Resurrection is a 3 BODY PROBLEM? (Mike Licona response)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 3 кві 2024
- The bizarre world of alien invasions and lunar messages collides with the resurrection debate between Dr. Mike Licona and Dr. Bart Ehrman. Let's explore the parallels between Licona's outlandish hypothetical scenarios and the Netflix sci-fi series "3 Body Problem," questioning the validity of using such far-fetched examples to support the resurrection.
=== LICONA vs EHRMAN RESURRECTION DEBATE
www.tinyurl.com/BartDebate
===
Support Paulogia at
/ paulogia
www.paypal.me/paulogia
Paulogia Channel Wish-List
www.amazon.ca/hz/wishlist/ls/...
Paulogia Merch
teespring.com/stores/paulogia
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @paulogia
Paulogia Audio-Only-Version Podcast
paulogia.buzzsprout.com
Follow Paulogia at
/ paulogia0
/ paulogia0
/ discord - Наука та технологія
=== LICONA vs EHRMAN RESURRECTION DEBATE www.tinyurl.com/BartDebate ===
Have you posted the link to the 2 year retrospective interview with Bart? You mentioned it was bonus material
@@akprice17 that's included with the debate at the link above, not separately.
Please consider dropping the cartoon head on your videos, it's not very engaging. Pople much prefer looking at a person on a video. Thanks
Mike was forced to concede that the Jerusalem zombies were probably mythological, not real. Many of us extend that to the resurrection claim itself, just add one more person to the claim.
Did he actually concede that, though? I've always only ever seen him saying it might be literary artistry. This alone was enought to cost him a job. I suspect that him straight up saying it's more likely fiction than fact would cost him his current one.
@@kamilgregor No, I think he quickly learned how even expressing doubt was taboo and never addressed the issue again. Still, most of what we "know" about this time period is "might be" or other terms of less-than-100%-positive. If this is how apologists argued, I could accept that. It is their claims of absolute truths that aren't warranted.
@@kamilgregor I didn't know that about him but found it with a search. He was fired from the Southern Evangelical Seminary because he denied Biblical inerrancy, at least according to their standards. It should go without saying that people employed by such institutions cannot be objective in debates on these subjects, but this is just more proof of that.
As an alien I can confirm, we did not.
Scientists are not suppressing evidence of miracles. They spend every day investigating phenomena that we don't understand.
And how would they?
If miracles actually happened as they're described, there wouldn't be hospitals as everyone would be taking the sick to churches to heal.
Heck, the evangelical faith that Licona subscribes to wouldn't exist since the existence of miracles would preclude the Protestant Reformation.
I heard a great quote from a famous physicist I can sadly only paraphrase that was basically, “Yes, an omnipotent being could be the answer to everything, but that isn’t really interesting, and whenever we decide instead to dig deeper we always make fascinating discoveries.”
@@Florkl But also, as Tim Minchin put it, "Throughout history, every mystery ever solved has turned out to be _not_ magic."
A retired police detective told me the Memphis Police Department received several calls from people who claimed to have seen Elvis alive after his reported death. I doubt Lacona would consider, for one millisecond, that Elvis had risen from the grave?
Well, Licona had a retired pilice detective who told him how he was a cold case detective and then became convinced of christ's fable due the 'evidence'. Of course later it was found that the retired polixe detective was not at all a cold case detective as he was telling him.
Is there remarkable independent eye testimony, and remarkably good data to support elvis was alive after his death?
No?
Ohhhhhh ok
@@joe5959
Is there remarkable independent eye testimony, and remarkably good data to support Jesus was alive after his death?
No?
Ohhhhhh ok
Why not, he is a king.. LOL
@@cygnusustus There is no independent testimony that Jesus was alive before his Supposed death either so let's start with that, that's my message to those who believe in a none mytchical jesus. (I guess not you).
“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”
― Carl Sagan
Sagan's statement seems to make sense, but not really. For the person who experiences and reports something extraordinary believing the extraordinary does not require any more evidence than the ordinary. It is when he tries to convince you that it requires extraordinary evidence. And that is berceuse you are predisposed not to believe something extraordinary.
No one wants to be considered gullible. But gullibility is relative to your worldview - what you already believe or do not believe to the true. If you do not think UFOs exist, one landing in your back yard will be met with skepticism. If it was reported in a 2000 year old text, it would be greeted with a lot of skepticism. In neither case does skepticism -change facts, nor does belief change facts. If you are open to either possibility, then the facts will prevail, even if they are not extraordinary. Youn will accept the facts holding you conclusion them somewhat tentatively, but not rejecting the conclusion the facts point to.
@@doncamp1150 "Brevity is the soul of wit." - William Shakespeare
Sagan had it in spades. The internet apologists who have been dissecting his words lately, have very little.
Theists consistently fail (refuse?) to understand the meaning of this quote. Evidence of an extraordinary event can transform normally mundane evidence into extraordinary evidence. A live broadcast of you talking to a human is mundane evidence that you talked to a human. A live broadcast of you talking to an alien is extraordinary evidence that you talked to an alien!
Of course, there’s always the potential for fakery. And such extraordinary evidence would need to be further investigated. But it would be a powerful starting point.
"That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." Hitchen's razor
I also like what Neil deGrasse Tyson said in "Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey" - -
"The good thing about science is that it's true, whether you believe it or not."
3 Body Problem and the Trinity? I see what you did there, Paul.
If the comet left the message, "There Is One God and Muhammad is His Prophet" in Arabic, Christians would be breaking their necks trying to find an alternative explanation.
I have family members who say they literally see Jesus every day. When I asked if I could come over and see him they said he wouldn't appear to some one like me. Of course I've been an outspoken atheist ever since I read the Bible cover to cover when I was 13 years old.
So, I guess I miss out. Pity, that. I would have liked to see him.
It's amazing how sure they are that the miracle won't occur. Almost like they don't believe it's real.
And here I thought Jesus came for the sinners and broke bread with them?
Plus, we have a name for people who see people that no one else can.
Can they take a photo of him if he's so averse to strangers he won't even show himself?
@@plattbagarn I'm sure they know there's no way to demonstrate this is not a delusion. And I'm guessing that more than one of them is actually faking it.
@@goldenalt3166Yeah, it's probably some roundabout way of trying to get him to cry and beg to join in (at least that's how it was for me).
But Social Anxiety Jesus is now a hilarious idea I won't be able to get out of my head.
A more accurate analogy would be that scientist has a STORY of a moon impact event that had left a message on the moon.
Which message no longer exists. But we've got accounts written decades later by anonymous authors in Spanish, when the people who were supposed to have witnessed it were Russian
As someone who used to be a science teacher and is working towards a different career in a scientific field my favourite saying is “I don’t know, yet.l most scientists I’ve met are very similar with that enjoyment of the saying, except the ones who are fundamental religious.
“I don't know yet” is a beautiful place to be.
Science knows it doesn't know everything - otherwise it'd **stop**. -Comedian Dara O'Briain
My typical response to "if god appeared in front of you, you'd pretend he didn't exist" is "I'd like to have that problem." It's true that trusting my personal explanation of my perceptions will ultimately fail to be sufficiently convincing to overcome such a strong prior. But I'm not getting the experience itself, either. People telling me that I have to have faith are quoting a man that they believe was struck blind and/or deaf by an apparition of Jesus, entirely against his will and motives. It would be great if we had that level of evidence to analyze, whatever we concluded.
It’s frustrating that some people don’t understand how analogies work and intentionally use dissimilar scenarios precisely because the original situation doesn’t get them their preferred answer. If you have to change the scenario to make it work, it’s not an analogy.
Had his analogy involved miracle claims in ancient texts by unknown authors, he’d reject them all besides the ones in the Bible.
It blows my mind that if a 'god' appeared in front of them the thought "Could I be wrong" never even crosses their minds.
Licona won’t just admit that his entire historical analysis falls apart if he doesn’t presuppose a god exists and not just any god but a specific god that he has a “relationship” with
If I go to a magic show and see the magician saw a woman in half (an act which normally causes instant death), and then 10 minutes later, the woman is alive and well, do I:
1) Think I saw a miracle?
2) Think that because the entire audience, "over 500 people, some of who still are alive," it was an actual resurrection? (See answer #1)
or 3) Think that the woman was not actually killed? I might NOT be able to explain how the trick was done, but that is absolutely by far, the most reasonable.
My point is similar if I heard Elvis had died, then two weeks later I see him in the local supermarket. My reasonable thought would not be he resurrected (or was a ghost, which in some ways is the same thing). I would simply and reasonable conclude he hadn't really died, that "the reports of his death were greatly exaggerated." Ditto for the followers of Jesus (again assuming there were any) - encountering him after that first Easter says more about the possibility he didn't die, instead of that he came back to life.
To be clear, I'm not convinced by the "swoon" theory or the twin theory, because I'm still at the "did Jesus really exist?" stage. The evidence that he was crucified is even more iffy. Add to that the evidence he actually had died is yet another order of magnitude of "prove it!" There are all sorts of explanations to explain why he actually didn't die, including that while Romans excelled at killing people, the entire world's understanding of what constitutes death has only been concluded in the 20th century - cessation of brain function, not cessation of heart function. Even before that, it took a stethoscope to be sure the heart at stopped and not just a very faint pulse.
Do we have any testimony of the soldiers that Jesus had actually expired on the cross? If Joseph of Bestdiscipletown had taken the body down off the cross and discovered Jesus was still alive, do you think he would have given the body back to the soldiers to finish the job? How many people do the stories claim witnessed Jesus's death as opposed to how many claimed to have seen him after the fact? The dying part of the real weak link (again assuming if any of this was true).
Option: We have greek-roman literature wrutten in greek, by greek authors with a greek target audience. We have story elements and tropes from Homer, Euripides, Vergil and greek philosoohy. We have further a merge of a greek-jewish god conceot like we have greek-egyptian, greek-persian and others. Oh look this is why we have so Spiderman is fictional.
@@TorianTammas I agree 100%. There are a number of claims of other people in the bible who supposedly got resurrected, yet no claims that therefore they are also unique children of god. We also have tons of similar "empty tombs therefore god" claims all over the Hellenistic world, many with better (supposed) evidence. Almost like you were a nobody if people didn't think you wound up ascending directly into heaven with flames and earthquakes, and even zombies.
And yes, if you subtract all the elements from the gospels that can't be traced to other earlier deities (that christians merely pooh-pooh) and all the elements that were retelling the OT stories in "new clothing," there is so little if anything to hold on to.
Paul (ex-Saul, not Mr "O'gia") claimed when you died, you left your old body behind and got a new one manufactured by god. How does that not include in theory EVERY ghost claim? Was not the old tv sitcom Topper, with ghosts George and Marion Kerby and the drunken St. Bernard Neil, not at its heart a religious show? All hail, Casper?
You're kind of missing the point that the _stories_ of the resurrection are third-hand descriptions, passed by word of mouth across multiple *decades* . This is utterly incomparable to an event being witnessed one day, and retold the next (and even then, eyewitness testimony, _24 hours after an event_ , is basically unreliable)
Basically, Gospel stories are just that, _stories_ , they are not reliable historical records in any way, shape or form.
Hopefully one thing theists and skeptics alike can agree on is that if there _was_ a Jesus of Nazareth born 2000-something years ago, he has definitely died at least once by now.
Well, that's similar - but to make it exactly the same it should just be a story about a magic show that you can't confirm ever happened, performed by a magician you cannot confirm ever existed, and the story was written at least 40 years after the show - in Greek
my first thought regarding mike's initial proposal is that "first order of business is making sure that the 'writing' is real" as in, make sure it wasn't a computer generated fake. someone RIGHT NOW could produce an image of the moon with writing on it and say it was a miracle.
I’m about ready to fire up SuperimposeX to substantiate this statement. I wonder whether “color burn” or “linear light” will make the handwriting look more realistic. 🤔🤔
“The Wild, Wild West” had an episode called “The Night of the Flying Pie Plate” (1966) in which criminals pose as aliens from Venus to steal a gold shipment. This episode is set in the late 1860s.
"With miserable weather here .." translates as "This is Canada" ;-)
I love the topics discussed by Dr. Ehrman in his books. But, I can stand the man's voice with all its inflection and his laugh is like nails on a chalkboard.
Posing the hypothetical, "if God showed up in front of us, would we believe?", skips over any attempt to verify that it is God.
If some man on the street walks up to a Christian, and tells them that he is Jesus returned, I will go out on a limb and say they will be a bit skeptical.
It is a bit odd that Mike spends all that time on hypothetical scenarios, where significant evidence is introduced. However I have heard more than one apologist say that God can't prove his existence, otherwise he would interfere in our free will.
Perhaps these apologists need to sit down and have a chat with God, about what God would, or could do, because I am seeing very mixed messages.
Very on point! So many of the hypothetical ways that God could show up skip past any verification attempt. If the moon event happened, how would I know which - if any - deity was responsible? How did we rule *out* other explanations or rule *in* Licona’s preferred explanation?
I don’t want to ascribe motivations to people, but it’s hard to see it as entirely honest when the patterns keep showing up like that, stopping just before the incredibly crucial step in the hypothetical that would make their case come crumbling down.
It also skips over the question of whose God it is. We supposedly live in a meritocracy. But Licona would insert his God into the position even if there were worthier and more qualified deities in line.
@@MarcosElMalo2Of course he would. But just for 💩💩 & 🤭 🤭, please list the “worthier and more qualified deities”
It’s actually the EXACT argument Matt Dillahunty uses. He says that not only does he not believe but “I don’t know what could make me believe.”
When asked: So if you witnessed the resurrection that wouldn’t convince you?
Matt says: That would only convince me that it happened but not that a God did it. There could be a natural explanation.
Excuse my ignorance, but what possible 'natural' phenomenon could explain someone rising from the dead after being dead for a number of days? Surely the whole point of the argument from naturalists is that dead people dont rise. As a Christian the only possible explanation, if you allow the existence of God, is that something much more than a 'natural' event has occurred.
Only once you have ruled out all other possibilities should the supernatural be considered. This is not only wise, but always results in no supernatural event having happened.
It's good there are people who specialize in researching Christianity, but there is far too much time wasted on it relative to the other religious claims in the world. In all these years Christians have not demonstrated they are worth being taken more seriously than any person who has a written account of supernatural claims.
Amusingly, aliens would be a _much better explanation than god_ for a variety of unexplained phenomena.
Like... we know that intelligent life capable of space travel (us) can exist, so it seems obvious that there could be other such creatures. Now compare that to the proposition that whatever happened due to the whims of an omnipotent, nonphysical, atemporal mind.
We even know that it's possible for people to be "dead" by all reasonable standards only to be brought back via modern medicine. Obviously there are serious limitations to this, but those limitations get a little fewer every year. Who's to say that gods or reality-bending miracles are required for a human facing a Jesus-style death to come back from the dead? Perhaps it's just a matter of having adequate scientific knowledge along with the right tools to accomplish the same feat. All of this is more believable because we've never, ever, not even one single time, had the tools of science and found something happening that wasn't possible (AKA a miracle.)
The closest we get is finding things that we don't understand yet. But guess what? We didn't understand how storms worked at one point, and now kids build models showing how they work in elementary school. Knowledge gaps aren't miracles - they're targets for science endeavors.
Nicely done! Always loved the ‘Just a Bite’ episodes. ❤
What if? What if? What if? Assumptions + abracadabra = Proof of a god. 💯 agree with Bart.
Yeah, my favorite thing goes like this; "Suppose that **something we have no proof of** happened, might that mean '**can be literally anything**?"
Well yes... The thing you made up could do literally whatever you want, for whatever reason... Because it's made up.
This is why they have to use so many philosophical arguments as evidence. It's the hypotheticals that hold up their arguments.
For a second I thought Paul was going to say "also warning that this episode has potentially major spoilers [for the Bible]" and got worried for a sec.
SNL is pretty mid. But that bit at the end that Paul is talking over is hilarious and well worth seeking out.
The Three Body Problem is the stuff of nightmares. However, I see it as commentary on humans. Human empires expand and destroy all in their path. Space is so vast, that I can’t see conquest ever being worth the energy expenditure. (I read the books) It’s a comforting thought. I won’t be looking at stars in fear.
Thank you.
What movies/shows are the clips from in the beginning? Is it all from 3 body problem?
Dr Licona is often one of the more frustrating apologists to me. He has moments of surprising intellectual honesty and rigor about biblical claims, and then other times seems to abandon any such rigor.
In his moon writing example, he starts in the right direction. A scientist probably would express astonishment, confusion, and the possibility that whatever caused the event could be something we can’t currently test.
But even my phrasing of that is - I think - more accurate and honest a representation than Dr Licona gave, and that’s before he goes some extra step for some reason to say the scientist couldn’t even say the event happened. It reminds me of his debate with Dillahunty and the trash can/beheading stories.
He quite often takes a few steps in a good direction, before turning on his heel and sprinting the other way.
That comet hypothetical always irks me because that just isn't going to happen. It's illogical. The second on alien invasions is plausible because invasions can happen. so it's not analogous to being raised from the dead, which we have zero evidence for.
6:20 really? Wouldnt even acknowledge the event... Really? How could they possibly make this argument
Here Paulogia is doing a superb job of channeling David Hume for our times. It’s not an accident that even some of the most erudite apologists (like Robert Barron, who has a large and devoted UA-cam following) avoid directly confronting Hume’s timeless disquisition on miracles.
“I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken.”
-Oliver Cromwell (Devout Christian)
I would be a lot less likely to believe someone who already believes in unsubstantiated fantastical nonsense over someone who is very down to earth and needs evidence to believe something. Fantastical claims will always need evidence but I'd be less likely to immediately dismiss the claims of a down to earth person.
Apologists don’t stop giving us materials to disprove them. It is amazing.
After all these failed attempts to prove Christianity true, here comes another bad take.
I'm curious about the thought process every time apologists use current events, new TV shows, or new books to prove one of their Christian arguments.
I hope they are sincere in their mind and not opportunistic and dishonest.
Listening to this brought to mind the Miracle of the Sun in Fatima, Portugal in 1917. Where anywhere from 30 to a 100 thousand people gathered in a field and watched the Sun dance. Miracle, sun dog, or mass hallucination...
13:04 It’s not a huge issue for me, but I preferred your previous intro/outro music, for what it’s worth.
Different series have different music
@@Paulogia, to be frank, I’m a bit cuffed to receive a direct reply. Thank you!
But let me say, too, that you have made another great video making telling points. I can well understand Dr. E’s frustration that Licona can be so elevated in the discourse when he makes such patently poor comparisons and outlandish hypotheticals that do nothing but underscore the exact weaknesses of his own case.
@@Paulogia gift for all. J e s u s P o w e r S t a r t I n g 😊😮
They not only have a three body problem also a fourth body problem because Satan seems to be a lesser god he has superpowers and let's not forget about the Angels they also have Supernatural Powers as well.
And Satan would have a good reason to raise Jesus. It has led many jews to abandon orthodoxy.
oof. Now I have to google "girls eating apples." I'll be in my bunk.
Yeah, the ‘Just a Bite’ intro was always pretty hot. Nice to see Paul bringing them back.
Hey Christian if the stars aligned and spelled out Ahura Mazda is lord would you start reading the zend-avesta and proclaim Ahura Mazda is lord❓️Didn't think so❗️
Nice! 😂👍
“Ahura Mazda” is just name from millions of names referring to the creator . What really matters is which description of attributes of god make more sense.
and definitely avesta has some good attributes & some bad ones .
"A comet... hits the moon and leaves a message that Jesus is Lord" Unlike the blinking universe in the Netflix series, the comet message isn't even outside the realms of physics as we understand it. While a pattern on the lunar surface caused by a natural event would be very unlikely to appear to form three legible words, it is still possible. Everybody knows the face on Mars as a classic example of how perspective, pattern seeking and agency loving minds results in claims that natural and otherwise ordinary natural features must have been made.
Flying saucers, Mike? I'm still ducking flying garbage pail lids.
The blinking in the video is morse code - it reads - Hi, I'm the disembodied sky wizard. Get ready to rumble!
I always wondered about a religion that prays to a Zombie.
Imagine something impossible. Now imagine it happening. You can’t explain how it happened so therefore god. Rock solid stuff
What was the Chinese film referenced at the beginning?
3 Body Problem
@@Paulogia thank you
Solid
I finished watching 3 Body an hour ago. I started it last night. Wow! Most exciting sci-fi I've seen in a long time.
Read the books, they fill in a lot of missing/topical information in the show (unsurprisingly).
@@solacedagony1234 Weirdly enough, I read the first book but nothing about it stuck with me. I guess I just drifted through it. The show was like viewing it for the first time. I'll have to give it another go. The same happened with the first The Expanse book. I needed the show to get a grip on what was happening.
@@amazingbollweevil The beginning of the first book is a bit slow with all the historical stuff. I think once you get into the middle to end it gets a lot more interesting. The second book is definitely all over the place if you're into sci fi like that.
Respawning in adult form is absurd.
We know from cloning animals that the process is much different, and the clone grows up different to the original anyway.
Yeah, a perfect clone would still be its own person. Different experiences, different epigentic expression potentially as well.
IME, Christians generally believe that humans have a soul and/or spirit (essentially the mind, disembodied), which animates the (human) brain/body. So they'd probably argue that your scenario is not analogous.
@@ratamacue0320 Generally, because they adopted the age-old belief that the wind and air in general was the source of life and that they could be blown into and out of people.
It's where the phrase ‘breath of life’ comes from.
Dammit warn about spoilers! I just started watching 3 Body problem
I just wanted to let you know that I am watching this at 2:15am
I am both a mystic and a scientist, like newton, like pythagoras. I can look at both perspectives and I dont need to assume the natural perspective is the only perspective. In addition I can say I don't know. Saying that you don't know is easier than taking a stance.
1. I dont know the foundations of the universe and I dont know if it was created.
2. I dont know if a god is possible in our universe.
3. I do know that our universe operates by a set of physical tendencies we call laws.
4. I do not know whether those tendencies are superdeterministic or have a foundational uncertainty.
5. I suspect there is a layer to the universe that is esoteric, as this explains the resolution problem, by esoteric i mean unreal in our physical understanding of reality.
6. I think some physical questions will remain a matter of speculation.
As a mystic.
1. Having surveyed the mystical landscape i find that most mystical expression, exotericism, is delusion. The overwhelming majority are. Trees don't talk, There is no universal common god figure running everything.
2. However, there is a kernal that is not.
3. Our mystical interpretations are heavily biased by apriori magick, even when we cloam not to believe in magick.
4. The wisest sages have warnings regarding mysticism - heaven touring.
5. Esoteric mysticism is the best practice and eliminating the magick pushes back the delusions, but reflection is the only true means to avoid "miracle" thinking.
6. Mysticism should only be employed by natural mystics and only to improve ones esoteric experiences.
7. Given this I cannot answer the second question, what is divine? The only answer I can give is if it exists, its within you, and you own it. If you choose to use magick to decorate your divine, then what you get is an ornate superfluous divine. Most people who are attempting mystical practice should not be attempting at all. They would be better off reading philosophy or history. The place you go to pray at is surrounded by magickal devices, sights and sounds designed to inspire the mystical self, this is not esoteric reflection. In fact if you read the NT, the jesus figure tells you specifically tells you this is not how to pray. And so
8. Their god is not my god.
0:25 Where was this clip from?
3 Body Problem
@@Paulogia Thxxx
"i have no natural explanation" has been going on since humans got their brains and then it has been a natural explanation, if all the stars in the universe blinked in time and sent a message, you can bet your sweet bippy there will be a natural explanation.
If religious rituals made me feel better with costing too much, I’d pray or whatever because I like feeling better. Alcohol does make me feel better so I have found balance with alcohol and its drawbacks. If religion had any predictable benefits and drawbacks, I’d be working to find the optimal give/take of that ratio too.
Is god less persuasive than the biochemical effects of alcohol?
I gave up both around the same time. Coincidence?! (Probably)
Every god that was ever described to me either doesn't exist or is unfalsifiable and thus not worthy of serious belief.
This reminds me of the parallels I perceive between the Jesus story and the 1956 film The Day The Earth Stood Still; a man comes out of nowhere among incredulous people, says and does some extraordinary things, gets cross wise of the authorities, gets publicly killed, his body is mysteriously removed from it's guards, is brought back to life, and reappears before incredulous people to say and do more extraordinary things before vanishing never to be seen again.
Jesus barata nikto.
What would Mike do if the moon message was "Praise Odin"
"Would you believe in God if we had significantly better evidence than we do now?"
"Probably, but I'd still want to double check that I wasn't hallucinating first."
"God, atheists are so unreasonable and dogmatic."
Wish I was exaggerating, but I've seen it play out this way multiple times.
I'm with you all the way, but as an obsessive Star Trek fan with ASD, I was totally distracted by the thought that I hate seeing that Rosalind Chao is getting old.
Binging the 3 body problem.👍
Binging resurrection debates is some of that former Christian self flagellation.
I'm sure you can find better things to do with the amazing Shannon Q during a free weekend.😸
So the "3 Body Problem" TV show has nothing to do with the three-body problem in classical mechanics?
Nazca Lines?
god and santa claus operate in exactly the same way, gifts for good folks and well, a naughty list.
How can you possibly "debate" something that has absolutely no basis in fact and has never been *proven* to occur even _once_ in human history (either with humans or any other animal for that matter). The entire concept of a debate about it is ludicrous.
Some story, written from a multitude of verbally transmitted mutations, *decades* after _supposed_ events took place, in a time of rampant ignorance, mysticism and utter lack of scientific understanding of _anything_ , is simply not even worth considering as credible for one second.
Douglas Adams wrote about a planet, where are to be found mile high letters, forming Gods' Last Message to his creation.
The message read:
"We apologise for the inconvenience".
This actually sounds kind of credible to me, given the circumstances.
embrace the coming of the trisolarans
I started watching the Chinese version and then did the Netflix version both of them have good things and are well done for their respective budgets.
It’s amazing how many religious claims fall apart as soon as you accept the simple fact that humans can be wrong about stuff
Hey this is the point that I've been making in comments recently! If someone noticed that I was collecting $20 an hour, and then said that they could pay me $35 an hour because their boss has infinite money, them paying me $35 is not actually proof that the boss has infinite money.
The story of Moses and the Egyptians sorcerers is probably the earliest warning that unexplainable forces are not actually proof that it's God, capital G God
Because People are liars.
I am my whole body.
There are no others occupying my body. I digest my food, circulate my blood, form my thoughts and form new cells when the old ones die. I am the creator of this body. I formed it without knowing how I did it with the energy that surrounds and sustains all things.
Gives away that there May be aliens in 3 Body Problem. Then “minor spoilers.” X-D
If If something on the moon read "Jesus is Lord", I would just start believing that we're living in a simulation, and we are being trolled
A common argument against the simulation hypothesis is that all known software systems have glitches and we don’t witness those in the world all around us. But, the current House of Representatives might disprove that argument, because it is the perfect image of a major glitch
It demostrates the uselessness of miracles to an omni-god.
@@charlesloeffler333 I feel we've been living in a glitch since 9/11.
It's all, always been the purest magical thinking.
When I first heard Mike Licona years ago I thought he was a serious and honest scholar, quite rare in the apologetics world. I'm afraid I no longer think that.
I started watching 3 Body Problem because of this video. I'm six episodes in and I gotta agree; the "miracles" that are witnessed by people in the show are VASTLY superior to the "moon-writing" hypothetical scenarios given by Christians like Licona, yet no god is involved. Great video, Paul.
was the 3 body problem any good???
For a netflix adaptation, yes pretty good. It isn't 1 to 1 to the book, that would make the show at least 24 episodes long for book 1. There are some changes made, actually a lot, especially regarding the characters. But hey, the book places everything in china (at least 90%) So pretty understandable that they changed that.
@@Poepopdestoep thanks! had no idea it was even a book lol
My dad used to buy the National Enquirer to follow the conspiracies (and laugh) and read that Jesus was an extraterrestrial... 42 years ago! 😂😂😂
As Neil DeGrasse Tyson has suggested (conceptually), "debating" the resurrection is exactly like debating what flavour of cheese the moon is made of! The underlying premise is idiotic and ignorant, thus debating it is pointless.
Absolutely true, but we still might have to confront the issue if the people arguing about the moon cheese were socially and politically powerful.
This reminds me of years ago when the video essayist Mauler once said that any fictional character who refused to kill could be made to kill no matter what. He then went on to do the "trolly/train problem" and claimed even not changing the train's track was the hero "choosing" to kill. It's far too easy (and a cheat) to twist hypotheticals into knots in an attempt to win an argument.
I'd need to see both of those statements in context, as Mauler is known for including long asides into his essays.
@@Kyeudo It's on one of the very early EFAP episodes (mid 20s, I think). You can find the right episode because the comments are filled with people pointing out the errors in his arguments. Essentially, his position was if X result happens no matter what action a person choices, then that person still choose to make X happen. Or to use his example, Batman chooses to kill even if he doesn't do anything because he's letting the train run people over despite the situation being set up so that Batman could not do anything but flip the switch or not.
@@morlath4767
It sounds like Mauler was invoking a bit of consequentialist logic, where even doing nothing is taking an action. Then we get into the hair-splitting of "let die" vs "killed" and whether that distinction is even meaningful. If there is no difference between "letting someone die" and "killing them", then standing by while people die is killing them. If there is a difference, then Mauler would be wrong.
Either way, Batman broods over his failure to save everyone.
@@Kyeudo I agree with you on Batman's brooding. The issue everyone had was Mauler's rigidity to the "I can put Batman into a situation where he _chooses_ to kill."
I do somewhat get Mauler's point. It's the "evil when good men do nothing" thinking put on top of the standard trolly problem. My (and everyone else's) issue was that he kept emphasising culpability and choice in the hypothetical. It was putting someone into a no-win situation but then claiming the person decided to lose.
@@morlath4767 Sometimes, the decision is whether to lose less or lose more. /shrug
Hypotheticals are messy, especially if you can't interrogate the one proposing the situation for their definitions.
This is why i try to remove human corruption from my understanding of the past, too much hearsay
Darn, I'll have to go watch 3 body problem before watching this... 😕
Nearly 30 years ago I became a believer because I genuinely thought that I heard the voice of Jesus. I can still remember the words I thought I heard, "You know it's real, you can't run all your life". However, as I started to re-examine what I believed, it became clear that the experience was more likely to be a product of the physical circumstances than genuinely divine and/or supernatural.
I'm currently discussing with some of my Christian friends whether there is good evidence for the resurrection. So far, the best they can do is to pose the question, "Why would people lie, when honesty and truthfulness is a core value of Christianity?". I don't have an answer, but I know that lies and mistakes happen every day, resurrection does not.
3 body problem, lol, I thought this was something from high school physics 🤣🤣
*I'm not going to a priori exclude the possibility [of god] either*
No one does. There is no a priori exclusion of god, just recognition that we can only understand things about external reality which can be detected. So, either find a way to detect god in a predictable, repeatable, falsifiable manner or admit you are complaining about a problem of your own creation.
next 3bp review
The Betty Bowers channel had totally refuted both the apologists and the anti-apologists in her video “The Bible’s Biggest Secret”.
SPOILER: Jesus had a twin brother.
If they think their proposed scenarios are even on the same planet (literally), let alone in the same ballpark as anyone ever provides as evidence for the supernatural claims of any one of the varieties of conflicting holy books, then we already know what their problem is, don’t we...it’s a strong DESIRE for it to be true and willful lack of normal, heathy skepticism. Funny how each of them finds their skepticism for other religion's holy books.
It's always such a laugh when an apologist makes this claim of "Well you wouldn't accept God even if you had evidence!" We're skeptical, not in denial. I would accept that a god exists if I had good evidence for it. (Worshiping it is another matter though.) But such evidence has never been presented, even though the believers have had centuries to do so, so at this point we can safely conclude that no such evidence exists.
It's impossible to prove that biblical miracles occurred, even if the laws of physics were inexplicably suspended for 24 hours in Switzerland. Blame hypothetical aliens for hypothetical disruptions.
First, Show me handwriting in the sky with god's name on it before you criticize my skepticism.
A couple of hypotheticals for Lincona:
1) How would he react if the message in the dust read, "Praise be to Allah and to his final propher Mohammed, peace be upon him."?
2) If the triune God of Christianity is the best explanation for finding a message in Greek and Hebrew saying, "Jesus is Lord:, why hasn't this omni-benevolent God actually done so?
He finds his neighbors more credible than his wife of thirty five years.
So Jesus wasn't Devine, it was just Clark Tech