I once debated an antivaxxer on social media because I hate myself, and they kept linking study after study. Simply reading the studies refuted the points they were trying to make by citing the studies. Always read your sources people.
It's so exhausting. Like, you typically don't even have to read past the abstract to realize the study can't say what they pretend it does. It's seemingly incomprehensible to them that someone actually reads sources; to them a footnote and link is just rhetorical decoration.
Used to have a semi-regular back and forth with this climate change denier. They'd come out with some new graph that "totally disproves the research of climate scientists". So, I'd just find where the graph came from and find out exactly why their presentation of the graph and claims about what it was saying were incorrect based on the graph's own authors. This never deterred them from trying again and again and again.
Great video, Dan! No matter what, he will wiggle out of this and never concede to any evident criticisms. Even when Kipp, Stephen and I were critiquing him on Bart, we changed our position where we were wrong by agreeing with Jones. I've yet to find him concede with these kinds of engagements. Maybe too much ego? Maybe cognitive dissonance? Who knows, Maybe one day?
Because he then would have to admit that Jesus of the Nt is a false prophet. Then he would lose his financiers and then he would have to work normally.
I don't really have a huge knowledge of IP, but the few times I've run across him he has always come across like a Christian version of the annoying "Internet atheist" stereotype.
I used to value IP so much for his apologetics. That was until he started talking about how we need more Christianity to defeat nationalism in the USA. I then realised he didn't know what he was talking about because I have a degree in politics.
It's disheartening to see someone you found interesting speak with their usual confidence on an area of your expertise, only to realize they're completely lost.
Bro what I can say is even if Bible is losing its holiness, for a few centuries we live in a world that ethical Christianity rules in a way that it was never that much. And when you compare conversative Christians and secular atheists, secular atheists are the ones these are morally more Christians. Tells so many things.
I am a theologian myself and even when I was christian, IP was giving my eyebrows a very, very hard time. Still does. He can find the most fringe piece of literature to support a very specific claim and he doesn't even seem to realize that while doing so, he's getting the gold medal on mental gymnastics.
Consider this. You were capable of recognizing that there was a discrepancy. How many other Christians, after being indoctrinated and brainwashed and taught to trust respected authority figures, are capable of what you could do? One of the first things I do is ask 'What if I'm wrong? ". I'll do a quick search to confirm and I tend to use academic consensus and reputable sources to back me up. When I deconstructed from Christianity, I became acutely aware of how flimsy my knowledge was and how limited it was. Hence the deference to consensus in subjects that are not in my expertise. IP, and many of is ilk, are creating a culture where the believers are vulnerable to predatory actors and false knowledge. I get it. Religions tend to do this because it's a successful strategy of control. You see this elsewhere such as the outlawing of education for black people in the US South during slavery. if the slaves could read and write, they could communicate and that was a threat to white power. But just because it's a successful strategy doesn't mean it's a good strategy for the people who are being manipulated. It's fine for the Benny Hinns or the Ted Haggards or the Mormon Church with their investment fund, but it's a negative for the believers. I wish more believers were more skeptical and stopped glorifying blind faith. Faith without evidence is gullibility. And it's not only them that suffer. It's the victims who are demonized because the religious think their bad. So much suffering because the people in charge want to keep their power and the masses want to feel happy rather than informed.
@@BradyPostmaThe interesting thing to me is that IP HAS changed his mind on YEC, in his words because he "was tired of getting beaten so badly on it every time". I guess maybe his standard for changing his mind is just that there is no possible escape hatch and there is no way he could possibly be correct? Seems like as long as there is one person in the actual field he can find that agrees with what he wants to believe, he is going to stick with that.
Why would anyone want to watch a "response" from IP? He's clearly way out of his depth - he's claiming superior knowledge of the texts without even being able to read them in the original Hebrew and koine Greek (like Dan can)...
Another issue with conditional prophecy is that it’s special pleading. If the prophecy comes true, it was fatalistic, it it didn’t come true, it was conditional… no way to disprove any prophecy… except the prophecies made by heretical sects, pagan religions or any other prophecy from a tradition I don’t ascribe to. then and only then, we can use the OT test of a prophet to prove their failed prophecies mean they were fakes. Makes total sense , I get to be right all the time and keep my religion as special. Hallelujah!
David Noel Freedman used to say that the readiest indication of the authenticity of Scripture was the inclusion of failed prophecies. The Bible tells the sorry tale of humanity warts and all.
It's heads-I-win, tails-you-lose. Similar issue with double fulfillment: If you show that a prophecy was about something else, they can just say that it WAS about that thing, but was ALSO about Jesus. Yet somehow if you argue the promise of the Resurrection might have been conditional and didn't actually come true, or that through TRIPLE fulfillment the prophecies are REALLY about Turbo Jesus 3000 and are yet to be fulfilled, suddenly they act like that's not fair play.
Prophecy is an inherently unfalsifiable concept in Christianity, because if it wasn’t then, well, Christianity wouldn’t exist lol. If Jesus had said “I’ll come back in 1000 years”, and then on the year 1001 people realized that that didn’t happen, then that’d be that. There would still be people coping, but many people would just abandon their Faith. That’s why the supposed “prophecies” that Jesus fulfilled are all from long ago. He never made a promise about something happening in the distant future in an unfalsifiable way. Because the writers were smart enough to realize that that’d be a bad idea.
@@LeoVital Your premises are false, and so with your conclusions. We cannot even establish what Jesus said, much less what he might have meant. Nor is it clear that his followers had correctly understood him. We do have plenty of legendary material to work with, just as we do for Honi the Circle Maker --- who was a Galilean Wunderrebbe -- but is that the stuff of real historiography?
@@BobSmith-lb9ncWhat are you even talking about? I’m not defending Christian prophecies, I’m pointing out how ridiculous that concept is to begin with, being unfalsifiable and all.
hilarious. Not the first time IP has been hoisted by his own sources. It's because he doesn't read them thoroughly and just cherry picks things he thinks support his dogmatic arguments.
I love that we live in a timeline where a regular part of of my media diet is watching scholars in their respective fields batting down cranks and fighting each other online. I've probably gotten a semester's worth of biblical studies over the years listening to all of these scholars, or reading their books.
I learned about this channel through IP attempting to critique its content. While I appreciated Michael's scholarly emphasis, at the end of the day, it was clear he was reading into the sources, and they always seemed to agree with his pre-existing philosophy. I much prefer to understand what _did_ happen rather than pretend that our current perspective has always been so.
@@jeffknetzer856 you're welcome, and thank you, too! I grew up in family that pretended to appreciate science when they were really fundamentalist conservatives, but they still taught their kids to look stuff up and challenge biases. They just didn't know they were preparing their children to be more objective than they ever were!
@@BradyPostmaHovind is a crazy, yet not that bright YEC. YEC is wrong, but I’ve at least seen some that can sometimes debate well. Hovind also went to jail for tax evasion, and he went to trial for slamming his ex-wife. I’m not sure what happened to that though. He is one of the more slimy people you could meet. He basically just has talking points that he has used over and over again for 30 plus years (same script for longer than I have been alive lol). I do think the initial comment was a bit too harsh. Nobody is even close to as bad as Kent with logic. If you want to see how dumb he is, he has a UA-cam. I wouldn’t give him a view though lol! I would watch something about him on a different channel lol!
Dan: " ..and I will be happy to be wrong" - That's why I love this man and his content, he's always willing to step back and apologize if something wrong came out from his mouth.
5 місяців тому
except in order for Dan to be wrong IP would have to concede the argument. it's a clever rhetorical move by Dan, but not very humble.
he has also apologized in places where he actually had a slip-up though and it comes across as duely sincere. it's unfortunately just impossible to apologize without covering his bases for him in such situations bc that would allow for a very high risk of someone trying to defend the argument in question by referring to his respective video and saying "see, even Dan McClellan says this is right!" besides, i might be cynical but i do not believe any of the people he engages with like that would ever accept an apology gracefully and without glee.
The obvious resolution is to accept that the writers and editors of the Bible were not perfect. One can be a believer without insisting on that point. Unfortunately it's messy, while insisting on perfect scripture is simple.
Imagine doing this type of argument with literally anything else. "I didn't cheat on my wife! When I vowed to be faithful, I never explicitly said, 'And I will not revoke my promise.'"
@@SpaveFrostKing As a parent,I use conditional prophecy all the time: clean your room by five, and we can go see the movie. I have learned quickly that it loses its power when the prophecy does not get fulfilled! lol!
5 місяців тому+1
nonsense. I specifically recall having "no take-backsies" as a child.
I'm leaning more towards Dan's second suggestion that he used the wrong graphic, then tried to summarize what Strine was saying on the other page and either misunderstood Strine or did some creative reinterpretation to fit a dogma. IP's been "creatively reinterpreting" ancient authors for years, so it wouldn't surprise me if he does the same thing with modern authors.
@@ironicnation3553 Was this on IG or X? In his response video he just re-showed the same page he had up in the last video (57) that didn't support the quote he was making at 4:10, "As CA Strine observes, we have more evidence of conditional prophecy than fatalistic."
@@ironicnation3553 lol, the quote he has on the screen doesn't match what he is saying my dude. Yes, that quote is there, but what IP SAYS it SAYS isn't. Read the words, and try to match them to what he's saying they say while he has them on screen.
Funny how Inspiring Philosophy would never use the same reasoning for the failed prophecies of the Dead Sea Scrolls group who expected the apocalypse in the 1st century BCE, among other such groups who made such predictions he'd disagree with, like the modern JW's, isn't it? I wonder why. The best scholars on apocalypticism like Dr John J Collins agree that apocalypticism is far more deterministic than previous prophecy could be, though not fatalistic for individual hearers, you can still repent and change, but the main historical movers will not repent and will act out the script.
@@bengreen171 Also known as “The fallacy fallacy”. It is simply another form of ad hominem attack: if I can show you used a logical fallacy, even if that fallacy doesn’t negate or contradict your claim, I can imply you are either arguing in bad faith, or try and impugn your character.
Yeah it's all crap, if the gospel isn't preached to all nations then it's never gonna come. Great, all we have to do is keep creating more nations like splitting north Macedonians from ex-Yugoslavia or whatever, give them a new label and never have the gospel preached there. Alternatively, if that doesn't work because it HAS been preached to all nations at a certain point, presumably in the 19th or 20th century, what exactly is preventing the clock from starting ticking again and the end times to finally arrive seconds, minutes or at most a few years after this point? The other conditions like the Jews and gentiles not repenting or whatever is even worse, what exactly is the point at which we can judge repentance or non-repentnace? That already happened in the 1st century, tens of thousands repented and converted,, as well as millions of hearers who dismissed it and did not repent, or convert for every century since! Are we gonna wait for a time when 10 billion + non Christians repent? And what about the infants who die of malnutrition a few seconds before that event occurs? And why is a magical moment when everyone alive repenting somehow compensating for tens of billions of dead people who never repented? Does God have a cosmic autism syndrome that he likes the aesthetic effect of having X/total alive number of people repenting at a time?
And what's the point of (forged) books like Daniel meticulously detailingt the succession of kings until a very particular period of time of a few years at most, for the apocalypse, only for it to be conditional, supposedly? Of what benefit is it for God to focus on this period of time as though it's a fixed timetable, only for it to be potentially postponed? At what point after the postponement does the threatening end times clock start ticking again? It's all nonsense, as Dr Collins points out apocalypticism is deterministic. The reader can repent, but the predicted world events WILL come to pass as described, supposedly. That's the authors intention and the whole point of the precise calculations.
5 місяців тому+4
the elephant in the room is that "prophecy" isn't a real thing.
1st I love IP and Dan content, for different reasons both help me navigate my approach to faith. So all the love. 2nd I love that Dan is fully ready to step out of thisvis an issue of Dogma. To which i think a lot of Christians want their beliefs to be read as "common sense" despite needing to acknowledge all the steps that bring one to that conclusion.
Yes, this is my main problem with IP and most apologists. They aren't content to just say "look, we have faith, and given our presuppositions about the truth of Christianity we interpret the Bible this way, but it is reasonable for scholars and others to read it differently". No, they have to take that approach but ALSO call everyone that approaches the text in a secular way "biased" and "fallacious" and "irrational", because apparently their brand of Christianity can't deal with reasonable people believing differently than them. Probably mostly because of the problem of hell. I've found that Universalists tend be the most respectful and reasonable Christians to have a discussion with.
No shade on you, Dan, but this apologist reminds me so much of the Mormon apologetics I grew up with. I remember how apologists tried to justify Mormonism’s changing doctrine by saying, “No that’s policy, not doctrine.0 without any data at all.
For a guy who loves to start with fallacy allegations, this creator loves to use arguments from silence. I think the dude also needs a refresher in Boolean logic; he's not clear about the differences between conditionals and hypotheticals. I like how he tried to sneak prophecy into a whole different realm of ontology, but Dan caught it. When I was a philo/religion major at Ithaca College, I remember my advisor loved hermeneutics; however, you just don't pick up a book on it and begin isolated study -- understanding the tools it gives requires a scholarly framework from hardcore years of rigorous study, testing and demonstrations of mastery. Period. This creator isn't just wading into it with an open mind; Like DeGrasse Tyson said about knowing enough to think you're right, but not enough to recognize you're wrong -- this creator doesn't primarily function in an academic, scholarly community but a social media milieu of dogmatic followers. The idea of genuine curiosity, learning from people who know more than you (Dan) and admitting large gaps of weak comprehension are alien concepts. Shifting the consensus, changing the conclusions, offering new evidence or clarifications -- these are hallmarks of critical scholarly progress; Viewed from within nodding dogmatic/Apologetic online circles, these seemingly vital stats of health are anemic fault lines threatening viewership or reputation. I'm reminded a bit of RFK Jr.'s fanbase: many of his takes on the role of NIH and Big Pharma are wrongheaded and wholly fantastic; Yet he can never admit to lapses in understanding or knowledge gaps, lest his followers turn on him with "sellout" accusations and turn those conspiracies back at him.
I think that’s all very well put. My impression of IP is that he reads a little on a topic (either enough yo assume a conclusion, or to reinforce a conclusion he went in with), then puts out a video and will read more and put out a new video if he was wrong and called out on it. The natural delay for releasing videos allows this to happen; it buys time to read more on the relevant topic so you can appear like an expert to your followers.
@@JohnSmith-fz1ih that's an interesting wrinkle I never considered, makes a lot of sense if you're 100% about viewership
5 місяців тому+22
"conditional prophecy" um... didn't jesus already know the conditions when he made the prophecies? If the conditions weren't going to be fulfilled within a generation, why did he say they would occur within a generation? He could have just left that part out. "conditional prophecy" implies that jesus didn't know what was going to happen, which undermines the entire concept of prophecy. It's a logically inconsistent position.
Doesn't it undermine the concept if you know the future as well? If I'm some sort of supernatural entity and I know about an event in the future via some unknown means which nevertheless guarantees that outcome, aren't I just making a statement of fact? If I see an apple and say "This apple is red." Is that a prophecy? Or if time is a relevant factor, "This apple will still be red in the future."
Guys like Michael would probably argue that Jesus wasn't fully in his full divine nature because Christians have the concept of kenosis in their theology which explains according to their understanding why Jesus could have limited knowledge of things.
The generation of people alive at the time the end time events begin to unfold will not pass away before all those things come to pass. What am I missing?
@@scripturalcontexts Probably, but it's really just another goal post shift as he'd have to demonstrate what super powers Jesus does and does not have and that they are relevant to this scenario. Endless warrens with these guys.
wait - so IP is upset at Dan for saying that his argument relies on dogmatism and denies the data....about an argument he literally claims relies on dogmatism and denies the data? man. He is flailing.
Is it just me or is a lot of this IP overreacting to the word "dogma"? He seems to regard it as an insult when in fact Dan is using it quite a technical sense.
Good point and Dan did come across as reasonable. However, it needs to be stated that the scripture eg Acts 3:19-20 does state explicitly that Christ's return is conditional on repentance. So is that 'dogmatic' or is it 'data'?
@@meej33 well the fact is that Acts makes Christ's return conditional on Israels repentance AND the text in the olivet discourse is in the subjunctive mood (24:34) which renders it conditional. In fact what we have here is strong evidence for the truth of Scripture since the gospels, Acts and letters claimed to be in that period all state Christ's return is imminent. Yet once we pass Paul's judgement on Israel in Acts 28 and reach the letters on the other side all sense of imminence vanishes. So we have an internal explanation for the difference between, say, Thessalonians and Ephesians. The former belongs to the Acts when Christ's return was imminent though conditional and the latter to the 'post Acts ' revelation of Ephesians 3.
@@stephenglasse9756 you’re assuming the dogma of univocality and inerrancy. You’re assuming that if acts says something is must agree with mark , because your dogma says the Bible can’t disagree with itself and there’s no reason outside dogma to believe/accept that.
@@wingedlion17 I definitely assume inerrancy and infallibility that's true. But that doesn't get you or Dan out of anything. If Matthew 24:34 is in the subjunctive mood then it's conditional and that just happens to agree with Acts 3:19-20 and lots of other texts which affirm that some of God's blessings are conditional. Why assume Jesus is a failed eschatological prophet when his very words in the text under scrutiny are in the subjunctive mood AND they *just happen to agree* with other texts eg Acts
“The inerrant Bible is divinely inspired, but we shouldn’t pay attention to authors’ intentions in trying to interpret the Bible.” (Paraphrasing) Good gravy. This pretzel logic is getting downright postmodern.
A word of encouragement. I am not an orthodox Christian. About 15 years ago, I spent a lot of effort gong thru good pop books on Jesus and going thru as much professional literature on Jesus, orthodox Christianity, and Christian variations as I could. I am an anthropologist with an interest in religion. I agree with you almost always and disagree with your critics almost always, certainly in this case. You really do present the scholarly consensus on issues, and you really do present relevant data and arguments too. You note variations and lack of full consensus. You summarize and present quite well. You are carrying out a public service. Don't be discouraged by some of your critics. Most people benefit much from your efforts. Mike
IP has to be the funniest example of the dishonesty and venom of apologists in general. Hes so haughty and indignant, treats people like idiots, but has never said a true or intelligent thing in his entire career
I would assume " all nations" was originally understood as the nations people in the Middle East would have been aware of, Just as I would assume that all the animals on the Ark would have been originally understood as the animals they were aware of.
Correct - it was encompassing the Roman Empire an its trade outposts. In Acts every nation had come to Jerusalem during the feasts. Paul said the gospel had gone out to every nation and that it was preached to all creatures under heaven. IP is FOS.
I have never seen someone so thoroughly shown to be wrong by their own source text. Do these people actually read, or do their theological assumptions simply overpower their observations?
This comment has aged like milk! IP just shared a screen shot of the page in question and pointed out it was exactly where his reference said it was. Makes Dan appear like a chump now.
Conditional prophecies are my favorite. I make them all the time. I'm making a prophecy that the Jaguars will win the next Super Bowl, unless they don't. Boom, I'm a prophet.
@@Steven-bs5hv As a parent, I find conditional prophecies extremely useful: if you don@5 clean your room in time, we won’t be going to see the movie. They are an excellent motivational tool. Unfortunately, they require the prophecy to be fulfilled if the conditions are met, even if I don’t feel like driving to the theater. Otherwise they lose their impact and efficacy.
@@Bobjdobbs You just need to implement the double conditional with a raincheck clause followed by a conditional, i.e., If you clean your room, we'll go to the movies, unless something comes up, in which case we'll go tomorrow, unless we can't. I think Jesus would be proud of me.
Finally someone points at the elephant in the room! I am sure IP has some sophistry essay ready for answering to that but to me, he could win the gold in mental gymnastics, the elephant would still be there. On a different note, that explains how certain Christians are able to say that there’s hundreds of fulfilled “prophecies” in the Bible.
Congratulations! You are now a prophet for the New Apostolic Reformationists (NAR)! I am assuming the "InspiringPhilosophy" guy is NAR because that is how their prophets get credibility and profit on people who seriously believe them. His website mentions the Holy Spirit gives gifts to every believer and he is intentionally hiding what denomination he belongs to other than "Jesus Follower" which leads me towards him being NAR. (NARists will claim they're Jesus Followers instead of a denomination because NAR is controversial.)
For all the faults of the LDS church, every Mormon I knew in university was an excellent debater because they could refute the dumbest points on Earth in the nicest way. (Also I assumed all LDS went to BYU, but I guess not! Probably because it's cheaper to go to state university and you stay near family.)
@@totallyturtles480 For all the faults of the LDS, every Mormon I have known has been just insanely nice and extremely calm. I remember Trey Parker talking about how he felt slightly bad making a South Park episode about Mormons because all of the ones he met were just so friendly.
@@skypangolin8576 Yeah, I know he went to BYU! I obviously as a non-Mormon, did not go. I went to a East Coast state college and I was shocked there were Mormons there.
People who don't know what they're talking about or who are being dishonest LOVE accusing their detractors of logical fallacies, as if it's some sort of gotcha.
But Dan is missing a simple thing here, if it happens it’s fatalistic and if it doesn’t, it’s conditional. See I win either way , even when I don’t. Also IP cares about the plain reading of the text when it suits his rhetorical goals.
Conditional prophecy seems like a great way to get around the Deuteronomic commandment to kill false prophets if their prophecies don't come true. "Oh, uhhhhh, well you see guys, that prophecy was CONDITIONAL, and we managed to avoid it coming true! Whew, lucky us, huh? Anyway it doesn't count as a failed prophecy because I always knew it might not happen after all."
Paul told us that the gospel has been preached to all nations and to every creature under heaven. Furthermore, how is that it has not been in 2000 years. The blindness of excusegists is insane!
Woh woh woh. Heat heat heat 🔥🔥🔥This is one of the best debate videos so far on this channel. But of course, it must cause some emotional stress on both of you ✊️
That last attempt at a dunk from InspiringPhilosophy was so cringe. I don't have to accept that your God exists to make an internal critique about your beliefs, I just have to accept that you're incorrect about who Jesus was... which is why there's an argument to begin with. It's like, no matter how technical the Apologist, they just miss the basics right in front of them in their dogged rush to "prove Jesus is God."
Dan, it's refreshing to see someone go through sources like you do. It helps ground a debate in some common authority, namely scholarly work to understand the Bible, which itself is taken as common authority but only dimly, needing for its understanding precisely the careful thinking you demonstrate.
As someone calls it, the Trojan Source. A source that the proponent offers in support of their case, but on closer inspection (and in some cases that means _any_ inspection because the proponent never read past the headline), it contradicts the case being put forward.
@@mrwallace1059 I don’t think he is. I think he is in over his head and is grasping at straws. H I believe what he is doing is quickly reading the book to find validation. When he sees a section that he thinks makes his point, he feels validated without proof reading it or double checking. But I may be projecting here. I worked for an apologetic website (well two actually), and made this error quite a bit.
The Bible has fatalistic prophecies that failed (like Babylon destroying Egypt), and those that succeeded (likely because written after the events "predicted") and even some written afterwards which exaggerate so much people can't even agree if they've been fulfilled or not. I think even some of those kind, about Cyrus and the return of the Exiles and the rebuilding of the temple, were similarly "predictions" made later, but which exaggerated so much as to make them seem unfulfilled, and these led to later messianic interpretations including those held by Jesus about the return of the Davidic monarchy within the 1st century CE. Important about the conditions, too, is many were probably added later to ammend failed prophecies, such as those about an eternal Davidic line and kingdom. The "idol worship" caveats in promises given to Moses, Abraham, and David seem very likely post-Hezekiah and even more likely after Babylon's conquest of Jerusalem. Most of the kings and people of Jerusalem, according to the Bible, had no problem with Asherah or polytheistic versions of El, so it seems very unlikely the oldest traditions forbade them. So even the conditional prophecies this guy can point to are IMO examples of scribes doing exactly what he's doing, thinking "the prophet couldn't have been wrong, there must have been something we missed and forgot to record that I must insert to fix it." Abraham & Moses probably didn't originally get caveats against idols in their promised land prophecies, and Jesus didn't give any caveats to his kingdom of David prophecies... until apologists decided they must have been there all along, and added them to their (oral) Torah. TL;DR Bible prophecy is a mess, and even when it's true, it often still finds a way to be wrong.
I wouldn't. It's not entertaining to see MJ (GOAT 🐐 of 🏀) dunk on whiny kindergarteners😊. The lack of intellectual honesty and the high dependence on presuppositions of the kindergartner make it very predictable how this would play out.
I think it would be very hard to watch. The debates I've seen Michael engage in are largely dogmatic, and he assumes that Dan (among others) is arguing dogmatically as well. I like Michael, but I'm reasonably convinced he would come off as impetulant and rigid.
@@PavelR1 So this debate would be Data vs Dogma. Data wins 👍. I would really like Santa Claus to be real and that well behaved children are rewarded equally independent of their parents' wealth or lack thereof but the data clearly show it's not reality and is just wishful thinking.
@@ericreed4535 When you say "MJ dunking on whiny kindergarteners" , does MJ stand for Michael Jordan or Michael Jones? (Inspiring Philosophy's name is Michael Jones, if you weren't aware).
@@Matoyak Sorry, I thought "dunk" was clear enough that it was referring to Michael Jordan. I didn't know the kindergartner had the same initials 😊. Thanks for the info, I'll edit the comment to make it clear.
I wonder if these kinds of apologists care that constantly misrepresenting their own scripture only exposes more theological problems as people try to check their work.
The young man has the typical attitude of any ole person whose beliefs are felt to be challenged. That's the odd thing about beliefs in a person who takes their belief as facts: they have aversion, anger, pissiness and all manner of unregenerate reactions. This is simply to be ignored and not to be taken seriously at all. Thanks Dan for facts and not dogmaeliefs.
To explain these unfulfilled prophesies it seems IP's and all apologists best argument would be, like in Jonah, to say "I guess God just changed his mind."
CH Dodd had an interesting theological view, Realized Eschatology where basically the appearance of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost was the second coming. While "solving" some issues it creates many more. As theology always does...
“I quoted this book, but please don’t use the actual words of the book to describe my comments as dogmatic.”
@JesusLied_ReadTheBibleHe's not tho
It's in page 57. he even put it in the screen.
look again.
I once debated an antivaxxer on social media because I hate myself, and they kept linking study after study. Simply reading the studies refuted the points they were trying to make by citing the studies. Always read your sources people.
As the old saying goes, "If you can't dazzle them with your brilliance, baffle them with your bullsh*t".
We like to call this a Trojan Source
It's so exhausting. Like, you typically don't even have to read past the abstract to realize the study can't say what they pretend it does.
It's seemingly incomprehensible to them that someone actually reads sources; to them a footnote and link is just rhetorical decoration.
@@crow-dont-know Oh my goodness I am definitely stealing that phrase for later!
Used to have a semi-regular back and forth with this climate change denier.
They'd come out with some new graph that "totally disproves the research of climate scientists". So, I'd just find where the graph came from and find out exactly why their presentation of the graph and claims about what it was saying were incorrect based on the graph's own authors.
This never deterred them from trying again and again and again.
Great video, Dan! No matter what, he will wiggle out of this and never concede to any evident criticisms.
Even when Kipp, Stephen and I were critiquing him on Bart, we changed our position where we were wrong by agreeing with Jones. I've yet to find him concede with these kinds of engagements. Maybe too much ego? Maybe cognitive dissonance?
Who knows, Maybe one day?
The GOAT 🐐 commented 💫
Because he then would have to admit that Jesus of the Nt is a false prophet. Then he would lose his financiers and then he would have to work normally.
...we... are...mythvision 🤘🏻😜
@CascadiaNewsServicethat's just completely irrelevant to what's being discussed
@CascadiaNewsService oooh.. the attitude. Why so salty?
Every time he points out a “fallacy” I kept picturing Inigo Montoya “I do not think it means what you think it means”
I don't really have a huge knowledge of IP, but the few times I've run across him he has always come across like a Christian version of the annoying "Internet atheist" stereotype.
there's a reason there's also a fallacy fallacy 😂
Inconceivable!
The fact that he has a Masters degree in philosophy yet consistently misuses the term "fallacy" makes me suspect his honesty.
@@ThinkitThrough-kd4fn who?
If Dan publicly responded to me with, "This is... BASIC hermeneutics!" it'd honestly ruin my whole day.
I'd start an Uninspired Dogmophisy channel just to get called out by Dan. 😂😂😂
@@kylas1902 expired philosophy
*life
I used to value IP so much for his apologetics. That was until he started talking about how we need more Christianity to defeat nationalism in the USA. I then realised he didn't know what he was talking about because I have a degree in politics.
@@AmazingDuckmeister can you expound on this?
LOL WUT
It's disheartening to see someone you found interesting speak with their usual confidence on an area of your expertise, only to realize they're completely lost.
Any recommendations for resources on the topic of political Christianity?
Bro what I can say is even if Bible is losing its holiness, for a few centuries we live in a world that ethical Christianity rules in a way that it was never that much. And when you compare conversative Christians and secular atheists, secular atheists are the ones these are morally more Christians. Tells so many things.
I am a theologian myself and even when I was christian, IP was giving my eyebrows a very, very hard time. Still does. He can find the most fringe piece of literature to support a very specific claim and he doesn't even seem to realize that while doing so, he's getting the gold medal on mental gymnastics.
Consider this. You were capable of recognizing that there was a discrepancy. How many other Christians, after being indoctrinated and brainwashed and taught to trust respected authority figures, are capable of what you could do?
One of the first things I do is ask 'What if I'm wrong? ". I'll do a quick search to confirm and I tend to use academic consensus and reputable sources to back me up. When I deconstructed from Christianity, I became acutely aware of how flimsy my knowledge was and how limited it was. Hence the deference to consensus in subjects that are not in my expertise.
IP, and many of is ilk, are creating a culture where the believers are vulnerable to predatory actors and false knowledge. I get it. Religions tend to do this because it's a successful strategy of control. You see this elsewhere such as the outlawing of education for black people in the US South during slavery. if the slaves could read and write, they could communicate and that was a threat to white power.
But just because it's a successful strategy doesn't mean it's a good strategy for the people who are being manipulated. It's fine for the Benny Hinns or the Ted Haggards or the Mormon Church with their investment fund, but it's a negative for the believers. I wish more believers were more skeptical and stopped glorifying blind faith. Faith without evidence is gullibility. And it's not only them that suffer. It's the victims who are demonized because the religious think their bad. So much suffering because the people in charge want to keep their power and the masses want to feel happy rather than informed.
Maybe he thinks that the mental gymnastics demonstrate his loyalty to God and, thus, are a virtue.
@@BradyPostmaThe interesting thing to me is that IP HAS changed his mind on YEC, in his words because he "was tired of getting beaten so badly on it every time". I guess maybe his standard for changing his mind is just that there is no possible escape hatch and there is no way he could possibly be correct? Seems like as long as there is one person in the actual field he can find that agrees with what he wants to believe, he is going to stick with that.
When he said that was ad hominem, I just stared at the screen like ???
At least he's consistent.
He has no idea what any of the rest of them mean either.
It was not a rational thing to say, I agree and to be generous not the sort of error we expect from IP.
"Inspiring Philosophy" doesn't know what "ad hominem" means BWHAHAHA!
Inspiring Sophistry
@@MarcosElMalo2 saw a guy here say Expiring Sophistry. Seems accurate.
The gentleman is neither inspiring, nor particularly philosophical.
🤣🤣
That’s what a lot of people call ironic
That's why I'll always call him: "Inspiring sophistry", :p.
Delusional sophistry
Insipid Philosophizing
Mike Jones: "Here's where Dan commits the fallacy of pointing out where I'm wrong."
You obviously never saw the response to this video from IP.
Why would anyone want to watch a "response" from IP? He's clearly way out of his depth - he's claiming superior knowledge of the texts without even being able to read them in the original Hebrew and koine Greek (like Dan can)...
@@vmonk2
Because it's awesome
ua-cam.com/video/bsP6i5__pFU/v-deo.htmlsi=Rzt58gOO6KQAICKL
Another issue with conditional prophecy is that it’s special pleading. If the prophecy comes true, it was fatalistic, it it didn’t come true, it was conditional… no way to disprove any prophecy… except the prophecies made by heretical sects, pagan religions or any other prophecy from a tradition I don’t ascribe to. then and only then, we can use the OT test of a prophet to prove their failed prophecies mean they were fakes. Makes total sense , I get to be right all the time and keep my religion as special. Hallelujah!
David Noel Freedman used to say that the readiest indication of the authenticity of Scripture was the inclusion of failed prophecies. The Bible tells the sorry tale of humanity warts and all.
It's heads-I-win, tails-you-lose. Similar issue with double fulfillment: If you show that a prophecy was about something else, they can just say that it WAS about that thing, but was ALSO about Jesus. Yet somehow if you argue the promise of the Resurrection might have been conditional and didn't actually come true, or that through TRIPLE fulfillment the prophecies are REALLY about Turbo Jesus 3000 and are yet to be fulfilled, suddenly they act like that's not fair play.
Prophecy is an inherently unfalsifiable concept in Christianity, because if it wasn’t then, well, Christianity wouldn’t exist lol.
If Jesus had said “I’ll come back in 1000 years”, and then on the year 1001 people realized that that didn’t happen, then that’d be that. There would still be people coping, but many people would just abandon their Faith.
That’s why the supposed “prophecies” that Jesus fulfilled are all from long ago. He never made a promise about something happening in the distant future in an unfalsifiable way. Because the writers were smart enough to realize that that’d be a bad idea.
@@LeoVital Your premises are false, and so with your conclusions. We cannot even establish what Jesus said, much less what he might have meant. Nor is it clear that his followers had correctly understood him. We do have plenty of legendary material to work with, just as we do for Honi the Circle Maker --- who was a Galilean Wunderrebbe -- but is that the stuff of real historiography?
@@BobSmith-lb9ncWhat are you even talking about? I’m not defending Christian prophecies, I’m pointing out how ridiculous that concept is to begin with, being unfalsifiable and all.
I was waiting the full video to hear “… has been Hazbin …” And it did not disappoint.
hilarious.
Not the first time IP has been hoisted by his own sources.
It's because he doesn't read them thoroughly and just cherry picks things he thinks support his dogmatic arguments.
I love that we live in a timeline where a regular part of of my media diet is watching scholars in their respective fields batting down cranks and fighting each other online. I've probably gotten a semester's worth of biblical studies over the years listening to all of these scholars, or reading their books.
Inspiring's smugness and condescension are galling
Especially given how wrong he is.
I learned about this channel through IP attempting to critique its content. While I appreciated Michael's scholarly emphasis, at the end of the day, it was clear he was reading into the sources, and they always seemed to agree with his pre-existing philosophy.
I much prefer to understand what _did_ happen rather than pretend that our current perspective has always been so.
He does that all the time
@@bigboi1803 which is why I don't put much stock in Michael, regardless of my religious views.
That means thought outweighs feeling in your world when it might not have previously. That’s awesome to read, thank you!
@@jeffknetzer856 you're welcome, and thank you, too!
I grew up in family that pretended to appreciate science when they were really fundamentalist conservatives, but they still taught their kids to look stuff up and challenge biases. They just didn't know they were preparing their children to be more objective than they ever were!
@@jAAbRON ditto
IP is getting to be more and more like the Kent Hovind of philosophy.
That's generous to IP
I think that's being too harsh.
I don't get this reference. Who is Kent Hovind?
@@BradyPostmaHovind is a crazy, yet not that bright YEC. YEC is wrong, but I’ve at least seen some that can sometimes debate well. Hovind also went to jail for tax evasion, and he went to trial for slamming his ex-wife. I’m not sure what happened to that though. He is one of the more slimy people you could meet. He basically just has talking points that he has used over and over again for 30 plus years (same script for longer than I have been alive lol). I do think the initial comment was a bit too harsh. Nobody is even close to as bad as Kent with logic. If you want to see how dumb he is, he has a UA-cam. I wouldn’t give him a view though lol! I would watch something about him on a different channel lol!
So... IP proves it doesn't know what "poisoning the well" or "ad hominem" mean?
-_-
My surprised face.
Dan: " ..and I will be happy to be wrong" - That's why I love this man and his content, he's always willing to step back and apologize if something wrong came out from his mouth.
except in order for Dan to be wrong IP would have to concede the argument. it's a clever rhetorical move by Dan, but not very humble.
he has also apologized in places where he actually had a slip-up though and it comes across as duely sincere.
it's unfortunately just impossible to apologize without covering his bases for him in such situations bc that would allow for a very high risk of someone trying to defend the argument in question by referring to his respective video and saying "see, even Dan McClellan says this is right!"
besides, i might be cynical but i do not believe any of the people he engages with like that would ever accept an apology gracefully and without glee.
Why need he be humble?
Thanks!
Seems he does not understand what ad hominem and poisoning the well actually mean.
Love the fit for today. 😊
Honestly i would totally watch a 5 minute video of Michael and Dan just going back and forth saying "alright let's see it!"
The obvious resolution is to accept that the writers and editors of the Bible were not perfect. One can be a believer without insisting on that point. Unfortunately it's messy, while insisting on perfect scripture is simple.
Imagine doing this type of argument with literally anything else. "I didn't cheat on my wife! When I vowed to be faithful, I never explicitly said, 'And I will not revoke my promise.'"
@@SpaveFrostKing As a parent,I use conditional prophecy all the time: clean your room by five, and we can go see the movie. I have learned quickly that it loses its power when the prophecy does not get fulfilled! lol!
nonsense. I specifically recall having "no take-backsies" as a child.
Well ... I guess we certainly saw it
Never thought I'd see you here
The fact that he apparently made up a quote for the Strine book is very disconcerting and intellectually dishonest...
Sadly for those who trust them, apologists will never let verifiable facts get in the way of their doctrines and dogmas.
I'm leaning more towards Dan's second suggestion that he used the wrong graphic, then tried to summarize what Strine was saying on the other page and either misunderstood Strine or did some creative reinterpretation to fit a dogma. IP's been "creatively reinterpreting" ancient authors for years, so it wouldn't surprise me if he does the same thing with modern authors.
@Aerik IP shared a screen shot of the page showing the quote was exactly where he said it was. Makes Dan now look either incompetent or dishonest now.
@@ironicnation3553 Was this on IG or X? In his response video he just re-showed the same page he had up in the last video (57) that didn't support the quote he was making at 4:10, "As CA Strine observes, we have more evidence of conditional prophecy than fatalistic."
@@ironicnation3553 lol, the quote he has on the screen doesn't match what he is saying my dude. Yes, that quote is there, but what IP SAYS it SAYS isn't. Read the words, and try to match them to what he's saying they say while he has them on screen.
Funny how Inspiring Philosophy would never use the same reasoning for the failed prophecies of the Dead Sea Scrolls group who expected the apocalypse in the 1st century BCE, among other such groups who made such predictions he'd disagree with, like the modern JW's, isn't it? I wonder why. The best scholars on apocalypticism like Dr John J Collins agree that apocalypticism is far more deterministic than previous prophecy could be, though not fatalistic for individual hearers, you can still repent and change, but the main historical movers will not repent and will act out the script.
ah yes - the immediate rush to accuse you of committing fallacies is one of IP's go-to tactics when he has no valid rebuttal.
@@bengreen171 Also known as “The fallacy fallacy”. It is simply another form of ad hominem attack: if I can show you used a logical fallacy, even if that fallacy doesn’t negate or contradict your claim, I can imply you are either arguing in bad faith, or try and impugn your character.
@@Bobjdobbs
yep, and that's literally all IP has, other than 'nuh -huh'.
More expiring sophistry from Inspiring Philosophy.
Golden. Im stealing this
Has a nice ring to it. Stealing it too.
Me three!
He's a bright guy. Just drowning in dogma.
@@exactopposite That's the problem with dogma. It dulls your brightness.
When you've learned a new word, "fallacy", it becomes your hammer, and everything now looks like a nail.
I love how confidently wrong he was.
No
@@lxstcheckll9348IP is wrong
@@baonemogomotsi7138 no
Is 'conditional' prophesy without a given condition anything more than an ad hoc explanation for why the prophesy didn't come to pass?
Yeah it's all crap, if the gospel isn't preached to all nations then it's never gonna come. Great, all we have to do is keep creating more nations like splitting north Macedonians from ex-Yugoslavia or whatever, give them a new label and never have the gospel preached there. Alternatively, if that doesn't work because it HAS been preached to all nations at a certain point, presumably in the 19th or 20th century, what exactly is preventing the clock from starting ticking again and the end times to finally arrive seconds, minutes or at most a few years after this point? The other conditions like the Jews and gentiles not repenting or whatever is even worse, what exactly is the point at which we can judge repentance or non-repentnace? That already happened in the 1st century, tens of thousands repented and converted,, as well as millions of hearers who dismissed it and did not repent, or convert for every century since! Are we gonna wait for a time when 10 billion + non Christians repent? And what about the infants who die of malnutrition a few seconds before that event occurs? And why is a magical moment when everyone alive repenting somehow compensating for tens of billions of dead people who never repented? Does God have a cosmic autism syndrome that he likes the aesthetic effect of having X/total alive number of people repenting at a time?
And what's the point of (forged) books like Daniel meticulously detailingt the succession of kings until a very particular period of time of a few years at most, for the apocalypse, only for it to be conditional, supposedly? Of what benefit is it for God to focus on this period of time as though it's a fixed timetable, only for it to be potentially postponed? At what point after the postponement does the threatening end times clock start ticking again? It's all nonsense, as Dr Collins points out apocalypticism is deterministic. The reader can repent, but the predicted world events WILL come to pass as described, supposedly. That's the authors intention and the whole point of the precise calculations.
the elephant in the room is that "prophecy" isn't a real thing.
Exactly!
To be more specific, it has not to this point been demonstrably a real thing. Which justifies treating it is unlikely to be a thing.
Hazbin Hotel fit.
One of us! One of us!
1st I love IP and Dan content, for different reasons both help me navigate my approach to faith. So all the love. 2nd I love that Dan is fully ready to step out of thisvis an issue of Dogma. To which i think a lot of Christians want their beliefs to be read as "common sense" despite needing to acknowledge all the steps that bring one to that conclusion.
Yes, this is my main problem with IP and most apologists. They aren't content to just say "look, we have faith, and given our presuppositions about the truth of Christianity we interpret the Bible this way, but it is reasonable for scholars and others to read it differently". No, they have to take that approach but ALSO call everyone that approaches the text in a secular way "biased" and "fallacious" and "irrational", because apparently their brand of Christianity can't deal with reasonable people believing differently than them. Probably mostly because of the problem of hell. I've found that Universalists tend be the most respectful and reasonable Christians to have a discussion with.
No shade on you, Dan, but this apologist reminds me so much of the Mormon apologetics I grew up with. I remember how apologists tried to justify Mormonism’s changing doctrine by saying, “No that’s policy, not doctrine.0 without any data at all.
For a guy who loves to start with fallacy allegations, this creator loves to use arguments from silence. I think the dude also needs a refresher in Boolean logic; he's not clear about the differences between conditionals and hypotheticals. I like how he tried to sneak prophecy into a whole different realm of ontology, but Dan caught it.
When I was a philo/religion major at Ithaca College, I remember my advisor loved hermeneutics; however, you just don't pick up a book on it and begin isolated study -- understanding the tools it gives requires a scholarly framework from hardcore years of rigorous study, testing and demonstrations of mastery. Period.
This creator isn't just wading into it with an open mind;
Like DeGrasse Tyson said about knowing enough to think you're right, but not enough to recognize you're wrong -- this creator doesn't primarily function in an academic, scholarly community but a social media milieu of dogmatic followers.
The idea of genuine curiosity, learning from people who know more than you (Dan) and admitting large gaps of weak comprehension are alien concepts.
Shifting the consensus, changing the conclusions, offering new evidence or clarifications -- these are hallmarks of critical scholarly progress; Viewed from within nodding dogmatic/Apologetic online circles, these seemingly vital stats of health are anemic fault lines threatening viewership or reputation.
I'm reminded a bit of RFK Jr.'s fanbase: many of his takes on the role of NIH and Big Pharma are wrongheaded and wholly fantastic; Yet he can never admit to lapses in understanding or knowledge gaps, lest his followers turn on him with "sellout" accusations and turn those conspiracies back at him.
Lol Preach.
I think that’s all very well put. My impression of IP is that he reads a little on a topic (either enough yo assume a conclusion, or to reinforce a conclusion he went in with), then puts out a video and will read more and put out a new video if he was wrong and called out on it. The natural delay for releasing videos allows this to happen; it buys time to read more on the relevant topic so you can appear like an expert to your followers.
@@JohnSmith-fz1ih that's an interesting wrinkle I never considered, makes a lot of sense if you're 100% about viewership
"conditional prophecy" um... didn't jesus already know the conditions when he made the prophecies? If the conditions weren't going to be fulfilled within a generation, why did he say they would occur within a generation? He could have just left that part out. "conditional prophecy" implies that jesus didn't know what was going to happen, which undermines the entire concept of prophecy. It's a logically inconsistent position.
Doesn't it undermine the concept if you know the future as well?
If I'm some sort of supernatural entity and I know about an event in the future via some unknown means which nevertheless guarantees that outcome, aren't I just making a statement of fact? If I see an apple and say "This apple is red." Is that a prophecy? Or if time is a relevant factor, "This apple will still be red in the future."
Guys like Michael would probably argue that Jesus wasn't fully in his full divine nature because Christians have the concept of kenosis in their theology which explains according to their understanding why Jesus could have limited knowledge of things.
The generation of people alive at the time the end time events begin to unfold will not pass away before all those things come to pass.
What am I missing?
@@scripturalcontexts Probably, but it's really just another goal post shift as he'd have to demonstrate what super powers Jesus does and does not have and that they are relevant to this scenario.
Endless warrens with these guys.
@@mr.zzgogfi7470 "This generation." You are missing the word THIS.
Wow, Dan came prepared, like he always does 😂.
wait - so IP is upset at Dan for saying that his argument relies on dogmatism and denies the data....about an argument he literally claims relies on dogmatism and denies the data?
man.
He is flailing.
Is it just me or is a lot of this IP overreacting to the word "dogma"? He seems to regard it as an insult when in fact Dan is using it quite a technical sense.
Good point and Dan did come across as reasonable. However, it needs to be stated that the scripture eg Acts 3:19-20 does state explicitly that Christ's return is conditional on repentance. So is that 'dogmatic' or is it 'data'?
@@stephenglasse9756 That is a different text which may have a different interpretation. Remember, no univocality.
@@meej33 well the fact is that Acts makes Christ's return conditional on Israels repentance AND the text in the olivet discourse is in the subjunctive mood (24:34) which renders it conditional. In fact what we have here is strong evidence for the truth of Scripture since the gospels, Acts and letters claimed to be in that period all state Christ's return is imminent. Yet once we pass Paul's judgement on Israel in Acts 28 and reach the letters on the other side all sense of imminence vanishes. So we have an internal explanation for the difference between, say, Thessalonians and Ephesians. The former belongs to the Acts when Christ's return was imminent though conditional and the latter to the 'post Acts ' revelation of Ephesians 3.
@@stephenglasse9756 you’re assuming the dogma of univocality and inerrancy. You’re assuming that if acts says something is must agree with mark , because your dogma says the Bible can’t disagree with itself and there’s no reason outside dogma to believe/accept that.
@@wingedlion17 I definitely assume inerrancy and infallibility that's true. But that doesn't get you or Dan out of anything. If Matthew 24:34 is in the subjunctive mood then it's conditional and that just happens to agree with Acts 3:19-20 and lots of other texts which affirm that some of God's blessings are conditional. Why assume Jesus is a failed eschatological prophet when his very words in the text under scrutiny are in the subjunctive mood AND they *just happen to agree* with other texts eg Acts
“The inerrant Bible is divinely inspired, but we shouldn’t pay attention to authors’ intentions in trying to interpret the Bible.” (Paraphrasing)
Good gravy. This pretzel logic is getting downright postmodern.
A word of encouragement. I am not an orthodox Christian. About 15 years ago, I spent a lot of effort gong thru good pop books on Jesus and going thru as much professional literature on Jesus, orthodox Christianity, and Christian variations as I could. I am an anthropologist with an interest in religion. I agree with you almost always and disagree with your critics almost always, certainly in this case. You really do present the scholarly consensus on issues, and you really do present relevant data and arguments too. You note variations and lack of full consensus. You summarize and present quite well. You are carrying out a public service. Don't be discouraged by some of your critics. Most people benefit much from your efforts. Mike
IP has to be the funniest example of the dishonesty and venom of apologists in general. Hes so haughty and indignant, treats people like idiots, but has never said a true or intelligent thing in his entire career
venomous attitude is typical to abrahmek you can see it even on mslms.
I bet he said something true once. Probably by accident.
Hes arguably the most dishonest Christian’s apologist I’ve ever seen
I appreciate your calm and measured responses to inflammatory accusations.
I would assume " all nations" was originally understood as the nations people in the Middle East would have been aware of, Just as I would assume that all the animals on the Ark would have been originally understood as the animals they were aware of.
Correct - it was encompassing the Roman Empire an its trade outposts. In Acts every nation had come to Jerusalem during the feasts. Paul said the gospel had gone out to every nation and that it was preached to all creatures under heaven. IP is FOS.
I have never seen someone so thoroughly shown to be wrong by their own source text. Do these people actually read, or do their theological assumptions simply overpower their observations?
"if u can't win a argument make quotes up" - son goku
This comment has aged like milk! IP just shared a screen shot of the page in question and pointed out it was exactly where his reference said it was. Makes Dan appear like a chump now.
I've been very confused watching this entire video, because I misread "Parousia" in the title as "Paulogia". 😂
I love when you and Michael go at it. It's always simultaneously heated and courteous and it's great to watch.
Conditional prophecies are my favorite. I make them all the time. I'm making a prophecy that the Jaguars will win the next Super Bowl, unless they don't. Boom, I'm a prophet.
@@Steven-bs5hv As a parent, I find conditional prophecies extremely useful: if you don@5 clean your room in time, we won’t be going to see the movie. They are an excellent motivational tool.
Unfortunately, they require the prophecy to be fulfilled if the conditions are met, even if I don’t feel like driving to the theater. Otherwise they lose their impact and efficacy.
@@Bobjdobbs You just need to implement the double conditional with a raincheck clause followed by a conditional, i.e., If you clean your room, we'll go to the movies, unless something comes up, in which case we'll go tomorrow, unless we can't. I think Jesus would be proud of me.
Finally someone points at the elephant in the room!
I am sure IP has some sophistry essay ready for answering to that but to me, he could win the gold in mental gymnastics, the elephant would still be there.
On a different note, that explains how certain Christians are able to say that there’s hundreds of fulfilled “prophecies” in the Bible.
Bold prophecy, they might start throwing stones at you
Congratulations! You are now a prophet for the New Apostolic Reformationists (NAR)! I am assuming the "InspiringPhilosophy" guy is NAR because that is how their prophets get credibility and profit on people who seriously believe them. His website mentions the Holy Spirit gives gifts to every believer and he is intentionally hiding what denomination he belongs to other than "Jesus Follower" which leads me towards him being NAR. (NARists will claim they're Jesus Followers instead of a denomination because NAR is controversial.)
Most Mormon thing about Dan is the insanely nice tone he speaks in despite arguing against some of the most insufferable people on social media.
For all the faults of the LDS church, every Mormon I knew in university was an excellent debater because they could refute the dumbest points on Earth in the nicest way. (Also I assumed all LDS went to BYU, but I guess not! Probably because it's cheaper to go to state university and you stay near family.)
@@totallyturtles480 Dan's BYU bachelor's diploma is hanging in the background
@@totallyturtles480 For all the faults of the LDS, every Mormon I have known has been just insanely nice and extremely calm. I remember Trey Parker talking about how he felt slightly bad making a South Park episode about Mormons because all of the ones he met were just so friendly.
@@skypangolin8576 Yeah, I know he went to BYU! I obviously as a non-Mormon, did not go. I went to a East Coast state college and I was shocked there were Mormons there.
Well.. that was fun! Looking forward to the next exchange.
People who don't know what they're talking about or who are being dishonest LOVE accusing their detractors of logical fallacies, as if it's some sort of gotcha.
Most of the time they misapply the fallacy or they call an argument fallacious when it isn't.
Colleges and high-schools should teach logic.
This stitch is like a universe inside a universe, inside another universe. Lol
Michael Jones is such a dork
This is flat out embarrassing for Mike Jones if he thinks he has good scholarship under his belt
But Dan is missing a simple thing here, if it happens it’s fatalistic and if it doesn’t, it’s conditional. See I win either way , even when I don’t.
Also IP cares about the plain reading of the text when it suits his rhetorical goals.
Conditional prophecy seems like a great way to get around the Deuteronomic commandment to kill false prophets if their prophecies don't come true. "Oh, uhhhhh, well you see guys, that prophecy was CONDITIONAL, and we managed to avoid it coming true! Whew, lucky us, huh? Anyway it doesn't count as a failed prophecy because I always knew it might not happen after all."
Paul told us that the gospel has been preached to all nations and to every creature under heaven. Furthermore, how is that it has not been in 2000 years. The blindness of excusegists is insane!
Thanks Dan for your honesty and integrity as always 💯
I love when you respond to ip. Good job as usual
7:33 _"but when you change your mind that means there were no conditions you just changed your mind"_
Can't it be both ?
Woh woh woh. Heat heat heat 🔥🔥🔥This is one of the best debate videos so far on this channel. But of course, it must cause some emotional stress on both of you ✊️
Yea, I agree
It was heated and I am here for more 😂😂
Love both of them ❤❤
This feels like watching the end of the drunk dude-bro picking a fight with an MMA fighter
But in real life who would win in a fight between Dan and IP?
Loving the Hazbin Hotel fit! 🔥
Dan might be Inspiring Philosophy’s worst nightmare.
I have to just say, Dan, that I appreciate the 4K video. It makes zooming in on the texts you’re referencing *much* easier to read along with you.
That last attempt at a dunk from InspiringPhilosophy was so cringe. I don't have to accept that your God exists to make an internal critique about your beliefs, I just have to accept that you're incorrect about who Jesus was... which is why there's an argument to begin with.
It's like, no matter how technical the Apologist, they just miss the basics right in front of them in their dogged rush to "prove Jesus is God."
Glad to see that Dan has joined the Hazbin Hotel.
Uninspiring Sophistry doing what he usually does: pretending to be a serious philosopher, but just being another apologist.
He thinks he is a philosopher?!?
@@gilgamesh7652 He has a masters from univ. of Arizona.
@@ThinkitThrough-kd4fn They should ask for it back.
@@ThinkitThrough-kd4fnin what, kitchen utensils?
Inspiring philosophy is one the most deceptive Christians missionaries out there.
Hazbin Hotel shirt!!!
BASED!
Dan, it's refreshing to see someone go through sources like you do. It helps ground a debate in some common authority, namely scholarly work to understand the Bible, which itself is taken as common authority but only dimly, needing for its understanding precisely the careful thinking you demonstrate.
As someone calls it, the Trojan Source. A source that the proponent offers in support of their case, but on closer inspection (and in some cases that means _any_ inspection because the proponent never read past the headline), it contradicts the case being put forward.
Dan appeared on my stream 3 days ago and now have used three days catching up. Awesome videos. Im learning so much.
❤❤❤❤❤ thanks Dan!!!
Now I need to look up 10-20 new words to learn what they mean and what you two were talking about.
Is IP seemingly dishonest??
no he is actually dishonest
@@mrwallace1059 I don’t think he is. I think he is in over his head and is grasping at straws. H
I believe what he is doing is quickly reading the book to find validation. When he sees a section that he thinks makes his point, he feels validated without proof reading it or double checking.
But I may be projecting here. I worked for an apologetic website (well two actually), and made this error quite a bit.
Oh boy. Dan and Mike are going head-to-head. This'll be epic.
The Bible has fatalistic prophecies that failed (like Babylon destroying Egypt), and those that succeeded (likely because written after the events "predicted") and even some written afterwards which exaggerate so much people can't even agree if they've been fulfilled or not. I think even some of those kind, about Cyrus and the return of the Exiles and the rebuilding of the temple, were similarly "predictions" made later, but which exaggerated so much as to make them seem unfulfilled, and these led to later messianic interpretations including those held by Jesus about the return of the Davidic monarchy within the 1st century CE.
Important about the conditions, too, is many were probably added later to ammend failed prophecies, such as those about an eternal Davidic line and kingdom. The "idol worship" caveats in promises given to Moses, Abraham, and David seem very likely post-Hezekiah and even more likely after Babylon's conquest of Jerusalem. Most of the kings and people of Jerusalem, according to the Bible, had no problem with Asherah or polytheistic versions of El, so it seems very unlikely the oldest traditions forbade them.
So even the conditional prophecies this guy can point to are IMO examples of scribes doing exactly what he's doing, thinking "the prophet couldn't have been wrong, there must have been something we missed and forgot to record that I must insert to fix it." Abraham & Moses probably didn't originally get caveats against idols in their promised land prophecies, and Jesus didn't give any caveats to his kingdom of David prophecies... until apologists decided they must have been there all along, and added them to their (oral) Torah.
TL;DR Bible prophecy is a mess, and even when it's true, it often still finds a way to be wrong.
Dan, putting the smack-down with facts and knowlege, once again!
And another epic shirt!
Outstanding Dan!!
I appreciate you Dan!❤
Would love to see a debate/conversation between you two
I wouldn't. It's not entertaining to see MJ (GOAT 🐐 of 🏀) dunk on whiny kindergarteners😊. The lack of intellectual honesty and the high dependence on presuppositions of the kindergartner make it very predictable how this would play out.
I think it would be very hard to watch. The debates I've seen Michael engage in are largely dogmatic, and he assumes that Dan (among others) is arguing dogmatically as well. I like Michael, but I'm reasonably convinced he would come off as impetulant and rigid.
@@PavelR1 So this debate would be Data vs Dogma. Data wins 👍. I would really like Santa Claus to be real and that well behaved children are rewarded equally independent of their parents' wealth or lack thereof but the data clearly show it's not reality and is just wishful thinking.
@@ericreed4535 When you say "MJ dunking on whiny kindergarteners" , does MJ stand for Michael Jordan or Michael Jones? (Inspiring Philosophy's name is Michael Jones, if you weren't aware).
@@Matoyak Sorry, I thought "dunk" was clear enough that it was referring to Michael Jordan. I didn't know the kindergartner had the same initials 😊. Thanks for the info, I'll edit the comment to make it clear.
Love ya', Dan. Platonically!
You the man Dan
Dan brings the receipts again!
I wonder if these kinds of apologists care that constantly misrepresenting their own scripture only exposes more theological problems as people try to check their work.
Seriously! Just keep the apologists talking and eventually everyone will be atheist 😂
Watch as Insipid Philosophistry dodges this one and quotes another scholar/accuse you of not understanding the text😑
The young man has the typical attitude of any ole person whose beliefs are felt to be challenged. That's the odd thing about beliefs in a person who takes their belief as facts: they have aversion, anger, pissiness and all manner of unregenerate reactions. This is simply to be ignored and not to be taken seriously at all. Thanks Dan for facts and not dogmaeliefs.
It's just funny when people don't understand fallacies and pretend they do. 😂😂😂
Fascinating
Dan can't see it: his Mormon and Minimalists biases are his real Dogma he calls Data!!!
I didn’t know it was possible to poison the well by claiming someone is poising the well. Is it “I know you are but what am I?” for apologists?
To explain these unfulfilled prophesies it seems IP's and all apologists best argument would be, like in Jonah, to say "I guess God just changed his mind."
IP is such a hack.
Dan is G.O.A.T.ed 🐐
CH Dodd had an interesting theological view, Realized Eschatology where basically the appearance of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost was the second coming. While "solving" some issues it creates many more. As theology always does...
I think this has been my favorite response video from Dan so far.