Cameron, a quick thought: Your focused interests in philosophy of religion is both enjoyable and informative. Yet might this channel cover more topics in Biblical history and theology? I think that would ‘capture Christianity’ to a greater extent.
This would be great, please add some C. S. Lewis and Tolkien and their works on imaginations, myths, and narratives. Perhaps look more into Peterson and his work on these matters as well - that would make some interesting dialogues on current events. Jonathan Pageau the icon carver too!
I dove into apologetics just about 4 years ago and this channel has strengthened my faith enormously! Thanks so much Cameron for creating great content. Braxton has also helped me with understanding the arguments better with his channel. Just bought the book CORE FACTS, I'm curious to see what objections are brought up and how these are refuted.
Do you believe there are supernatural events that originate from somewhere other than the creator of the universe? If so, how do you go from god exists to Christianity is true? What method are you using to distinguish between supernatural events that originate with the creator of the universe and those supernatural events that do not?
@@pazuzil It depends on what you mean by supernatural events. A case for the existence of God is usually followed by a case for the resurrection of Christ. That's in principle how you could come to Christianity. May I ask why you ask the question?
@@guidogast The supernatural cannot be explained by nature or science and is assumed to come from beyond or to originate from otherworldly forces. It’s quite common among most if not all religions to justify the truth of their claims by referencing supernatural events eg prophecy, raising or speaking with the dead, conjuring things out of thin air, levitation, surviving without food or sleep for years, curses, etc
@@guidogast In order to prove Christianity is true in the way you describe, you need to be able to distinguish between supernatural events that originate from the creator of the universe and those that originate from elsewhere (eg demonic). How do you as a Christian do something that millions of non Christian believers can’t?
@@pazuzil I appreciate you replying and defining supernatural events, thanks for clearing that up. I'm a little bit confused by your last message though, could you clarify some things for me? You said: "In order to prove Christianity is true in the way you describe...". Where have I given a description of Christianity? My original comment doesn't have that definition, nor have I given that in my reply to you. So that's why I'm a bit confused, but that's not the only thing. Why do you think the truth of Christianity relies on people being able to distinguish from what source supernatural events come from? Doesn't the existence of supernatural events in general get you closer to the Christian worldview, regardless of the source thereof? I'm also still very interested to know why you would ask this question, would love to hear from you 😄
The key to getting your church more involved in the intellectual side of apologetics: you yourself get engaged as a MENTOR with young adults in teens. We as apologists must engage with young people as mentors before they will listen to our intellectual arguments.
So, basically a totally new argument for apologetics without anything new that we haven't heard before. Got it. 1) The Kalam comological argument 2) Apparent Design argument 3) Fine-tuning argument 4) Obejctive Morality arguement 5) Conciousness, beauty and awe 6) Bunch of arguments for the historicity of Jesus, death, resurrection
15:29 (paraphrase) “Woody can’t have brought the cinematic universe of Toy Story into existence because he’s a part of what we’re trying to explain”. “Jesus can’t be the cause of our universe because he’s part of the universe and what we’re trying to explain” I’m not arguing here that that this is fatal to the underlying argument but something is funky with this way of stating it, I think. Or at least there’s a worry that the solution one use for Jesus may or may not be applicable to Woody as well. In the Marvell movies Stan Lee is actually in there which confuses this further. Btw I love taking simple analogies way to seriously 😊 it’s just good fun.
This is not a problem because we don't apply the same rules to each argument. It's a lot easier to argue when you're not constrained to be consistent with everything else.
@@goldenalt3166 That might be true. But, I’m human and I’m very fallible as well, so I probably don’t use the same standards for every argument either. Maybe you do. Also I’m not sure how solid Braxton even thinks this is. If pushed, he might just retreat to some underlying argument and say that the analogy failed or something. Which kind of is an ok move. His underlying position may be solid or totally bonkers but that’s way beyond the scope of discussing the analogy.
@@HyperFocusMarshmallow From my perspective, the Kalam is a deliberately deceptive argument. It pretends to be a deductive argument while relying entirely on these interferences to establish a conclusion. I don't know whether Braxton understands the deception or merely repeats it because that is the most effective way to do it. My theory is that these arguments evolve rather than being intelligently designed.
A useful thought-experiment to figure out how solid an argument is, for say Christianity, is to ponder for a while what the least Christian explanation is that is compatible with the argument. Like how much of Christianity could you subtly (or radically) replace and the argument would still work. It can be used for other positions as well of course, feel free to be creative! It helps one to focus on what the arguments rule out rather than what they are compatible with. Arguments that rule out more things are better at narrowing down the space of possibilities! Really pretend that you wish to hold the other position so that you can fully use your motivated reasoning to help. You can always switch back afterwards. If you’re Atheist, Agnostic, Muslim, Hindu or something else try it for that position.
1 Samuel 15: 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”
This presentation is kept at the lowest common denominator. That is because the goal is to sell a book. I believe the speaker is sincere, however, he knows and never doubts he is speaking to people who overall accept what he is saying. Not the most well thought out presentation. Reading the phone is cooler than physical notes and of course, as most hip presentations for youth, o Bible.
In philosophy there is a concept called "hypernonymity". The more ubiquitous a reality, the harder it is to notice/recognise. If gravity or entropy was real then there would be no need for arguments or to teach children of it's existence.
The most important thing to know about atheists is that they are loved by God and deserve to be treated well and not ridiculed for believing in a well thought out worldview
@@elgatofelix8917 You do realize how uncharitable you are to other people right,I don't know how you can proudly say that you're a Christian with these kinds of actions
Men that seek truth through worldly philosophy and theology are students of the world and know not the Truth that is God for God is 8n His secret place and can only be found one way and philosophy and theories isn't it!
Braxton believes that supernatural events occur not only under his own religion, but under other religions too. At the same time, he believes such events under his religion are evidence that his religion is true, but the same isn't true of other religions. How is he able to identify the source of this supernatural power? This is the epitome of self-delusion / special pleading
@@BraxtonHunter Yes but if supernatural events occur under other religions too, how can you claim the ressurection is proof Christianity is true, but superntaural events under other religions isn't evidence that those are true? Seems rather inconsistent dont you think?
Hello there! I also believe that supernatural events occur not only under Christianity but are possible to occur under other religions. So I figured that if you’d like to have a conversation with someone who holds the same opinion as the one you are critiquing, then I’m more than happy to exchange some dialogue! A good thing to set up when discussing miracles is some criteria of evidence for a miraculous claim. This provides the means to weed out the obviously flawed miracle claims so we may concentrate our efforts to investigating some claims of higher calibers. In Charles Leslie’s book “A Short and Easy Method with the Deists, he writes that in order to determine the historicity (or greater plausibility) of a miracle 4 criteria must be met: “1. That the matter of fact is such, that men's outward senses, their eyes, and ears may be judges of it. 2. That it be done publicly in the face of the world. 3. That not only public monuments are kept upon memory of it. but some outward actions are performed. 4. Those such monuments and such actions or observances are instituted, and to commence from the time, that the matter of fact was done” It certainly makes sense for any religion to make a claim for a religion. However while I agree non Christian miracles are possible, I do not argue that they are probable. So what’s special about the criteria? Well it states that people have to see it, it has to be observed with the senses, people have to remember it and do something to commemorate it, and these actions ought to be an immediate response to it. This helps tremendously in weeding out illogical claims. For instance if I claimed to be able to turn invisible but only when nobody is looking, then I probably can’t turn invisible. I’m not saying it couldn’t happen but it has a lesser probability than someone seeing me turn invisible. I can go more in-depth for each point if you’d like, but I figured I would just start the conversation! Here’s a great video I recommend: m.ua-cam.com/video/SloawhX38Wk/v-deo.html
@@wingsofglass4249 Okay given that supernatural events can occur under all religions and that there are supernatural entities that are intent on deceieving humans, how can you identify the source of that supernatural power? Braxton thinks the ressurection is proof that Christ is the human incarnation of the creator of the universe. How does he reach this conclusion?
These 5 core supports can’t withstand an audit. I am not going address all five but I’ll discuss number one, the Kalam. Hunter defeated the Kalam in his own statements. Fundamentally, nothing begins to exist. This is basic science. Everything is transformative. Causally, we label each transformation of energy and matter as “beginning to exist.’ The Kalam exploits this casual rendering. I feel a bit sad for the former atheist who couldn’t put up a better defense against a terrible argument. The former atheist should have simply asked Hunter to point to anything in the restaurant that has begun to exist.
I will add something personal. The beauty and awe arguments (I call it romanticism) were core reasons for my atheism. I asked myself why lessen the embrace of romanticism to keep Christianity? I looked around my life and observed the actions and statements of Christians who can’t fully embrace romanticism like equality and basic fairness because of the pillars of their faith.
@@goldenalt3166 The biggest strikes against the Bible is its lack of scientific and moral transcendence. It does not transcend the culture in which it was written. Biblical morality is primitive , as expected if solely inspired by a primitive people. A person can’t strongly hold the Bible while strongly holding concepts like equality while remaining consistent. Example, with biblical morality the prime judging weight is a thought, a belief for or against.. God places people on scales and primarily sorts by the thoughts in their minds rather than the content of character.
@@AWalkOnDirt I'd say the biggest strike against the Bible is that no-one can agree on what it says. If there was some consensus on that, we could take the next step to look at whether that makes sense.
@@goldenalt3166 I think our points have common ground. With the lack transcendence thus a product of it’s time, the Bible is scientifically and morally primitive. So Christians argue over how many steps backwards they can tolerate. The most callous followers are pulled by harsher biblical morality. Some followers can’t withstand many steps backwards and insert moral warmth into the Bible. Followers twist the Bible to fit their intuitiveness. Some accept young earth creationism and some do not. Disagreeing over 13 billon years isn’t a small matter and highlights the extreme renderings of the Bible. It shouldn’t be possible to have these extremes if the Bible was a product of god. God shouldn’t be this terrible of a writer.
This breed of Theistic “philosophy” is atrociously bad. If you want to learn about good theistic metaphysics learn from Spinoza, Aquinas, Hegel or Leibniz. The contemporary theistic philosophy scene is laughably bad, it relies on very dubious assumptions about modality, philosophy of mind, and physics. Just do yourself a favor and avoid this stuff altogether if you want to learn about real theism.
His scenario around 36:00 is a very dishonest way to depict the situation. It's not just a fake story for fame and money, it is also a genuine sociological, political and philosophical revolution. Someone with a gun to his head might be willing to die for bertuzianism even if that person knows that it's fake, if bertuzianism has brought about socio-political changes that are very dear to him. Think about lapidation in first century Palestine, maybe a lot of people thought this lapidation thing was a horrible barbaric custom, maybe they suffered the loss of a friend or family from this horrific act that was ordained by god himself ! Maybe they were not educated enough to face the religious authorities of the time and challenge the custom... Comes along this guy, who IS good an orator enough to convince the masses and face the authorities, and maybe he advocates for a whole lot of changes that were making a lot of sense to a lot of people. In that context, someone with a gun to his head might be willing to die, even if that person knew that this guy didn't resurrect... who cares ? he changed the world !
This theory is very interesting. According to it, Jesus's disciples fabricated a failed-then-resurrected messiah for the purposes of sociopolitical activism. Although they didn't have resurrection experiences, they nonetheless pretended that they did. Their goal was to better society. They even maintained the lie to the very end, out of activist motives. I haven't heard the theory discussed before. If Cameron hasn't mentioned it before, I hope that he does sometime soon. I like how the theory puts an intriguing twist on the traditional fraud theories. It makes the fraud idea much more plausible. That said, my initial response is that the theory ultimately fails. If you're interested, I have five reasons why. Since I'm fallible, I probably made some serious mistakes in what follows, so I'd be delighted to read any counter-responses. First, if Jesus's disciples didn't have resurrection experiences, then they likely wouldn't have kept following Jesus. These disciples were pious Jews. Per Leviticus, Jesus's Sanhedrin condemnation meant that he was accursed by God---not blessed by God as the Jewish messiah. Why would pious Jews want to try bettering society at the risk of God's wrath? However, if Jesus's disciples had resurrection experiences, then the explanation is simple: They kept following Jesus because they thought he was the resurrected messiah. Second, if Jesus's disciples didn't have resurrection experiences, then they likely wouldn't have imagined a failed-then-resurrected messiah. In Jewish thought, the messiah was supposed to defeat the Romans. But Jesus didn't. The messiah wasn't supposed to be condemned by Jewish leadership. But Jesus was. And no resurrection was supposed to occur before the end-times. But Jesus's resurrection purportedly did. Hence, a failed-then-resurrected messiah was almost a contradiction in Jewish thought. The idea likely wouldn't have struck Jesus's disciples. However, if Jesus's disciples had resurrection experiences, then the explanation is simple: They struck on the idea of a failed-then-resurrected messiah as an interpretation of their resurrection experiences. Third, if Jesus's disciples didn't have resurrection experiences, then they likely wouldn't have based their activism on a failed-then-resurrected messiah. They would've recognized that most Jews wouldn't accept the farfetched idea. Plus, they would've recognized that they'd have to steal the body to uphold the lie---a serious crime. Even more, Jesus's disciples had more popular, less criminal options available. For example, they could've capitalized on Hillel the Elder's teachings, many of which are similar to Jesus's. However, if Jesus's disciples had resurrection experiences, then the explanation is simple: Since they thought they witnessed a divine miracle, they would've been confident that God would help other Jews accept a failed-then-resurrected messiah. Fourth, Apostle Paul very likely wouldn't have joined such a conspiracy. He was a hotshot scholar-athlete, an up-and-coming Jewish leader. Paul had plenty of avenues to better the world. As he would've recognized, he didn't need the Jesus movement to effectively better ethics and politics. Furthermore, conspiring with Jesus's disciples meant incurring a liar's conscience and a traitor's status. However, if Paul had a resurrection experience, then the explanation is simple: He joined the Jesus movement because he considered it true. Fifth, if the Jesus movement were based on a conspiracy, someone probably would've cracked. They would've fessed up either out of a guilty conscience, or in order to avoid serious harm. Not every activist can stick to the plan when things get tough. We likely would've had a record of this confessor, as Christianity's early opponents would've used them to discredit the movement. But we don't have such a record. However, if Jesus's disciples had resurrection experiences, the explanation is simple: Since they thought they witnessed a divine miracle, they didn't have anything to fess up. That's all for now! I hope you found these comments interesting. Again, I'd love to read any counter-responses. Take care, and stay safe! Peace, Matthew
@@Calhoun90 You don't have to postulate any dishonesty. You can see these legendary stories develop among apologists today. And we have far more access to disconfirming evidence than they did in ancient times.
@@goldenalt3166 Thanks for the response! Your comment now makes me wonder whether I misunderstood the OP. I thought that the OP was postulating insincerity. Here's why. First, the question. Jesus's disciples were willing to be killed by the Jewish authorities for blasphemy---for blaspheming that the divinely accursed Jesus was resurrected. Why were these disciples so willing to die? Dr. Hunter offers one answer: The disciples were so willing to die (partly) because they believed that Jesus was resurrected. The OP suggests another answer: The disciples were so willing to die solely because they believed that such blasphemy, when coupled with ethical teachings, would bring sociopolitical change. The disciples didn't actually believe that Jesus was resurrected. For this reason, the OP suggests that Jesus's disciples were insincere: They proclaimed Jesus's resurrection just for activist reasons, not at all because they believed in Jesus's resurrection. Maybe I misunderstood the OP. But I hope my comments clarify my thoughts. Feel free to correct my interpretation! I may have a mistake here. Take care, and stay safe! Peace, Matthew
@@Calhoun90 There's a bunch of issues with this line of apologetics. One is the documented fact that the Church was dealing with heretical views well into the second century. The idea that the original disciples or apostles were teaching a single unified story that matches the modern synthesis of the gospels seems highly unjustified. The second is that they were willing to die. Not only is there no direct evidence that they did that, but there's plenty of modern examples of people being willing to die for a cause without this kind of evidence. Combined with the kinds of false memories common in apologetics today. There could easily be martyrs without any true event occurring.
@@goldenalt3166 Hello, again! You raise many challenging, intriguing points. Each one warrants much discussion. Unfortunately, I'm not well-versed enough to adequately answer all of them---at least not in any complete, concise way. I'll just address a few of your points, if I may. You're right that the early church dealt with heresies. That said, the earliest disciples seemed to proclaim the same basic message: that Jesus died and then rose. For example, as Gary Habermas argues, 1 Corinthians 15 seems to be a creed from the earliest Christians. This creed evidences codificatory practices and thus high unity among the earliest disciples. You're right that martyrs often die for false beliefs. That said, if Jesus's disciples believed that he rose, then the question arises why they believed so. There's the Christian explanation: that the disciples accurately saw the risen Jesus. But there's also a bunch of non-Christian explanations. Maybe the earliest disciples had false memories, as you suggest. The question now is whether the Christian explanation is an overall better theory than every non-Christian explanation. And this question is a hard one that requires its own post. We can talk more about that question, if you like. You're right that I made a big assumption: I assumed that Jesus's disciples were willing to die for preaching Jesus's resurrection. I made this assumption simply because the OP seemed to share it. That said, I think that testimony supports my assumption. Here are three quick examples. First, Acts indicates that Stephan the Deacon was so willing. Second, Paul's letters indicate that he himself was so willing. Third, Josephus and Mark together indicate that James, Jesus's brother, was so willing. Of course, much more can and should be said. These issues are non-trivial. If it helps, and if you haven't already, you may enjoy the following article by William Lane Craig: www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/popular-writings/jesus-of-nazareth/the-resurrection-of-jesus Again, you raise many challenging, intriguing points. I haven't adequately addressed them. But I hope to have made at least some interesting comments. Take care! Peace, Matthew
Cameron, a quick thought: Your focused interests in philosophy of religion is both enjoyable and informative. Yet might this channel cover more topics in Biblical history and theology? I think that would ‘capture Christianity’ to a greater extent.
This would be great, please add some C. S. Lewis and Tolkien and their works on imaginations, myths, and narratives. Perhaps look more into Peterson and his work on these matters as well - that would make some interesting dialogues on current events. Jonathan Pageau the icon carver too!
Always wondered the same
Doesn’t the Bible say there is no such thing as an atheist ? Basically all have knowledge that there is a God , they just reject it.
I dove into apologetics just about 4 years ago and this channel has strengthened my faith enormously! Thanks so much Cameron for creating great content. Braxton has also helped me with understanding the arguments better with his channel. Just bought the book CORE FACTS, I'm curious to see what objections are brought up and how these are refuted.
Do you believe there are supernatural events that originate from somewhere other than the creator of the universe? If so, how do you go from god exists to Christianity is true? What method are you using to distinguish between supernatural events that originate with the creator of the universe and those supernatural events that do not?
@@pazuzil It depends on what you mean by supernatural events. A case for the existence of God is usually followed by a case for the resurrection of Christ. That's in principle how you could come to Christianity. May I ask why you ask the question?
@@guidogast The supernatural cannot be explained by nature or science and is assumed to come from beyond or to originate from otherworldly forces. It’s quite common among most if not all religions to justify the truth of their claims by referencing supernatural events eg prophecy, raising or speaking with the dead, conjuring things out of thin air, levitation, surviving without food or sleep for years, curses, etc
@@guidogast In order to prove Christianity is true in the way you describe, you need to be able to distinguish between supernatural events that originate from the creator of the universe and those that originate from elsewhere (eg demonic). How do you as a Christian do something that millions of non Christian believers can’t?
@@pazuzil I appreciate you replying and defining supernatural events, thanks for clearing that up. I'm a little bit confused by your last message though, could you clarify some things for me?
You said: "In order to prove Christianity is true in the way you describe...". Where have I given a description of Christianity? My original comment doesn't have that definition, nor have I given that in my reply to you. So that's why I'm a bit confused, but that's not the only thing. Why do you think the truth of Christianity relies on people being able to distinguish from what source supernatural events come from? Doesn't the existence of supernatural events in general get you closer to the Christian worldview, regardless of the source thereof?
I'm also still very interested to know why you would ask this question, would love to hear from you 😄
Love Dr. Hunter. Fantastic presentation
The key to getting your church more involved in the intellectual side of apologetics: you yourself get engaged as a MENTOR with young adults in teens. We as apologists must engage with young people as mentors before they will listen to our intellectual arguments.
So, basically a totally new argument for apologetics without anything new that we haven't heard before. Got it.
1) The Kalam comological argument
2) Apparent Design argument
3) Fine-tuning argument
4) Obejctive Morality arguement
5) Conciousness, beauty and awe
6) Bunch of arguments for the historicity of Jesus, death, resurrection
The Kalam Cosmological Argument: Failing to prove god for close to a thousand years.
LOL
The argument from "lots of bad arguments" has been around for a while, too.
@@goldenalt3166 LOL
@@goldenalt3166 Man 😂
@@midlander4 I'm a theist myself and couldn't agree more lol.
15:29 (paraphrase) “Woody can’t have brought the cinematic universe of Toy Story into existence because he’s a part of what we’re trying to explain”.
“Jesus can’t be the cause of our universe because he’s part of the universe and what we’re trying to explain”
I’m not arguing here that that this is fatal to the underlying argument but something is funky with this way of stating it, I think. Or at least there’s a worry that the solution one use for Jesus may or may not be applicable to Woody as well. In the Marvell movies Stan Lee is actually in there which confuses this further.
Btw I love taking simple analogies way to seriously 😊 it’s just good fun.
This is not a problem because we don't apply the same rules to each argument. It's a lot easier to argue when you're not constrained to be consistent with everything else.
@@goldenalt3166 That might be true. But, I’m human and I’m very fallible as well, so I probably don’t use the same standards for every argument either. Maybe you do.
Also I’m not sure how solid Braxton even thinks this is. If pushed, he might just retreat to some underlying argument and say that the analogy failed or something. Which kind of is an ok move. His underlying position may be solid or totally bonkers but that’s way beyond the scope of discussing the analogy.
@@HyperFocusMarshmallow From my perspective, the Kalam is a deliberately deceptive argument. It pretends to be a deductive argument while relying entirely on these interferences to establish a conclusion. I don't know whether Braxton understands the deception or merely repeats it because that is the most effective way to do it.
My theory is that these arguments evolve rather than being intelligently designed.
@@goldenalt3166 You're preaching to the choir. =) I don't know if I'd put it exactly like that, but close enough.
Thoroughly enjoyed thee talk
A useful thought-experiment to figure out how solid an argument is, for say Christianity, is to ponder for a while what the least Christian explanation is that is compatible with the argument. Like how much of Christianity could you subtly (or radically) replace and the argument would still work. It can be used for other positions as well of course, feel free to be creative! It helps one to focus on what the arguments rule out rather than what they are compatible with. Arguments that rule out more things are better at narrowing down the space of possibilities! Really pretend that you wish to hold the other position so that you can fully use your motivated reasoning to help. You can always switch back afterwards.
If you’re Atheist, Agnostic, Muslim, Hindu or something else try it for that position.
Not a bad idea - thank you for the tip!
His daughter's take on his humor is deeply shared.
4:32 “… argue with … who ever gets in the line of fire.” I was hoping he’d say atheists/agnostics but I’ll take it.
Brilliant love this thank you
Faith is when you believe in something you can’t prove to be real.
The two greatest failures of the modern church is apologetics and marriage. We need to do a better job of defending both.
Are there people out there who are trying to make marriage illegal?
Also, apologetic is just defending unfalsifiable claims with no evidence by employing fallacious arguments. So apologetics has always been garbage.
Why do people who claim to have "faith"...work SO hard to come up with "evidence"? Faith isn't enough?
11:50 This bit is funny. You’ve got some serious comedy going Braxton. 💜
"The Core Facts Argument for God for the Gullible" is a much more appropriate title.
1 Samuel 15: 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”
🙏
This presentation is kept at the lowest common denominator. That is because the goal is to sell a book. I believe the speaker is sincere, however, he knows and never doubts he is speaking to people who overall accept what he is saying. Not the most well thought out presentation. Reading the phone is cooler than physical notes and of course, as most hip presentations for youth, o Bible.
If god was real there then would be no need for arguments.
It would be as clear as the sun, moon, stars to know.
Why keep deluding yourselves?.
Why would a god that wants everyone to know is real, be so secretive?.
In philosophy there is a concept called "hypernonymity".
The more ubiquitous a reality, the harder it is to notice/recognise.
If gravity or entropy was real then there would be no need for arguments or to teach children of it's existence.
@@tommorris8066 Gravity is not a force then where is your counterevidence?
Great talk Dr. Hunter. However purple is not your color. 🧐
BTW... He is risen. Happy Easter.
The dough is risen? Time to put it in the oven, then. ;-)
The most important thing to know about atheism is it's intimate connection with the genocides of communism.
Wow. Is there a way to "despise" a comment? I can't find that button.
The most important thing to know about atheists is that they are loved by God and deserve to be treated well and not ridiculed for believing in a well thought out worldview
@@LandonMetochoi I was looking for the "nobody cares" button for your comment. Couldn't find that either.
@@felixsiswanto8561 "well thought out worldview" "not ridiculed" 😅😅😅😅
@@elgatofelix8917 You do realize how uncharitable you are to other people right,I don't know how you can proudly say that you're a Christian with these kinds of actions
It’s an acronym, not an acrostic
2:00 … tall and thin… and with lush hair. 😊 Do your job camera person!
Men that seek truth through worldly philosophy and theology are students of the world and know not the Truth that is God for God is 8n His secret place and can only be found one way and philosophy and theories isn't it!
Totally unconvincing. I'm an atheist and the things in this video do not justify the belief in any god.
So what causes the universe to exist?
meaningless word salad
Braxton believes that supernatural events occur not only under his own religion, but under other religions too. At the same time, he believes such events under his religion are evidence that his religion is true, but the same isn't true of other religions. How is he able to identify the source of this supernatural power? This is the epitome of self-delusion / special pleading
The case for the resurrection.
@@BraxtonHunter Yes but if supernatural events occur under other religions too, how can you claim the ressurection is proof Christianity is true, but superntaural events under other religions isn't evidence that those are true? Seems rather inconsistent dont you think?
Hello there! I also believe that supernatural events occur not only under Christianity but are possible to occur under other religions. So I figured that if you’d like to have a conversation with someone who holds the same opinion as the one you are critiquing, then I’m more than happy to exchange some dialogue!
A good thing to set up when discussing miracles is some criteria of evidence for a miraculous claim. This provides the means to weed out the obviously flawed miracle claims so we may concentrate our efforts to investigating some claims of higher calibers. In Charles Leslie’s book “A Short and Easy Method with the Deists, he writes that in order to determine the historicity (or greater plausibility) of a miracle 4 criteria must be met:
“1. That the matter of fact is such, that men's outward senses, their eyes,
and ears may be judges of it.
2. That it be done publicly in the face of the world.
3. That not only public monuments are kept upon memory of it. but some outward actions are performed.
4. Those such monuments and such actions
or observances are instituted, and to commence from the time, that the matter of fact was done”
It certainly makes sense for any religion to make a claim for a religion. However while I agree non Christian miracles are possible, I do not argue that they are probable. So what’s special about the criteria? Well it states that people have to see it, it has to be observed with the senses, people have to remember it and do something to commemorate it, and these actions ought to be an immediate response to it. This helps tremendously in weeding out illogical claims. For instance if I claimed to be able to turn invisible but only when nobody is looking, then I probably can’t turn invisible. I’m not saying it couldn’t happen but it has a lesser probability than someone seeing me turn invisible. I can go more in-depth for each point if you’d like, but I figured I would just start the conversation!
Here’s a great video I recommend:
m.ua-cam.com/video/SloawhX38Wk/v-deo.html
@@wingsofglass4249 Okay given that supernatural events can occur under all religions and that there are supernatural entities that are intent on deceieving humans, how can you identify the source of that supernatural power? Braxton thinks the ressurection is proof that Christ is the human incarnation of the creator of the universe. How does he reach this conclusion?
I mean, he can use his brain to ascertain which miracles are more important than others. An answered prayer is not a resurrection
These 5 core supports can’t withstand an audit. I am not going address all five but I’ll discuss number one, the Kalam. Hunter defeated the Kalam in his own statements.
Fundamentally, nothing begins to exist. This is basic science. Everything is transformative. Causally, we label each transformation of energy and matter as “beginning to exist.’ The Kalam exploits this casual rendering.
I feel a bit sad for the former atheist who couldn’t put up a better defense against a terrible argument. The former atheist should have simply asked Hunter to point to anything in the restaurant that has begun to exist.
I will add something personal. The beauty and awe arguments (I call it romanticism) were core reasons for my atheism. I asked myself why lessen the embrace of romanticism to keep Christianity?
I looked around my life and observed the actions and statements of Christians who can’t fully embrace romanticism like equality and basic fairness because of the pillars of their faith.
@@AWalkOnDirt Yes, modern Christianity seems to have a low opinion of God when it accepts the Bible as true.
@@goldenalt3166 The biggest strikes against the Bible is its lack of scientific and moral transcendence. It does not transcend the culture in which it was written. Biblical morality is primitive , as expected if solely inspired by a primitive people. A person can’t strongly hold the Bible while strongly holding concepts like equality while remaining consistent.
Example, with biblical morality the prime judging weight is a thought, a belief for or against.. God places people on scales and primarily sorts by the thoughts in their minds rather than the content of character.
@@AWalkOnDirt I'd say the biggest strike against the Bible is that no-one can agree on what it says. If there was some consensus on that, we could take the next step to look at whether that makes sense.
@@goldenalt3166 I think our points have common ground. With the lack transcendence thus a product of it’s time, the Bible is scientifically and morally primitive. So Christians argue over how many steps backwards they can tolerate. The most callous followers are pulled by harsher biblical morality. Some followers can’t withstand many steps backwards and insert moral warmth into the Bible.
Followers twist the Bible to fit their intuitiveness. Some accept young earth creationism and some do not. Disagreeing over 13 billon years isn’t a small matter and highlights the extreme renderings of the Bible. It shouldn’t be possible to have these extremes if the Bible was a product of god. God shouldn’t be this terrible of a writer.
This breed of Theistic “philosophy” is atrociously bad. If you want to learn about good theistic metaphysics learn from Spinoza, Aquinas, Hegel or Leibniz. The contemporary theistic philosophy scene is laughably bad, it relies on very dubious assumptions about modality, philosophy of mind, and physics. Just do yourself a favor and avoid this stuff altogether if you want to learn about real theism.
His scenario around 36:00 is a very dishonest way to depict the situation.
It's not just a fake story for fame and money, it is also a genuine sociological, political and philosophical revolution.
Someone with a gun to his head might be willing to die for bertuzianism even if that person knows that it's fake, if bertuzianism has brought about socio-political changes that are very dear to him.
Think about lapidation in first century Palestine, maybe a lot of people thought this lapidation thing was a horrible barbaric custom, maybe they suffered the loss of a friend or family from this horrific act that was ordained by god himself !
Maybe they were not educated enough to face the religious authorities of the time and challenge the custom... Comes along this guy, who IS good an orator enough to convince the masses and face the authorities, and maybe he advocates for a whole lot of changes that were making a lot of sense to a lot of people.
In that context, someone with a gun to his head might be willing to die, even if that person knew that this guy didn't resurrect... who cares ? he changed the world !
This theory is very interesting. According to it, Jesus's disciples fabricated a failed-then-resurrected messiah for the purposes of sociopolitical activism. Although they didn't have resurrection experiences, they nonetheless pretended that they did. Their goal was to better society. They even maintained the lie to the very end, out of activist motives.
I haven't heard the theory discussed before. If Cameron hasn't mentioned it before, I hope that he does sometime soon. I like how the theory puts an intriguing twist on the traditional fraud theories. It makes the fraud idea much more plausible.
That said, my initial response is that the theory ultimately fails. If you're interested, I have five reasons why. Since I'm fallible, I probably made some serious mistakes in what follows, so I'd be delighted to read any counter-responses.
First, if Jesus's disciples didn't have resurrection experiences, then they likely wouldn't have kept following Jesus. These disciples were pious Jews. Per Leviticus, Jesus's Sanhedrin condemnation meant that he was accursed by God---not blessed by God as the Jewish messiah. Why would pious Jews want to try bettering society at the risk of God's wrath?
However, if Jesus's disciples had resurrection experiences, then the explanation is simple: They kept following Jesus because they thought he was the resurrected messiah.
Second, if Jesus's disciples didn't have resurrection experiences, then they likely wouldn't have imagined a failed-then-resurrected messiah. In Jewish thought, the messiah was supposed to defeat the Romans. But Jesus didn't. The messiah wasn't supposed to be condemned by Jewish leadership. But Jesus was. And no resurrection was supposed to occur before the end-times. But Jesus's resurrection purportedly did. Hence, a failed-then-resurrected messiah was almost a contradiction in Jewish thought. The idea likely wouldn't have struck Jesus's disciples.
However, if Jesus's disciples had resurrection experiences, then the explanation is simple: They struck on the idea of a failed-then-resurrected messiah as an interpretation of their resurrection experiences.
Third, if Jesus's disciples didn't have resurrection experiences, then they likely wouldn't have based their activism on a failed-then-resurrected messiah. They would've recognized that most Jews wouldn't accept the farfetched idea. Plus, they would've recognized that they'd have to steal the body to uphold the lie---a serious crime. Even more, Jesus's disciples had more popular, less criminal options available. For example, they could've capitalized on Hillel the Elder's teachings, many of which are similar to Jesus's.
However, if Jesus's disciples had resurrection experiences, then the explanation is simple: Since they thought they witnessed a divine miracle, they would've been confident that God would help other Jews accept a failed-then-resurrected messiah.
Fourth, Apostle Paul very likely wouldn't have joined such a conspiracy. He was a hotshot scholar-athlete, an up-and-coming Jewish leader. Paul had plenty of avenues to better the world. As he would've recognized, he didn't need the Jesus movement to effectively better ethics and politics. Furthermore, conspiring with Jesus's disciples meant incurring a liar's conscience and a traitor's status.
However, if Paul had a resurrection experience, then the explanation is simple: He joined the Jesus movement because he considered it true.
Fifth, if the Jesus movement were based on a conspiracy, someone probably would've cracked. They would've fessed up either out of a guilty conscience, or in order to avoid serious harm. Not every activist can stick to the plan when things get tough. We likely would've had a record of this confessor, as Christianity's early opponents would've used them to discredit the movement. But we don't have such a record.
However, if Jesus's disciples had resurrection experiences, the explanation is simple: Since they thought they witnessed a divine miracle, they didn't have anything to fess up.
That's all for now! I hope you found these comments interesting. Again, I'd love to read any counter-responses. Take care, and stay safe!
Peace,
Matthew
@@Calhoun90 You don't have to postulate any dishonesty. You can see these legendary stories develop among apologists today. And we have far more access to disconfirming evidence than they did in ancient times.
@@goldenalt3166
Thanks for the response! Your comment now makes me wonder whether I misunderstood the OP. I thought that the OP was postulating insincerity. Here's why.
First, the question. Jesus's disciples were willing to be killed by the Jewish authorities for blasphemy---for blaspheming that the divinely accursed Jesus was resurrected. Why were these disciples so willing to die?
Dr. Hunter offers one answer: The disciples were so willing to die (partly) because they believed that Jesus was resurrected.
The OP suggests another answer: The disciples were so willing to die solely because they believed that such blasphemy, when coupled with ethical teachings, would bring sociopolitical change. The disciples didn't actually believe that Jesus was resurrected.
For this reason, the OP suggests that Jesus's disciples were insincere: They proclaimed Jesus's resurrection just for activist reasons, not at all because they believed in Jesus's resurrection.
Maybe I misunderstood the OP. But I hope my comments clarify my thoughts. Feel free to correct my interpretation! I may have a mistake here. Take care, and stay safe!
Peace,
Matthew
@@Calhoun90 There's a bunch of issues with this line of apologetics.
One is the documented fact that the Church was dealing with heretical views well into the second century. The idea that the original disciples or apostles were teaching a single unified story that matches the modern synthesis of the gospels seems highly unjustified.
The second is that they were willing to die. Not only is there no direct evidence that they did that, but there's plenty of modern examples of people being willing to die for a cause without this kind of evidence. Combined with the kinds of false memories common in apologetics today. There could easily be martyrs without any true event occurring.
@@goldenalt3166
Hello, again!
You raise many challenging, intriguing points. Each one warrants much discussion. Unfortunately, I'm not well-versed enough to adequately answer all of them---at least not in any complete, concise way. I'll just address a few of your points, if I may.
You're right that the early church dealt with heresies.
That said, the earliest disciples seemed to proclaim the same basic message: that Jesus died and then rose. For example, as Gary Habermas argues, 1 Corinthians 15 seems to be a creed from the earliest Christians. This creed evidences codificatory practices and thus high unity among the earliest disciples.
You're right that martyrs often die for false beliefs.
That said, if Jesus's disciples believed that he rose, then the question arises why they believed so. There's the Christian explanation: that the disciples accurately saw the risen Jesus. But there's also a bunch of non-Christian explanations. Maybe the earliest disciples had false memories, as you suggest.
The question now is whether the Christian explanation is an overall better theory than every non-Christian explanation. And this question is a hard one that requires its own post. We can talk more about that question, if you like.
You're right that I made a big assumption: I assumed that Jesus's disciples were willing to die for preaching Jesus's resurrection. I made this assumption simply because the OP seemed to share it.
That said, I think that testimony supports my assumption. Here are three quick examples. First, Acts indicates that Stephan the Deacon was so willing. Second, Paul's letters indicate that he himself was so willing. Third, Josephus and Mark together indicate that James, Jesus's brother, was so willing.
Of course, much more can and should be said. These issues are non-trivial. If it helps, and if you haven't already, you may enjoy the following article by William Lane Craig:
www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/popular-writings/jesus-of-nazareth/the-resurrection-of-jesus
Again, you raise many challenging, intriguing points. I haven't adequately addressed them. But I hope to have made at least some interesting comments. Take care!
Peace,
Matthew