great was seen (ὤφθη) - in heaven Revelation 12:3 And was seen (ὤφθη) another sign - in heaven The only occurrence where the word can plausibly be argued to clearly mean a physical appearance indicating normal seeing is in Acts 7:26 but it seems Luke is just using the word there to compare Moses to Jesus. All the other instances are in reference to visionary seeing, angels appearing, or things being "seen" in heaven.

[@Miatpi]

17:20

[@resurrectionnerd]

Let's compare the ways the Resurrected Jesus is said to have been experienced according to the documents arranged in chronological order. As you're reading, ask yourself is this data more expected under the hypothesis of reliable eyewitness testimony vs the hypothesis of an evolving legend. The scholarly consensus dates the documents as follows: - Paul c. 50 CE - is the only firsthand report. He says the Risen Jesus "appeared" ὤφθη (1 Cor 15:5-8) and was experienced through "visions" and "revelations" - 2 Cor 12:1. The appearance to Paul was a vision/revelation *from heaven* - Gal. 1:12-16, Acts 26:19 (not a physical encounter with a revived corpse) and he makes no distinction between what he "saw" and what the others "saw" in 1 Cor 15:5-8 nor does he mention an intervening ascension between the appearances. This shows that early Christians accepted claims of "visions" (experiences that don't necessarily have anything to do with reality) as "Resurrection appearances." Paul nowhere gives any evidence of the Risen Christ being experienced in a more "physical" way which means you have to necessarily read in the *assumption* that the appearances were physical, from a later source that Paul nowhere corroborates. What Paul says in Phillipians 2:8-9, Rom. 8:34, and the sequential tradition preserved in Eph. 1:20 is consistent with the belief that Jesus went straight to heaven after the resurrection leaving no room for any physical earthly appearances. If this was the earliest belief then it follows that *all* of the "appearances" were believed to have been of the Exalted Christ in heaven and not physical earthly interactions with a revived corpse. He had a chance to mention the empty tomb in 1 Cor 15 when it would have greatly helped his argument but doesn't. Paul's order of appearances: Peter, the twelve, the 500, James, all the apostles, Paul. No location is mentioned. - Mark c. 70 CE - introduces the empty tomb but has no appearance report. Predicts Jesus will be "seen" in Galilee. The original ends at 16:8 where the women leave and tell no one. Mark's order of appearances: Not applicable. - Matthew c. 80 CE - has the women tell the disciples, contradicting Mark's ending, has some women grab Jesus' feet, then has an appearance in Galilee which "some doubt" - Mt. 28:17. Matthew also adds a descending angel, great earthquake, and a zombie apocalypse to spice things up. If these things actually happened then it's hard to believe the other gospel authors left them out, let alone any other contemporary source from the time period. Matthew's order of appearances: Two women, eleven disciples. The appearance to the women takes place near the tomb in Jerusalem while the appearance to the disciples happens on a mountain in Galilee. - Luke 85-95 CE - has the women immediately tell the disciples, contradicting Mark. Jesus appears in Jerusalem, not Galilee, contradicting Matthew's depiction and Mark's prediction. He appears to two people on the Emmaus Road who don't recognize him at first. Jesus then vanishes and suddenly appears to the disciples. This time Jesus is "not a spirit" but a "flesh and bone" body that gets inspected, eats fish, then floats to heaven while all the disciples watch - conspicuously missing from all the earlier reports. Luke omits any appearance to the women. Acts 1:3 adds the otherwise unattested claim that Jesus appeared over a period of 40 days and says Jesus provided "many convincing proofs he was alive" which shows the stories were apologetically motivated. Luke's order of appearances: Two on the Emmaus Road, Peter, rest of the eleven disciples. All appearances happen in Jerusalem. - John 90-110 CE - Jesus can now teleport through locked doors and we get the Doubting Thomas story where Jesus invites Thomas to poke him. This story has the apologetic purpose that if you just "believe without seeing" then you will be blessed. Jesus is also basically God in this gospel which represents another astonishing development. John's order of appearances: Mary Magdalene, eleven disciples, the disciples again plus Thomas, then to seven disciples. In John 20 the appearances happen in Jerusalem and in John 21 they happen near the Sea of Galilee on a fishing trip. As you can see, these reports are inconsistent with one another and represent growth that's better explained as legendary accretion rather than actual history. If these were actual historical reports that were based on eyewitness testimony then we would expect more consistency than we actually get. None of the resurrection reports in the gospels even match Paul's appearance chronology in 1 Cor 15:5-8 and the later sources have amazing stories that are drastically different from and nowhere even mentioned in the earliest reports. The story evolves from Paul's spiritual/mystical Christ all the way up to literally touching a resurrected corpse that flies to heaven! Moreover, in Luke and John the stories have obvious apologetic motivations. So upon critically examining the evidence we can see the clear linear development that Christianity started with spiritual visionary experiences and evolved to the ever-changing physical encounters in the gospels (which are not firsthand reports). If apologists want to claim this data is consistent with reliable eyewitness testimony then they need to provide other examples about the same event from history that grow in fantastic detail like the gospels do, yet are still regarded to be reliable historical documents. I maintain that this cannot be done. If attempted, they will immediately realize any other historical documents that grow like the gospels do will be legends.

[@andyfisher2403]

You should contact Trent to dialogue/ debate.

[@mike-cc3dd]

Wall of text. Try again but be concise. Nobody is reading this

[@resurrectionnerd]

@@mike-cc3dd TLDR: The Resurrection narratives in the gospels are all legends that evolve from what were originally spiritual/mystical experiences. So appealing to the gospels as evidence of what really happened is undermined.

[@whatwecalllife7034]

Now how many Christians will take the time to read and fully digest this I wonder? Probably not a significant amount.

[@calebjore3295]

Out of curiosity, what is your motivation in posting this text block to so many videos?

[@thetruth4079]

The Counsel of Trent Off topic brother but I’ve wanted to see your thoughts or understanding on orthodox teaching about this.. What are your thoughts and what are the teachings of a Catholic/orthodox/Assyrian church’s on tithing or in church .. what I’ve seen is that the new covenant never said we were commanded to do a monetary tithe.. also that tithing was never even money in the Old Testament.. I know it says to give what you can to the church but what I’ve seen that tithe (10 of income) is a Protestant (prosperity gospel) invention …??

[@mareeyo1]

Poor Doug. Seems like a cool dude but gets caught up in the whole “devils advocate” (no pun intended) persona that he forgets to actually look for the truth instead.

[@BrentKalar]

I have watched Doug employ the Flying Man for two years, and did a video analyzing it myself (which he critiqued). Thus, I think I can speak with some authority about this. Here's what it's about: You were right the first time. He wants to use it to make the Christian look silly. It's original intent is to use the rhetorical tactic of a hypothetical to force the Christian into a painful dilemma, and (ideally) raise doubt by making them feel dumb. Here's the dilemma: The first horn of the dilemma: reveal the Christian to be guilty of holding inconsistent epistemic standards, since they accept the evidence for Jesus but deny what is supposed to be exactly parallel evidence for Myron the Flying Man; Second horn: accept the evidence for Myron, in which case, (Doug assumes) you the Christian looks like an uncritical credulous fool. Either horn of the dilemma the Christian chooses, mission accomplished: the Christian at the very least looks dumb (and, from the street epistemology perspective, hopefully also *feels" dumb, so they will doubt). The line "I just want to see when the belief switch turns on" is, I believe, a secondary rhetorical. The goal is to divide and conquer. If he can isolate each little piece of evidence for the Resurrection, he can create the illusion that, when the belief switch flips on, it was on insufficient grounds ("You mean THAT little bit pushed you over the line?!? REALLY?)

[@victorfreon7586]

@Brent Kalar I think it’s even simpler than that. The purpose is to create an alternate Christianity, essentially something that is “like” Christianity in every way, and force the Christian to choose. The problem is that, for us, it’s nuts to make that choice. Consider, if there was “another Bible” with a different person who was the son of God and got raised from the dead,, we’d have to change something, for sure... but there isn’t, so there’s no point in the discussion.

[@mozzarellamartyrdom7948]

I think this is a mis-representation of the Flying Man. The point of the flying man is not (only) to make believers look silly, but to peel away at the evidence ONE-by-ONE. Trent called this the beard fallacy, but I don't personally buy that fallacy. Someone could use the Beard Fallacy to justify belief in ANYTHING, and then hand wave away critical points by saying "oh I know it's a beard." Trent, by not completing the Flying Man experiment, failed to zero in on the point of evidence that convinces him ("puts him over the top" if you will). Thus, interlocutors cannot get to the meat of why he believes in a debate format.

[@victorfreon7586]

@@mozzarellamartyrdom7948 that’s not a good representation- in fact it’s an insulting one- of Christians. We always have and always will tell you why we believe. It’s not because of a magical button, but because of the evidence for God in experience, philosophy, and scripture. Atheists want the Resurrection in a repeatable science experiment with cameras and machines... I understand that for someone doubting, they want this confirmation, but in the end it’s not what God has given us.

[@MrCheesywaffles]

@@mozzarellamartyrdom7948 I think there's an issue with the assumption that there is a single piece of evidence that puts a person over the top from belief or disbelief. Like a rusty see-saw pivot bolt it may take a lot more to get it moving than it does to hold it down. They may have dozens of candidates and no clear single argument or piece to zero in on. I think the thought experiment is worth considering but is simplistic and probably inconclusive as a test for most believers.

[@mike-cc3dd]

@@mozzarellamartyrdom7948 actually its just a bad method to make an argument. Because he's creating a false equivalency between his flying man and what he falsely claims Christians believe.

[@onvogmasaj]

thoughts on the 8hr licona/ehrman debate?

[@georgwagner937]

Pinecreek did not say: "no, Jesus did not bodily rise from the dead, and here is the evidence for my position: 1. 2. 3. 4. ...."

[@anotherone4626]

I'll fill in for him then. No, Jesus did not rise from the dead, bodily or otherwise, and here's the evidence for my position: 1) the Bible, New and Old Testament 2) activities of early Christians 3) activities of the Qumran community 4) activities of contemporary Greeks 5) activity of pre-Christian Greeks 6) plenty more if needed

[@squarecircles4846]

Trent did such an amazing job that the folks at Nathan's channel were almost tearing in their after debate debrief

[@whatwecalllife7034]

We're they though? We can't have watched the same aftershow.

[@shinneybuckles]

for any other faiths or anything tried to be compared to the resurrection i am not aware of multiple people being martyred or murdered for their faith over a dream via the cross lynching and the other methods the faithfull were killed.

[@anotherone4626]

Tons of people have been martyred for their faith, Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, the whole Norse religion was essentially built around martyrdom, as was the Aztec religion. Christians aren't special at all in this regard.

[@williambillycraig1057]

I do not see why Trent states that Pinecreek did a good job in this debate. How does a "what if" add to or engage with the arguments? I wish Trent would explain why he thought Pinecreek did well. The "what if" question is best left to Marvel comics, "What if Wolverine became a vampire?" I actually have this issue. While it can potentially make for a good comic book, it destroys honest dialogue.

[@tuav]

Trent is being nice I think lol

[@mike-cc3dd]

He's too miyagi do and not enough eagle fang

[@utopiabuster]

Hey Trent, I'm sure you're aware that Doug took to his channel for a live show titled (in part), "Jesus NEVER Existed", (actual emphasis on the "NEVER"), in almost immediate response to you here, and he looked none too happy as he claimed is his motivation for doing whatever it is he calls what he does which is basically anti-Christian, anti-apologetics snark. Doug's entire shtick is straight out of the "Street Epistomology" instruction manual. Cast doubt without an argument. He can't even help employing the technique when he's talking to himself. I wish someone would take some serious time ripping Doug's "Flying Man (Anology) Thought Experiment" to shreds. While I don't disagree with your take I believe Doug's entire approach in his "thought experiment (yuk-yuk)" basically commits the "complex question fallacy" right out of its playbook. Specifically, "polar questions" where the interlocutor is only allowed to answer a question with a "yes", or "no", despite the fact of the implications and the unspoken premise. Doug believes his "Flying Man" is brilliant in an over confident sort of way. Consider, that he does not include a benefit to believing his ancestor can fly. Which means the outcome is the same whether one believes, or not. "Pascal's Wager" anyone? Why should I believe Doug's ancestor flew? Further consider that upon close exemption, his "Flying Man" actually provides an impetus to believe the Ressurection since every caveat he adds to the prospect, we have in the Gospels. Conversely, a confirmation for belief, rather than attributing to doubt, or disbelief. I doubt you have the time nor the inclination to engage Doug regularly since your contributions to Christianity and apologetics are of far more benefit and value, but it sure would be nice to see someone take that arrogant, snide anti-Christian down a few pegs more than you already have. Peace and God Bless

[@johnendalk6537]

When there's an extraordinary claim like Jesus's resurrection, you don't need an argument to cast doubts. Christians better have amazing reasons why they think that's true. Sadly, the evidences aren't even close to amazing. The same evidences will not convince people of the flying man. Doug doesn't need an explanation why the resurrection didn't happen, he only needs to show the evidences hold no weight. And that's the whole purpose of the thought experiment.

[@utopiabuster]

@@johnendalk6537 , Yea, Besides the obvious fact that you in no way addressed anything in my comment, I'm gonna call that the "extraordinary claim fallacy" which means that there is evidence but that evidence is wilfully dismissed by the skeptic and hyperskeptic for some unspoken and inarticulate reason. There is no the denying Jesus's Ressurection is extraordinary, but given the fact that is in the realm of an omnipotent God to perform such a feat the event becomes highly probable. Maybe a better identification for the ECREE claim is the "kick the can down the road fallacy", meaning the skeptic can dismiss any evidence regardless of its weight. Besides, the ECREE mantra has been permanently sidelined quite a few years now given its arbitrary and subjective nature. Thanks for playing so last century.

[@mattsmith1440]

@@utopiabuster If this god exists, why doesn't it answer prayers _as claimed_ in the Bible? Also, would you consider Adolf Hitler a 'necessary being'?

[@swoosh1mil]

@@mattsmith1440 The shtick is up! You guys got nothing, except burned really hard. 🔥 🔥 🔥 🔥 🔥 🔥 🔥 🔥 🔥 🔥 🔥

[@mattsmith1440]

@@swoosh1mil That didn't address anything I said. Have another bash at it though if you like.

[@frankwhelan1715]

All doug was saying is that natural explanations(no matter how unusual or unlikely) are masssivily more likely than supernatural ones.

[@mareeyo1]

He was literally ending every one of Trent’s sentence with “yeah but what if it isn’t”

[@misterkittyandfriends1441]

Statistics are not really useful in determining what really happened during a one time event. Some non zero amount of time, the person going bananas on the street might benefit from an exorcism. We cannot reduce the cause of every instance to the most common explanations, especially when no evidence exists to support it or to discount alternatives. Discounting rare events because they are rare is just committing a flavor of black swan fallacy, especially with a complete lack of countervailing evidence. Once you've gone through the evidence and are able to dismiss all natural explanations based on presented facts and data, and have some evidence for the supernatural, then if you're a theist you might believe and if you're a materialist you try to invent some new material possibilities that have no evidence (Jesus was an alien! Or a time traveler! Or an incarnation from the universe outside our simulated universe! Paul and the Romans made Jesus up to create a religion for the empire!) or just say its unlikely. The insistence on a naturalistic explanation is really only because the materialist rejects the supernatural (that is foundationally, what we are arguing about). To break that down, we would need to introduce some doubt about that using evidence of other miracles well attested to over time, but that specific bias is a personal one. Likelihood is not a good argument when you have no real countervailing evidence to present.

[@michaelanderson4849]

Regarding that "resurrection"... Why would those women fiddle with the grave on the third day?

[@mattbernacki9282]

The Gospels explain that they were going there to complete the embalming of the body that would be typical for Jewish dead at the time.

[@michaelanderson4849]

@@mattbernacki9282 They did not embalm their dead.

[@mattbernacki9282]

@@michaelanderson4849 Mark 16.1 "And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, bought spices, that they might come and anoint him. 2 And very early on the first day of the week, they come to the tomb when the sun was risen." Call it anointing, embalming, purifying, whatever you want. You asked why they went, here's why.

[@whatsinaname691]

I wonder how PineCreek would handle the “primitive hang glider” response

[@anotherone4626]

He invites people to call in spontaneously in most of his videos. Try it out.

[@Gerschwin]

Two points I can think of since listening to the debate. 1. He seems to be a weird hybrid. He seems to be both protestant as well as atheist. 2. Not sure about this one. But he seems to think that "history" doesn't count as knowledge. So might be good to have a chat about his epistemology.

[@mike-cc3dd]

Most atheists seem to believe protestantism is the basis for christianity. Which is hilarious

[@bouncycastle955]

@@mike-cc3dd in what way?

[@mike-cc3dd]

@@bouncycastle955 how many atheists do you know that claim "i was raised in a christian home" ? Or say "well if the bible is true... then...." and use a fundamentalist protestant christian understanding to make their point?

[@bouncycastle955]

@@mike-cc3dd I don't know a lot of atheists.

[@whatwecalllife7034]

What is a "protestant" atheist?

[@thorobreu]

Tim and Lydia McGrew are the best!

[@gor764]

I really didn't appreciate Doug framing the whole thing from an epistemic point of view. Given the debate was supposed to be about assessing the historical data and seeing whether or no the resurrection is a viable answer given that data, he kept coming back to whether or not Christians truly believe what they say they believe. That's totally irrelevant to whether or not the objective facts on the ground are good enough to justify a resurrection hypothesis.

[@johnendalk6537]

Not enough (if not none) new testament scholars who weren't Christians to begin with, converted based on the evidence alone. In fact some de-converted. Why is that?

[@vejeke]

That would be desirable, that what would motivate people's beliefs would be the available evidence. Unfortunately, this is not the case when it comes to absurd and ridiculous beliefs that one fails to perceive as such. In the case of religious convictions, there are other factors that motivate the acceptance of those beliefs and whose influence, although decisive, often goes unnoticed by the person who becomes a follower of this or that religion. For example, I have no doubt that Trent Horn would be a Protestant today if his wife were also a Protestant. Coming to accept that a man was the son of a god and rose from the dead after several days, as Christians do, or that another man split the moon in two, as Muslims do, or that another man made a golden bowl go upstream, as Buddhists do, is not something that is achieved by looking at the evidence (although they believe it is). You have to have very influential predispositions to do something like that, even if those motivations are not self-evident to you at that moment. That is why it is so common that in religious matters two people come to such opposite conclusions based on the very same data. What Doug does is try to peel back the onion layer by layer because that way you're dealing with those factors that really have nothing to do with the data you're analyzing but are determinant in establishing what you believe in. I hope I have expressed myself well enough since English is not my first language.

[@gor764]

@@vejeke Luis, I couldn't tell that English was not your first language! You come across as incredibly fluent to me. Yeah I understand the tactic here, I just still think there is some fallacious reasoning implicit in it. It could be the case that I believe 2+2=4 because I was convinced from a young age that if I didn't believe this I'd be going to hell, and that it was a sacred formula that I must worship. Me having a faulty or accidental arrival at the conclusion of 2+2=4 does not tell us either way whether it's true or false. I'm not committed either way to the historical truth of the resurrection but I can tell when someone is 'missing the point' in a debate.

[@vejeke]

@@gor764 The "genetic fallacy", I think that's the fallacy you're looking for. Pinecreek wasn't even debating, he knows that's a sterile exercise and on top of that that's not one of his biggest strengths. He would have agreed to anything simply to have access to Trent's audience. Some of those people will go through his channel, hear what he really has to say, learn his story and the road he has traveled. Eventually they will laugh with him and that's when those people will start to really listen and ask questions. Mainly the same ones he had but maybe others. That alone will satisfy him. For him that's really the victory. The more people lose their fear and dare to ask certain questions, the fewer evangelicals, Muslims, Mormon Catholics, etc. there will be. kzbin.info/www/bejne/bWnFpIBth8d-ZqM

[@gor764]

@@vejeke I suppose that's the issue right there, showing up to a debate without an intent on debating the opponent but instead psycho analyzing them. I would be all down for Trent and Doug having an informal discussion where they can engage in this type of cross examination-- @TrenHorn you down?

[@marilynmelzian7370]

Thank you for bringing up the reliability of the Gospels. I think Christians do tend to concede too much. I have found the work of Richard Bauckham to be helpful. One of his books is Jesus and the Eyewitnesses. He also has some interesting lectures concerning geography in the gospels which explains some of the geographical supposed contradictions.

[@senorpoopEhead]

The scriptures only identify one witness to a risen, physical Jesus, and one witness to a vision, how much do you really have?

[@mike-cc3dd]

@@senorpoopEhead 500 + 14 + 2?

[@marcokite]

@@senorpoopEhead - you clearly have never read the scriptures. there's the female the myrrh bearer, the 11 Apostles, there's the 2 walking to Emmaus, the 500+ etc etc etc. **Alleluja! Christ is Risen!**

[@marcokite]

@@tony1685 - i will pray for your conversion. the Bible was given to the world by the Catholic Church, who do you think decided what did and didn't go in the Bible, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit of course. the Catholic Church has spent 2,000 years preaching and teaching the proof of the Bible.

[@namapalsu2364]

@@tony1685 You're an adventist. The whole premise of your sect is that all the Christian are deceived by the Catholic Chuch in worshipping on sabbath. This is pretty pathetic and ahistorical. Your sect was founded no earlier than 2 centuries ago. You think an epileptic woman, Ellen Gould White, is a prophet.

[@wkseaman]

At around 11mins in, Erik seemed to act incredulous at the thought that a clumsy natural explanation could be more probable or reasonable than a miracle. Even if miracles happen, a clumsy natural explanation is way more probable than a miracle. Even a very improbable natural explanation is way more probable than a miracle. Sincere question, how is this not obvious? edit: minor spelling/grammar

[@TestifyApologetics]

Why think that? Why think that no matter how contrived or clumsy a natural explanation is is automatically better than a supernatural explanation, no matter how clean and elegant it is. I think you'd be the one who needs to give an argument for why it would be way more probable rather than assume it as an axiom. What I'm saying, to clarify, is that If the facts can be accounted for without difficulty on the supposition of M (miracle) but not, without great implausibility, on the assumption of ∼ M , then they provide significant evidence in favor of M . Even many atheists I've talked to accept this basic principle.

[@wkseaman]

@@TestifyApologetics To start with, clumsy natural explanations probably turn out to be actual explanations all the time. There are probably uncountable instances of this that have been verified to be the case by people of various backgrounds. I don't think anything close to that statement can be said for miracle explanations. Second, inherent in a miracle is the suspension of natural laws. I almost don't even know how to react when someone tells me the onus is on me to explain why as a rule the natural is more probable than the supernatural. All respect, that sounds like gibberish to me. To your second statement. Miracle claims are like cheat codes for explanations. When you can suspend natural law, anything can be explained. So of course miracles can explain all facts without difficulty. It's like you are saying "My explanation that explains all things completely everywhere, explains this thing here." I mean, again all respect, no sh*t. But the thought that this statement is significant evidence...why think that? edit: minor spelling/grammar

[@TestifyApologetics]

@@wkseaman So if the prior probabilty of a miracle is just so low that no amount of evidence can overcome it, how would you ever know if you're wrong? You're just kind of stuck in an evidential cul-de-sac. I think this is a helpful quote by Thomas Sherlock, writing before Hume ever made his in-principle argument against belief in miracles. "Consider it the other way. Suppose you saw a man publicly executed, his body afterwards wounded by the executioner, and carried and laid in the grave; that after this you should be told that the man was come to life again; what would you suspect in this case? Not that the man had never been dead, for that you saw yourself; but you would suspect whether he was now alive. But would you say, this case excluded all human testimony, and that men could not possibly discern whether one with whom they conversed familiarly was alive or no? On what ground could you say this? A man rising from the grave is an object of sense, and can give the same evidence of his being alive as any other man in the world can give. So that a resurrection considered only as a fact to be proved by evidence, is a plain case; it requires no greater ability in the witnesses than that they be able to distinguish between a man dead and a man alive; a point in which I believe every man living thinks himself a judge. I do allow that this case and others of like nature require more evidence to give them credit than ordinary cases do. You may therefore require more evidence in these than in other cases; but it is absurd to say that such cases admit no evidence, when the things in question are manifestly objects of sense."

[@wkseaman]

@@TestifyApologetics I mean, I never said no amount of evidence could convince me. Why would you assume that? I can see how assuming that makes it easier to reject my position, but it only hurts the conversation. The problem with supernatural miracle claims is that just the event is all the evidence needed for the miracle....because the miracle already carries with it the ability to explain anything. If anyone has a problem with handling evidence, I think it's you. Next, that quote didn't help at all. Every turn in that scenario could present a situation where an unsubstantiated natural explanation would be far more probable than the person rising from the dead. Also, I never suggested that the cases admit "no evidence". I suggested they didn't admit "significant evidence" for the miracle. If pushed, I would say they barely present any at all, but not none. Given all that, consider this. You are watching a magic show. You admire one of the tricks and try to guess how it was done. Someone turns around and asks what you mean...that was done by supernatural magic. He goes on to say that his explanation explains all the facts and doesn't require any additional information. It's a simple effective explanation. Of course you reject this...but why? Your explanation is a sloppily put together natural explanation and the case obviously admits significant evidence for the miracle right? edit: minor spelling/grammar

[@senorpoopEhead]

@@wkseaman Why would Testify assume that? I think it's pretty obvious. But I'll be interested to see if he drops the rhetoric and is willing to have an actual back-and-forth conversation.

[@BrentKalar]

In order to defeat the flying man, one needs to do two things: 1. Raise the prior probability for Jesus' resurrection ... 2. ...in a way that can't be done for Myron's flight, not even hypothetically. Doug believes these two things can't be done, since he thinks that, whatever evidence the Christian gives, he can include in his thought experiment. However, -this is not true, if you actually produce philosophical, historical, and theological arguments that are specifically designed to show the specialness of Jesus' resurrection. Doug is competent neither to produce parallel arguments for Myron, nor to produce counter-arguments against Jesus. He simply lacks the ability to do so. -also, once you raise the prior, even if you allow a parallel for Myron, it is no longer so clear that you would be an "uncritical credulous fool" to believe it (which is the second half of the dilemma Doug wants to force, the first half being the charge of being inconsistent in your epistemic standards). So you avoid the trap.

[@mozzarellamartyrdom7948]

sounds like a ton of mental gymnastics Brent 😅

[@mike-cc3dd]

@@mozzarellamartyrdom7948 basically a way to defeat a test/argument based in mental gymnastics.

[@mozzarellamartyrdom7948]

@@mike-cc3dd not all gymnastics is created equal 😂 I get your point, but I still think it's a good exercise. Better than arguing with walls, which is what most apologists / counter-apologists do

[@dr.shousa]

I don't think you understand Bayesian epistemology, Brent.

[@vulteiuscatellus4105]

@@dr.shousa Where can I find your paper on Bayesianism in philosophy?

[@wingedlion17]

As a skeptic I much rather Christian’s do the max data approach, minimal facts has always seems sketchy to me, especially since the facts being present are not what Christians actually believe

[@johnendalk6537]

The flying man's analogy's main point is why waste time with the minimal facts, with all these letters etc, as if they are good evidences? If you don't believe the flying man for those same "evidences", when you list evidences for the resurrection, just go straight to the evidences that matter: the evidence that helped go from total unbelief to kinda believing. Aplogists list all these evidences that add nothing to the topic as if many not-good evidences add up to something good. Edit: Grammar, spelling

[@misterkittyandfriends1441]

When evaluating circumstantial evidence, the power of the evidence is due to the explanatory power of the whole, and lack of countervailing evidence, rather than any specific piece of evidence. So it's all "good evidence" but there is no piece of evidence that is solely "sufficient". As a member of a jury you might be told that an alleged murderer: 1. Owned a common style knife similar to the recovered murder weapon, and the alleged is unable to produce that weapon. 2. Was known to have been in the area where the murder occurred 3. Was friends with the victim but had a falling out 2 weeks ago 4. The victim texted their girlfriend they were going to meet an unidentified person at that location to talk None of these specific pieces of evidence is really sufficient, but taken together it seems likely that the alleged murderer is guilty. A piece or sufficient evidence might be a HD video of the murder, or the allegeds prints in the knife or victims blood on his shirt. The problem with arguments against the resurrection like the flying man analogy is that it offers no countervailing evidence, and the power of circumstantial evidence is a function of one's general skepticism - skepticism itself is not an argument. Implying that nobody should accept circumstantial evidence is ridiculous, but is common in certain atheist circles.

[@nickf4333]

@@misterkittyandfriends1441 thank you, I found the example helpful 👍

[@xaviervelascosuarez]

I still think that Doug made the best case for the Resurrection...

[@zacharyboudreau9127]

First (and therefore, last…)

[@davethebrahman9870]

Trent Horn is wrong about Sabbatai Zvi. Tens of thousands of Jews continued to follow him even after his apostasy and death. The parallels with Jesus are striking.

[@adiesumpermariam4111]

Where are his followers now?

[@simonpaulsen6228]

Ah Trent,Erik doesn't have a beard

[@TestifyApologetics]

Yeah, admittedly it's mostly stubble. I'd make a lousy Orthdox priest.

[@paradisecityX0]

You're way too charitable to Piney. He's really not that smart. Once you use his tactics against him (it drives him nuts when you play rhetorical games with his beliefs), he's got little else. You could just as easily play "how do you know that?" over and over with any given account of George Washington, Napoleon, or any historical figure. Or any number of things pertaining to science. Besides the fact that he thinks mythicism is valid (in which case he loses all intellectual credibility), he's a bad faith troll overall and his uncultured followers are clearly not interested in rational discourse

[@computationaltheist7267]

Triple P. It is always good to see you here. I hope all is well. How come you're not uploading new interviews in your channel? I would love for you to interview Dr. John Walton. Your channel is cool.

[@paradisecityX0]

@@computationaltheist7267 Long story short, l broke both my hands. Slow recovery. Will be back soon

[@resurrectionnerd]

@@paradisecityX0 What miracle events surrounded the lives of George Washington or Napoleon?

[@paradisecityX0]

@@resurrectionnerd For instance, George Washington was reported (by Indians no less) to have bullets flying past him while standing on the battlefield, even through his coat. You do know that most ancient historical figures had miracles attributed to them as well right? Do you doubt anything Caesar did? Alexander? If not, then we can deduce that your selective skepticism about Jesus is emotional, not rational

[@diegofuentes6639]

@@paradisecityX0 Pine Creep is currently doing a live stream critiquing this video. Nothing seems to convince him

[@stevendonohoe2150]

The point is the evidence is extremely poor hence why less & less people are believing in God. Everything else is just noise. Beleive because it makes you feel good & gives you hope & meaning. That makes more sense then trying to make arguments with no substance.

[@macrologic7221]

You'd have to rebut Trent's opening statement in the debate where he makes the case that the resurrection is actually the most likely explanation rather than many simultaneous freak events. And no, you should not follow the doctrines of liars, no matter how good they make you feel, so it's important to find the truth of the matter.

[@senorpoopEhead]

@@macrologic7221 A man returning from the dead after three days is the "most likely" explanation? Really?

[@macrologic7221]

@@senorpoopEhead That was Trent's opening statement, yes. Go watch the debate to find out more.

[@artistforthefaith9571]

"The point is the evidence is extremely poor hence why less & less people are believing in God" This is one of the biggest joke arguments that the atheist throws out. Let's make this exceedingly clear, we as a society are less logical than we were 200 years ago. The idea that we have progressed anywhere good is only a notion held by people who have never picked up a book outside of school. You, like the good little sheep you are, regurgitate everything your masters tell you to. You, like the vast majority of atheists, are unable to think for themselves outside of your social programming. The atheist corruption of society can be easily seen, you however like to shut your ears and pretend everything is for the better. The atheist society is devoid of any logic, and what may be worse, any commonsense.

[@namapalsu2364]

Testify?! He's a McGrewpie who likes to rail against Licona/Habermas (minimal fact approach). Ha! I'm definetely on team Licona. But I like Tim McGrew. It's complicated LOL. I still think minimal facts is a great tool.

[@treytaylor1511]

I think the minimal fact arguments plays an important role in building the case for the resurrection as well, but could we really say it warrants ones belief in a resurrection having actually occurred? I'm not willing to throw out the baby with the bath water, but we've certainly gotta put something in its place to substantiate that void, and the maximal facts approach fills that void.

[@Oskar1000]

Weird to think Doug commits the beard fallacy. He had a sliding scale on screen. Clearly He doesn't think it is binary.

[@Oskar1000]

@Boko Cycle I think the sliding scale shows that Doug understands it is a matter of degrees. It was a shame that Trent never seemed to leave the very left of the spectrum though. Made the whole thing unclear.

[@bouncycastle955]

@Boko Cycle it isn't a fallacy of the beard though. He's not asking how many pieces of evidence is sufficient to believe something, he's taking something that Trent believes and asking if he'd still believe if some of the evidence is missing. It's to pinpoint what he thinks the important data is. There are probably many reasons you think the internet works, this very comment is probably one of them. Would you still believe if I didn't respond? I imagine it's a pretty easy yes. What if there wasn't a single website in existence? Probably depends on how much you know about the internet. But it isn't difficult for an individual to answer questions like that if they are being honest with themselves.

[@Oskar1000]

@Boko Cycle If you couldn't even specify a roughly area where you'd consider a man is starting to get beardy. I would think you are weird. This is all Doug is asking for. What summation of evidence roughly tips you over.

[@bouncycastle955]

@Boko Cycle that's Trent misunderstanding the hypothetical, yes. Trent not understanding something isn't Doug doing anything...

[@Oskar1000]

@Boko Cycle Yes, hope they do that. I think this will make it clear that Doug isn't commiting this fallacy. It's just curious to us atheist, because we see all the evidence and it doesn't tip us over. Not even nearly. So it's interesting to see where the difference lies. For miracle claims I would want independent people I could interview in person. Maybe video clips and live footage. Sceptics at the scene. Etc. It's fascinating how mainly ancient text from a couple of people does so much for Christians. (I know there are some other factors besides the texts, lone the spread but still)

[@mattsmith1440]

The best explanation of the resurrection _story_ is: it's a story. You don't really have to posit peer reviewed hypotheses for that one I suspect.

[@joachimwest3217]

Trent and his followers, I think you guys generally missed the point. Pinecreek made a video recently responding to this video and I do think it's worth watching if you do want to understand what the other side is saying instead of just talking past each other. I think that debating him instead of having a conversation with him was a mistake because you weren't able to ask the questions that you might have needed to ask in order to understand where he is coming from. I come from a somewhat similar position as Pinecreek but I think I'm even more cynical than him. In my eyes Christianity has a long history of simply being a way for the rich and powerful to control superstitious and poor people and even today it's the perfect tool for sociopaths to make money off of desperate people and I think that the reason that it's such a great tool for that goes back to it's roots.. Look at the luxury and wealth of the Vatican and the Church's treasures in Rome. I mean, don't you guys see people like Benny Hinn and a million like him fleecing the flock every day? It goes back to how the bible talks about money and about power creating readers who are primed to be sheep to be eaten. I mean, wolves don't dress in sheep clothing to trick the sheep and eat them. Shepherds are the ones who wear sheep clothing. Shepherds are the ones who fleece sheep and shepherds eat sheep. Even the good shepherds do this. That's the reason that people generally take care of flocks of sheep.. Even in the New Testament the first "church" was fleecing the flock. Don't believe me? In the gospels the followers of Jesus gave money to the church and then Judas would steal from the common purse of which he was in charge. I've never seen magic or a miracle but what I do see every day is people making mistakes, people being wrong, people lying and people teaching other people things about religion so that they can make money from them. I'm not saying that all religious teachers are sociopaths, not at all but what I am saying is that I don't think that Joseph Smith met the Angel Moroni who gave him the golden plates. I think he was a con man. I don't think that Benny Hinn has any magic powers, even if all of his congregants fall down at once and the whole world can watch it on tv. It's not a miracle, its just a con man and group psychology, people lying to themselves. I don't think that Christianity is special from all the other religions, it's just the invention of humans, some of whom were honest but mistaken and some who were liars and wrote books while pretending to be Peter or Paul etc.

[@juice2307]

This assumption is contradicted by the majority of first and second century writings of the Church Fathers, all of which are intellectual. They are grounded in reason, not cheap magic tricks or emotional delirium like the televangelists pedal. What you describe is a Protestantism problem, not a Christianity problem. True Christianity is Catholic/Orthodox, as history shows. I recommend actually researching our history and the people who succeeded the apostles before trying to make a straw man argument that mischaracterizes our history and what first century Christians were like and why they believed what they believed.

[@joachimwest3217]

​@@juice2307 Pretend for a second that you aren't a disciple of Paul who founded a church in Rome that ended up evolving into the most powerful church in the world. Instead, pretend for a second that you are one of the Pharisees that came to believe in Jesus before Paul and joined the apostles in Jerusalem and then Paul comes along saying that to be a member of the body of Christ you no longer have to be circumsized. You hear that he is teaching that it is now clean to eat food that has been sacrificed to idols and that it is clean to eat with gentiles. Your brothers in Jerusalem believe the same as you, that Paul is a heretic who is teaching contrary to what you learned about Jesus, that he was devoted to the law of Moses and that you should be as well. Maybe there are some other big differences as well. Maybe in your view Jesus wasn't born of a virgin as the son of God but was adopted by God at his baptism. When the "Church Fathers" argue out of their books that Jesus said this or that, what do you care? You think that Paul was a liar and a heretic and that you have the true lineage to Jesus!!! It sounds to me like you have only looked at one side of the coin but sometimes there are two stories and not just one and what happens with history is that the winner writes the history books. There were lots of Christian sects in early Christianity with various ideas and they all thought they were right. Just because they didn't win the popularity contest doesn't mean that they were wrong. Think of what is happening right now in Russia. I heard a news story the other day about a man who called his father on the phone from Ukraine, his father lives in Russia, and he told his father that they were being bombed by the Russians. His father didn't believe him! No matter how hard he tried to convince his father that Russia was bombing innocent civilians, his father wouldn't believe him. Instead, his father explained to him that Russia was handing out blankets and supplies to civilians as it tried to liberate the people of Ukraine from the Neo-Nazi regime and that there wasn't a war but simply a military operation to liberate people. You might want to look into what contemporary New Testament scholars and historians are saying about early Christian history and not just the view of the Catholic Church which has a history of being untrustworthy anyways. You might really like some of the work that Dr. James Tabor has done on "James" for example. He has a good book on James but if you are a watcher and not a reader he also has plenty of recordings online. One of the biggest reasons that I'm not a Christian is because I have read the church fathers and I've read the new testament many times and I discovered what Dr. James Tabor and many, many other historians and new testament scholars are saying by myself. I also recommend that you read what religious leaders say with a bit more skepticism, even your own religious leaders.

[@CharlesHuckelbery]

You give a bunch of assertions absent any proof

[@Greyz174]

The evidence for Paul feeling bad and changing his life is that we know these things can happen and we know that these details wouldnt necessarily be intact hundreds or thousands of years later. And we know people produce visions when they need them. The evidence we have is that we know from other examples that this is possible. The same cant be said about Jesus actually appearing to him or anyone. Not that we have to throw out Jesus just because we've never seen something like it, but theres more evidence that Paul couldve felt secretly bad than there is for a genuine appearance of the resurrected son of god

[@semidemiurge]

The Flying Man thought experiement is an excellent test of one's consistency. It is troubling to Chrisitans in that it shows their inconsistency. Christians have different rules for what is "good evidence". One standard is for their religious beliefs and another standard for everything else in their life. The Flying Man thought experiment is a simple method to demonstrate this fact.

[@mike-cc3dd]

Nope. It relies on a false equivalency. The more the person who responds to the answers with qualifiers which apply to Jesus but not the flying man the more the test breaks down. Hence the reason pine was so afraid to let him clarify. Its like asking when a person stopped beating their wife and demanding a date and time. Its a weak test

[@semidemiurge]

@@mike-cc3dd The FMTE follows the same train of evidence as there is for the resurrection. It only substitutes the FM for the resurection as the subject for which believability is being gaged.

[@petery6432]

@@semidemiurge The problem with the flying man is this. Evidence for Resurrection: X,Y,Z. Evidence for Flying Man: Parody of X,Y,Z. That parody is the fundamental problem with the flying man analogy. We don't believe the flying man because we know that your evidence is completely made up because you want it to fit the evidence for the resurrection to a tee. Thus, we won't believe any documents you write up in your spare time to parody the resurrection because we know why these documents exist: As a parody of the resurrection. Given that the Gospels are implied to have been written with the purpose of recording history accurately to the best of the author's ability, our reason for rejecting the flying man cannot be applied to the Gospels. It is an a priori reason, meaning it doesn't matter what evidence you claim you have for the flying man, this reason defeats it entirely. Even if you decide to lie to us and yourself and claim that you didn't make it up, you now hold the burden of proof with your claims. You need to demonstrate that this document you have actually goes back to the person you claim it does. And you can never, ever, ever demonstrate that it went back to that person because you made it up and you know it.

[@semidemiurge]

@@petery6432 "Given that the Gospels are implied to have been written with the purpose of recording history accurately to the best of the author's ability, " How do you know this?

[@semidemiurge]

@@petery6432 The FM thought experiment uses the same evidence that is used for the resurrection, the ONLY DIFFERENCE is the subject, i.e flying man vs resurrection. It is a fascinating study in psychology to observe the various rationalizations you are attempting to make to cope with the cognitive dissonance that is brought about by the flying man thought experiment.

[@semidemiurge]

The gospels were written by anonomous authors speaking/writing in a different language 30-90 years after Jesus' death. They were not eyewitnesses. They simply wrote down stories that they heard and frequently embellished/modified them to conform with the changing Christian theology over that ~60yr time period.

[@tuav]

no

[@mike-cc3dd]

Nope and nope and nope. Wow. How many things can you get wrong in one post?

[@semidemiurge]

@@mike-cc3dd You seem to think writing nope is an adequate rebuttal. A simple search on Wikipedia for "gospels" gives this. I quote "The four canonical gospels were probably written between AD 66 and 110.[5][6][7] All four were anonymous (with the modern names added in the 2nd century), almost certainly none were by eyewitnesses, and all are the end-products of long oral and written transmission.[8]".

[@treytaylor1511]

@@semidemiurge Did you fr just use Wikipedia as a source of information?

[@semidemiurge]

@@treytaylor1511 Wikipedia has footnotes to the original sources. Please check them.

[@catbilota2492]

Erik Looks Punjabi