Resurrection Skeptics have a Double Standard (Gary Habermas response)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 8 січ 2024
- Gary Habermas talks about the double standard skeptics have about the resurrection of Jesus in the face of astonishing historical facts.
On the Resurrection, Volume 1: Evidences by Gary Habermas
amzn.to/48Cl6eC
The Double Standard of Resurrection Skeptics - Gary Habermas
• The Double Standard of...
Gary Habermas vs. Antony Flew, The John Ankerberg Show
• Gary Habermas vs. Anto...
Support Paulogia at
/ paulogia
www.paypal.me/paulogia
Paulogia Channel Wish-List
www.amazon.ca/hz/wishlist/ls/...
Paulogia Merch
teespring.com/stores/paulogia
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @paulogia
Paulogia Audio-Only-Version Podcast
paulogia.buzzsprout.com
Follow Paulogia at
/ paulogia0
/ paulogia0
/ discord
Send me cool mail!
Paulogia
PO Box 1350
Lantz Stn Main, NS
B2S 1A0
Canada - Наука та технологія
![ПОЛНАЯ ИСТОРИЯ ЭКЗОРЦИЗМА [Топ Сикрет]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/qBySr6Bt0B8/mqdefault.jpg)
These apologists not only believe that Jesus resurrected, but that he is alive and well and relevant and standing over your shoulder.
And yet, to demonstrate the resurrection they go running back to history instead of demonstrating Jesus is currently around, a much easier claim to prove IF it were true.
Amen and spot on.
as i said to the local jehovas trying to misslead people commuting at the train station every 4th year or so.. i got a cell , tell your invisible friend to call me at least ,rather then just demanding through a hollow smile society should make your cult kings because 'mha book say so'
@@tzai89 and its disturbing.. because its so ..juvenile.. :/ in the bad brat rather trash everyones toys if he not gets to declare his is the most special way
i love how you get in depth explanations of what god wants followed by "god is beyond human comprehension" while being personal and present 2/7.
@@Amoth_oth_ras_shash You misspelt "specialest".
Habernas says supernatural stories of Jesus should be accepted as true, but supernatural claims of others should be treated as false. He mentions birth and healing miracles of pagan figures as not true, but lyingly claims historians treat them as established facts, which they do not. They're all non-factual or not. Habermas wants to accept the things he likes, and reject the things he doesn't like, even though they are based on the same testimony
He’s undermining his own point and doesn’t realize it 🙄
Habermas should seek help.
@phantomofkrankor3665
They always do.
That is because the ressurrection claim is of superior quality. No other claim from other religions matches it.
@joe5959 You're arrogantly hilarious.
The Caesar comparison is so strange as it completely makes the opposite point that he thinks it does.... Nobody accepts the supernatural parts of those accounts, and you don't need to in order to establish Caesar was a real person
It feels reductive, but it sure seems to come down to black-and-white thinking pretty often.
He completely disregards the supernatural claims about Caesar as obviously made up. But he wants us to accept the supernatural stuff about Jesus. Christian hypocracy is just mind-boggling.
Not to mention we have structures that name Julius Ceaser as well as his own writings as well as writings from and sourced from named contemporaries of Ceaser.
@@Lobsterwithinternet I have no clue who came up with this turd, or how much it has been distorted over time, but in the form you hear it from apologists today, I'll go out and call it a lie.
@@KaiHenningsen It's 100% a lie. They deliberately restrict their topic to historical evidence -- that is, written documents -- when it would be beneficial to their argument to do so. They ignore archaeological evidence -- structures, statues, coins, inscriptions, etc. -- because it tends to do more to establish the veracity of other historical figures (or at least support the historical evidence) than it does Jesus (for whom no archaeological evidence exists).
And to be honest they ignore a lot of documents too. Unimportant documents in the grand scheme of things -- stuff like tax records, receipts, orders, etc. -- but those things are EXTREMELY INTERESTING to actual historians precisely because they would not have been so interesting to the people who created them as to write them with a narrative agenda in mind. If we had Joseph's tax records from 4 BC showing he had recently married and had a son and settled in Nazareth or something, that'd be more interesting and useful information for proving the likely historicity of Jesus than ANYTHING in the Gospel accounts.
Now imagine it's the year 2500 and you want to know what happened during the 2005 discussion between Habermas and Flew. But the only source you can find is the written recollections of a guy who saw the interview in which Habermas misrepresented the debate.
That's the argument for Jesus.
I know I saw this, but it's been a long time... how did Habermas misrepresent the debate.
@@mjt532 I take it you didn't watch the video you're commenting on?
@@shassett79 Do you mean Paulogia's video, or the video in which Habermas misrepresents his debate with Flew? If the former, I haven't watched the full video yet. I assume he goes over that.
@mjt532 seriously? Paulogia just went into detail in thr video how he misrepresented the debate.
@@jaclo3112 I just admitted I didn't watch the whole video yet. I'm allowed to post comments or questions, before finishing a video.
Great job calling out the inaccuracies of events that dude didn’t just witness but personally participated in. This is the exact reason why eye witness testimony is considered so weak.
Fun fact: none of the Gospel authors witnessed Jesus.
Yes indeed
Eyewitness testimony has been thoroughly studied, and has been found to be notoriously unreliable.
Besides that, _the gospels_ are most definitely not _eyewitness testimony._ (hearsay)
@@twitherspoon8954 Yes, we know. Paul and Flew may have mentioned that a time or two.
Since Paulogia was able to identify the actual recorded event and could crop the recording to highlight Habermas's inaccuracies, it can be portrayed as making Habermas's testimony look weak.
Take a step back though and think about it from the opposite perspective.
- Habermas wasn't making up that he has participated in debates.
- He gave enough detail that - even without naming the other participant - Paulogia was able to identify the specific debate (it seems he wasn't making up a debate that didn't happen or in which he wasn't a participant).
- His detail on specific interactions in that debate was sufficient for Paulogia to focus in on them.
- His portrayal of those specific interactions which Paulogia focused on was inaccurate. Was this just poor memory of the event, or did he perceive it incorrectly at the time? Or did he replay the events in his mind until he rewrote the script so he "won". Did someone else encourage him to get to that point?
- It would be interesting to compare this with Antony Flew's recall of the same debate. Would he remember any details? Would he be accurate about the interactions he did recall? Even if he can't remember it at all we can't say it didn't happen.
Is this insightful for, say, the resurrection accounts in the NT?
- The memories of a biased middle-aged man can be accurate enough to verify historically. (Sample size of one man and one event)
- If some of the disciples did witness a flesh-and-blood resurrection we would still expect some inaccuracies and differences in the accounts.
- A non-believer's recollection would sure be useful. They are - of course - going to recall it differently. Would that mean it didn't happen?
- I've run out of ideas here. Can the recollections of a debate really translate to verification of a historical supernatural event? Not much?
Aside: Once again I'm impressed by Paulogia's research skills and willingness to show his working and commitment to being open-minded.
EXACTLY!!!
His argument refutes himself, not us. He admits historical figures are tied to the supernatural, yet he doesn’t accept the supernatural parts. Game over.
Exactly!
Gary Habbermas was clearly showing his own double standard here, and the idiotic interviewer went along with it.
My standard is one single, consistent standard: I reject supernatural claims.
Gary _rejects_ the supernatural claims in Seutonius, but _accepts_ the supernatural claims in the gospels. _That's a double standard!_ 🙄
Yup, and that's what bugs me the most about these guys. For the most part, nobody really cares much about the mundane aspects of the life of Jesus, its the supernatural stuff that is in question.
@@shanewilson7994
Yep. And people misunderstand that questioning the more "mundane claims" is primarily done when you're using that to prop up supernatural claims.
So asking, how likely was it that Jesus was buried in a tomb vs. how likely was it to bea later an apologetic to provide more credence to the later supernatural claim of rising from the dead, would be reasonable.
@@shanewilson7994 but the problem is that the gospels offer very little really MUNDANE stuff about the life of Jesus... He is at a wedding to change water into wine, he rides into Jerusalem to fulfill a "prophecy", he is sentenced to death in a way which is a parody of the Yom Kippurritual, he says things, but as the gospels freely change how he said it, we have to distrust them too as actual recordings. I mean even the idea of his mother''s husband being a builder (probably a slightly better translation than carpenter) reflects him being the Firstborn Son of the Creator...
@@ThW5 Remember that the donkey prophecy explicitly says Jesus told his goons to go into town and _steal_ some donkeys for him to ride into town on, so even if someone accepts that utterly mundane prophecy and ignores the fact that fifteen people a day probably rode into town on the back of an animal, we're still looking at someone who knew ahead of time that he had a job to do and couldn't even plan ahead for it. Even the _mundane_ stuff is laughably fake. Guy puts a couple drops of dye into a glass of water and he's the magicboy? You can buy that magic trick for fifty cents nowadays. Actually, that's a lie. I looked it up for the hell of it; magic trick sellers have capitalized on the trick, and for £32.95 you can buy an "improved" one with seven bonus Gospel passages! Charlatanry is a profitable business, I guess.
You might like to know about "Joseph", I recall some youtuber, I think it was ProfMTH, who discussed at length about the whole 'carpenter' thing and how it was based on a misunderstanding of 'tekton', which means 'craftsman', but was a bad translation of something else. Nowhere does Jesus ever do any actual carpentry, so it was always a bizarre addition, but I think it was just some dumb traditional belief that was added for flavor by early cultists. Don't really recall the reasons why, I can't find those videos anymore. Considering there's a cult brainwashing channel called TektonTV, I'm confident the entire 'carpenter' thing is a known forgery that cultists still cling to out of bad habit today.
This was a very pleasant, very reasonable evisceration of Habermas’ chicanery.
Paul, man, I love your work. Looking forward to your critiques of the book… and thank you for taking one for the team!
Wish I could like this 10times
Just saying 'evidences' with a straight face is an instant debunk in my book.
Every time! It makes me laugh so hard. It's like a dog whistle for morons
It makes my skin crawl; I always want to shout "'Evidence`in an uncountable singular!!!" at the screen.
@@CteCrassus but what are your evidences for saying that?
@@dougfraser77 Well, obviously there are many, just see the word ends in an 's', do you have a naturalistic explanation about why would they believe that?
Was literally about to comment that each time they say "evidences", it makes my teeth itch.
"And people don't see hallucinations in groups."
Mass hysteria events: Allow us to introduce ourselves.
The biggest one of these being a Christian "miracle" within living history of today where thousands of people claim to have seen the Mother Mary after staring into the sun for an extended period.
Is Gary Habermas catholic? By his own standard he should be.
@@l0rf It always amazes me that some people find this compelling. If you freakin' stare into the SUN, your eyes stop working and your brain just fills it in with whatever you expect to see. (Has no one been a child, staring into the dark, and seeing all kinds of monsters there?) Most people can remember at least one instance of mass hysteria in their own lives. I can remember having a class meeting in 1st or 2nd grade because a single girl in class told everyone that her sister went into a "haunted" house up on the hill next to the school and never returned. Every single one of us believed this happened. The teacher had to explain to us firmly and formally that it didn't happen (I can't remember the details, but either her sister was fine, or she didn't even have a sister--she was just a kid who liked to make up stories and tell everyone as if it were real).
@greyeyed123 oh yeah, I believe the Catholic Church also disputes this miracle to prevent people from, yknow, blinding themselves by burning their corneas out.
I mean… they do say that if 3 people can verify the exact same details of events, that there’s a chance they’re true
I love your using Habermas misremembering & exaggerating things from 19 years ago in his retelling of his own story as an example of why even _first-hand_ testimony wouldn’t necessarily be reliable. Another opportunity to recommend Kipp’s documentary on Josh McDowell, which does this in a way I found especially beautiful & profound.
Give the retelling another 20 or 30 years and he’ll be saying a fiery pit opened up and swallowed “the agnostic” during the debate and the audience cheered wildly, all converting on the spot. Give that another 200 years and you’ll have apologists citing his testimony as historical evidence of Hell and god.
link to the josh mcdowell thing? 😊
Gary Habermas is to good historians as to what Jay Warner Wallace is to good detectives.
A guy who profits off of lying about being such?
And Lee Strobel to good journalists.
Funny how this works...
@@michaelsbeverly Oh, excellent addition! There is certainly a gimmicky pattern afoot!
@@michaelsbeverlyThe difference is that Strobel was a -good- -competent- *arguably adequate* journalist at one time, while the other two are..
..
Well.
_Not._
“Extended treatment” of a figure is a sign that people were highly interested in writing a narrative about them. That’s a separate phenomenon than the person’s existence. If anything them having a desire to write in such detail about someone should have you on the lookout for signs of an agenda or even exaggeration/mythologizing - especially if their stories are littered with supernatural deeds. We have more confidence in a real person’s existence and deeds when we have a wide range of different markers from the time of their life - not when people who liked a specific idea of them a lot wrote a lot about them.
Absolutely. I view every story that attests supernatural abilities to a historical figure the same way I view a person's description given by a person who fell in love with them: With a huge portion of skepticism. Isn't it funny how Gary accepts the supernatural claims made about Jesus but completely rejects any and all supernatural claims made about Caesar or Alexander? It's almost like he has a Jesus Body Pillow.
@@Finckelstein I'd like to think I missed it, but I don't think Gary at any point presented his reasons to reject Greek and Roman gods other than for arguing against the presumed double standard of (atheist) historians.
Because I'd guess he'd need to confront against his own standard of acceptance of the risen Jesus against Alexander the Great being the literal son of Zeus.
The funny thing is, there WERE alternate narratives, dismissive accusations of fraud, and other such varied claims regarding Jesus by the second and third centuries (which doesn't say a lot about his historicity in the first, of course)... and most of the written versions of them were destroyed by later Christians. We only know some of Celsus's accusations -- such as that Jesus was an itinerant laborer in Egypt when he learned dark sorcery because that's just how Egyptians are, you know (actual argument) -- because Origen wrote a book trying to counter them, and THAT book survives. Apparently quite a lot of people thought Christians were silly, or believed weird stuff about them (much of which, to be fair, probably wasn't true), but that was all suppressed in the record and only the glowing hagiographies were permitted. That's awfully suspicious.
The NT isn't "littered with supernatural deeds." The entire thing was written with the single goal of inculcating belief in supernatural ideas. There is a categorical difference between histories that were written to explain the impact a person had on well attested events in the mundane natural world, that happened to be embroidered with a few supernatural claims as hero decoration, and books that were written to give a comprehensively magical account of metaphysical reality. This categorical difference is what gives histories of Alexander or Caesar much more credibility than the Gospels. This is a point that is usually overlooked.
@@donnievance1942the gospels definitely are littered with supernatural deeds. They are famous for it. I’ve read them and they are definitely narratives of a man who goes round preaching until the religious authorities felt they were being challenged and had him executed. This much is believable but the narratives are liberally sprinkled - or littered - with supernatural claims. Just because the author was writing propaganda rather than history doesn’t change the content.
The thing with Alexander the Great is that we know he has legends about him , but we write those of as just that legends. Gary doesn’t seem to understand that historians give every figure the same treatment
Except that, unlike with the Greek pantheon, numerous modern historians personally believe the Bible is true and take it as historically accurate, so they explicitly do not treat biblical figures in that way.
@@CookiesRiot no they don’t
@@jeremiahrobinson2527 Mind you, _numerous,_ not _all._
@@KaiHenningsen those are called apologists, they start with a bias. The majority don’t take it as literal and you are falling into Gary’s way of thinking
Also, many DIFFERENT cultures have DIFFERENT legends about Alexander, which adds veracity to the notion that he really did exist and really did stage a conquest across the known world and into India (plus we have archaeological evidence showing that yeah, some Greek folks were indeed in India, and we know Christians didn't doctor it because the Indians are the ones who preserved it). The legends of Alexander in Rome are different from the legends of Alexander in Egypt and those are different from later Arab and Persian legends of Alexander.
And there seem to have been different legends about Jesus too, but they were suppressed or syncretized.
Paul, you skipped the part where everybody clapped for Gary.
Every time I hear that hearsay isn't good evidence, I hear Bill Murray's voice say, "Well that's what I heard!!"
So what you’re saying is Jesus has no…?
hahaha, love this
Spoiler Alert: No new "evidences" will be presented. It will be the same old stuff as before.
Just more of it. If a hundred bad arguments aren't enough, maybe a thousand bad arguments will be? I'm sure many believers will be reassured by the shear volume of "evidence" in Gary's doorstop.
No new evidences with be predentedess, my precious . . .
Remember, this is the authority people appeal to when they're appealing to authority to claim Jesus historicity.
He literally quotes, "He is commonly believed to have been born of a virgin..." about Alexander and then says it's unfair that nobody says that means Alexander didn't exist, but we say that about Jesus, so why are the rules different? Except it's exactly the same, because most people believe both men existed and neither were supernatural.
Then he says that all of the writers about Alexander spoke about him in the same credulous way as believers did about Jesus, _moments after_ quoting that Plutarch's writings started with the phrase "He is commonly believed to..." which is literally how such things should be historically recorded, and is a type of professional distance we never see in the gospels.
Look, one of the messianic prophecies is literally that the messiah "will be born of a woman", and cultists STILL think that's special and meaningful in some way, as though no human being has ever been born of a woman before or since.
You can't expect much from cultists. You can barely even expect basic _coherence;_ realizing internal contradictions is an insurmountable challenge to that lot.
@EdwardHowton As a former "cultist," I disagree. I don't know anyone who thought "born of a woman" on its own was at all meaningful.
And plenty of people recognize internal inconsistencies. That's why there are a billion apologetics for them and why people are leaving the Church in droves. Just because we left afterward and are no longer "cultists" doesn't mean you can ignore the fact that we were, in fact, capable of recognizing inconsistencies-- even before we came to that realization. We were capable, just hadn't gotten there yet.
And that's some major survivorship bias. Might as well say that no planes get shot directly through the engine because there are none in operation with "repaired bullet hole through engine" in their logbook.
To me the double standard is accepting one god/the supernatural, then rejecting any other one at all, once you accept the principle of supernatural, then you have no reason to exclude any supernatural claim, thus the non-accepting of the supernatural based on natural evidence only, is not the one holding the double standard.
Like the popular quip, "Everybody is an atheist about all of the other gods, except theirs."
"How dare people make fun of me when I keep on stacking unsubstantiated claims."
Gary is an example of what happens to a person who will not change their views no matter what. He demonstrates this over and over. It amazes me that anyone could possibly view him as anything other than a bad joke.
Gary Habermas is to good historians as what Jay Warner Wallace is to good detectives.
@@utubepunk ... or WLC to good philosophers. Or JP to good ... uh ... anyone? What is the meaning of "meaning"? Or "what"? Or "is"? The only thing I can remember even vaguely similar is a certain person arguing about what counts as "sex" in a vain attempt to get themselves out of trouble ... oh wait. Sorry for the side-rant.
Coined a new term JhD "Jesus doktor!
When an honest man discovers he is mistaken, he will either cease to be mistaken or cease to be honest
@@utubepunk😂😂excellent comparisons!
Actually cant believe Gary is releasing his "magnum opus" no doubt a decision he will live to regret
i bet the dog eats it the morning before delivery.
If you have low enough standards, anything can be a magnum opus.
He won't, he is so narcissistic that he thinks he is making good points, he is clearly immune to regret and embarrassment, which he should be, pathetic
He isn't releasing it. He's releasing part one. And any criticism he'll dismiss as hating his religion, or claim you're ignoring context in yet to be released parts.... for decades. I don't believe he'll ever release it completely, or only when he dies, so you're not allowed to critique it in fear of being accused of attacking him after his death...
@@nagranoth_ Well, there's one case of someone managing to do it over that kind of time ... but then Knuth had already started publishing his magnum opus when he interrupted it to invent new publishing software better able to cope with math.
The man -intentionally- misremembering aspects of *_*his own life*_* when he's made a career out of this particular subject? _[chef's kiss]_
The point of the giant books is to say, "did you read the whole book? All the books? Cuz if you did you'd be comvinced."
As if you'll be skeptical through the entire exhaustive read, then, when you read the very last word, you'll find god.
Maybe I'll read the last chapter first.
Lol
I really needed a good chuckle, today was a difficult day, but this comment and the response made it a little lighter ❤
😂@@Paulogia
Evidence 1: "it happened because we believe it happened."
Evidence 2: "it happened because we want it to have happened."
Evidence 3: "it happened because if it didn't, it would really suck."
Evidence 4: "it happened because there would be no point in making it up."
ect.
10:23 I find this point really interesting. From my experience, Christians take great efforts to distance Jesus from other ancient god-men, yet here it sounds like this guy is saying the evidence for both is “compelling”.
Cultists only have the two gears. Special pleading and mindless acceptance. If you point out their argument supports every other religion as well, they'll either make up some reason why it's only valid for _their_ cult (or literally just say it's different and not even make up a reason because cultists are lazy), or they'll agree and use the infinite number of contradictory cults as support for theirs. *_Somefreakinghow._* I've even had one cultist, in a discussion, watch me systematically dismantle his argument, to which his verbatim response was "I agree, that proves me wrong. That's how you know I'm right!". Lethal levels of special pleading, right there.
The nice thing about a 1000 page book is that it can double as a coffee table.
Or backup TP
I’m picturing that episode of Seinfeld
I found one such the perfect height to extend the deck of my portable sewing machine.
"It's commonly believed he was a god" is not the same claim as "Jesus is God". The man is intellectually dishonest to the extreme.
Wow, you just showed how unreliable is a eye witness testimony. Great job!
Ahhh....Gary Habermas. Doctor Gary Habermas
The man is as charming as he is sincere
It's amazing that Gary can't even be accurate to events he was not only an eyewitness to, but directly participated in, and was captured on film, but wants us to believe "eyewitness" testimony from almost two thousand years ago, with no properly attested authors.
22:55 So he does believe all the supernatural claim made in those times? Or just the ones that affirms his religion? He talk about double standards, but it feel like he is the one applying them.
It is great that Gary is such a good demonstration of how people make stuff up and change stories over time.
If we played by Gary's rules, we'd have to believe Alexander was born if a virgin and the son of a god. No, we play by the real rules, and we dont accept miracle claims on testimony, especially decades after the fact and 3rd person.
Wow! What a fabulous expose of Gary's diatribe. Over a 1000 pages of what? It took Paul's review to show how silly the contents of the book are. Gary has been consistent in obfuscation of the highest degree. Christians will lap this up with their confirmation bias. How sad! Thanks again Paul.
23:02 Gary, historians discount the supernatural claims about Alexander. That doesn't mean they throw out the biographies entirely. But certainly, they DON'T accept the supernatural claims.
If we are to "play the game by the same rules" then it is entirely consistent to throw out the supernatural claims respecting Jesus as well.
Gary, if you want to believe that Jesus resurrected, then play by the same rules and believe that Alexander was the son of a virgin and a God.
I was gonna write the same thing. He’s claiming Athiests are rejecting the Jesus accounts due to supernatural claims but accepting other ancient accounts even though they have supernatural claims too. As u said. Historians do not accept those parts. And by his logic why doesn’t he accept other supernatural claims?
3:30 No, _all_ possibly historical events are held to the same standard of evidence. It's just that part of that standard is whether or not an event is miraculous versus natural. As far as it appears to me, ANY miraculous claim, such as Heracles erecting the pillars of Gibraltar warrants a similar degree of skepticism as the resurrection of Jesus.
Evidences, huh? An attempt at burying the low bar in one bookses.
If he had any shame this would end his career.
What should end his career is an audience with reasonable standards and functioning moral compasses, fortunately for Gary, he has a very large demographic that abandoned those things long ago.
Over a thousand pages of evidence? They must be using a huge font.
24 point comic sans, double spaced.
I sincerely think after having two sets of evangelicals knock on my door, that they are losing their minds. Cognitive dissonance is wearing them down to the point where they are really acting crazy.
One group literally ran away, and all I was doing was quoting the Bible.
You can't reason people out of something they didn't reason themselves into in the first place.
@@Lobsterwithinternet Exactly. Even when using their own book.
"Why did people in the Bible require dreams and prophets to know what god wants where in others parts you can literally talk to god and in one case have an overnight wrestling match with him?"
I'd wrestle god overnight for some answers, even if he pulls the hip punch trick again
I had a couple of JWs into my house to "witness". They did the same dodge when I started quoting scripture and questioning them. They left crying after I asked who wouldn't get to heaven if they converted me.
@@kevinkoch-jj1uj Oooooh, that's a good one! I didn't think about that. Only 144,000 get into heaven, right?
Gary said "yeah because they don't believe in make believe"😂😂
it is one of the weirdest points from an apologist I've ever heard. it gave me pause and made me wonder, is Gary actually Andy Kaufman pranking us all? did he just say that? is this a parody? what?!
Simultaneously brutal and gentle. I would love to see him respond about which debate this was. I wonder if he would claim it was a different one, or if it was edited, because he can't claim we didn't just see what we saw.
Also, when you said ebook, the first thing I thought of was an audiobook. Can you imagine...
@@yerocbDo we have to?
@@KaiHenningsen No. You're clearly correct. It should not be imagined.
"Magnum opus" sure sounds a lot better than "big piece of work".
Gary greatly prefers arguing against his own strawmen.
I mean coming up with an actual answer to stuff like the problem of evil is hard or outright impossible. Give the grifter a break!
If Paul or anyone else ever talks to Habermas, please let him know that you heard from a random dude on the internet that Odin came down to him in a golden chariot from the sky and personally told him that Jesus did in fact not resurrect. By Habermas's standard of evidence he must accept that as proof that Jesus did not resurrect. I hope Habermas finds success in his new career after he is forced by that evidence to abandon apologetics.
"Evidences." There's no such word, yet all these resurrection-provers use it. Apparently they think it makes them sound objective and scientific. That's yet another thing they're wrong about.
I can only conclude it’s because none of them have ever analyzed any evidence, but simply parrot the words of their preferred peers.
@@NA-vz9koIt's Wisdom(tm) Passed Down(tm) From On High(tm), of *course* he's just parroting cult catchphrases. Apologetics is performance art. The audience expects the catchphrase and is trained to applaud when they hear the catchphrase. They aren't there for thoughtful discourse, they're there to see funny man say the thing. _Funny man say the thing, me clap, because me suppose clap when man say thing! This called 'church' and me do because parent beat if no do!_
It really is as simple as that: it's a piece of crappy theater.
God, watching Habermas is truly grating. Thanks for covering this in detail
I can't believe we have been debating this crap for thousands of years. People do not come back to life. This should not be a controversial statement.
Apologetics remains a house of cards built on cope & hype.
LMAO. Literally the meme _And everybody clapped._ 🤣🤣🤣
Good job on tracking down a likely historical debate for Gary's testimony. That added a lot!
16:16 There's an even simpler explanation to why hands would go down when Gary asks this question: some of those being asked may not have been born yet. Which also counters his point because for them to know about it, they'd have to get the information second hand, meaning there's not only an opportunity for memory fault in the initial teller, there's opportunity for transmission errors or embelishment.
Or misinterpretation on the part of the receiver.
Wake up bae, Paulogia uploaded
If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.
If a person has real evidence, he doesn't need 1700 pages to present it. I am reminded of an old joke that had the punchline, "With all this horseshit, there must be a pony [for me] somewhere." Habermas seems to believe that if he piles his horseshit high enough folks will assume there must be some real evidence somewhere in it.
Great video. It's really funny to see Gary misremembering and misrepresenting this 19-year-old story while claiming much later accounts are perfectly accurate.
Thank you for this, Paul. These are the videos that sincerely challenge resurrection apologetics. You’re becoming a force on the resurrection. It’s impressive.
It's so tiresome that when apologists claim "this time the evidence is new and improved!" Such a waste of time.
If there was an Olympics for Projection, I think I've just seen the Gold Medal favourite.
Imagine believing that a 2,000 year old game of "telephone" is legit, but not being able (or honest) to recall an 18 year old debate..
So much for eyewitness testimony, huh?
That these theist types put "Jesus existed historically" on the same level as "Jesus had magical superpowers" shows just how much the god glasses are glued onto their faces. They can't even parse that the supernatural is not an ordinary claim.
Habermas really leaning into the Yellow Brick Road apologetics. Goodness....
"fi were king"
Whenever I see Habermas’ name, I without fail, *always* think about the one time PineCreek Doug talked to him live here on UA-cam.
That legendary stream clearly lives rent free in my head.
Please look it up if you have any interest. It’s so funny.
My mind goes to his debate with Ken Humphreys.
ua-cam.com/video/iJjJRrj4G5Y/v-deo.htmlsi=N0gTrjO7ydJLm_06 this one? Is he saying that minimal facts support the NT but when it comes to the OT, minimal facts don't work? But then, isn't the NT kind of dependent on the OT being true?
"I'm tryin' to answer your stinkin' question!"
It's like Jeez, how long does it take you to say "no", Gary?
@@CB66941 No, it’s here:
ua-cam.com/users/liveg6dIN2sgKLw?si=RoFszEUYh0ONAD0A
What you linked is arguably Habermas folding himself. What I’m talking about is this livestream. Honestly, it’s one of my favourite videos of all time.
I'll check those out.
23:26 - Yes, it did get dark and fast. Makes me wonder if he's catching some crap for political statements he made.
it appears that paulogia is a better "cold case detective" than mr warner wallace.
"Facts we've solved." i love it when people just string words together.
Absolutely baffling that this man literally said "I asked a bunch of people if they were confident they could remember something accurately from 60 years ago, and they said yes." as if that were some kind of proof that they actually could do that. Astounding.
The bots are already out today
This calls to mind Kipp Davis' video on Josh McDowell and how some of McDowell's recent claims are incongruous with things he said/wrote decades earlier. If "godly" men like Habermas and McDowell can screw up their own histories _(whether intentionally or not)_ , then obviously the gospel writers can...which is why miraculous claims require more than testimonial evidence Well done, Paul.
Excellent job of demonstrating the problems with an eye witness account. Excellent.
NO WAY!!! An apologist lying for their fairy tale???? Im SHOCKED!!!
He's already written more about resurrection than everything written about it in the 1st century.
Lmao
If someone resurrected, shouldn't they still be around?
And off course, comments are turned off because he doesn't want dissenting voices in his echo chamber.
Wow he really did turn them off. What a fragile mind with such low opinions of his audience.
He doesn’t like being exposed, that threatens his popularity and income stream.
I wonder why his data-and that of all apologists-never seems to match the epistemic standards they hold about alternate views than their own, and why the analogies they bring up are always off by the same metrics?
It is baffling, truly.
What often annoys me about apologetics - and what's really visible with Habermas here - is that they apply such a low standard of evidence to Christianity. A standard that they would never find to be acceptable for Islam, Hinduism or whatever else. It's just disingenuous.
So Gary Habermas seems to be saying that because resurrection skeptics hold such claims to the same standard as other supernatural claims that it's the skeptics who have the double standard? All while Habermas apparently treats different supernatural claims differently depending on if they are a part of his religion?
Talk about projection if that is what he meant. 🤦
A 'then everybody clapped' moment in the wild! The crowd did seem to be rolling in the aisles over Gary's 'they said supernatural stuff about Alexander the Great too' material
"I talked to a guy, who talked to a guy, who read about a guy..."
How do you turn "because the New Testament says so" into 1700+ pages?
I find it interesting that Habermaas thinks he has the right to instruct me, or any interlocutor of his, on what I am allowed to think and how I am allowed to confront his arguments. That and the constant lying and revisionist history telling just reeks of his assumed interpretative prerogative. Habermaas seems to have his version of reality and nothing could ever shift that, he is just a relic of a bygone era were claiming to be Christian automatically made you right.
When I was in the military, there was a saying:
"What's the the difference between a fairy tale and a war story?"
"Fairy tales begin with 'Once upon a time...' ; war stories begin with 'This is the God's honest truth...'"
Paul, if you wanna see a Griffin just come to any Swedish Air Force base.
What do you mean a fighter-bomber-recon plane isn't the same as a lion-eagle hybrid? =P
This was a JOY to watch. Thanks Paul.
Interesting that Gary belabors that people can remember things from 50 years ago, when he isn't presenting any eyewitnesses.
Also, I would like to hear more details about his claims of people remembering events from 50 years back. What did they remember, and how well does their recollection match with what actually happened.
I know that I regularly encounter childhood recollections, that have shifted significantly.
Shouldn't he wait on accusations of double standards, until after his book is released?
I'm honestly glad to see Paul finally giving less respect to characters like Gary Habermas.
As Habermas recounted his debate with Flew, I kept waiting for Paul to throw down the gauntlet: is Gary a liar, a lunatic, or the Lord?
This is a fantastic video, Paul! It's so fulfilling to see how theists can use hyperbolic language or can be outright dishonest, yet if we just continue to be honest on our side of the fence, the truth will ultimately prevail. I've always thought your best attribute (from what I've gathered via your online presence) to be honesty. It seems that this quality is rare among content creators. Thank you for continuing to be one of the very best at what you do, man! We most definitely see you.
Here is an indication that you might be lost in your own knotted thoughts: You have written a fan fiction many times longer than the source material.
Lol I love the way the bald head dude is nodding as if in church
When someone on your team says something consistent with your team's narrative, especially if they are criticising the other team's position, then according to THE rules, you must nod.
I remember looking forward to seeing all of Haberman's "great evidence" and afterwards being stunned at how underwhelming it was. PLEASE do a critique of one of Jeff Durbin's street preaching videos. Nobody is more confident of his own BS than Jeff, not even Turek.
Watching the audience laughter section I can see what happened. Habermas seems to genuinely think he owned his opponent which would explain why he remembered it as a victory.
21:40 Watch:
1) Moderator asks the question (imo from the twinkle in his eye it looks like he knows what the response to Habermas' long ramble will be and is setting Tony up for a humorous response)
2) Tony responds drily "no"
3) Audience laughs
4) Habermas looks pleased with himself and laughs proudly with them, no sign of embarrassment. You can see from that point from his body language he's perked up a lot and basically preening - he definitely misinterpreted what's going on as a win.
5) Gary tells his anecdote not knowing about the Tony's old tutor, which makes him look as if he's conceding ignorance given he lost on that point, but from his perspective is accepting acknowledgement that Gary either knows more than Tony's tutor and that Tony doesn't remember and can't disagree with his tutor's superior knowledge.
6) Gary laughs and nobody else does
I've noticed evangelicals put a lot of stock into people's labelled intelligence and qualifications (while often adopting anti-intellectualism which I do suspect is jealousy and insecurity because their leaders often disourage them from pursuing further "secular" education which could "make them lose their faith" while also teaching respect for authority and blind faith. )
Basically, in my experience it seems evangelicals have more of a reverence for degrees than many of us in the skeptic community because they often seem to think that atheists will be shut down by an argument that some famous distinguished person took a certain stance and that's the end of it.
There's this weird cognitive dissonance there because they're trying to convert atheists and thus appeal to what they THINK atheists believe while also trying to distance themselves from how atheists think. It ends up with a lot of misalignment, but atheists do that plenty too towards theists, though skeptics less so - if you're willing to question and learn from your opponent you make less of the big errors than if you're just trying to strawman and deride them, particularly if your own past experience is in believing what they believe.
Apologist logic means that because my car has a Griffin on the badge, then Griffin's must exist. They must only live in Sweden.
I always enjoy them claiming that their invisible wizard 'gave his only son', only to magic him back into existence days later. That's not much of a sacrifice.
My expectations for the book are fairly low.
Mine are stellar. Just imagine this gold mine of strawmen, non sequiturs and other fallacies! It's gonna be glorious.
It surely will be a textbook (example) of how NOT to reason.
Lying or Mistaken
People keep telling me there is a third option (I consider it lying):
Willful ignorance
Remind me not to piss you off! Beneath that polite Canadian exterior beats the heart of a vicious beast. :
Narnia the poor man's Lord of the Rings.
The simpleton's Kirkland version
Tolkien was in another level. Even his books for kids are amazingly inventive.
Thank you.
Er.... Alaxander did go round writing 'Alexander was ere' everywhere. He named numerous cities Alexandria... May have been every one he conquored.
And I can't think of anything more obvious.