Відео

The objection you mentioned is answered in chapter 8 of my book Investigating the resurrection of Jesus

@@andrewloke7 No offence, but I don’t have to read a book or buy your book to learn common-sense. Not to be arch about it, while you can “respond” to my objecting, you cannot “answer” it, or resolve it. Right reason after all prevails. It is comic, you know. To watch the devotees of various gods construct enormous edifices of theological discourse, as large as libraries of Soviet revolutionary thought and quite as dense, for their favorite deities. (Couldn’t all of theology be a branch of cryptozoology?) You will admit that only one of these deities can be real (and you will assert that it is yours, just as the Hindu asserts that his are the true ones). Or that they are all fictions (my claim). You will admit that they likelihood that anyone is a devotee of any particular one has most to withthe culture of family, place of birth than any rational comparison of contenders. John Godfrey Saxe concludes, “So, oft in theologic wars The disputants, I ween, Rail on in utter ignorance Of what each other mean, And prate about an Elephant Not one of them has seen!” Just don’t feed Apu’s god peanuts.

@@oldpossum57 Since you only seem to be interested in airing your own opinions without bothering to read the refutations of your objections which point out the errors in your reasonings , there is no point replying to you further as it would be a waste of time . Farewell.

@@andrewloke7 Oh, yes, fare thee well. As you travel, you will find yourself in good company: there are good Muslim clerics that have shaken the dust off their feet and left ne, there are Hindus who have despaired of me, there are (I guess) devotees of JohnFrum wondering why I do not build a scale model of a cargo plane in my backyard. I am sure you folks must have the most delightful discussions of the merits of your gods: locally we ask each other questions just as abstruse: could the 1971 Habs defeat the 1967/Leafs? There is no end of making many books. I have some thousands in this house to read And there are as many fool’s errands as there are fools to run them. I don’t propose to run them. I do not pretend, of course, that the scientific approach to understanding has solved all the problems and mysteries we can pose. Give it time. Some might well be beyond the grasp of the human ape’s capacity to cogitate. Well, I’d rather be stumped for an answer than make one up. Peddle your book elsewhere.

He misunderstood my views and ignored the reasons I gave for my arguments, and thus failed to refute my Kalam. You will see my response on academia.edu in one week's time

@@andrewloke7 will wait for your response. God bless

@@AryanSahu-e7u I have posted my response here, please share it with him and his followers: www.academia.edu/115795811/Reply_to_Richard_Carrier_concerning_the_Kalam_Cosmological_Argument

@@andrewloke7 will post this in his first blog post which he posted after debate. Your response piece is voluminous. Thanks again for accepting my request

@@andrewloke7 Dr loke, I have posted your reply in the comment section, but still it hasn't been published. I'll update when it gets published.

Loke is gonna dominate 😅

@@logans.butler285unlikely

Your conclusion is a non-sequitur. The appearance to Paul was post-ascension, and Paul’s use of verbs in the sequence does not exclude a separate/distinct act of ascending. You failed to note that the sequence in 1 Cor 15 was obviously not intended to be a complete account of the details of events but a summary of what must have been told in fuller forms elsewhere (Loke 2020 chapter 2) which was latter preserved in the Gospels (Wright 2003, 611) including Luke-Acts which you quoted and which indicate the appearances were understood as taking place on earth. Thus your objection fails. Btw, I notice that you have been posting a lot of comments attacking Christianity on various online platforms; if you really think that you have good arguments, why not submit them to an academic peer-reviewed journal/monograph and get them published? Or perhaps you are not willing to confront the fact that your objections are of poor academic standard?

​​​@@andrewloke7 There is no reason in 1 Cor 15 to regard the other appearances as occurring prior to the Ascension/exaltation of Jesus, which makes the nature of them ambiguous and so insufficient to establish they involved "extramental" phenomenona which is required in order to maintain the appearances were veridical. Without veridical appearances, the resurrection argument fails. Appealing to the later legendary stories in the gospels and Acts fails as well. I was making an internal critique of your own commitment to the idea that the sequence "died, buried, raised, appeared" is not necessarily evidence of earthbound appearances in physical reality. This shows appealing to egeiro doesn't help your argument. If you appeal to the gospels and Acts, that is a tacit concession that the evidence in Paul's letters is ambiguous. Meaning in the earliest and only firsthand Christian evidence we have, it cannot be demonstrated the Resurrection appearances had anything to do with reality! The gospel narratives grow in the telling and so any appeal to their historicity can be countered with an appeal to legendary growth given how they evolve consecutively from Mark, Matthew Luke and John. Each resurrection appearance narrative is entirely different and inconsistent with one another with the latter stories in Luke and John showing clear signs of apologetic motivation. None of the gospel resurrection narratives even match Paul's appearance chronology from 1 Cor 15. So appealing to them actually hurts your case.

@@counteringchristianity You claim ‘There is no reason…’ without replying to the arguments I gave in my previous post and ignoring the historical context of 1 Cor 15 which I discuss in chapter 2. You claim that the resurrection narratives in the gospels and Acts are ‘later legendary stories’ without replying to the arguments I gave in Chapter 2, 4 and 5 of my book (citing Wright and others) which indicate that they are not legendary stories and are consistent with Paul. You claim that you are making ‘an internal critique of your own commitment’ while ignoring the context of my discussion of the sequence "died, buried, raised, appeared" in chapter 2, as well as the context of our discussion of egeiro in our previous correspondence on the comment section of Sean McDowell’s website where I cite egeirō together with other considerations which you have ignored, and which indicate that the evidence is not ambiguous. And you also didn’t answer the questions in my previous post. Since there is no point continuing conversation with someone who repeatedly fail to reply to arguments and questions (and who repeatedly repeat objections which I have already answered in my book and previous posts), I shall end it here.

@@andrewloke7 1. Historically reliable eyewitness testimony does not look like legends evolving. 2. The gospels and Acts look like legends evolving. 3. Therefore, the gospels and Acts are not historically reliable eyewitness testimony. Here's the TLDR version for the Resurrection being a legend. 1. Paul - no evidence of a Resurrected Jesus that remained on the earth or had his formerly dead corpse touched after revivification. Uses a "revelation" (Gal. 1:16) as an "appearance" in 1 Cor 15:8 without distinguishing it from the others in 1 Cor 15:5-7. 2. Mark - no evidence a resurrection _narrative_ existed yet since the original ended at Mk. 16:8. 3. Matthew - appearance in Galilee which some doubt - Mt. 28:17. 4. Luke - totally different appearance in Jerusalem where Jesus makes sure to say he's "not a spirit" but composed of flesh and bone, eats fish and is witnessed ascending to heaven! 5. John - Jesus can teleport through locked doors and we get the Doubting Thomas story. Now for the longer version. 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. There is no evidence an appearance narrative existed at this point, 40 years after the death of Jesus. The story just predicts Jesus will be "seen" in Galilee in some sense. The original ends at 16:8 where the women leave and tell no one. Mark's order of appearances: Not applicable. There is no evidence an appearance _narrative_ existed at this point. - Matthew c. 80 CE - has the women run to tell the disciples, contradicting Mark's ending. Along the way, Jesus suddenly appears and they grab Jesus' feet. This happens _before_ reaching any disciples which contradicts both Luke and John's depictions. Then there is an appearance in Galilee which "some doubt" - Mt. 28:17. This is strange since Jn. 20:19 says Jesus already appeared the same night of the Resurrection. 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. This shows that Christian authors _did invent_ details. Matthew's order of appearances: Two women (before reaching any disciples), then to the eleven disciples. The appearance to the women takes place after they leave 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. Lk. 24:5-8 alters what the angels say and _erases_ the reference to a future appearance in Galilee from Mk. 16:6-7 cf. Mt. 28:5-7. All of Luke's appearances happen in or around Jerusalem which somehow went unnoticed by the authors of Mark and Matthew. He appears to two people on the Emmaus Road who don't recognize him at first. Jesus then vanishes and suddenly appears to the Eleven disciples (which would include Thomas). 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 and implies they _didn't_ see Jesus. 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. Lk. 24:22-24 seems to exclude any appearance to the women. The women's report in Lk. 24:9-10 is missing any mention of seeing Jesus which contradicts Mt. 28:8-11 and Jn. 20:11-18. - John 90-110 CE - Jesus appears to Mary Magdalene outside the tomb but only _after_ she told Peter and the "other disciple." This contradicts Matthew and Luke. Jesus then teleports through locked doors, appears to the disciples then a week later 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. There is another appearance by the Sea of Galilee in Jn. 21. John's order of appearances: Mary Magdalene (after telling Peter and the other disciple), the disciples minus Thomas (but Lk. 24:33 implies Thomas was there), 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.

Thank you for your comment. I have chosen to stop engaging with some but to continue engaging with others whose comments can help me better understand which points those people are ignorant of, which is part of my research and which can help me better educate other people in the future by teaching those points.

What is the basis for your assertion ?

@@andrewloke7 the basis is that I live in reality, not fiction. Magical stories are not real Dr Loke. With all due respect it seems rather silly to believe fantastic stories based on a book written by ancient peoples.

@@samkadi5443 What is the basis for your assertion that the stories in the Bible are magical fantastic stories that are fictional?

@@andrewloke7 see above. Mythology has magical stories. The Bible has magical stories so it is reasonable to think the Bible is fiction and not real. You need to be gullible to think the stories in the Bible are true. I’m not gullible and I have no need for Christianity to be true. You on the other hand have a vested interest in maintaining Your faith. I don’t.

@@samkadi5443 I’m sorry but it seems that you have just committed the logically fallacy of affirming the consequent. You wrote ‘Mythology has magical stories. The Bible has magical stories so it is reasonable to think the Bible is fiction and not real.’ It is like saying ‘Elephant has four legs. My dog has four legs, so it is reasonable to think that my dog is an elephant.’ You need to understand basic logic and reasoning (as well as some other things) first, before you can realize that the stories in the Bible are true. Without an understanding of basic logic you are being gullible in dismissing the Bible, as well as making fallacious ad hominem arguments like talking about vested interest.

In the science and religion literature Ancient (‘old’) Adam is a term that is often used (or implied) in contrast with Neolithic Adam. You also failed to consider the Stanford Encyclopedia article I cited, which shows that there are different definitions of humanity, and that science itself does not provide the answer to determine what are the sufficient conditions for humanity ontologically. Thus you fail to show how my model ‘fails to harmonise the Bible with science, and highlights some of the incoherencies in it’ as you claimed. In short, your objection fails.

@@andrewloke7 why do you keep making this category error? Science (meaning evolutionary biology) doesn't have anything to say on the 'sufficient conditions for humanity ontologically' because ontologically, there is no such thing as 'humanity'. Humanity is a sociological term. It's a word that normatively speaking, is simply a place holder to refer to living organisms that are members of the species Homo sapiens, rather than any other extant species. It is fundamentally flawed as a scientific concept, because we now know about evolution - which is why 'humanity' is not a scientific statement about ontology, and no scientist claims it to be. That doesn't mean the word isn't used in a relative way by scientists, but when they do use the term, they use it with the tacit understanding that it's not a concrete, objective idea in the way you want it to be. But what is concrete, is that there is universal consensus that by definition, Homo sapiens is human. All Homo sapiens. That's not to say that all humans are Homo sapiens. I don't care about your arbitrary distinctions between 'old' Adam and 'neolithic' Adam - Homo sapiens has existed as a discrete species for over 300,000 years. Your own definition of what entails a human (ie religiosity) claims that for 98% of Homo sapiens' existence, they were not human. That doesn't sound very much like the Bible harmonising with science.

@@bengreen171 Your objection is based on a failure to note the distinction between anatomical homo and behavioral homo, a distinction which scientists themselves use as noted in the Stanford Encyclopedia article (Roughley 2021). Your objection that ‘Your own definition of what entails a human (ie religiosity) claims that for 98% of Homo sapiens' existence, they were not human. That doesn't sound very much like the Bible harmonising with science’ fails to note that some secular scientists have drawn the restriction even tighter ‘to include only contemporary humans, that is, those specimens of the species who, since the introduction of agriculture around 12,000 years ago, evolved the skills and capacities necessary for life in large sedentary, impersonal and hierarchical groups (Kappeler, Fichtel, & van Schaik 2019: 68).’ (Roughley 2021). Which is not a problem for those secular scientists unless they embrace your unjustified assumption that anatomical Homo sapiens is human (rather than merely ‘anatomical’ human). For goodness sake, please read the Stanford Encyclopedia article to correct your ignorance of what scientists and philosophers actually say, before you continue to raise unjustified objections. I have been advised by someone else in the comments section to stop wasting time debating with ignorant people and spend more time on important research. So I shall end here.

@@andrewloke7 "Your objection is based on a failure to note the distinction between anatomical homo and behavioral homo," No. I'm not talking about the genus Homo. I'm talking about one species within that genus - Homo sapiens. Scientists to not make concrete distinctions between members of that species from 200,000 years ago, 20,000 years ago or 2 years ago. You are the one claiming that one species can be divided into two groups - 'human' and 'non human', and your criterion is simply not one that science recognises. "Which is not a problem for those secular scientists unless they embrace your unjustified assumption that anatomical Homo sapiens is human (rather than merely ‘anatomical’ human)." What you don't seem to realise is that anatomical HUMANS and cognitive HUMANS and behavioural HUMANS are still being labelled as HUMANS. The qualifiers used here are simply arbitrary distinctions used for clarity with regards to what section of the timeline is being referenced. The difference is that those qualifiers "anatomical" and "cognitive" and "behavioural" do not negate the "HUMAN" categorisation. Whereas you claim they do. So if we have uncovered anything here, it's that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how scientists use the term 'Human', and that you actually think that members of a discrete species can be 'otherised' for arbitrary differences that are not based on any scientifically objective standard. That is called racism. To be clear, I'm not accusing you of being racist here - just your categorisation system. You can claim all you like that I'm the ignorant one - but you've shown that you are scientifically illiterate and logically incompetent. You don't seem to realise that in standard scientific nomenclature 'Homo' is capitalised.

@@andrewloke7 do you know what Homo means?

Thanks for your comment, I had asked the publisher about making this book open access, but they have not yet replied to me.

Good question! You can indeed use my modus tollens argument to show that the conclusion of the objection is flawed. The causal principle is not above God, grounded in God or created/set by God, but merely descriptive of the fact that out of nothing nothing comes.

@@andrewloke7 Ohh Thank You for responding, made my day. I’m still an amateur in philosophy so this follow up question might sound dull. How does this descriptive fact or descriptive facts in general exist? I’m a fellow Brother in Christ btw and my assumption is that without the universe, God is all that exist so then I guess I’m confused on how descriptive facts would or could co-exist with God. Are they grounded in him? I apologize if this sounds like I’m repeating myself 😅.

@@PeterChoi444 You’re welcome. Suppose that without the universe God is all that exist, then in that state there would be nothing else that would bring about something else. In this case the ‘fact’ is simply a description of the absence of anything (else) which coexist with God, rather than something that coexist with God.

His video response is very long-more than 10 times longer than my critique. I don’t have time at the moment to watch the whole thing. If you can summarize his main points below (with timestamp references), I will be happy to respond to them.

Thanks for letting me know. I will try to find time to check out what he says.

@@andrewloke7 thank you for your time and hard works. Btw Joe and Rationality Rules are currently making a really big in-depth Series on Kalam. They said episode 5 will be on one of your arguments. Currently they only uploaded 3 episodes . They discussed this in their episode 3 video.hereua-cam.com/video/xFyk700PdC8/v-deo.html

You're welcome! May God bless you and your ministry!

So you should be open minded to follow the evidence and become a Mormon :) As for me, I will not become a Mormon because I am aware that (contrary to what you claimed) it is not true that everything I said applies to Joseph. For some important differences, see this article: seanmcdowell.org/blog/was-joseph-smith-a-martyr

@@andrewloke7 Of course the rules only apply to your case. That's what confirmation bias does to one's belief. If we were to find another multi-witnessed 'miracle' in another religion, then i'm sure you'd find excuses why your rules don't apply there. Your bias is apparent to everyone who doesn't buy into your presupposition that the Bible is the only truth out there. Every religion says the same about their sacred book. Which is why none of them are true, including yours.

@@ingersoll_bob As I said, if you think the rules also apply to Mormonism, then you should be open minded to follow the evidence and become a Mormon. You didn't answer this point. Your refusal to do so is an indication of what confirmation bias has done to your secular belief. Your refusal to address the reasons mentioned in the article I cited seanmcdowell.org/blog/was-joseph-smith-a-martyr is apparent to everyone, and is an indication of your bias against the possibility that the Bible is true. Your claim that ‘Every religion says the same about their sacred book. Which is why none of them are true’ is a non-sequitur and an indication of your superficiality in thinking and your stubborn refusal to consider the specific evidence for or against specific religions. Isn't this another indication of what confirmation bias has done to your secular belief?

@@andrewloke7 I was a Christian for 35 years. I considered the Bible true. It's not a bias anymore. I see no good evidence for it being true. It's no better than any collection of legend stories, is not corroborated by history and is nothing but a bunch of stories of people just saying its true. You've failed to consider your own biases and your refusal to so is and indication that you've can't think rationally about this subject. You're quick to make assumptions about who you're talking to. You don't question your interlocutor which is another one of your downfalls in discussions with people. You fail to interact with others and preach from your perch of 'higher education' which gives you an air of pomposity, another indication of your confirmation bias. I dare say you're still on the down-slope of the Dunning-Kruger and you're certainly at top of the chart on name-calling. If people applied your actions to "What Would Jesus Do", you'd fail as a Christian. There's no love and hope in your words. All I see is a man who MUST be right instead of following the supposed teachings of the son so called one-true god.

Robert Ingersoll, well response to Andrew. I have a good laugh listening to his distorted logic and wishful thinking. It is a perfect example of an intelligent person's brain toasted by religious indoctrination. All is needed is for god to show itself, then no more saliva will be wasted on possibility of miracle nor resurrection. Of course he cannot, hence he needs to use twisted logic to argue, like a salesman selling sands in sahara. Surely the gullible will buy sand.

Thank you for your feedback. You can use the contents of this video to challenge Paulogia on twitter. Thanks also for letting me know about 'Friendly Atheist', I took a quick look at one of his videos and it seems to be based on common misunderstandings of the Bible.

Thank you for your comment!

Here’s a modus tollens argument😊 In our written debate Paulogia argues concerning 1 Cor 15:3-11 that there is no explicit statement in the letters of Paul which tells us where Paul got that information from, therefore the information is unreliable (call this the Paulogia Principle [PP]). The modus tollens is as follows: 1. If PP is true, then Paul’s statement that James was Jesus’ brother is unreliable. 2.Paul’s statement that James was Jesus’ brother is reliable (Ehrman) 3.Therefore, PP is false. For explanations of the premises, check out the description of the video.

Very good

Hi, I think Andrew seldom comment on youtube nowadays, you can find his email at hkbu website and email him your questions.

@@porkupine Ok, thank you and greetings