I'm surprised about the level of toxicity and lack of rigor in the comments. I'd figure a video about a Christian critiquing an argument made by Christians would be viewed by Christians, but apparently militant atheists came flocking in like vultures instead. I like this video and the point you've made here. What undesigned coincidences show is that the writings share a source of information. It says nothing about what that source actually is. Not sure what's so controversial about that. We should also watch to stay on topic, since many of the comments here, in my view, are committing whataboutisms.
With all due respect, I’m not in his league. I’m a small fry just doing this as a side gig. I’m a huge Testify fan though. I almost feel guilty disagreeing with him…
This is a thoughtful video, but I think it misses the fact that there are many undesigned coincidences that occur outside of the scope of the synoptic problem. E.g., the epistles, acts, and the gospels taken together. I don’t think there is a logical fallacy in the claim that undesigned coincidences are evidence that an event actually occurred *in the case of the gospels* because the gospels seem much more analogous to the crime scene example at minute 9 than the Star Wars example. The writers of the gospels are clearly writing biography, and there is external and internal evidence that strongly points to them being written by eyewitnesses rather than by people who were hearing or reading someone else’s story. So as part of a cumulative case, these arguments are not fallacious. Another thing to point out is that most skeptics (other than the loons in UA-cam comments who apparently know more than scholars) acknowledge that the gospels are reporting a number of facts. They acknowledge a historic Jesus with historic disciples who was an itinerate preacher who was crucified, with his disciples later clamming to see him resurrected. I don’t see apologists as reasoning circularly, I rather see them arguing from facts that the skeptics already grant.
I intentionally narrowed the focus to the Gospels. I hope it’s clear that if it’s true in that fact pattern, we don’t need do reach the other examples. We don’t need to address them at all if the Gospels themselves - the earliest accounts (both in terms of events described and possibly dating too) - fail the test. When you say the Gospels are (mostly) eyewitnesses “clearly” writing Biography, I happen to agree. I’ll do an analysis later. But if we accept that as the premise to UCs - which I do as I’ve said (on other grounds) - we can’t logically use UCs to prove that premise without begging the question, circularity, etc.
@ thanks for the response. You certainly did a good job with the video, and I hope it gets attention from more than the crowd that’s found it so far. I think the great thing about the epistles is we know many of them were super early, skeptics agree many of them were written before the gospels, and virtually no one denies they draw on source material outside of the gospels, very rarely directly alluding to the gospels. It seems improbable that all of this varied textual data is the result of an original fictional account like Star Wars. I also think that most of the skeptics agree the gospels are biography (even Bart Ehrman concedes this point). So this isn’t a case of fallacious circular reasoning by apologists-they’re starting from common ground held by most informed skeptics. If you dig deeply enough, almost every argument can be reduced to circular reason if someone chooses to be contrarian enough. Almost every argument assumes basic things, for instance that history really occurred, that the universe is more than the hallucinations of one human brain, or that ancient Romans killed some criminals via crucifixion. There are in fact people who deny these things, just as there are people who deny that the gospels have any shred of historicity. Apologists have the right to choose which level of analysis to stop and say “ok, we’ll assume that Jesus existed” or “ok, we’ll assume that the physical universe exists” or anywhere in between. Apologetic arguments (and arguments in general) don’t work on people who systemically deny obvious facts that lead to an undesired conclusion.
Again, I agree with much of what you’re saying. And thank you. The narrow point here is that - accepting what you’re saying as true - UCs add nothing and prove nothing further. Indeed, they can’t, given the admissions you’re (rightfully) conceding. If we know the source material/fact pattern is shared and known, then logically and by definition we cannot learn anything further about the *truth* of that fact pattern by finding UCs. Nothing. It’s inescapable. UCs will necessarily occur with any shared fact pattern, true or fiction. We must rely on other grounds for evidence of that truth.
@ I’m not sure that they will necessarily occur, they do not occur in the non-canonical gospels for instance. And some of the undesigned coincidences are simultaneously coincidences with nature/geography and different accounts. I do think this is forceful for skeptics who agree that the gospels are attempted biography of a real person but believe that the gospels are not written by eyewitnesses, and are primarily evangelical and only loosely historical. That’s the view of Bart Ehrman for instance, and I think undesigned coincidences are a significant (though not insurmountable, obviously) evidential factor weighing against his interpretation.
As long as they’re possible (I argue *probable*) to occur on a shared fictitious account (like Star Wars) then finding them in a fact pattern like the Synoptics proves nothing about whether the underlying facts are true. This is logically unavoidable and necessarily true.
You're ignoring the hypothesis that undesigned coincidences are evidence against. Yes, if all the gospel writers had access to the same fictional written Mega-Gospel of the life of Jesus, this could explain the undesigned coincidences. But almost no one believes that. The synoptic commonalities are usually explained by a *smaller* document (i.e. less than what's in Matthew, Mark and Luke) called Q, not a bigger one that contained all of their material. Your example of "one movie + different retellings" is not analogous. It would suggest one Mega-Gospel, which is then summarised by Mt, Mk, Lk, Jn. For over a century, New Testament scholars have been claiming that the gospels are pieced together from decades of oral transmission, resulting in a hodge-podge of disconnected narratives in various locations that were assembled by the gospel authors in isolated communities. The default hypothesis has been separately invented stories, with some common small source like Q. If a specific undesigned coincidence doesn't involve a common source like Q, then we have two options: an unknown mega source, or a eyewitness reports. And that's enough. If there are three possible hypotheses, and then some evidence rules one out, then the other two become more likely. It's not a proof, but it's not supposed to be.
There is no Q. Never was. Not saying there weren’t various oral traditions and proto-docs, etc. but Q is a purely fictitious myth, made up by academics who misinterpreted their findings with respect to the Synoptic Gospels. These logical errors led them to erroneously conclude that it could *only* have been Mark who was first. And since Matthew and Luke shared content not found in Mark, there must have been a hypothetical document, Q. Now, a hypothetical document is fine if it’s necessary to explain the data. But these foolish analysts misinterpreted the data and Q is not necessitated whatsoever. Marc Goodacre argues this on the grounds (Farrer hypo) - as do others. It’s a farce. You can look at other videos I have on this channel if you wish. I cover this in detail. Or turn to the many others who’ve dug in on this. Still, even assuming a Q, it doesn’t change the point. If the Q or any other proto document was a “myth” (and I don’t believe that FTR) then we’d still find the UCs if writers shared that hypothetical source…
@@apologicablog I have no strong opinion on Q. My point still stands. Undesigned coincidences could be explained by a shared document that is larger than the gospels that derive from it. Almost no one believes that.
I don’t think this point responds to, or is relevant to, anything I’ve stated here. It’s one of those things that may be true, but is at best tangential if anything. The point of this video is that UCs can’t be used as evidence that the reported events in the Gospels in fact happened/are true - which is exactly what the proponents use UCs for - where the source fact pattern is known to be shared. Not when the argument against that known, shared fact pattern is that it was fictitious to begin with. That allegedly “fictitious” shared source could be oral tradition, Q, early gospel, etc. Makes no difference. If we know that later writers literarily depended on this early allegedly fictitious source, then we can’t use UCs found as evidence that the source and later writings are true. UCs give us nothing we don’t already have - ie, yeah there’s a common source… 🤷🏿♂️
I'd like to express my deep admiration for your willingness to hold your own allies to high standards of rigor, although as someone in the skeptical camp it may seem somewhat two-faced of me. Perhaps I can balance the scales a bit by conceding that a major part of the common fact pattern to which all the Gospel writers had access is probably biographical information about a real historical human named Jesus (in Greek anyway) who preached in 1st-Century Judea and was crucified for it. There is a lot of good reason to think that this is the case, and skeptics who argue for a purely fictional origin for the Gospels are, much like apologists making the undesigned coincidences fallacy, overstretching their reasoning. We can read Parson Weems tell the story of George Washington cutting down the cherry tree and doubt that this event ever happened without going on to conclude that George Washington must never have existed. And if I might offer a small correction that doesn't affect the substance of your video: the current majority view on the synoptic problem puts Mark, not Matthew as you have illustrated, in the central position.
Thank you for the gracious and thoughtful response. I agree with a lot of it. And we can do much better when we are willing to entertain other POVs. I will always respond to good evidence and will always go where the logic and evidence takes me. Even where, as here, I don't like the outcome. However, the scholarly "consensus" on Mark being first is wrong. It's not really up for debate once you're familiar with the Synoptic Problem and the historical fallacies that started this Markan priority issue. You can take my word on it, or you can watch the videos I've posted on the subject (or others such as FaithBecauseOfReason) and see for yourself. I have multiple videos on this subject and really it's the genesis of this channel. All I ask is you keep an open mind to the possibility that scholarly consensus is wrong...
@@apologicablog I seem to have misunderstood; I thought the illustration was intended as a general representation of the synoptic concept. If it was more of a position statement I apologize.
I’m not sure if you’re agreeing or disagreeing with the argument I make here. But what I’m saying is if we accept the Synoptic Problem as accurate - that one of Matthew, Mark, and Luke was literarily copied by one or more of the others - then that’s where there “original account” (ie the Star Wars movie) Gospel narrative came from. And so seeing UCs in later Gospel accounts and writings doesn’t prove that the events in the original Gospel account actually happened. Only that the later accounts were influenced by the original account. UCs are all but unavoidable in that case…
@@apologicablog I understand it, thank you. But I think this is a bit simplistic. The gospels all contain unique material and shared material in different combinations. If the later accounts were influenced by the original, would it not be designed and deliberate? That is not a UC. There's also historically-accurate details, cultural references, and so on. The UC's work with these things. I think it's hard to argue that all the undesigned coincidences are the result of copying rather than simply being the result of an actual event being described by a writer.
@hweiktomeyto Imagine a group of people witness the same dramatic crime, say a murder. The police interview the witnesses. Will the accounts all have the same exact details? People witness the event from numerous angles. Some see things that others do not. Some hear things that others do not. Some focus or remember things that others do not. All agree that a murder was committed. The minor details do not have to agree, just the major ones.
I don't see the issue you're trying to address. The fact that they are pulling from the same source is the point being made by the proponents. You can't PROVE anything from 2000 years ago. Undesigned coincidence argument is made to point out that yeah, the four gospel writers are pulling from the same source which is the actual events. It isn't trying to speak to of the event is true or false. It's that they are in agreement on the story being told.
This is incorrect. The proponents already know that the source material is shared (eg Synoptic Problem). The literal point of undesigned coincidences is to show that these numerous, cumulative, incidental coincidences wouldn’t occur if the underlying events weren’t true.
I'm disheartened to say that your only respondents are those who wish to mock Christianity or are what I refer to as vindictive Christians. I appreciate your attempt to apply logic to apologetics. It is unfortunate that those who are hostile to Christianity, and by that I mean the militant atheists, do you not understand that everything that we accept or deny is approached in some degree as a matter of faith. Did Julius Caesar really exist?
The existence of Julius Caesar is verifiable through archeology and historical records. Unlike Jesus. It would have been more appropriate for you to say Socrates. Because like Jesus, Socrates is only known to us through the secondhand sources of his disciples. But again this example fails. It doesn’t matter to me if Socrates really existed. Because I can still accept his teachings even if he is a mythological figure. Jesus, on the other hand, NEEDS to be real to you. He can’t have died for your sins if he never existed in the first place. We only know of Jesus through the testimony of his alleged disciples. You should know that if you are a Christian. So don’t bring Julius Caesar into it. We have verifiable historical evidence of Caesar’s existence.
Answering any question of that type necessitates first deciding how much of the historical record has to match the "idea of that person we have today" before we say that it is accurate to say they 'existed'. For your example: Given the large amount of independent sources, it is highly likely that there was a person within the timeframe in question that matched a large part of what we mean today when we say 'Julius Cesar'. We're likely missing some things the actual person did in our current idea and others might be missatributed to that historical person though. If you look at more mystical figures like Robin Hood, King Arthur, Siegfried, etc. it is far more likely that the best we can get is one person or more that inspired those tales (and only match partially to our modern idea, maybe the name fits but the deeds do not or some of the deeds match, others don't and the name is different anyways). In the case of the historicity of Jesus Christ, the matching ranges from "there was an apocalyptic preacher/cult leader in ancient Isreal who was crucified by the Romans' to 'there wa the literal son of God almighty in the flesh performing miracles like raising people from the dead, who was executed by the Romans in a divine plan to sacrifice himself to absolve humanity of their sin', with a myriad of steps in between. The former is near certain but the latter is much more along the line of what Christianity claims; and evidence for that is mostly just the biblical record, as far as I know? Like, one Roman source where a historian wrote that there is a sect of people who believe this, which is just a source for the existence of Christianity, not Jesus Christ himself. Not much idependent verification (if I believed that amount of evidence there is a large amount of miracle claims of other religions and mystics that I would have to believe, too. Islam, Hinduism, Buddism, Zoroastrianism, many individual miracle works that had more or less of a following, etc.). But the most fundamental difference between someone like 'Julius Cesar' and 'Jesus Christ' (in the son of God version) is not even the amount (and reliability) of historical evidence. It's that to accept the existence of 'Julius Cesar' is fully compatible with a world view informed from current scientific observations, no violation of physics necessary. The 'epistemological cost', so to speak, is quite low. If I wrongly believe in 'Julius Cesars' existence, my story about the geopolitical developments in southern Europe and northern Africa about 2000 years ago is off; a bit embarassing maybe, but nothing truely fundamental to my understanding of the universe is impacted by this. Believe in Jesus Christ, son of God almighty, though? That means adding a whole lot of 'miracle mechanisms' to my model of reality, none of which have as of now been scientifically verified. I would apply much higher standards for historical evidence before I accept such a proposition or better yet, would like to have the 'miracle type' additions to physics scientifically verified at the current time.
@@danem.9402 It's untrue that there is no secular evidence for Jesus. What exactly would you accept as archeological evidence for Jesus? This seems like a red herring argument.
@@danem.9402 "We only know of Jesus through the testimony of his alleged disciples. You should know that if you are a Christian." Is that strictly true? Didn't a number of non-Christian historians write about the movement and its origins? Tacitus comes to mind.
That is actually your belief. I don't think it is productive to make stuff up about what happens inside other one's mind and saying it without their consent.
What is it with Atheists suddenly all saying theists don't actually believe in what they say? Is that a common scholarly belief? Or at least not some extreme outliar?
@hweiktomeyto Outlier. I don't claim to know what's with their faux omniscience. It's likely part of what the Lord told us to expect. They're willfully ignorant, will never accept the truth, and gaslight anyone who disagrees. It's not about the evidence; it's about whatever sin in their lives they don't want to give up. Forgive and pray.
@@OneVoiceMore from one puddle to another swamp. One asumes a false faith of apologet, and another claims that those who don't praise one particular diety are "siners" and want to be such. Truly geniuses that do deserve each other. Please do not think that you or anyone knows what is in other one's head more then they themselves know. Maybe someone have a set of values different from people who wrote the scriptures, but not only they may not consider some specific actions to be sins like you do, but they also might consider a sin something that you don't. And they are as equally have right to think so.
Honestly, this is one of the most inaccurate, debunked myths in Biblical studies. Check my other videos - but many other sources cover it. It’s a totally discredited myth made up by the academy…
For a moment I was puzzled as the skeptic position wouldn't prove that the work is fiction, given that one could argue that the source could very well be what they witnessed rather than them copying each other's work, but you addressed that. A well done video, looking forward to your future works. God bless.
@ moral according to the moral laws christianity made for itself through the word of god. it is a morality that conflicts itself frequently and has no moral platform to stand on besides the one it makes for itself, a platform based on faith and trust. call me a materialist, i still believe it’s wrong
I'm not sure it makes sense to talk about the inconsistencies of a literary work while ignoring its internal logic. If you don't understand the plot, how will you know the inconsistencies you perceived are real?
@@david672orford never did i say i didn’t understand the logic of the bible. i said it didn’t concern me, and that the morality is my primary point of criticism. you’re putting words in my mouth
It's mins blowing that people still believe in the bible. Did they actually investigate how it was written and composed? I guess the answer is no, since they believe in it.
I’m not sure this is the zinger you think it is. It’s because there is good historical reason to believe that, eg the Gospel of Matthew was an eyewitness account of the events it contains that people “believe in it.” You’d be surprised how much “bad” - horrendous - “scholarship” there is out there for what’s otherwise a simple, straightforward historical fact pattern.
@apologicablog You may select a single gospel that you find the most credible and argue for that. Though do that for the histor(icit)y of all 66 books in the bible. Next step, you investigate why there are so many different bibles. Who chose what books and why some were determined apocryphical and later removed. It disillusions you very quickly and displays how it's 100% the product of many humans over a thousand years. Not a book inspired by an unchanging and omniscient god.
@hweiktomeyto If you are sincerely interested, simply start with genesis. Investigate who wrote it. You will find there are dozens of manuscripts in multiple languages that were transcribed from centuries of oral tradition. That is just one example. Go to the NT it doesn't get better. Almost every bible has notes that the gospels were written anonymously. If you investigate more thoroughly, you will find that there are many many versions of every gospel with literally thousands of discrepancies within a single gospel. It's mind-blowing how people still believe something that inconsistent and unreliable to be the words of an omniscient deity.
@@LordidudeFor some reason most Christians are under the delusion that there is only one bible. And lucky for them, that one bible always seems to be the bible they were already reading in the first place. You will never get them to accept the verifiable fact that these texts have been compiled from even older mythology. Nor the fact that we can trace the gradual changes to these texts that have occurred in the past millennia.
Let me show you your first mistake in this video, you somehow are trying to protect the christian apologists. Do you know they commit the 2 biggest fallacies: Circular Argument and Begging the Question. Your Undesigned Coincidences is just one of many. Another problem is that you don't know who the writers were. you have an extreme religious bias, that makes you dishonest by default.
You're committing an ad hominem fallacy here -- one of the biggest fallacies made in this field. Look, there are three things I try to do on this channel: 1) disclose, honestly, my personal biases up front, 2) make arguments that don't rely on personal biases, and instead only focus on logical reasoning, and 3) respond to the arguments of others without regard to who the person is. Ie, I don't particularly care "who" is making the argument -- I respond to the substance of the argument itself. Most arguments, including the ones I address here, can be analyzed objectively without any regard for the characteristics and traits of the person making them.
@@apologicablog Nah, I don't believe you, sorry. Protecting a christian apologist fallacies tantamounts to a criminal lawyer defending a convicted sex offender. BTW, it is not an ad-hominem when you make a video defending or making excuses for apologists bad and or unfounded arguments, and I call you out on it. As I said, you will do well, christians are in crisis, they need young blood to defend them, I see you as the equivalent of that charlatan christian philosopher WLC. We will see, I will keep an eye on you.
Again, by ad hominem, I’m referring to the fallacy of rejecting the arguments I’m making because of irrelevancies of my background/beliefs. You’re not “calling out” anything that I’ve not already conceded. I was and am transparent about my beliefs. I said I’m not responding to any specific person but to the arguments themselves. But to reject my arguments simply bc I’m a self-professed “apologist” is the definition of ad hominem…
The gospels circulated in every corner of the roman empire and not once were the gospels attributed to someone other than Matthew Mark Luke and John as the authors of their respective gospels. If they were later names, why not call them the gospel of Peter, James, and Andrew? Why Matthew, Mark, and Luke Some smaller things include the fact that Matthew, being the hated tax collector, uses the most money terminology and is the only person who called the tax collector Matthew. The other gospels call him Levi, which is another name And no, Christians are no more biased than others. That is poisoning the well. In fact, due to how dismissive Atheist scholars have been because of "Christian biases" there is now evidence that Atheist scholars are more biased against Christians
You mentioned one important point, the needless back and forth. Well, the use of philosophic jargon is useless when they can't prove their imaginary friend. Never mind the amount of fallacies each side commits.
I'm surprised about the level of toxicity and lack of rigor in the comments. I'd figure a video about a Christian critiquing an argument made by Christians would be viewed by Christians, but apparently militant atheists came flocking in like vultures instead.
I like this video and the point you've made here. What undesigned coincidences show is that the writings share a source of information. It says nothing about what that source actually is. Not sure what's so controversial about that.
We should also watch to stay on topic, since many of the comments here, in my view, are committing whataboutisms.
I love for you and Testify to talk. He's a big proponent of undesigned coincidences.
With all due respect, I’m not in his league. I’m a small fry just doing this as a side gig. I’m a huge Testify fan though. I almost feel guilty disagreeing with him…
There are some horrendous comments here. Don’t pay any attention to them. You did a great job with this video.
Thanks for posting this. It was actually very honest, and very useful.
This is a thoughtful video, but I think it misses the fact that there are many undesigned coincidences that occur outside of the scope of the synoptic problem. E.g., the epistles, acts, and the gospels taken together.
I don’t think there is a logical fallacy in the claim that undesigned coincidences are evidence that an event actually occurred *in the case of the gospels* because the gospels seem much more analogous to the crime scene example at minute 9 than the Star Wars example. The writers of the gospels are clearly writing biography, and there is external and internal evidence that strongly points to them being written by eyewitnesses rather than by people who were hearing or reading someone else’s story. So as part of a cumulative case, these arguments are not fallacious.
Another thing to point out is that most skeptics (other than the loons in UA-cam comments who apparently know more than scholars) acknowledge that the gospels are reporting a number of facts. They acknowledge a historic Jesus with historic disciples who was an itinerate preacher who was crucified, with his disciples later clamming to see him resurrected. I don’t see apologists as reasoning circularly, I rather see them arguing from facts that the skeptics already grant.
I intentionally narrowed the focus to the Gospels. I hope it’s clear that if it’s true in that fact pattern, we don’t need do reach the other examples. We don’t need to address them at all if the Gospels themselves - the earliest accounts (both in terms of events described and possibly dating too) - fail the test.
When you say the Gospels are (mostly) eyewitnesses “clearly” writing Biography, I happen to agree. I’ll do an analysis later. But if we accept that as the premise to UCs - which I do as I’ve said (on other grounds) - we can’t logically use UCs to prove that premise without begging the question, circularity, etc.
@ thanks for the response. You certainly did a good job with the video, and I hope it gets attention from more than the crowd that’s found it so far.
I think the great thing about the epistles is we know many of them were super early, skeptics agree many of them were written before the gospels, and virtually no one denies they draw on source material outside of the gospels, very rarely directly alluding to the gospels. It seems improbable that all of this varied textual data is the result of an original fictional account like Star Wars.
I also think that most of the skeptics agree the gospels are biography (even Bart Ehrman concedes this point). So this isn’t a case of fallacious circular reasoning by apologists-they’re starting from common ground held by most informed skeptics.
If you dig deeply enough, almost every argument can be reduced to circular reason if someone chooses to be contrarian enough. Almost every argument assumes basic things, for instance that history really occurred, that the universe is more than the hallucinations of one human brain, or that ancient Romans killed some criminals via crucifixion. There are in fact people who deny these things, just as there are people who deny that the gospels have any shred of historicity. Apologists have the right to choose which level of analysis to stop and say “ok, we’ll assume that Jesus existed” or “ok, we’ll assume that the physical universe exists” or anywhere in between. Apologetic arguments (and arguments in general) don’t work on people who systemically deny obvious facts that lead to an undesired conclusion.
Again, I agree with much of what you’re saying. And thank you. The narrow point here is that - accepting what you’re saying as true - UCs add nothing and prove nothing further. Indeed, they can’t, given the admissions you’re (rightfully) conceding. If we know the source material/fact pattern is shared and known, then logically and by definition we cannot learn anything further about the *truth* of that fact pattern by finding UCs. Nothing. It’s inescapable. UCs will necessarily occur with any shared fact pattern, true or fiction. We must rely on other grounds for evidence of that truth.
@ I’m not sure that they will necessarily occur, they do not occur in the non-canonical gospels for instance. And some of the undesigned coincidences are simultaneously coincidences with nature/geography and different accounts. I do think this is forceful for skeptics who agree that the gospels are attempted biography of a real person but believe that the gospels are not written by eyewitnesses, and are primarily evangelical and only loosely historical. That’s the view of Bart Ehrman for instance, and I think undesigned coincidences are a significant (though not insurmountable, obviously) evidential factor weighing against his interpretation.
As long as they’re possible (I argue *probable*) to occur on a shared fictitious account (like Star Wars) then finding them in a fact pattern like the Synoptics proves nothing about whether the underlying facts are true. This is logically unavoidable and necessarily true.
You're ignoring the hypothesis that undesigned coincidences are evidence against. Yes, if all the gospel writers had access to the same fictional written Mega-Gospel of the life of Jesus, this could explain the undesigned coincidences. But almost no one believes that. The synoptic commonalities are usually explained by a *smaller* document (i.e. less than what's in Matthew, Mark and Luke) called Q, not a bigger one that contained all of their material. Your example of "one movie + different retellings" is not analogous. It would suggest one Mega-Gospel, which is then summarised by Mt, Mk, Lk, Jn.
For over a century, New Testament scholars have been claiming that the gospels are pieced together from decades of oral transmission, resulting in a hodge-podge of disconnected narratives in various locations that were assembled by the gospel authors in isolated communities. The default hypothesis has been separately invented stories, with some common small source like Q. If a specific undesigned coincidence doesn't involve a common source like Q, then we have two options: an unknown mega source, or a eyewitness reports. And that's enough. If there are three possible hypotheses, and then some evidence rules one out, then the other two become more likely. It's not a proof, but it's not supposed to be.
There is no Q. Never was. Not saying there weren’t various oral traditions and proto-docs, etc. but Q is a purely fictitious myth, made up by academics who misinterpreted their findings with respect to the Synoptic Gospels. These logical errors led them to erroneously conclude that it could *only* have been Mark who was first. And since Matthew and Luke shared content not found in Mark, there must have been a hypothetical document, Q. Now, a hypothetical document is fine if it’s necessary to explain the data. But these foolish analysts misinterpreted the data and Q is not necessitated whatsoever. Marc Goodacre argues this on the grounds (Farrer hypo) - as do others. It’s a farce. You can look at other videos I have on this channel if you wish. I cover this in detail. Or turn to the many others who’ve dug in on this.
Still, even assuming a Q, it doesn’t change the point. If the Q or any other proto document was a “myth” (and I don’t believe that FTR) then we’d still find the UCs if writers shared that hypothetical source…
@@apologicablog I have no strong opinion on Q. My point still stands. Undesigned coincidences could be explained by a shared document that is larger than the gospels that derive from it. Almost no one believes that.
I don’t think this point responds to, or is relevant to, anything I’ve stated here. It’s one of those things that may be true, but is at best tangential if anything. The point of this video is that UCs can’t be used as evidence that the reported events in the Gospels in fact happened/are true - which is exactly what the proponents use UCs for - where the source fact pattern is known to be shared. Not when the argument against that known, shared fact pattern is that it was fictitious to begin with. That allegedly “fictitious” shared source could be oral tradition, Q, early gospel, etc. Makes no difference. If we know that later writers literarily depended on this early allegedly fictitious source, then we can’t use UCs found as evidence that the source and later writings are true. UCs give us nothing we don’t already have - ie, yeah there’s a common source… 🤷🏿♂️
Seems you missed the obvious "designed coincidence" as an explanation.
I'd like to express my deep admiration for your willingness to hold your own allies to high standards of rigor, although as someone in the skeptical camp it may seem somewhat two-faced of me. Perhaps I can balance the scales a bit by conceding that a major part of the common fact pattern to which all the Gospel writers had access is probably biographical information about a real historical human named Jesus (in Greek anyway) who preached in 1st-Century Judea and was crucified for it. There is a lot of good reason to think that this is the case, and skeptics who argue for a purely fictional origin for the Gospels are, much like apologists making the undesigned coincidences fallacy, overstretching their reasoning. We can read Parson Weems tell the story of George Washington cutting down the cherry tree and doubt that this event ever happened without going on to conclude that George Washington must never have existed.
And if I might offer a small correction that doesn't affect the substance of your video: the current majority view on the synoptic problem puts Mark, not Matthew as you have illustrated, in the central position.
Thank you for the gracious and thoughtful response. I agree with a lot of it. And we can do much better when we are willing to entertain other POVs. I will always respond to good evidence and will always go where the logic and evidence takes me. Even where, as here, I don't like the outcome.
However, the scholarly "consensus" on Mark being first is wrong. It's not really up for debate once you're familiar with the Synoptic Problem and the historical fallacies that started this Markan priority issue. You can take my word on it, or you can watch the videos I've posted on the subject (or others such as FaithBecauseOfReason) and see for yourself. I have multiple videos on this subject and really it's the genesis of this channel. All I ask is you keep an open mind to the possibility that scholarly consensus is wrong...
@@apologicablog I seem to have misunderstood; I thought the illustration was intended as a general representation of the synoptic concept. If it was more of a position statement I apologize.
And from where did this original account come? That is the point: the most likely explanation is that they were witnessing the same Star Wars movie.
I’m not sure if you’re agreeing or disagreeing with the argument I make here. But what I’m saying is if we accept the Synoptic Problem as accurate - that one of Matthew, Mark, and Luke was literarily copied by one or more of the others - then that’s where there “original account” (ie the Star Wars movie) Gospel narrative came from. And so seeing UCs in later Gospel accounts and writings doesn’t prove that the events in the original Gospel account actually happened. Only that the later accounts were influenced by the original account. UCs are all but unavoidable in that case…
So you're saying they all saw what they claim? Putting multiple people in a room doesn't make them hallucinate the same things.
@@apologicablog I understand it, thank you. But I think this is a bit simplistic. The gospels all contain unique material and shared material in different combinations. If the later accounts were influenced by the original, would it not be designed and deliberate? That is not a UC.
There's also historically-accurate details, cultural references, and so on. The UC's work with these things. I think it's hard to argue that all the undesigned coincidences are the result of copying rather than simply being the result of an actual event being described by a writer.
@hweiktomeyto Imagine a group of people witness the same dramatic crime, say a murder. The police interview the witnesses. Will the accounts all have the same exact details? People witness the event from numerous angles. Some see things that others do not. Some hear things that others do not. Some focus or remember things that others do not. All agree that a murder was committed. The minor details do not have to agree, just the major ones.
@@tinknal6449So you're saying it happened?
I don't see the issue you're trying to address.
The fact that they are pulling from the same source is the point being made by the proponents.
You can't PROVE anything from 2000 years ago.
Undesigned coincidence argument is made to point out that yeah, the four gospel writers are pulling from the same source which is the actual events. It isn't trying to speak to of the event is true or false. It's that they are in agreement on the story being told.
This is incorrect. The proponents already know that the source material is shared (eg Synoptic Problem). The literal point of undesigned coincidences is to show that these numerous, cumulative, incidental coincidences wouldn’t occur if the underlying events weren’t true.
The problem that you have overlooked is actually the title. The Bible (KJV) it states in the title it is not the only(VERSION) obits contents.
I'm disheartened to say that your only respondents are those who wish to mock Christianity or are what I refer to as vindictive Christians. I appreciate your attempt to apply logic to apologetics. It is unfortunate that those who are hostile to Christianity, and by that I mean the militant atheists, do you not understand that everything that we accept or deny is approached in some degree as a matter of faith.
Did Julius Caesar really exist?
The existence of Julius Caesar is verifiable through archeology and historical records. Unlike Jesus.
It would have been more appropriate for you to say Socrates. Because like Jesus, Socrates is only known to us through the secondhand sources of his disciples. But again this example fails. It doesn’t matter to me if Socrates really existed. Because I can still accept his teachings even if he is a mythological figure. Jesus, on the other hand, NEEDS to be real to you. He can’t have died for your sins if he never existed in the first place.
We only know of Jesus through the testimony of his alleged disciples. You should know that if you are a Christian. So don’t bring Julius Caesar into it. We have verifiable historical evidence of Caesar’s existence.
Answering any question of that type necessitates first deciding how much of the historical record has to match the "idea of that person we have today" before we say that it is accurate to say they 'existed'.
For your example: Given the large amount of independent sources, it is highly likely that there was a person within the timeframe in question that matched a large part of what we mean today when we say 'Julius Cesar'. We're likely missing some things the actual person did in our current idea and others might be missatributed to that historical person though.
If you look at more mystical figures like Robin Hood, King Arthur, Siegfried, etc. it is far more likely that the best we can get is one person or more that inspired those tales (and only match partially to our modern idea, maybe the name fits but the deeds do not or some of the deeds match, others don't and the name is different anyways).
In the case of the historicity of Jesus Christ, the matching ranges from "there was an apocalyptic preacher/cult leader in ancient Isreal who was crucified by the Romans' to 'there wa the literal son of God almighty in the flesh performing miracles like raising people from the dead, who was executed by the Romans in a divine plan to sacrifice himself to absolve humanity of their sin', with a myriad of steps in between. The former is near certain but the latter is much more along the line of what Christianity claims; and evidence for that is mostly just the biblical record, as far as I know? Like, one Roman source where a historian wrote that there is a sect of people who believe this, which is just a source for the existence of Christianity, not Jesus Christ himself. Not much idependent verification (if I believed that amount of evidence there is a large amount of miracle claims of other religions and mystics that I would have to believe, too. Islam, Hinduism, Buddism, Zoroastrianism, many individual miracle works that had more or less of a following, etc.).
But the most fundamental difference between someone like 'Julius Cesar' and 'Jesus Christ' (in the son of God version) is not even the amount (and reliability) of historical evidence. It's that to accept the existence of 'Julius Cesar' is fully compatible with a world view informed from current scientific observations, no violation of physics necessary. The 'epistemological cost', so to speak, is quite low. If I wrongly believe in 'Julius Cesars' existence, my story about the geopolitical developments in southern Europe and northern Africa about 2000 years ago is off; a bit embarassing maybe, but nothing truely fundamental to my understanding of the universe is impacted by this. Believe in Jesus Christ, son of God almighty, though? That means adding a whole lot of 'miracle mechanisms' to my model of reality, none of which have as of now been scientifically verified. I would apply much higher standards for historical evidence before I accept such a proposition or better yet, would like to have the 'miracle type' additions to physics scientifically verified at the current time.
I’ve read all the comments and I don’t see any that mock Christianity. I think you need to learn the definition of ‘mock’.
@@danem.9402 It's untrue that there is no secular evidence for Jesus. What exactly would you accept as archeological evidence for Jesus? This seems like a red herring argument.
@@danem.9402 "We only know of Jesus through the testimony of his alleged disciples. You should know that if you are a Christian." Is that strictly true? Didn't a number of non-Christian historians write about the movement and its origins? Tacitus comes to mind.
But, let me give you a prophecy, you will do well in philosophical apologetics, there are plenty of gullible people that like to hear nonsense.
I know you're trying to defend your faith and all of that, but deep down you know it is nonsense. You know, but you lie to yourself, probably
Good LORD you bloviating atheists are insufferably full of yourselves. What a vapid, narcissistic comment.
That is actually your belief. I don't think it is productive to make stuff up about what happens inside other one's mind and saying it without their consent.
What is it with Atheists suddenly all saying theists don't actually believe in what they say? Is that a common scholarly belief? Or at least not some extreme outliar?
@hweiktomeyto Outlier. I don't claim to know what's with their faux omniscience. It's likely part of what the Lord told us to expect. They're willfully ignorant, will never accept the truth, and gaslight anyone who disagrees. It's not about the evidence; it's about whatever sin in their lives they don't want to give up.
Forgive and pray.
@@OneVoiceMore from one puddle to another swamp. One asumes a false faith of apologet, and another claims that those who don't praise one particular diety are "siners" and want to be such. Truly geniuses that do deserve each other.
Please do not think that you or anyone knows what is in other one's head more then they themselves know.
Maybe someone have a set of values different from people who wrote the scriptures, but not only they may not consider some specific actions to be sins like you do, but they also might consider a sin something that you don't. And they are as equally have right to think so.
All the detail from the gospels comes from Mark all the other books are copies.
Honestly, this is one of the most inaccurate, debunked myths in Biblical studies. Check my other videos - but many other sources cover it. It’s a totally discredited myth made up by the academy…
For a moment I was puzzled as the skeptic position wouldn't prove that the work is fiction, given that one could argue that the source could very well be what they witnessed rather than them copying each other's work, but you addressed that. A well done video, looking forward to your future works. God bless.
i don’t care much about the logic of the bible. i care about the moral shortcomings and inconsistencies
Moral according to whom?
@ moral according to the moral laws christianity made for itself through the word of god. it is a morality that conflicts itself frequently and has no moral platform to stand on besides the one it makes for itself, a platform based on faith and trust. call me a materialist, i still believe it’s wrong
I'm not sure it makes sense to talk about the inconsistencies of a literary work while ignoring its internal logic. If you don't understand the plot, how will you know the inconsistencies you perceived are real?
@@david672orford never did i say i didn’t understand the logic of the bible. i said it didn’t concern me, and that the morality is my primary point of criticism. you’re putting words in my mouth
It's mins blowing that people still believe in the bible. Did they actually investigate how it was written and composed? I guess the answer is no, since they believe in it.
I’m not sure this is the zinger you think it is. It’s because there is good historical reason to believe that, eg the Gospel of Matthew was an eyewitness account of the events it contains that people “believe in it.” You’d be surprised how much “bad” - horrendous - “scholarship” there is out there for what’s otherwise a simple, straightforward historical fact pattern.
Enlighten me. And no, you can't just go "Those who disagree with me haven't studied enough" even if you're not saying that as an argument.
@apologicablog You may select a single gospel that you find the most credible and argue for that.
Though do that for the histor(icit)y of all 66 books in the bible.
Next step, you investigate why there are so many different bibles. Who chose what books and why some were determined apocryphical and later removed.
It disillusions you very quickly and displays how it's 100% the product of many humans over a thousand years.
Not a book inspired by an unchanging and omniscient god.
@hweiktomeyto If you are sincerely interested, simply start with genesis.
Investigate who wrote it. You will find there are dozens of manuscripts in multiple languages that were transcribed from centuries of oral tradition.
That is just one example. Go to the NT it doesn't get better.
Almost every bible has notes that the gospels were written anonymously. If you investigate more thoroughly, you will find that there are many many versions of every gospel with literally thousands of discrepancies within a single gospel.
It's mind-blowing how people still believe something that inconsistent and unreliable to be the words of an omniscient deity.
@@LordidudeFor some reason most Christians are under the delusion that there is only one bible. And lucky for them, that one bible always seems to be the bible they were already reading in the first place. You will never get them to accept the verifiable fact that these texts have been compiled from even older mythology. Nor the fact that we can trace the gradual changes to these texts that have occurred in the past millennia.
Let me show you your first mistake in this video, you somehow are trying to protect the christian apologists.
Do you know they commit the 2 biggest fallacies: Circular Argument and Begging the Question.
Your Undesigned Coincidences is just one of many.
Another problem is that you don't know who the writers were.
you have an extreme religious bias, that makes you dishonest by default.
You're committing an ad hominem fallacy here -- one of the biggest fallacies made in this field. Look, there are three things I try to do on this channel: 1) disclose, honestly, my personal biases up front, 2) make arguments that don't rely on personal biases, and instead only focus on logical reasoning, and 3) respond to the arguments of others without regard to who the person is. Ie, I don't particularly care "who" is making the argument -- I respond to the substance of the argument itself. Most arguments, including the ones I address here, can be analyzed objectively without any regard for the characteristics and traits of the person making them.
@@apologicablog Nah, I don't believe you, sorry. Protecting a christian apologist fallacies tantamounts to a criminal lawyer defending a convicted sex offender. BTW, it is not an ad-hominem when you make a video defending or making excuses for apologists bad and or unfounded arguments, and I call you out on it.
As I said, you will do well, christians are in crisis, they need young blood to defend them, I see you as the equivalent of that charlatan christian philosopher WLC.
We will see, I will keep an eye on you.
Again, by ad hominem, I’m referring to the fallacy of rejecting the arguments I’m making because of irrelevancies of my background/beliefs. You’re not “calling out” anything that I’ve not already conceded. I was and am transparent about my beliefs. I said I’m not responding to any specific person but to the arguments themselves. But to reject my arguments simply bc I’m a self-professed “apologist” is the definition of ad hominem…
The gospels circulated in every corner of the roman empire and not once were the gospels attributed to someone other than Matthew Mark Luke and John as the authors of their respective gospels. If they were later names, why not call them the gospel of Peter, James, and Andrew? Why Matthew, Mark, and Luke Some smaller things include the fact that Matthew, being the hated tax collector, uses the most money terminology and is the only person who called the tax collector Matthew. The other gospels call him Levi, which is another name
And no, Christians are no more biased than others. That is poisoning the well. In fact, due to how dismissive Atheist scholars have been because of "Christian biases" there is now evidence that Atheist scholars are more biased against Christians
@hweiktomeyto It does not matter who is the one being biased as long as you can acknowledge religious bias, that is what I wanted to hear.
You mentioned one important point, the needless back and forth. Well, the use of philosophic jargon is useless when they can't prove their imaginary friend. Never mind the amount of fallacies each side commits.
Very condescending of you. It's a shame God will make you foolish for it. But it IS just.