Atheist Debates - Minimal facts apologetics approach
Вставка
- Опубліковано 24 лют 2016
- Part of the Atheist Debates Patreon project: / atheistdebates
The "Minimal Facts" approach isn't a method designed to find the truth, it's a method designed to bolster confidence in the proposed (read: preferred) explanation.
Oh the apologists are making progress, I was tired of the no facts approach.
Lol that is so true.
+beer hangover Yes, that's funny - they have upped their ante to "minimal facts".
+FattyMcEaty YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT SCIENCE IS *THEN*
+FattyMcEaty *Mr.*
What is the difference between atheism and Taoism ?
My preferred use of a minimal facts approach is:
The existence of apologists proves that god does not.
If god existed apologists would be neither necessary nor contingent.
I wish it were that easy. I'd sleep so much better at night.
+Trevor Lunn Those are my thoughts exactly. We don't have or need apologists for things that have proof.
Yeah. We don't have any apologists for gravity.
Wow! How to condense millennia of arguments in two sentences.
Matt does the same
The supernatural always makes me think of Bertrand Russell's essay "On Denoting" (which first appeared in _Mind_ in 1905, but is now available on the 'net). On the way to his main point, Russell points out that just because you have a grammatically correct noun phrase does not imply that that noun phrase actually refers to anything in the real world. An example he uses is the phrase "the present king of France" (for those of you who do not keep up with current events, France hasn't had a king or emperor since around 1871). Russell argues that since this phrase refers to (or denotes) nothing, it is meaningless. I would say that the same applies to the phrase "the supernatural": it refers to nothing, so is meaningless.
+Michael Sommers Nice analogy!
Wade Haden
Not at all. Read Russell's essay: www.uvm.edu/~lderosse/courses/lang/Russell(1905).pdf
Michael Sommers great name bro and good comment. I looked into that. Genius.
Before you can posit the supernatural as an explanation for something,
you must first prove the existence of a supernatural something.
Until magic is proven real, you can't blame empty tombs on magic.
It doesn't matter how well-supported the idea that the tomb was empty is.
You can only blame the empty tomb on things you can prove exist.
Funny thing is that the core of the scientific method - reproducible experiment - was designed to prove that magic does work. And proved that it doesn't.
Homeopathic apologetics. The more diluted the facts the more true the conclusion.
So the minimal facts approach is a concession that the overwhelming set of facts don't support religion.
Minimal facts on a work of maximum fiction does not equate to truth.
+SweetLiberty01 That almost sounds like a paraphrasing of Bayes' Theorem.
You keep saying "75% of skeptical scholars" but that isn't what Havermas claimed. He said "75% of scholars, including skeptics." which is a very different statement.
That was an awesome video Matt! I actually hadn't heard of the minimal facts approach though I have encountered it under different names.
The trouble with the "minimal facts", even more than that the conclusions don't follow, is that the facts... Aren't.
They're not facts.
Even the simple "somebody died" + "empty tomb".
We don't know somebody died. We have no empty tomb. (Not that some random tomb attributed to Jesus that hasn't got a body in it would be evidence for anything if it existed)
+Joe Arnold There's more than one usage for the word 'fact'. The primary is tied to something almost unquestionably true...others merely refer to a point of data.
As in:
1. a thing that is indisputably the case.
2. used in discussing the significance of something that is the case.
3. a piece of information used as evidence or as part of a report or news article.
Trying to claim something isn't a fact because you don't agree that it's true is fine, but the argument hinges on the acceptance of these items, and uses 'fact' more akin to the 3rd usage. Simply saying "they're not facts" is either prescriptivist or an expression of opinion.
This is why I both pointed out that their 'facts' are disputed and may have reasonable objections AND that even if we were to accept them (under #3), it doesn't help us reach the conclusion they propose.
+Matt Dillahunty I do not really see how position 3 s better off when these "facts" are unproven than position 1 would be... if it's not fulfilling 1, then the report or news article won't be reliable either as its baseline evidence is and stays questionable.
Isn't that exactly the thing apologetics love to try and do to "theory"? By redefining the value as evidence of any theory as "merely a guess" they can wiggle their way around taking on the singular pieces presented by the theory as basis of its conclusions and just refute the whole thing as doubtable.
+Matt Dillahunty I think no one would question it if it was called "minimal accepted premises". The name "minimal facts" is precisely meant to evoke definition 1.
They're very obviously using the term in the first sense. Their entire position is begun with "these are the bits pretty much everyone accepts as true"
I don't see how "the argument hinges on the acceptance of these (facts)" is substantially different than "the argument hinges on these items being the case"
So yes, absolutely point out that even were we to accept the premise that their conclusions don't follow. I'm just saying that the argument fails on the first premise; the bits of data aren't accepted/true/facts (colloquially, if you must)
Love your work. Even if you don't hate the Star Wars prequels enough (I just heard you on TheThinkingAtheist)
+Joe Arnold I agree just because a story makes a claim or a lot of claims does not mean it happened this way or it happened it all. It just can be fictitious. Who would accept King Arthur Is real based on a story. For example: He pulled Excalibur out of the stone and it was throw into a Lake after his death. So stones exist and lake exist so the sword Excalibur existed and King Arthur existed.
I love how three of the five points were literally just "someone believes". Yeah? You think that is a compelling argument because I know more then three people who believe the Earth is flat and gravity sham foisted upon us by NASA.
Wesley Brock *than
I was just going to share this on my FaceBook page. Then I started listening, I got hooked. Thank you for sharing. I appreciate your incite.
And here I thought that all apologetics contained minimal facts. Heyoo!
Not so. Apologetics usually contain no facts at all.
Apologetics: Because only the human imagination can defend a book derived from the human imagination.
One of the biggest problems I see with this method is that the proponents don't apply it to religious and supernatural propositions OUTSIDE their own religious beliefs. Special pleading, just like Matt said. No Christian agreeing with this method's conclusions if someone used it to support alleged miracles claimed by ISLAM or HINDUISM or even He Age quantum WOO as true, rather than the Christian resurrection claims. Like I often say, apologetics always commits special pleading by granting weight to propositions in their own religions over any similar claims made by other supernaturalists even if all else is equal, like historical facts, eyewitness testimony, lack of empirical evidence, etc.. Apologetics, IMO, is NEVER about truth, truth of religious belief is assumed in faith, its about quieting doubts and dissonance of believers and about giving them pseudorational justification for holding those beliefs.
I like your wedding band, Matt. I just now noticed it. My husband and I have similar matching wedding bands. Black.... like our souls... hehe.
The apologists and so-called religious folks (largely) are your neighbours, co-workers, relatives, and they vote. That is why anyone with a brain should be involved in their government to prevent them from not legislating their religious delusions! Thank you, Matt, for truth and separation of church and state in the USA. Cheers, DAVEDJ ~
Such a direct, clear flow of information. I don't see why it's still tough to understand the basic concepts of what he's sharing; and why it's absolutely necessary to ignore it and instill mythicism as a poison.
Minimal facts is a standard investigative technique used by all law enforcement.
Superfluous or questionable information in a case is generally culled early as the defence can use it to advantage.
" Just The Facts Mam "
Matt...you wore that green shirt a week ago...thought u had a theme going on!
I love listening to your reasoning and appreciate what you do. Thanks
If anyone wants a comprehensive (and utterly devastating) written takedown of the minimal facts argument, I highly recommend this article by a PhD student in ancient history: adversusapologetica.wordpress.com/2013/06/29/knocking-out-the-pillars-of-the-minimal-facts-apologetic/
Religion, Atheism, Science
Now this goes on the toolbar, what a resource thanks
Religion, Atheism, Science if you saw a whale laying on the land 600 miles Inland from the ocean you wouldn't just think that over time the whale got there. You would suspect that somebody put the whale there. Which really means that you believe in God and you just don't know it. Because right now you think that humans are here because there's been enough time for us to evolve. But now you realize that someone had to have put us here just like that whale.
Adrian Gomez that is about the dumbest attempt to prove god I've ever heard. I actually counter with the fact that there is enough real info out there that all "Christians" know gods really not there. We all know that. U just really want it to be true. But if u believed it u would sell everything and follow him like he wants of u.
This reminds me of when I was in church and some horrible event happened. The preacher would get up in front of the congregation and say "let's not allow this tragedy to shake our faith" or "now is not the time to question god". I sort of believed it when I was a kid, but when I started leaving religion behind, I started realizing how full of crap those statements were. Especially when people would tell me that I should accept the idea that some questions just can't be answered, or the only answer is "just because". You couldn't question anything. You had to be a mindless minion for god.
And now that you're an atheist, you've discovered that those same tragedies are just the results of random physical events in the space-time universe. Hooray, now it all makes sense! What a comfort! How enriching!
Matt is our new Hitch. Minus the pomp and attitude. He's brought my understanding and debate technique up to a working level. This is so important and we should all be able to discuss this on at least a matt level.
Do we get a link or name for this podcast you mentioned, Matt?
This is perfect as I'm about to debate a theist on the authenticity of the New Testament Gospel and her go to is the minimal facts approach by Gary Habermas
Another problem with 75% of skeptical scholars, those same scholars might also agree on other things, things which might invalidate their conclusions.
+Adam Hill Yeah, do the 75% agree on these collection of facts or each fact is agreed upon by 75%? Because in the latter case they could be contradictory.
+Adam Hill I would ask whether the same set of 75% of sceptical scholars agreed on ALL the facts.
You must be a decendant of Socrates and Aristotle because Sir you are slaying the opposition. Love your work. We need more critical thinkers not mindless followers. Thank you for all you do
The world's foremost expert on the resurrection!? Similarly, although I don't want to show off, I am in fact the world's foremost expert on the existance of the tooth fairy. In fact, I have an all encompassing knowledge of every replicable observation of an existant tooth fairy that has ever been made!
Very well explained, very clear. Thanks, Matt.
There is some intersting theories on the swoon like, the burial wraps they gave him are counter productive for the purpose of the rituals then wich is leave a body in the tomb a year or two till they are where they can be put into a box, yet most of the stuff preserves and is said to have healing properties, the fact that after the viniger is given to him he dies almost as if drugged and such :> I'm not sure I buy it, but some interesting arguments.
Hi Matt!A long time ago the Oxford dictionary used to have as one of the definitions of the word "procrustean" as the adherence to an idea or position or theory by only accepting that which agrees with ones position and intentionally omitting any contrary evidence. In other words, any evidence that did not fit the "procrustean bed" of the adherent was cut off, just as Procrustes did to his victims. This perfectly describes, in my opinion, the minimal facts approach. It is dishonest and you point this out well. Unfortunately, an online definition search only produces a more watered down "one size fits all" version of the definition. High quality dictionaries, however, I think still have the definition I described listed.Great video! I just wanted to share this wonderful word "procrustean" with you that I think perfectly describes the "minimal facts approach".
+Matt Dillahunty
I think you missed out a couple of points:
- They never seem to say that it's the majority of skeptics supporting their case. It's "the majority of scolars, incl skeptics". The majority may still very likely consist of a large number of non-sketpics.
- They do come up with a small set of 'minimal facts', but they often bring up other data (not included in the 'accepted ideas') when they start to counter the other alternative explanations.
(f.e.: the perhaps not best alternative of the 'stolen body' can in no way be directly dismissed on the basis of the 12 given facts. The counterarguments require other facts to be smuggled in)
- Hinging on the fact that no facts can adress a 'supernatural claim'... The statistics of 'majority'-claims is very tricky and blind to a big problem itself.
It may very well be the case that a majority accepts/rejects every individual piece of evidence, but still have a majority dismissing the entire set of claims.
F.e. if there are 3 natural explanations for an event, each only supported by 33%; then it is true that every theory is rejected by a majority of 66%! But that does not mean that 66% dismisses a natural explanation. It just means there is disagreement on the quality of the evidence and there is no concensus.
Then there's Genesis 22:19, the ending verse of the story: "So Abraham returned unto his young men, and they rose up and went together to Beersheba; and Abraham dwelt at Beersheba." Abraham returns...without Isaac. This is arguably an indication that the original version of the story has Abraham actually sacrificing Isaac, and that the part where Isaac is spared and a ram sacrificed in his place was added later.
Oops, I meant to put this in the thread for the video on Abraham and Isaac.
G 22:19 could also just indicate bad writing. There are stories about Isaac having a family, etc, so the mainstream version is the most consistent. The story serves as a “reason” for animal sacrifice and to say that Jews are willing to sacrifice their children, just as the neighbors do, but they are better (in the story they made up to show they are better)
Of that list of '5 facts to memorize', only one can really stand at the outset ~ that of an 'empty tomb' existing somewhere in Jerusalem or it's environs. It would be very surprising if one did not!
... and of the '12 minimal facts', only two have some substance ~ that somewhere was an empty tomb (as before) and that the 'Church was born and grew', though, of course, we don't know when the latter occurred; and there is no way to establish when this happened. :0)
Nicely done!!
Matt can you give me some examples on evidence that you accept?
Hi Matt, I'm an enthusiastic viewer from Britain that has enjoyed many of the debates and tussles I've seen you get into over the past few years.
I was just wondering if you've ever debated or considered debating from the theistic position? I'd be curious to see you exploring what you think are the best arguments for belief in god in a robust exchange as an exercise. What do you think?
+Kjass Aylo
You're joking, right?
That's not how syllogisms work. Either they're valid and sound or they're total bullshit. There aren't more options. Every argument I've ever heard for the existence of a god has been barely worth considering. They all suck hard.
+TheZooCrew What does that have do with my question? I would find an honest theist trying to argue the opposite with Matt entertaining.
Kjass Aylo
Good luck finding an honest theist who would debate an atheist.
I would find it pointless and dishonest. If all arguments for the existence of a god are crap, how do you determine which ones are the "best?" There's no scale.
It's sometimes nice to argue the opposite in everyday life too. I'd like to see Rabbi Botek or Frank Turek try. It often says plenty about the speaker's ability to empathise. Though it's not everyone's cup of tea...
Kjass Aylo
I guess it's nice when there's no solidly correct answer. When two sides are about as far apart on the correctness scale as possible, I don't see the point.
So it's like equivalating. "Everyone is wrong but here are some minimal facts"
There is some really good points in here though....thank you!
"They are walking in with an explanation they'd like to confirm." Matt, I'd like to treat you to lunch over that one.
Is selection bias the same as moving the goal post?
+Robert W Selection bias is when you choose which premises to bother bringing into the argument in the first place, based on the fact that they seem to support your position, whilst leaving out contradictory or at least unsupportive data. Moving the goal posts is when a debater tries to wiggle out of a losing proposition by after-the-fact revision of what the argument was trying to prove. This often comes after already agreeing to the proposition, such as innumerable cases where an alleged psychic fails an agreed-upon test of abilities by claiming that "your doubt jammed my frequencies" or similar nonsense. The original premise was to determine if, say, remote viewing can be performed by the individual. After failing, the test subject tries to change the premise to a test of whether or not remote viewing can be canceled out by skepticism. It's a way of never ceding any ground.
Can we add the fact that the other facts are from an anonymous source? Seems important and is pretty uncontroversial from my understanding.
I'm not sure how effective this video was. Matt seemed to lose his way, IMHO. If a follow-up video were to be made, I would suggest some examples to flesh this out a bit. For example, what would be the minimal facts when comparing Tom Sawyer with Huckleberry Finn? Does the 'fact' that they both know Becky Thatcher mean she was a historical figure?
The facts here are what are accepted by expert historians. You're a fool if you're going to play armchair historian and cherry pick the facts of history to reject based on your preconceived ideas. You'll end up being like this ignoramus - ua-cam.com/video/u9CC7qNZkOE/v-deo.html
“In his pride the wicked man does not seek him; in all his thoughts there is no room for God.” Psalm 10:4
So Matt knows a little bit of statistics. I understand that many people don't know a thing about the that particular branch of mathematics, but I'm confident I could explain it.
The only minimal fact I'm certain of is that people invented stories about a character named Jesus.
"He's dead, Jim!"
Minimal facts approach - the homeopathy of apologetics.
when are you or any high profile atheist speaker will come to NC, Matt? I'm the one and only atheist in this state! ;)
I saw Dawkins at Duke U. a few years ago. :-)
Matt, You and I need to get together, brother. I am from the same background as you are. EXACTLY. It is my hope that we can push past formal debates and "formal" logic and attack the problem at its roots. I have no problem throwing the atheist or the believer "under the bus" when they violate critical thinking...and thusly, use erroneous arguments. I'm in Orlando, FL and if you seriously want another flank of your attack...I'M your guy. I was Evangelical Christian...to Liberal Christian...to Atheist.
Great video. Very unique content compared to most atheism videos
Well said Matt.
31:00 I am very amused each time a believer mentions the shroud of Turin as "evidence"... of how badly the women did their cleansing of the body, how wrong it was wrapped in the linen, and careless anointed the body with 33 kg of spiced oils and covered with a soaked shawl. ..
much respect to you
yes, the bible (any bible really) is certainly one place where we've found minimal facts.
There is a great elephant in the room problem with the minimal historical facts argument. It is a logical problem regarding how the evaluation of historical claims is done with the accepted methods of the field.
Any historian that evaluates the proposed historical fact claims using the accepted methods of the field and comes to the conclusion they are indeed all historical facts, must have
A. a sufficient natural explanation that allows them to do so or
B. failed as a historian in applying the methods and is wrong about the claims being historical facts.
This is due to the fact that any historian evaluating the proclaimed facts using the accepted historical methods would have to take in consideration not just the claimed facts as individual but all together. If a contradiction arises between them that has no sufficient natural explanation, then this has consequences. It means that the historian cannot consider the claimed facts to all be historical facts at the same time. Instead the contradicting claims negatively affect each other’s probability. This will lead to at least enough of them losing in probability that they are no longer considered historical facts. It is even possible that they would all lose so much probability that none of them can be considered historical facts.
Note that even if you remove methodological naturalism as a default from the accepted methods, the extremely low probability of non-naturalistic explanations has pretty much the same effect. Any claimed facts that need supernatural explanations would have their probability lowered by that need.
So if there is a consensus among historians that the proclaimed historical facts as a whole are indeed historical, then the historians in question A. should have a sufficient natural explanation or
B. did a terrible job as historians and are wrong about the claims being historical facts.
Anyone like Habermass who claims there is no sufficient natural explanation and that a supernatural one is needed is in fact claiming that all those historians failed and are wrong about the claims being historical facts, this ironically includes himself.
I like these videos. The Matt on the Atheist Experience is like the God of the Old Testament yelling & cursing people out & this Matt on this channel is nice like Jesus.
I thought that the point of "minimum facts" was that the Bible and Christian history have an overwhelming number of "facts" which are uncompelling or disputed, but that can still support the Christian faith. Instead of getting tied up in establishing every single fact, just pick the ones that have the best chance of being accepted by everybody.
I'm not aware of any facts other than "people don't come back from the dead" and "God doesn't exist" that are incompatible with the explanation that God raised Jesus from the dead.
William Estes God, whatever that is, could not have risen Jesus from the dead unless he or she or it actually exists. it has not been established that God exists
You appear to have gotten the basic principle of the argument, which makes you more honest than Dillahunty.
First off they have no facts to begin with. I am still waiting for the clear cut evidence of a Jesus of Nazareth existing.
+nontheistdavid I'm sure, there were some people called Jesus back then. What if only his name is true and nothing else? Can we then say he existed?
algi
Josephus mentions 19 other Jesus's and its blatantly obvious the writer of Mark used the story of Jesus ben Ananias for his Passion narrative so there were indeed many Jesus's in existence but no evidence of a Jesus of Nazareth son of Joseph and Mary.
+nontheistdavid Oh, that's interesting.
algi
Very. Check it out. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_ben_Ananias
+algi no. We can say jesuses existed from that. But that's no revelation. It was a common name. That's like saying King Arthur existed because there are and were people named Arthur.
A common name with a symbolic meaning, no less (Yeshua (Jesus) means "God saves"), which makes it more likely at was picked for the figure rather than it being an actual figure with the name, by the by
This all points right back to the lowers standards of evidence that religious history scholars rely on in determining what "evidence" they will allow compared to evidentiary standards that critical scholars employ in arriving at veeeery different conclusions, even when looking at the exact same material.
A simple look at the historicity of Jesus shows that only two items are widely accepted about a living Jesus. He was baptised and he was crucified. There is another level of less widely accepted events, but the empty tomb isn't included.
It ALL comes down to standards of evidence and which standards are applied.
Didn't realise how little Dillahunty understands about what he's talking about until seeing this, and I didn't start with high hopes.
It's an error a minute ride... at least.
Quite obviously true, as long as one is open minded and thinking clearly.
The Minimal Facts approach is intended to create an easily digestible inference for the resurrection, which Christians have now focused their entire strategy on. If they can get you to believe that, in their eyes, all other inconsistencies, errors, fallacies etc are moot. Just believe in the resurrection, and the rest will take care of itself.
IIt seems like he is saying essentially evidence cant be used to justify the supernatural, which seems to mean that no evidence given can justify God.
It's hard to say that ssomebody who claimed that they would rise from the dead, and then had all this happen would be unlikely for what he claimed.
My wording may be terrible XD
Soooooooo, does this mean that we shouldn't use this to prove that Spiderman and Harry Potter are real?
We can all agree that some of the places mentioned in it are real, right. About 100% of the skeptics agree that New York exists and in the comics there is mention of millions of eye witnesses who still live to this day who have seen spiderman save people.
It's like how Sye and Slick think they're presenting evidence for the Christian gods existence by erecting strawmen to punch and just repeating 'I know you are, but what am I?'
Davids11131113.m
I'm not sure it's apt to compare the Minimum Facts approach with the scientific method. The scientific method does, indeed, deal with "facts" (in the sense of observed phenomena that everybody agrees actually occurred). The Minimum Facts approach, on the other hand, is dealing with allegations and hearsay at best. Which is to say that I don't think the Minimum Facts approach "cherry picks the facts". It's not reasonable for a scientist to ignore observed phenomena that disagree with his theory, but that's not the same as ignoring am allegation that many (or most) people acknowledge probably never happened.
Having said that, I agree 100% that the whole Minimum Facts approach is bollocks insofar as it resorts to supernatural explanations. But I do think there is something to the approach insofar as it focuses on the generally accepted "facts" and seeks to come up with an explanation for them rather than trying to explain things that are not reliable in the first place.
Believing is not seeing. Believing=wishing, guessing, expecting, foretelling/etc. Seeing anything is a fact even if you mislabeled what you saw.
Such as a hunter seeing a moose instead of another hunter and then thinking the hunter is a moose, shoots him.
Nevertheless, the title "Minimal Facts" is a correct predictor of the global validity of the dialectic.
Lee Strobel just didn't want to get divorced. So he allowed himself to get persuaded.
They are not “appealing to the supernatural.” They are showing how the supernatural is the best explanation for the facts at hand. That’s very different then “appealing to the supernatural.”
How can something be the "best explanation" without a demonstration that it is real... or that it explains anything?
@@SansDeity I am still thinking about your question Matt.
The evidence Habermas presents in The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus refutes your theory that miracles don’t happen.Read the book dude.
@@mgreene011 If Habermas actually had definitive evidence that miracles happen, he'd be the most well-known scholar in the world. Because he's not the most-well known scholar in the world, then he doesn't have definitive evidence that miracles happen. In short, I don't need to read the book to know that his case is flawed somewhere.
If you think his evidence is a slam dunk, present it here yourself. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim.
An explanation should explain all the facts. Like a hypothesis tries to do, and like a theory does. I would think if apologists use a minimal facts approach, it is really that they are trying a "not all the facts" approach.
Oh... Matt got around to my point. I should have saved the commenting.
An apologist chooses "all the facts" and gets told that many of said facts are disputed by historians. He then chooses only the facts not disputed by historians and gets accused on not including in "all the facts." Oh, now I see how the game works! The only thing that tops the disingenuous logic of the atheist is perhaps trying to reason with a radical feminist...
Let it be said, Matt rocks.
Like these kinda rocks - "And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb:" (Revelation 6:16)
Isn't this the whole basis by which religion has built it's shaky foundation? After having watched this vid, I feel as if I wasted my time having watched any of the stuff prior, meaning that you seemed to have summed up most of it with this observation and explanation. I'm not sure what more needs to be said on the subject. LOL!
30 min video does it for you? Debate solved, case closed...now back to fornicating with my neighbor's wife...
great video, very informative, thank you. Forgive my ignorance(and my going off topic)but could Jesus have even been buried in the first place? I'm not very educated on ancient Roman execution laws or customs but it seems strange that they would strip him of all dignity and respect by nailing him to a slab of wood and left for bird food for a couple of days then give him a decent burial complete with a shroud, a tomb, and a couple of soldiers to "stand guard" and protect it. Doesn't seem to follow.
+Rondell Brown
You are probably right. Perhaps after a few days he was thrown into a common grave. Ehrman talks about this in his _How Jesus Became God_.
+Michael Sommers gotta check that one out. thank you
Minimal facts: I'm motivated, I'm capable, I'm willing. Conclusion: I'm the richest man in the world. Oh oops. Something's missing here.
"They don't really give you any historical facts..." lol. Because, err, umm........
Confirmation bias is the first step in the approach.
With regard to this theory about 'the empty tomb', Christian apologists are making a huge assumption based on the gospel reports. As I understand it Romans would crucify enemies of the empire, or thieves etc, and leave these people on the cross for weeks and weeks until they rotted. It would act as a deterrent for others, ... "Look at your savior now"!!. I think that is far more likely than having Jesus taken down after a few hours and placed in a tomb, complete with a huge rolling stone at the enttrance, which was later rolled away. ( why couldn't Jesus have just walked right thru the stone). It's all hogwash.
+bonnie43uk
Totally agree, it could be that Jesus was taken away before he died, was put in the tomb and recovered slightly, then reappeared but died later.
Poseidon63 Absolutely, .. or even more likely, none of this actually happened and the whole story was made up. Much like Joseph Smith's encounter with the angel Moroni and those elusive golden plates.
bonnie43uk
Probably
Most of these just come down to people not actually using the method they claim
I've always listened to Robert Price about what the minimum facts are. the minimum fact is...... people wrote things down. he says that most of these stories seem to be based on other older writtings of fiction. He also reads from a lot of people who wrote before 1975. Do They use the minimum facts from archaeology, nope.
Robert Price...lol...one of the most extreme skeptics...lol...really reliable source of information. You might as well be listening to Alex Jones.
Matt, at 15:00 you begin too speak about memorizing scripts instead of understanding the argument or idea. To be devils advocate here, science works for the laymen in the same way. Radiometric carbon dating for example. I have no way to understand the exact science on this. Most of the sciences are this way. We are not experts in the sciences. I understand someone out there does understand these things. Trying to impart this to the believer becomes difficult as they have their experts which they "trust".
What is the rebuttal to this in a discussion with the believer?
*I have no way to understand the exact science on this*
This is incorrect. You have every way to understand the science. All the knowledge is publicly available and if you so choose, you could run all the tests yourself. It might take work, but you can absolutely do it. And you can at least point the believer to a documented test that THEY could run themselves, though we both know they won't.
29:02 And then we have Clarke's Third Law.
It probably won't come as much as a surprise that Habermas is a big believer in the Shroud of Turin.
+Daryl Carpenter Great example, Daryl .... the shroud exists, it looks like a stereotypical amalgam of every image of "Jesus ," as portrayed in works of art through the ages ....... and thererfore the conclusion MUST be that the material is that in which the crucified Christ was wrapped Sounds good to me :))
Nevr mind that the material was dated in 1988 under laboratory conditions (with the agreement of the church on the methods to be used ) , by three independent seats of learning
Independently -and without communication between them - all three labs dated the shroud to the the 13th Century, to within a degree of error of no more than 30 years across all three results.........thus "the minimal facts fallacy" stinks and should be challenged at every step !
If I was God and I finally get around to having that 'great and terrible' judgement day I've been preparing for the last 2000 years or so.......
'Matt Dillahunty.....step forward to my throne...Matt...your doubts about my existence were FACTUALLY incorrect....because as you can see I do exist of course....however, you were absolutely RIGHT in principle to question my existence, after all, I showed you very little to give you any reassurance that my word known on Earth as the Bible was the correct thing to believe in, I gave you very little reason to believe I existed at all, so you did the one and only rationally justifiable thing you could do based on what I let you know, which was namely to reject the Bible and reject all the assertions of my existence, well done, you and all the other Atheists, Skeptics etc have passed my test with flying colors, into the Pearly Gates goest thou all and enjoy :)......now....those of you who believed in my existence and were Theists, Christians, Muslims etc....yes I exist as you can see, you got that right but what reason did I give any of you to believe I existed?.....did I ever show myself to you?....did I not give you a brain?....did I not give you reason, logic and rational thinking???....why do you think I gave them to you?....these were all the tools I gave to you to pass my test and you threw them all away, you fell for the faith red herring I threw in, you committed intellectual suicide and just believed anyway despite me not giving you any reason to....THAT was the test, to see if you would utilize the reason, rational and logical thinking powers I endowed you with and come to the correct conclusion that those powers would dictate you come to based on what little I let you know....and you failed.....depart from me I know thee not.....well not until thou start using the brain I gave thou, then thou can come into my Kingdom' Lol ;)
+John Cashin Ha, if the fictional, ungodly, obsolete, error filled biblical Bozo existed he might say that, but the real God is100% all natural and composed of the fundamental & emergent laws of nature integrated with forces of physics. The natural sciences, reason & logic document the reality of laws of nature united with forces of physics that big bang created, & law of nature rule the universe. This real creator & ruler of the universe is God.
"Seest thou a man wise in his own conceit? there is more hope of a fool than of him." (Proverbs 26:12)
If they managed to find 75% sceptical scholars who believed in point number 10 I can only imagine they did so by finding 3 very uniformed scholars. I am not even sure they could find 75 % christian scholars who would agree with that point if the pole was not rigged. Point number 10 is just historically untrue.
It's not rare this man embraces again Christianity. Why? Because the discourse of the conscience is superficial; superficial and messy things get resolved deep in the hearth, not only talking and talking about mind's ideas.
traducción en español y mas gente te seguirá y te podrá entender te a polla la comunidad ateista latinoamericana pero traducción por favor subtitulos en español plliisssss
Have you read Bart Ehrman's new-ish book "How Jesus Became God"? In it Dr. Ehrman explains why he now considers the burial and empty tomb traditions are very unlikely to be historical.
+Benjamin Drasin My favorite quote of Bart Ehrman's is when he makes fun of those who deny the historical existence of Jesus. According to him: "Jesus did exist, whether we like it or not."
+BattleshipTx ..... which, of course, is a pointless non-sequitur from Ehrman (who normally has a lot of useful things to say).
The existence of a person called Jesus does not confirm his status as the offspring of any deity - let alone of the alleged Christian God - nor does it confirm the existence of any god - and nor does it confirm any part of the magical resurrection story.
+truthtrumpsdumbness The existence of a historical Jesus does, however, refute those here who drone on about Jesus being a myth, not a real human who existed. Bart takes a whole book eviscerating any possible claims of that nature. Ehrman doesn't believe in his divinity certainly, as he is an atheist. It is hardly pointless when so many here try to make the claim he so effectively refutes. You can't prove by history that Jesus is the son of God, but you can, or at least Ehrman can and does, prove that Jesus exited and started the religion called Christianity.
+BattleshipTx "How Jesus Became God" doesn't really discuss mythicism; that's a different book. With regard to the subject of this video, the point is that some of the basic facts are actually not taken for granted by historians on the subject if one bothers to ask them.
BattleshipTx
"You can't prove by history that Jesus is the son of God, but you can, or at least Ehrman can and does, prove that Jesus exited and started the religion called Christianity."
.... which proves ?........ absolutely nothing about anything (and Ehrman's claims are still in dispute, so please don't state them as "fact")
It's exactly the same as the known existence of Charles Manson - and the fact that he headed a cult. These facts proved ? .......nothing, whatsoever - especially about truth, reality, morals or the existence and meaning of of the universe - so it's still EXACTLY as I said - a "non sequitur" - i.e. totally irrelevant to ANYTHING
If you prove Jesus resurrected from the dead, what are you left with? That someone remarkably got better after being dead.
Why would that make anyone believe in God or worship God?
Why would it make you think that Vicarious Redemption is a perfect form of Justice?
Why would you think human sacrifice is an effective means of absolving inherited crimes?
Why would you think these crimes can be inheritid?
It seems incoherent, a complete non sequitur- I don't get why Christians would even want a resurrection to be true.
_ Why would that make anyone believe in God or worship God?
_
Well, if you were a naturalist, seeing a friend brutally murdered come back to life might just make you a believer in the supernatural.
_Why would it make you think that Vicarious Redemption is a perfect form of Justice?
_
Because the man who died and came back to life said it was:
"just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep. And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd. For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from my Father." (John 10:15-18)
"And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood." (Luke 22:20)
Why would you think human sacrifice is an effective means of absolving inherited crimes?
Because blood sacrifice was always the basis for approach to God, which was predicted to be fulfilled by the Messiah:
"For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life." (Leviticus 17:11)
"But he was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his wounds we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned-every one-to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all. (Isaiah 53:5-6)
Why would you think these crimes can be inheritid?
People will be judged for their own works, not anything inherited:
"And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them, and they were judged, each one of them, according to what they had done." (Revelation 20:13)
Minimal facts apologetics? I just figured apologists were finally being honest for once.
We should rename the "Minimal Facts Approach" to "The Cherry Picking Approach".
Just got done watching one of the funniest movies ever made. The Life of Brian, Monty Python. You can see it on youtube. I recommend it.
Can you guys commit to an objective definition for the word "evidence." Why do atheists hate dictionaries?
LEAFY GUITAR SOLOS Actually no. Dictionaries are not repositories of facts, but simply records of usage. Also, there is no such thing as "you athiests" who all have the same basis for their beliefs and who certainly aren't part of a cohesive "group". So trying to nail down the most "objective" definition of the word evidence as some type of atheist petard I s a meaningless descent into semantics and a waste of time.
So backtrack a bit and realize that you will have to address atheists as individuals and the discuss what facts and processes are involved in their decision making process. I like Matt's simplified response as a starting point: "If an omnipotent/omniscient God exists, he will of course know exactly what "evidence" is required to convince me of his existence, even I currently do not.
So you cannot hold to an objective definition of the word "atheist" either. I am aware of the variations. You guys just slide around misusing words and dismissing evidence whilst claiming opinions and theory are evidence if it is widely accepted. Vocal atheists are the least scientific people on the planet.
hey matt you had triple by pass / ii had qusddropple by pass
That's a lot of dropple.
"Evidenced" isn't a word. "Evidence" is a noun not a verb. Use the word "evidence " properly and all that apologetic bullshit becomes meaningless.
Matt Dillahunty
Matt. Here are you errors.
1. You say that the minimal facts argument is an appeal to the supernatural at 4:25. Not so. What the argument shows is that there is no sensible argument in opposition to the Christian claims concerning the resurrection. Think of mathematics and the process of elimination, leaving us with one possibility. To be concrete, what sensible explanation, other than the Christian explanation, can be offered for the empty tomb? The deductions (e.g., through hypothetical syllogisms - a valid argument form) gained after establishment of the minimal facts show the only sensible explanation is the Christian explanation.
2. You apparently confuse facts with arguments from 4:38 forward. Deductions occur with facts (which form the premises), to be sure. Facts are not deductions, however, and facts themselves are not premises. Premises involve predication with facts. However, the facts derived from the process of elimination (a legitimate logic strategy) are used in the deductions, through the formulated premises - a reality you avoid in your explanation. Moreover, the minimal facts themselves don’t form arguments or premises. That work is done after gaining the minimal facts, which is so obvious, I’m surprised you’re missing it.
3. Note that the minimal facts argument does not, in itself, prove God’s existence. Aquinas/Aristotle do that through the argument from motion (as the most manifest way); every atheist straw mans Aquinas (if he/shre reads Aquinas) to avoid his conclusions, and more than that every atheist doesn’t read all of what Aquinas says on the topic (see p.100 of the God Delusion to get started in understanding this reality)
4. At 6:00 you wrongly set up a tension between the minimal facts argument (deduction from facts) and the scientific method (INDUCTION); induction is not deduction; in fact, as you should know, induction does not lead to absolutely true conclusions, like deduction does. Yikes … you really messed up here, Matt. I get the sense, Matt, that you have never taken even a basic logic course (if you did, perhaps you could share your final grade in the course with us?)
5. You then, at 8:12, compare conspiracy theory development, to construction of the “narrative” of the minimal facts argument. But we know that conspiracy theory does not make use of legitimate logic strategy, which I explained in point 2 above.
** I’ll stop there for now, since there are SO MANY ERRORS in the first 10 minutes of your video, Matt. Respond to them, and I’ll offer you more illumination.
Pax et Bonum
Yeah you right. This video by Matt is just saaad.
But the whole purpose and essence of religion is based on irrationality, feelings and faith. Having a rational approach to it and wanting to debunk it is like trying to eat a soup with a fork. I'm not saying you won't influence and affect people, but in general if someone is 30+ and believes, it's hardly going to change his mind.
Matt, I listened as long as I could, but I feel you don't understand what Habermas is trying to get across with the Minimal Facts approach. It is simply saying that not all scholars accept for instance Paul's writings, but the case for the resurrection can still be made using the texts they do accept, such as Galatians and 1st Corinthians. Habermas on his page says "For more than 35 years, I have argued that, surrounding the end of Jesus’ life, there is a significant body of data that scholars of almost every religious and philosophical persuasion recognize as being historical. The historicity of each “fact” on the list is attested and supported by a variety of historical and other considerations." Maybe you should amend this video and make a response so that you don't wrongly portray the Minimal Facts approach, because I listened as long as I could to hear you state what the argument is, but I did not hear you articulate exactly what the Minimal Facts approach actually is.
listen longer
+Polo Gonzalez
*but the case for the resurrection can still be made using the texts they do accept, such as Galatians and 1st Corinthians*
Yes, two writings from thousands of years ago can convince people that a dead man came back to life and is a god.
You can't possibly be serious.
+TheZooCrew Don't get mad at me, get mad at the skeptical historians.
+Matt Dillahunty why not put this at the beginning?
+TheZooCrew Also, these skeptical historians can say that 2 thousand years ago people were convinced that a dead man came back to life and IS God. They may not believe it, they are skeptical
If we're talking minimum facts about the resurrection, I would say there are only a few facts that any reasonable person can agree with. 1) Jesus was arrested and executed by the Jerusalem authorities, 2) Jesus' disciples *believed* that Jesus rose from the dead, and 3) Jesus' disciples managed to convince others who never met Jesus that Jesus rose from the dead. That's about it. Not a tremendous amount of data to work with.
+Tal Moore A reasonable person wouldnt agree with that. First off theres no evidence he even existed in the first place. Secondly there are no records that he was ever arrested by Jerusalem authorities and lastly the 'disciples' are loosely based on historic figures.
"First off theres no evidence he even existed in the first place." You mythicists are a blight. You make us otherwise reasonable atheists look like conspiracy theoriest buffoons by association. fyi
Tal Moore Ok prove me wrong. Show some actual evidence that he existed. or STFU!
Yeah, sorry. A reasonable person who's read up on it wouldn't agree to those facts.
No evidence of how Jesus died or by whom if anyone. Actually, no or nearly no evidence there was a Jesus at all (certainly none of the specific Jesus who supposedly was executed). It's from the bible and nowhere else. The closest you can get was "there was a figure at the center we'll call Jesus that the stories grew around", and even that much has been called into question
We don't even have much evidence for disciples or what they did if they existed. Apostles, yes. Disciples no.
instead of insulting maybe take the time to do research
Matt calls God a moral monster. How can a atheist call anything "a moral monster"? What grounding for moral do an atheist have?
Our consciences. Surely you agree we have those, right?
I'd love you to produce your grounding. You know the one that has no issue with slavery, rape, genocide etc
@andreaserik6069
We are grounded in our shared humanity, our shared suffering, and shared compassion for the vulnerable.
You are too. You think you are grounded in that monster, you call god, but you are not. Even if you defend that cretin, in the hope to be rewarded for your groveling and boot licking, you know that you are miles apart from that horrible inhumane, depraved apparition.
The human body is very resilient. It's totally possible they thought a crucified died when (s)he didn't.
+algi You know the Romans also stabbed him with a spear too, right? To make sure he was dead.
+BattleshipTx Yeah, and no person can survive a stab wound.
+algi Roman soldiers were pretty good about killing people and making sure they were dead.