Mike Winger reviews his debate with Matt Dillahunty on the Resurrection
Vložit
- čas přidán 7. 08. 2024
- At the end of a long day when I was abnormally busy, and cutting back on my coffee intake, I did a 2 hour debate review video. Haha. I may be a bit tired but I think the content here is valuable and I'm looking forward to getting some feedback on it.
Here are the timestamps (though I strongly recommend you watch this whole video)
0:00 Why I am making this long review.
8:00 Matt's flawed treatment of history
8:55 "Claims not evidence"
17:43 How history actually works
21:01 How a cumulative case works
25:48 Matt vs history and historians
57:20 Double standards which avoid the evidence
1:13:59 Elvis sightings and testing miracle claims
1:25:26 Summary of historical problems in Matt's criticism of the case for the resurrection.
1:27:55 BIGGEST ISSUE IN THE DEBATE: Philosophy
1:50:55 When I offended Matt.
Dr. Craig Blomberg's article on the potential ages of the gospel writers. ntscholarship.wordpress.com/2...
How we really got the books of the New Testament (watch 4 consecutive videos in this playlist) • How We Got the New Tes...
Journal of the American Medical Association article "On The Physical Death of Jesus Christ" jamanetwork.com/journals/jama...
Inspiring Philosophy's video "Matt Dillahunty vs Science" • Matt Dillahunty vs. Sc...
Dr. Tim McGrew "How to Think About Miracles"
• "How to Think About Mi...
Matt implied that we didn't really know what the New Testament originally said. Here's 3 videos about textual critcism • What you NEED to know ...
How "inference the best explanation" (my method for concluding that Jesus rose from the dead and God did it) is solid epistemology plato.stanford.edu/entries/ab...
Great video from Acts17Apologetics called "Scooby Doo and the Silly Skeptic", which helps explain the problem of special pleading • Video
Lastly, for those who want more info on why "inherent improbability" of a miracle is not a good reason to reject one outright check out these two podcast episodes from Capturing Christianity. Calum Miller walks through the problems this philosophical position which is called "frequentism". capturingchristianity.com/tag...
If you would like to support this ministry please click here biblethinker.org/index.php/do...
Here are the timestamps (though I strongly recommend you watch this whole video)
8:00 Matt's flawed treatment of history
8:55 "Claims not evidence"
17:43 How history actually works
21:01 How a cumulative case works
25:48 Matt vs history and historians
57:20 Double standards which avoid the evidence
1:13:59 Elvis sightings and testing miracle claims
1:25:26 Summary of historical problems in Matt's criticism of the case for the resurrection.
1:27:55 BIGGEST ISSUE IN THE DEBATE: Philosophy
1:50:55 When I offended Matt.
Great job keep doing God's work! Jesus is King!
Mike, thanks for the synopsis. I think the issue lies in your presupposition. You consider the Bible true and offer it as evidence/history. Others consider it the claim until it is proven true. This was highlighted in your original debate at the 1:32:52 through 1:33:43 marks (these links will be incorrect). This is why Matt said he left the faith. When he set aside the same presupposition you hold and evaluated the actual evidence, there wasn’t enough for him to warrant belief. How else could you distinguish truth from the claims of any religion if you didn’t have a mechanism to determine if the text itself was correct?
Hi Michael, I think you have missed the fundamentals of the historical case I presented. It is actually not based on thinking the Bible is true. To be clear, I definitely think the Bible is true but I did not argue from that idea but from normal historiography. Please give this some thought since it seems to be a real sticking point for you personally. Some skeptics want to throw the Bible out as it’s documents we’re not historical evidence that needs to be considered, this is a mistake that stems from some sort of prior bias against the Bible or Christianity or something other than good historiography. In this debate I didn’t ask the skeptic to meet me on the common ground of believing the Bible to be God’s word but to meet me on the common ground of well established historical research methods, evidence and scholarly opinions held by a majority of atheist, agnostic, Christian and Jewish scholars in relevant fields.
Hey. Matt and the Cosmic Skeptic are hosting the AXP this Sunday. How about you call in and give Matt a piece of your mind regarding his "flawed" epistemology?
Watched the whole thing!
This is why I think (and no offense to Mike or Matt) it's better to read a dissertation or a correspondence than watch a debate. In a debate, the mind is attuned to the delivery, competency and charisma of the spokesperson--all rather flippantly judged by your subconscious. Of course you can say you evaluate things from a purely logical standpoint, but read through a few expositions on a peer-reviewed level and you'll begin to see how problematic debate can be. An unsound argument supported by body language, whit and a bit of charm will always win the day over a sound argument and a sub-par delivery. Not saying I think Mike bombed, but I think Matt certainly executed his rhetoric better.
Agreed, Dillahunty wins the battle of rhetoric but I like watching debates *precisely because* it helps me to get better and better and seeing through slick presentation to the meat of the matter and breakdowns like this help even more.
@David I think you hit the nail with the claw instead of the head. This should be a call for the average person to be better and to demand more. These rhetorical devices should be recognizable by all and we should be better at delivering an on target message. We need more debate and not less. We need the universities to be exactly what Christians designed them to be and that is a place where we can challenge our ideas. Since the universities are unwilling and unable to support such an environment, we are left with CZcams and other social media devices to do these debates. We all have to get betters at this.
Respectfully, I don’t think the Matt’s rhetoric was better. I do think Matt’s rhetoric was more worldly, but definitely not better. Though I think I recognize what you’re communicating, I just wouldn’t call Matt’s snarky attitude and the use of his body language to communicate that Christians are naive and credulous is a good argument at all and in fact not helpful if the goal is to investigate and come to a better knowledge of the Truth. Epistemology is the investigation of that which distinguishes justified belief from opinion. I didn’t hear Matt sufficiently justify his opinion, but rather just suggest we can’t factually know anything because no historical evidence is sufficient. Really? That’s just a terrible argument, wrong, and possibly intellectually dishonest.
@@lanigame8629 Well not intellectually dishonest if you consider solipsism. For clarity solipsism meaning we cannot know or obtain truth, but rather simply have a high confidence. This is what Matt Dillahunty believes, so we know almost nothing. We all just live with a certainty about things and stuff. Although, I can never see anything with solipsism other than it is self refuting.
According to the solipsism worldview, we don’t know anything. Only, no one lives their life this way. Paul points out that some choose to suppress the truth in unrighteousness about the God they KNOW exists. Denying truth doesn’t make the statement of denial true.
I agree solipsism is a self refuting argument and absurd.
In Christ are hidden ALL the treasure of wisdom and knowledge.
Excellent review and treatment of the debate and epistemological issues! (I got to see this a little early, for those wondering). This is one of the best debate reviews I’ve seen. I hope everyone watches it till the end. There are countless important things to take from this video. Good job, bro 👍🏽
The most important thing to take away is that Mike had zero rational, logical or evident based arguments for his extraordinary claim for the resurrection occurring - none, zip, zilch.
Hence, why Mike embarrassingly lost the debate in epic fashion.
Logicb4 Religion what points do you disagree with mike made in his review ?
@@steveandrews7434 "Mike had zero rational, logical or evident based arguments for his extraordinary claim for the resurrection occurring - none, zip, zilch. "
*clears throat for Matt impersonation*. 'That is a claim, not a fact.'
Whaddo You Meme, you are truly awesome to watch and follow, keep up the great work. God bless you.
Dickheads Rebuked I know brother I just wanted to see if he could at least bring 1 argument up lol
The problem with debates is that they are little more than rhetoric duelling. There’s only an appearance of raw information evaluated, but it’s theatrics for persuasion. It’s like political crosstalk; little more than discrediting the opposition like wrestlers of rhetoric for the purpose of winning popularity.
And yet the claimant is still holding the empty bag without an explanation....
And that’s atheism in a nutshell for you. Not all, just most of them from what I’ve seen or at the very least the new atheists.
I find debates pointless when you put two opposing factions who have no intentions of being moved even slightly. Atheists will never be moved because they require God to literally come out and physically slap them, their belief is not contingent on faith. Christians cannot be moved because faith requires them to believe and in that belief God is above all things, and capitulating to man would go against God.
Matt's stance of nothingness against those with claims that stand as cumulative evidence is so easy it would make a kid look clever. Just say nope a lot and refuse most points.
"I went to Walmart last Thursday."
"Prove it"
"Here's a receipt"
"This doesn't prove it was you who made the purchase"
"I paid with credit and signed it"
"Well that can be forged"
"Okay let's watch security camera footage of me at the register"
"Well the date on the footage could be wrong"
"It could be but it matches the date on the receipt"
"If the register and camera are operated by the same system then the entire system could be wrong"
"I'm not sure it works like that but I guess there's no w for me here..."
"THE W IS MINE!! Now go home and cope next Thursday in memorial of this L you just took!"
The endless "nope" stance is easy, especially with many examples of "nope" to rhetoric on about 😆
@@YuckFou502 Matt explained on the debate that evidence should be comparable to the claim. Your analogy is something mundane where anyone could take you at your word. You, yourself wouldn't accept any other claims outside of you religion if it involved something extraordinary..
Mike, what most impressed me is your willingness to say “I need help in this area.” You didn’t try to pretend that you have all the answers, but openly consulted others for advice. That is truly inspiring, and it’s a lesson we all need to learn.
Word
When challenged with logic, all of a sudden he doesn't know his own God's will haha .. seems legit 🤣🤣🤣
@@kyleisaacson4852 I'm curious what this had to do with God's will
@@lazybugger I can agree or disagree however I want because guess what? You're not the arbiter of anything. Yes I will scoff and ridicule and mock people that can't show me their God that is supposedly all powerful and is everywhere at once. A God that's everywhere at once but you can't show them to me... Yeah that's pretty sad and ridiculous. "Oh hey my God's all-powerful and is everywhere but I can't show them to you" cool story🤣 so it doesn't matter if you argue for 2 hours about the existence of your God or not, you can't prove your gods existence with a 12-hour argument or a 17-day argument. Show me your God.. oh that's right you can't but keep saying I don't know what I'm talking about 😂😂😂
@@lazybugger well here's the thing, I'm not making the claim that there's this all-powerful being that can create universes with a simple thought and is everywhere all at once. You're the one making the claim so you're the one with a burden of proof to back up your claims. If I said Zeus is the one true God then it would be up to me, the claimant to provide ample evidence for such claims. It's not up to the person that doesn't believe your claim, it's up to you the claimant. I don't think it's too much to ask for extraordinary evidence for your extraordinary claims. Just by claiming God is transcendent and he has to show himself to you and blah blah blah doesn't mean anything. Ok well Allah just hasn't revealed himself to you yet. See Simply claiming extraordinary things without evidence is ignorance. Unicorns exist but I can't give you any actual evidence or show you that they exist. So why should I believe that unicorns exist if there's no evidence that unicorns exist? That's right I shouldn't believe somebody without any evidence but you're telling me that I should believe you when you've provided no evidence for your claims. Yes I will scoff and laugh at you and I will scoff and laugh at anybody that wants to claim something and then not back it up with any evidence whatsoever. There's this all powerful God that's everywhere but you just have to wait for him to show himself to you 🤣🤣 cool story...
Billions of people throughout our history have claimed that their God is the one God but then they can't actually show that their God exists. So yes, yet again, I will scoff and laugh at ignorance.
When you say I can explain things away you're half right. There's these tools humans have created throughout the millennia called logic and reason and we can use these tools to find truth and reality. So you're partially right when I say I explain things away. I'm simply using logic which is helped humanity get to this point in time.
I was a Christian for 15 years and for three of those years I went to Christian School. I've read the Bible many times. I will continue being atheist because Christians like you cant actually provide any good evidence towards your claims so there's no real reason I should believe that your imaginary God is any more real than any other imaginary God that people say exist.
Just remember simply claiming something doesn't make it reality...
Thanks for taking the time to put this together! Really helpful stuff in here.
That debate was hard to watch, it was really disheartening to see someone so lost on there own pride that they couldn't even make a logical argument. I really hope Matt is able to humble himself and come to the truth.
@Greg Letter
I see you're just copying and pasting your emotional statement.
Well that's your right as a human being to do. God gave you that free will.
@Greg Letter okay so let's say your DNA theory is correct. That would mean that we are born with a goal in mind. That everything is going well oriented. Kind of like natural selection. If everything that has DNA is focused on something related to their orientation or what their DNA is, (which what you said about the mentally disabled, females, males and how they're more likely to do something I disagree with that statement you made but anyways).
If everything is determined by DNA and how things react based on their DNA that means their DNA is making them goal-oriented to a specific thing. What's causing the DNA to give everything living certain goals and desires?
Possibly a higher power. Even if DNA formed by itself what's causing DNA what's causing everything living to want to have a desire have a goal for life. If it's just to keep growing and advance in life, why is that the goal? So even in this sense God makes sense as the cause.
If you want to believe that God is evil and forcing us with the cause of DNA then that's your choice. Or if you want to think that God's Evil by not really giving us choices that's also your choice to believe.
If you want to say DNA is the cause for why people do what they do, I have a question, why is DNA programming us to do what we want to do. What is the cause of DNA?
In this sense like I said before it makes sense that it would be God.
But I'm curious to what you think so that's why I'm asking what do you think is the cause for DNA leading Our Lives?
@Greg Letter
That last comment I added was just about the DNA. I would Likes you talk and chunks instead of all I want to go to avoid confusion. You brought up a lot of stuff in that long comment that I would like to take one at a time.
@Greg Letter I think you're confusing yourself when you say free will. Or against free will. You say that people are going to suffer eternally in hell against their will. They won't want that. That's not true. You as a non-believer or someone as a non-believer doesn't believe he'll exists because you don't believe in God or hell. So you're making the choice with your free will to reject the Lord. And in doing so you are rejecting that there is even a hell. So let's say if you die while still rejecting the Lord you end up in hell. That was your choice you chose to reject the Lord and you chose to take the chance of there being a hell. Right now is your talking you don't believe that there is evidence for a God so that there is no evidence for a hell as well. Now let's say that you know there is a heaven and you know there's a hell and you know that God is real and the only way to go to heaven is to accept the Lord freely with your will. or you at least know of the Gospel. By rejecting the Lord you are choosing to accept the consequences with that choice. If you heard the gospel you know that you need a savior and what awaits you without that savior. Even if you don't believe the gospel you still heard it and it was your choice to accept it or reject it. So if you accept it then good you will go to heaven you know. But if you reject it with your choice you are accepting hell that is sure to follow. So you're not suffering against your free will. You made the choice. and by your choice when you die you will go where you chose to be. You chose to reject God and God will not put you in his presence if you choose to be against him because God won't go against your free will. So if you chose to reject him he will put you away from God which would be hell after death. Because with your own free will you chose to stay away from God.
Mike you seem like a nice guy but you lost that debate badly, not because of your debate style but simply because you're trying to sell fairytales to a skeptic.
Evidence is all that matters. If all you have is claims and stories by anonymous people than you don't have a logical argument that makes it reasonable belief
Can someone please share a link to the full debate without commentary? I can't seem to find one anywhere. I see other debates from Winger and others from Dillahunty but none between them lol :-)
Here you go! czcams.com/video/Z2FGgkubhZM/video.html
I listened to the debate. It was like they were having two different discussions. The debate was framed as if believing in the resurrection was reasonable. Matt kept trying to address Mikes method of reasoning and explain area of flawed logic and reason , and Mike just ignored it and stuck to talking points , be they historical references , appeals to authority , or testimonials.Which I think puts Mike at a disadvantage in the debate, because without first addressing the flaws in his logic and reason , you can question his research and the conclusions he accepted using a flawed method.
I think over all Matt won. It seemed Mike kept having to throw up shields to defend his positions , and the few attacks that Mike made were just stated misrepresentations of Matt's position on acceptable evidence , not on Matt's reason or logic and how he came to his conclusions.
Matt's thinking Method is no Matt how much evidence you gave me I will just explain it away, this is the Richard Dawkins method and it is really bad
Mike is bringing a historical case for the resurrection
Maybe he needs to see if he can make a case for a more recent resurrection than one that supposedly happened over 2000 years ago. The farther you to back in history the more scant and muddled any evidence you can find becomes. If he can provide better evidence for a more recent resurrection it would strengthen his argument about this one significantly.
The problem is there is not early Ressurecrion it only happened once. And the evidence around that one event protects the foundation of Christianity to be broken
That evidence does not decay it builds up its case the more you research about it
I was a Christian and became a militant atheist back in college for 10 years. By the grace of our Lord I have come back to faith. I understand Matt because its the same arguments I made before. But to be fair he is not being logical at times by his own standards.
What would advice be to a Christian who struggles with Matt Dillahunty and watching The Atheist Experience? They seem so certain and unphased by the claims of Christianity.
@@chance_peterikdo you think the answer lies in the fact that claims are made rather than evidence being provided?
Another thing that's important to note is when you said you were magically compelled to believe in Jesus at the age of 12 and the holy spirit engulfed you, etc-----that basically sums it all up there. You need the resurrection to be true, and no amount of evidence to the contrary would shake that.
I was not "magically compelled". I grew up as Christian, lived as an atheist, and then started to investigate my roots a little more. And decided to be Christian on my own. No "magic" needed. Just my intellect.
@@christislord4608 , same here. So sick of the over inflated egoistical people telling the rest of us Christians we just believed to believe. Regardless of anything else. They don't know the difference between a fairytale and historical documentation, temples, tablets and other tangible evidence.
@@Jen-tt9yx Agreed.
Jen an equal amount of christians have this attitude towards non believers
Saying he had an experience with Jesus and that is enough for him, is exactly the same as saying that I've seen all the evidence that you've presented and I believe that they are just claims and because I can't prove it as facts, I refuse to believe it. They have the same weight.
So how long are we going to play this game where we pretend that the new-atheist fanboys are listening to these debates with open minds?
I don’t waste my time with them. The only one who was worth it was a friend of mine from high school, and he came to me about it in a respectful and inquisitive way. Everyone else has just been a jerk looking to have some sort of perceived power over another.
How ironic. As if Christians watch these debates with an open mind that "maybe the dogma that I need to believe in to justify most of my ethical and metaphysical beliefs is completely wrong".
Lie to yourself all you want, but the believer is actually the one least likely to watch a debate like this with an open mind.
Prosecution :You're honour, the defendant killed the victim with a knife in the dining room at 8pm.
Judge: Ok, present your evidence
Prosecution: what !!, I just did !!!
The proof required for a conviction is far more significant than the proof historians need to form a timeline
@@henrytims4745 and that's the problem right there, Christians have a lower threshold of evidence for someone doing magic than they do that someone commited a crime.
"Witnesses you CAN'T interact with." Alright, let's chuck world history.
Good point!!
I am willing to believe historical documents that don't involve miracles and pass the methodology used by historians. Once it does involve a miracle, however, I am willing to believe better explanations such as lies, people being decived and even falsification. People make miraculous claims all the time today and I don't bother to investigate each claim: I simply assume the claim is somehow false. Y should I act any differently when the miraculous claim was made not by someone I can call but by someone 2000 years ago?
History doesn't automatically accept magic as truth
There is only one witness in the Bible that states what they themselves saw... Paul. And he never met Jesus while he was alive. He had a vision or heard something that no one with him saw or heard.
@@marcosbittarCut the BS. Matt doesn't even believe Jesus existed. And nobody cares what you believe, let's not get too excited.
At 5:40 you mention the “scholarly majority-agreed upon” facts. Can you point me to a list of these scholars so I can see what they say about the facts? Unless I’m mistaken, neither Habermas nor Licona have ever published this list. That’s a curious thing given that it’s the foundation of the argument. Would love to see the list so I know who these scholars are we’re talking about and what they said about the empty tomb.
Mike listening to your version of the debate I'm no longer sure you were there.
😂🤣
Loll
Only Mke can review a debate and lose the review of the debate again just like he lost the real debate
@@davelanger And only atheists can deny evidence for God when it jumps right in their face
@@manne8575 there is no evidence.
This is simply reiterating what you said in the debate, without having Matt’s live response.
The biggest problem....
Reports of appearances of jesus, are not appearances of jesus.
Yes, dozens of photographs of Lincoln.
Lincoln -1
Jesus -0
@Daulton Horton “...and with that logic...”
lol. That’s hardly logic.
@Daulton Horton
You are really stretching. Not actually making an argument, just arguing.
If you want to make a case, do something more than just asserting your belief.
@Daulton Horton Not busy, just running away.
No one says your beliefs are “wrong”, just unsupported.
But whatever...
Thank you, next.
@Daulton Horton
Instead of claiming there are extra-biblical accounts of Jesus, why not just name them or better yet link them? Can you name a single contemporary historian claiming anything about Jesus himself or even corroborating any bible claim? After all even Paul of Tarsus admitted to never having met Jesus in the flesh or even have any correspondence with him.
Acts 9:1-3, Galatians 1:11-22.
Peace
You lost the argument right from the get go. You tried using claims in the bible as evidence for claims in the bible. Thats not how evidence works. The claims in the bible are not "historical evidence". He tried several times to explain this to you and you clearly still dont get it.
Of course they are. They are first person accounts. (Which is even accepted as evidence in legal courts today.)
@@Yesica1993 Hearsay evidence is inadmissible in court and holds very little ground when it is. "Thanos is real and snapped his fingers to make people turn to dust." Even if I testified to that in court, it would not make the statement true.
6 minutes in and you have only demonstrated that you didnt listen to Matt at all.
What did Matt say that Mike didn't address?
Docbndgrl9113 Because Matt explicitly says we don’t know the entire list of explanations...
@@hensonsf2701 Who doesn't know the entire list of explanations? And what explanations?
I feel like Matt and people who think like him don't want to know or they feign ignorance because they have closed their hearts off to God existing and to Christianity being true. So it's a mechanism they've developed to instantly reject anything a Christian is saying, or any evidence we provide.
"I don't know that lying is wrong."
"I don't know that rape is wrong."
"There is no such thing as a porn addiction."
"Historical and archaeological evidence isn't evidence!"
"If it's from a Christian source, it's biased!"
I'll ask you and Luke Knight this: if Christianity were true, would you be a Christian?
Because to listen to Matt is utter folly.
Characterizing Matt’s comments as rhetoric is the same as just saying somebody said something. Rhetoric is just using speech to persuade or understand a point of view. You have Zero reason to believe your crap and continue to prove it.
Rhetoric is about the way words are used. You can have zero facts and yet win a debate if you're just persuasive enough. Hitchens was king of this, and Dillahunty carries on that legacy. Double standards and illogical demands abound, but they simply approach the issue in such a way that the listener is taken in.
@ Stubadub yep Matt Is truely the magician! 🎩
Matt didn't demolish your arguements. He demolished your logic.
I love lines like this from athiests. It's so clear that no thought was put into it and that you're just speaking words for the sake of speaking.
I think what matt meant about no medical research on the blood was like no dna forensic evidence from samples of blood found on some relic of crucifixion.
Jennifer Williams Why would anyone expect something like that to be available, though? People obviously believe in Jesus despite having personally seen much less, so why would God "have to" provide it? I just have trouble seeing the contradiction atheists talk about when it comes to the volume of proof God should provide for anyone to believe a miracle has occurred.
@@Levi-rl3fu "so why would God "have to" provide it?" It would be a really good start at ending this debate once and for all.
@@Levi-rl3fu no, they beleive in a fantasy created around Jesus.
47:00 I always hear about scholars agreeing that what Paul is preaching, he received "most likely" from Peter and James. But I've never heard anyone explaining *why* scholars agree on this. Can you explain how they determined this was the case?
Metaphorical Paradox
You’ve heard it because it is only another claim Mike makes without any evidence. There are a lot of Christian claims with nothing to support them.
54:09 there's no link in the description
Mike you are right those examples are evidence, specifically anecdotal evidence. How do you accept all these evidence as opposed to other evidence of other religions or alien abductions? How can you reject one but not the other?
Hey mike, I'm a new subscriber, I watched your analysis of reckless love and wanted to know more about your personal theology. I know this whole channel is essentially that but I couldn't find one single video which set out what you believe. I think it would be helpful in understanding your analysis and watching your videos. Thank you!
Where is the link to the actual debate. I can't find it and want to watch it
czcams.com/video/Z2FGgkubhZM/video.html
Enjoy!
Go to @Capturing Christianity and you can find it in videos.
@@ethicsr6426 thank you!!
10:57 '"claims are not evidence" that is a claim'
It is not a claim, it is a fact. Evidence is what is used to substantiate claims. Only then these statements are taken as facts or evidences of other claims.
"when you are looking at scientific papers you are not looking at science, you are looking at claims about science"
That is correct. That is why scientific papers (as in piece of paper) is not evidence. The evidence is the experiements or what ever method was used to achieve its conclusions; and also the fact that they were peer reviewed.
When a particle accelerator supposedly detected particles going faster than the speed of light scientists didn't believed just because it was published in a scientific paper, because it wasn't peer reviewed yet.
When a paper is substantiated and confirmed by peer review, then yes, it is evidence.
Alkis05 a What about the Editor-in-chief of the Lancet coming out years ago saying that he believed roughly 50% of the “peer reviewed” journal articles are “simply untrue”. A whopping 60-70% of studies are unable to be reproduced. The vast majority of research hasn’t been reproduced, which is essential the gold standard in science. One study showing positive correlation with any given hypothesis is hardly proven science. The vast majority of what the public “knows” is based on studies that are either flat out fake or cannot be reproduced.
Your absolute reliance on science and empirical evidence to elicit all truths is probably the most faulty of all belief systems out there.
Moreover, Matt makes the typical error of acting like empirical evidence is all there is. This a how you know Matt Dillihunty either suffers from the Dunning-Kruger effect, or is willfully disingenuous.
There’s not one single legitimate philosopher willing to claim that the entirety of what is knowable can be proven empirically.
In this case the claim is the evidence in of itself. Multiple eyewitnesses willingly paying their lives insisting and attesting to the testimony that jesus has risen is evidence enough that the claim is true. If you deny the principle of relying on multiple testimonies then you must in principle also deny about 90% of your knowledge.
Eyewitness testimony is always a "claim." And claims aren't necessarily tied to evidence. I can claim my sister's name is Rebecca without the motivation of proving something or providing evidence. But when I say in a court of law I saw someone murder another person, that claim then becomes evidence in the court of law. This is common sense. You guys have decided to forgo common sense widely recognized by our court system. Dallhunty was just playing semantics. Then the jury decides if they find the evidence compelling. Dillahunty's rebuke was faulty. Mike just didn't know what he was doing.
"It is not a claim, it is a fact" Well then, looks like you've found yourself making the same mistake. What is your evidence that it's not a claim but fact? Since evidence is what is used to substantiate claims, I would have expected you would provide evidence when you claim that it's a fact. But you haven't.
@@editsofawesomeness God loves you. Stop rebelling. The people in hell will hate you. You are making a disastrous mistake.
Hey Mike, let me offer this analogy. Imagine your mother was accused of murder and if found guilty she would hang. Would you allow the jury to use the same type of evidence you are using to prove Jesus' resurrection? Could 50 people say they read books about the event but never talked to anyone present and still you would accept their conclusion that your Mom did it for example? What kind of evidence would you demand the jury use to find whether or not your Mom is guilty?
Oh that’s perfect, guaranteed you won’t get a response!
@@itsahzthing3433 you present stronger evidence she didnt commit the murder.
kop pite - No. There is a reason our justice system works under the assumption of “innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof/preponderance of evidence lies with the person making the claim “Person X committed murder,” NOT with the defense, “Person X did NOT commit murder.
@@koppite9600 nope.
Terrible analogy. There where multiple eyewitnesses and multiple attestations from different historians, etc.
I’ve been waiting on this.
I went through much of the comments and may have missed if this was already stated, but there is a book--Cold-Case Christianity by J. Warner Wallace -- that addresses whether or not the biblical claims provide reasonable evidence.
Unfortunately Wallace isn’t qualified in any relevant field and disagrees with the consensus of actual historians on pretty much everything.
@@ramigilneas9274 could you elaborate please? As far as being qualified, he’s pretty qualified in defining and following evidence as he worked as a homicide detective for most of his career. I’m interested to hear your reasoning for your second statement though. I’ve only heard him speak, so I’m not too familiar with his work
"claims aren't evidence" is not a claim it is a fact.
I think you might have missed the point Mike was making. I don't say this to talk down to you, but did you genuinely watch the whole video? I am extremely curious.
@@adamrichardson5224 His examples about scientific papers is wrong. The paper is a claim backed up by evidence and can be tested. Thomas Aquinas example was a claim about thinking the earth was round. It is good evidence he thought that, it is not evidence that it was actually round.
@@choopsk6734 again just wondering if you watched the video...
You claim it’s a fact. I could just as easily say “saying Jesus rose Isn’t a claim, it’s a fact”
@@Withywindle no it is a fact. they are different words with different meanings. Your statement is a claim.
Generally double-standards are evidence of either goalpost moving, goalpost hiding or special pleading ... sometimes all at once. (See 1:41:28 - The ultimate "goal hiding".)
This was a good point... I’ve never considered “goal hiding” where they try to hide their own goals to give them the advantage.
The flat earth analogy was perfect for explaining Matt's hold up on the resurrection I believe. Take this with a grain of salt as this is an interpretation of Matt's thoughts based on the debate. Your hypothesis was testable and valid "were there people in the middle ages that thought the Earth was spherical?" The evidence presented from Thomas Aquinas has two interpretations (1) it's a story or misquote based on verbal retelling (2) it's accurate to Aquinas' thoughts. Ancillary corroboration beefs up each of the probabilities going to each interpretation. Obviously (1) is a possibility as this happens all the time Einstein quotes that never happened etc. (2) is also a possibility and reasonable. Now if you rephrase the hypothesis and say "was the Earth flat back in the day?" and your only evidence for that is that 1 quote from some ancient person that's not a very compelling argument given that all evidence in recent times points to that being an impossibility.
It's the same with the resurrection, if your hypothesis is "were there people back in the day who thought Jesus was resurrected?" the answer is there is a story in the bible recounting that that is either (1) an accurate retelling that captures the thoughts of the claiming parties or (2) a misquote based on a verbal retelling (telephone game). Ancillary evidence regarding the reliability of the biblical telling changes the probability of either conclusion. However if your hypothesis is "did the resurrection actually happen?" that isn't a question that can be answered with the retellings as these are not evidence for that hypothesis rather claims from people back in the day that it happened. The most we can get from that is that perhaps people back in the first century thought it happened the rest needs faith.
I also think the big difference between you two is you come from different priors (1) You weight the bible heavily (2) Matt does not. That's a hard bridge to build and I'm still not sure how to do it. Need to be very clear and concise with the hypothesis being tested.
I found the analogy he gave interesting for the same reason. If the claim was people believed the earth was round in the Middle Ages then ya the Aquinas quote could help, but if you are trying to prove what shape the earth actually is then the quote isn’t “evidence” of a round earth, it’s merely a claim. It’s safe to conclude people believed Jesus rose from the dead (people still do after all) by reading the gospel stories and reading historical accounts, that in no way demonstrates the truth of this belief though.
Coming to the table late, it appears that most folks who left comments didint watch the video. That's my claim lol.
So what evidence do you have to prove that most people didn't watch the video? I'd have to disagree and that the comments understand Mike's view very well. Prove me wrong, please.
@@jirenthegray2904 you are just like every other lazy commenting person if you watch the video mike proves them and you wrong. You are silly and the fact you ask a yt comment to prove you wrong shows so. Watch the video I also suggest Bart Ehrman debate dr james white. Grow as a person and try to challenge your own preconceived ideas before passing judgment. Xoxo God bless
@@andrewstone3502 well Mike didnt prove anything wrong. He did however prove that he shouldn't be given a platform until hes able to represent someone's position correctly.
I hope you're able to grow up and learn a little too my friend.
Oh god bless lol
I really like you, Matt, but I think you need a better understanding of hearsay, and Matt needs to do a better job explaining it. As much as I appreciate your position, none of your evidence for the resurrection would be admissible as evidence in court. The gospels make claims without corroboration and are made by unverifiable authors. Maybe historians handle this stuff differently, but I don't know about that. I do know that a judge would never admit it as evidence even for a civil case. It's all undeniably hearsay from that perspective. I didn't have to be convinced by Matt; this is stuff you learn in the first semester of law school. I do agree that claims can be evidence, and sometimes hearsay will be considered (weakly) in court. So Matt did a bad job of explaining that he considers your claims to be hearsay. I also believe they are hearsay. Historians have to work from scraps, though, so maybe they would handle this differently. But in my opinion, you didn't make a strong enough of a case, and not because Matt convinced me of anything.
Traverse Engineer the fact that you think historical analysis to discern truth needs to be done through the process similar to a court of law is bafflingly naive, illogical, and plainly untrue. You do realize courts of law provide as little factual truth about cases as archeology and historical studies right? Most courts are doing no differently than historians or archeologists: piecing together often disjointed and separate pieces of data to build a picture of a case. If your think courts of law can really identify real truth you are woefully mistaken and need to get your head out from under that rock.
@@greyknight627 The fact that courts sometimes fail to find the truth is no weirder than the fact that historians have the same problem. I'm willing to consider that courts and historians have different standards of evidence, but the fact that you flame instead of explaining the difference suggests that you don't know anything about this either.
@Peasant Scrublord If Alexander the Great claimed to be God, we would need better evidence though. Get it now?
@Peasant Scrublord How the standard of required evidence scales with the magnitude of the claim.
@Peasant Scrublord So maybe we are saying the same thing. There is some evidence for a historical Jesus, but insufficient evidence for belief in a supernatural resurrection.
30 minutes in, I'll say that you seem to make a good case for there having been a Jesus and that he was crucified. I presume you get into the resurrection later, but that Jesus was crucified does not imply that he necessarily resurrected. And Matt wasn't taking a mythicist stance.
You're right but in fairness but Matt didn't take any stance.
@@pfreemantz really? His stance was pretty clear to me. I understood both Matt and Mikes points.
Matt simply said 'I dunno' to the evidence, and yes, it's evidence in support of a claim, contrary to Matt's definition of evidence, which is 'evidence is.... Evidence.'
Matt has no position. He also has no position on Charlemagne, or Rameses, or any other historical figure. Just a big shrug.
Not good enough.
@@randomuser6306 So, being honest when someone doesn’t know something isn’t good enough? That’s better then pretending you know then you don’t.
@@theosib his non-position on something with plenty, by any historical standards (Matt isn't a historian and has zero standing to toss all of it out because he doesn't like it) of evidence isn't good enough. He's simply hiding the ball. That's not good enough. It's kind of sad, tbh. Also, his double standards are quite funny when he sits there bloviating about how reasonable he is.
Well, it is not evidence for a guy rising from the dead, to say a book described it has happening. When you are saying a guy did something that is literally impossible you do need to bring more to the table. It is a preposterous claim to begin with and saying a 2k year old book says it happened is by no means evidence. You have a story about men seeing something, not men who seen something. They cannot be questioned so if the authors said it was one person who seen this or a million people seen this it simply does not matter in light of the extraordinary claim. If my closest most trusted friend told me he seen a man rise from the dead and came to his house, I would not believe him unless he could bring real evidence, not just his word. Why? Because his claim is an impossibility. It is preposterous.
Facts
Would be better to treat this as an interview rather than a debate
I did a video review of the Mike Winger Vs Matt Dillahunty debate on my channel and came to some of these same conclusions. I also had other things to say. Mike if you desire to debate in the future it probably would be good for you to hear my feedback. Thank you.
Mike was slaughtered in my view. Nothing against the guy. He just wasn't ready for it. The moment I knew this was when he SOOO badly wanted to go into his "Paul believed in a physical resurrection" script. Once I saw how bad he wanted to force Matt into defending a position he never held, I knew this guy was out of his league.
Yes but you listen to the debate carefully you will see Matt deniying everything
Pedro Junior I can’t believe you are all over this page defending Mike. He was terrible. His arguments were terrible. Matt didn’t deny everything, he showed how there was nothing to deny because Mike gave no evidence. The fact that EVERYONE knows this except for you should make you stop commenting and go study why you don’t understand what happened. Look up logical fallacies, skepticism and critical thinking.
@@pJ005-k9i - Because Mike just asserts things without providing substantiation for the assertion. He provides historical data for things Matt readily agreed to, but then committed a false equivocation fallacy by applying historical accuracy to things like gravesites and the crucifixion meant that yes, Jesus was crucified and buried in that tomb.
No. Because if I replace the name Jesus with Carl, you still have the exact same evidence for a resurrection. None. What you have historical data for is tombs that existed in that time period, and methods of torture and execution. That's not proof for a resurrection, that's proof for tombs and methods of torture and execution.
Do you understand?
@@TheReaperCDN here is the overview of all the evidence we have enjoy czcams.com/video/-ErnJF_nwBk/video.html
@@TheReaperCDN czcams.com/video/rml5Cif01g4/video.html reliability of the new testament
Thank you Mike for doing your due diligence and taking the time to make this video. Much appreciated.
So are you saying that as a magician Matt is very good with rhetorical sleight of hand?
Who is the judge of the "winner" of a debate? Debates are flawed because the person who has better rhetoric might appear to win rather than the person who has the truth.
You didn't mention Matt threatened to take his ball and go home. Very kind of you.
Any honest person can see Matt would need to deny all history using his guidelines.
I thought you did a great job during the debate and with this follow-up:-)
Incorrect and dishonestly so.
However. by MIKE's standards every extraordinary claim made throughout history would be just as valid as the non-evident resurrection of Jesus.
Critical thinking can be hard, perhaps try it sometime?
@@steveandrews7434- What standard are you referring to?
Nope, Matt would only have to reject all claims about supernatural nonsense... just like all other historians.
Any honest can see that I would have to believe in all claims of all religions and all conspiracy theories if I would lower my standards of evidence to believe in the resurrection based on such weak evidence.
Yes! It was pathetic for him to threaten to leave. He also was just full of logical fallacies.
Matt the Magician’s ideas of eye witness testimony would not hold up in court; one eye witness may be faulty, but when there are multiple eye witnesses, then the commonalities in their testimonies are considered worthy evidence.
He doesn’t apply the same standard to somebody like Alexander the Great, he knows nothing about ancient history, he just makes assertions.
Watching the debate between you (Mike) and Matt, made my doubt about the resurrection of Jesus much stronger, I can't remove my doubt about Jesus's resurrection T_T
Ask God to give you more confidence. When it comes to your soul, rely on God, not man.
You're in my prayers. God bless you.
Lee Strobel's "The Case for Christ" lists evidence for the resurrection, if I remember correctly. Maybe useful for you.
Hello there. I would like to know your doubt and questions regarding the resurrection argument. If we can establish that
1) Jesus died by crucifixion,
2) His tomb was found empty
3) His disciples saw and believed that He rose from the dead .
Then we can say that Jesus did rose from the dead. Now, in which of the points do you have doubt or questions?
@@AsEasyAs_ also, “The Case Against The Case For Christ” is a great read
Jesus did not even exist so could not of been a zombie
Mike,
Isn't it true that the word Paul used to express that he didn't know whether his flying into the sky was physical or spiritual (optasia, 2nd Cor. 12:1-4) is the same word he used to describe the nature of his Damascus-road experience in Acts 26:19? If so, what makes you so sure that Paul himself correctly understand the nature of the Damascus road event any more than he understood the nature of his flying-into-the-sky experience? What's unreasonable about saying Luke's material in Acts 9, 22 and 26 is historically worthless to the modern reader because not even Paul himself could correctly discern the nature of the event?
If you were being prosecuted for murder and the State's only witness admitted that when watching you pull the trigger, he didn't know whether he was seeing this physically or spiritually, would you ask the Court to instruct the jury that they are allowed to consider the possibility of the supernatural? Or would you argue that charges need to be dropped because the confusion admitted by the witness prevents a reasonable jury from ever possibly finding it credible beyond a reasonable doubt?
Hey Mike, I have a question. For all these supposed historical accounts of Jesus' resurrection, how exactly do you know that someone didn't just come along, make up that a bunch of people had said they saw Jesus resurrect from the dead, and a bunch of people just believed it? In other words, considering these accounts all come from one place (the Bible), how do you know that multiple people actually testified to seeing Jesus resurrect, and it wasn't just one person writing in the Bible that this happened? I know this is a 4 year old video, but I'm really hoping I can get your thoughts on this.
Mike thank you for giving us videos to watch that are so exciting :)
There's no limit to an apologist dishonesty.
Hi anibal, What’s your best example of my dishonesty in this video?
How about spending two hours to continue a debate you embarassingly lost, without the other guy being present to answer what you say?
The best example of your dishonesty was at about 1h 55 (I think) where you said something along the lines of, can’t we just open ourselves to the idea that the evidence leads to a resurrection. That is dishonesty at its finest. You start with your conclusion and then want us to use that conclusion to guide our handling of the evidence. No no no. That is not how history, science, evidence works. You look at the evidence (doesn’t hurt to evaluate the reliability of the source of that evidence cough-gospels-cough) and see where that leads. You were already a believer (had established your conclusion) before you even began to look at the evidence. Nobody who doesn’t already hold that conclusion could possibly be convinced by your arguments. I don’t think even you would be if you weren’t so indoctrinated.
You are being dishonest. And you need to do some reading on the other side. You need to learn what the gospels are and how we know, and why they cannot be used as evidence for an alleged historic event. Then you need to learn the difference between a claim and evidence. Then you need to evaluate the evidence in an unbiased and educated way.
Go and look at some CZcams videos about the resurrection by Richard Carrier. In fact why don’t you “debate” him by deconstructing his arguments and how he handles evidence. You are operating on a primary school level, with an agenda, and you are dishonest about how you deal with evidence.
Second best is when you blatantly misrepresented Matt’s position on evidence.
Li'l Al I see. You think it’s dishonest to consider the possibility of a resurrection.
One more thing Pastor Winger, I don’t think Matt’s rhetoric was better. I do think Matt’s rhetoric was more worldly, but definitely not better. I wouldn’t call a marginalizing style of conversation and the use of, at times, mildly patronizing body language to communicate that Christians are naive and credulous is a good argument at all and in fact not helpful if the goal is to investigate and come to a better knowledge of the Truth. Epistemology is the investigation of that which distinguishes justified belief from opinion. I didn’t hear Matt sufficiently justify his opinion, but rather just suggest we can’t factually know anything because no historical evidence is sufficient. Really? That’s just a terrible argument, wrong, and possibly intellectually dishonest.
Mike Please can I know your email address i can send questions to?
The approach to prove supernatural with the natural and logic just doesn't work. All Matt had to say was that he isn't convinced and that any other explanation is better than supernatural, however unlikely.
As you mentioned it is the issue of the philosophical issue of the existence of supernatural.
A debate liked this would need to set some agreed upon premises to make it work.
I think of it as a 2D being trying to prove a 3D being to other 2D beings. Things outside our observable and knowable realm is going to be very hard to prove, we’d have to bring said thing into our realm, the supernatural into the natural.
@@chazzitz-wh4ly and also impossible to fully understand. Similar to God being outside of time being understood by a being who has only existed within time. Job 38/39 speaks to this.
4:33 Attestation is not lines of reasoning. Attestation is documentary evidence. Multiple attestations would be multiple independent written sources. The Resurrection legend comes from a single source ‒ the oral fables of the early Christians which were later written as the gospels. You have one attestation from an unreliable, self-contradictory source.
>SINGLE
>fableS
I watched the debate and I think it would of been better to have it as one side speaks at a time rather than a dialogue. Unfortunately, Matt has historically taken debates in a condescending direction. Having it more controlled would of probably tamed him a bit. I don't think there was any winner IMO because we as an audience had to sort through the rhetoric. But I'm at the beginning of the video and will listen to the whole thing.
Calling a spade a spade is condescending to you? Like it or not, by the very definition of the word -zombie- and by the fairy-tales own claims, Jesus Christ is a celestial zombie Jew magician.
I don’t care what your stance on religion is, but mad respect for representing the METAL FACED VILLAIN
The extreme lack of evidence for god, Jesus, the tomb and resurrection is a very good justification for condescending attitudes toward those that try and declare it ultimate truth. Then of course you have Mike's quivering and shaking voice trying desperately to defend things like Paul's claim to have seen Jesus. Add to that how he then rushed to the book of acts
(Not even written by Paul) as a defense foe Paul talking about the death and resurrection of Jesus. Which is an account of some one recalling Paul only being told about said events. Not in the least is there a eyewitness account where the writer is the alleged witness.
You people are morons.
It's about winning the debate, not reasoning together to get to the truth. A form of deception really. One side wants to get to the truth. The other side wants to win. I rarely have enjoyed debates. Maybe you get one or two good points out of the debate but is it worth the frustration?
Mike Winger did his best debating Matt Dillahunty even answering his disingenuous questions and underhanded statement tactics. ATHEISM AIN'T GOT NOTHING NEW OR BETTER TO OFFER THAN THE VERY RELIGIOUS BELIEFS THEY'RE CRITICAL OF SO IT'S HYPOCRISY AT IT'S FINEST 😂. Hello this is for all you Atheists, unbelievers and skeptics. I'm going to address a few misconceptions and lies about God's Character and His Word. The Bible doesn't support chattel slavery or anything else Immoral. Ok so Atheists and unbelievers say God is either Immoral, incompetent or not responsible so let's see what The Scriptures actually say. God revealed himself and created a nation in a real, historical context. It was a world with a slave-based economy, with city states often at war with each other, with polygamous marriages to ensure the continuation of family lines. The laws of the Old Testament regulate this behaviour. Slaves are to be treated humanely (Exodus 21:11). They are given rights and not seen as mere possessions. Hebrew slaves were able to buy their own freedom. Human trafficking is condemned (Exodus 21:16). In contrast to the law code of Babylon, Old Testament Israel was a light to the nations. The Old Testament law and narratives do not stand alone. Jesus is now the best example of what we read. So the moral teaching of the Bible cannot be summarised by a quote taken out of context from the Old Testament to demonize God and His Word. Slavery was permitted in Old Testament law but it was regulated by God giving the Israelites instructions on how to fairly and humanely treat their slaves (it was like indentured servitude where someone could work for you if they owed debts or needed income not cruel like chattel slavery). God allowed the people of Israel to own slaves since they themselves has already experienced over 400 years of generations of Egyptian slavery and knew how inhumane it was to be beaten, overworked and taxed so God set them apart from other nations and cultures around them by giving them a fair way to treat their slaves since slavery had already existed in the world but it doesn't mean God condoned it just used it for His Will to bring Good And in the light of the whole scriptural teaching, we find the reasons for its ultimate abolition (Ephesians 6:9; Colossians 4:1-3; Philemon 15-16 and Galatians 3:28). The Word of God provided the moral standard against slavery in the Roman Empire and against the slave trade in the New World.
But what of genocide or holy war in the book of Joshua? Several things could be pointed out. The use of warfare in the ancient world did not always mean literal total destruction, even when events are described in such terms. Furthermore, the book of Joshua does not describe a genocide. It is not a race who are being wiped out, as in genocide, but a religious practice which was often appalling and degrading. Those who repent (like Rahab from Jericho or Ruth) are not destroyed but become part of Israel. It is not the racial group that is in view but their "detestable practices".
However, after all is said, we must still acknowledge that God brought judgment on the nations of Canaan. It is not our place as believers isn't to sugar-coat the Bible. For some skeptics, this is enough to make God a moral monster. But the fact is that Jesus continued to affirm that God is a Judge who will bring a future judgment on all peoples and all nations. God’s judgment will be just. The list of Old Testament stories rejected by critics often leads to a similar dismissal of the New Testament teaching of Jesus on the existence of hell.
After all, what was the Flood of Genesis or the conquest of Joshua if not a glimpse of future judgment? Hell does not demonstrate cruelty on God’s part, but it does demonstrate His Holiness and our moral accountability. Perhaps this is the real reason many people rail against the God of the Bible? It is not that they think He is a moral monster, but that they are afraid He is a moral Judge, and that has implications for our behaviour now. God is an Eternal Almighty Spirit Being and we as His creatures have Eternal souls and spirits so the punishment for our sins against Him must therefore also be Eternal but so must the reward for righteousness that's why He sent His Son Jesus to live a perfectly righteous and sinless Life (which none of us could ever possibly expect to do) suffer the humiliating and torturous death of crucifixion to shed His Own Blood willingly so that all who willingly accept His gift of salvation by grace through faith in Him will be saved and given Eternal life because that's what God wants is for us to willingly accept His gift of salvation and choose life. Exodus 21:20-21 literally speaks about capital punishment befalling anyone who mistreats their slaves so yes people are taking Scripture out of context to demonize God who literally promises that slaves who are mistreated under someone else's authority is to be avenged. When we hear the word “slavery” we think of innocent human beings, kept prisoner for life, having no rights under law and so reduced to animals. This is clearly immoral because it is unjust: the slave has done nothing to deserve the treatment.
The situation described as “slavery” in the Bible was nothing like this. It is more accurately described as one of indentured servitude. Many “slaves” were indentured servants, working for a term of years
Some other “slaves” were prisoners. There were no prisons. Prisoners had to work to live like everyone else. Some had life sentences. Some served a term and were released.
People didn't beat their good slaves but treated them well and protected their assets thus.
But no matter how rebellious a slave was, you couldn't just beat them to death. And if you knocked out their tooth or damaged their eye then you had to set them free. (Exodus 21:26). God wasn't using what other nations did because He wanted to set His Chosen People of Israel apart from the cruel, inhumane and unjust systems other cultures had so He gave them a fair way to treat their slaves and servants.
There is a lot of ignorance on this topic which is understandable given the age we live in but it's not the nefarious set up we think of when we think of modern slavery. The question Atheists must ask themselves is how come the Jews aren't being accused of slavery and human trafficking if they're guilty of it in The Bible and why would white slave owners rip out pages from The Old and New Testament Scriptures to justify their owning blacks as slaves if The Bible already justified slavery?
He explained his criteria for special pleading in the debate. He said that he applies it when the consequences of the claim require him to drastically change his life. He only applies the "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" line when it means he might need to change the way he lives.
You got it completely backwards... its not special pleading.
Changing the way you live is not a requirement to be a Christian that's a false gospel changing the way you live that's something you should do after you get saved to gain Eternal rewards and to reign with Jesus in heaven. a person who becomes a Christian but doesn't change the way they live is still saved but gets no rewards and is denied the privilege of reigning in heaven because they didn't change the way they lived Romans 4:5 1 Corinthians 3:15 2 Timothy 2:11-13
You do realize that Matt was a die-hard Christian for many years, right?
@@j.a.greene3523 if he recognized he was a sinner in need of a savior and then put his trust in Jesus Christ the son of God and his death burial and Resurrection alone to be saved and have eternal life as a free gift without adding his own good works or Law keeping to it then yes I would say that he was a true Christian and was saved but now because he's an atheist he's only going to lose Eternal rewards and be denied the privilege of reigning with Christ in heaven because of not continuing in the faith
@@thegnomechaun1194
Matt has told people and made videos that he was as much of a Christian as any person. He truly and genuinely believed and even wanted to be a pastor when he was growing up.
So, here's the scenario:
You either have to believe that Matt is a liar, and that he's lying about being a true, genuine Christian who was "saved", or... "once saved, always saved" is wrong. If it's not either one of those options, then you must believe that Matt is still "saved".
Are you disappointed he wasn’t more
Open? I couldn’t believe the things Matt said.
Yeah Matt is not as open as he claims.
This is an example of someone who is set in their thinking and cannot, will not be swayed from their position.
Mike, great review overall! Very thoughtful & informative (especially appreciated you pointing out his double standards on evidence)
One thing I would like to comment on out about the early section dealing with the "claims meme".
I don't think he is wrong in asserting that your points are claims, however, because all of your 12 claims are fairly well evidenced in their own right, he is wrong for asserting that they cannot be used as evidence.
In other words, a well evidenced claim can be used as supporting evidence for another claim.
For example:
In your analogy about the murder case, if you said "Bubba's fingerprint was found on the gun is supporting EVIDENCE that he murdered Daisy" then someone could say "well that is just a claim". However, if you then have evidence supporting that claim such as the records from the forensics lab that analyzed the gun for fingerprints then that CLAIM would then be very valid and compelling evidence in your cumulative case for Bubba having murdered Daisy.
I think this same standard can apply to your case for the resurrection so while he was not necessarily wrong about your points being claims, that should not dismiss us from using them as evidence for the central claim of a resurrection event.
Would you agree?
This was a beautiful review. Thank you for going deep into the philosophy of the issue and getting help from certified philosophers. This was seriously helpful
Mike, thanks for being humble! I completely agree with your assessment, but glad you were able to admit it. This helps us all grow and learn. Although you are right, we all need to acknowledge where we can do better. Thank you!!
Why would the apostles martyr themselves over a lie or a non-happening?
Why would the Jews have accounts of the tomb being empty as well? We know how impossible it would have been for them to “steal” the body.
The CLAIM that claims are not evidence is EVIDENCE of a misunderstanding of the definitions of evidence and claims
Evidence is the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
Claims are an assertion of the truth of something, typically one that is disputed or in doubt.
Mike watched the Delahunty debate review in your playlist. Good job getting him to concede on not 'studying evidences of the 1st century' - you got the outright "No". Hard to debate a man who won't even begin to acknowledge God/supernatural being an option. You got him however Mike. Sometimes a couple of effective, hard suckerpunches has overall better impression for the viewer and a lot of light taps throughout, as some debates Play out. Good work.
(aah the good ole days of 2 hour videos - sat through your "Women in Ministry" 3 hour bender from the last week. Outstanding)
"Hard to debate a man who won't even begin to acknowledge God/supernatural being an option" That was not at all what Matt was saying. He in fact said it may be possible but the evidence presented (basically claims voices through a couple books in a religious text) wasn't sufficient for a non-believer to suddenly believe based on what was presented. To jump to a supernatural explanation you must first rule out the more likely natural explanations. Otherwise by the standards of evidence presented every single religious text with alleged witness accounts must all be accepted as true, many of which have far more religious texts, witnesses, and history than Christianity and would contradict Christianity (and countless other religions that must also be true by the same standard of evidence). Matt bluntly said all the matters to him is the evidence, just that what was presented wasn't sufficient.
Mike came in with a very Christian oriented construct (I'm quite familiar with it having spent more of my life being a Christian and being a bit of an apologist myself) and was surprised it didn't convince a non-Christian. In a debate you have to understand and listen to your opponents counterpoints, especially when you are arguing they should believe your supernatural explanation for something. When you are putting forward the claim the burden is on you to provide the evidence. Mike seems like a good guy and genuine but he really came in completely unprepared. I watched another video where he debated another Atheist (who also was a former Christian themselves) and presented almost the same point and basically got caught up on the same responses (Matt being more articulate than the previous example however). Mike just wasn't prepared and didn't take the time to consider what a non-believer might consider sufficient evidence or sufficient arguments to make a supernatural claim reasonable.
Essentially Mike approached it like an apologist, how you might attempt to convince or convert someone who is actively engaging you on the subject. A debate is a completely different beast and requires a significantly greater burden of evidence and presentation thereof as well as a much greater deal of empathy and understanding of the other side.
This was a great analysis video. I appreciate how thoroughly you addressed each of your points. It’s incredible how much our emotions can impact even good evidence that we already know in our heads to be worthy of belief. Our emotions take a shortcut directly to our hearts by way of passion, whereas truth, in aiming for the same endpoint, takes the longer route, for which the more discontented of us sometimes do not have the patience to wait.
Thanks for taking the time to do this, Mike! You provided a lot of beneficial content here.
I've watched several debates on this subject I thought you did well. But trying to find logic in resurrection is a lost cause I'm afraid.
Mike, you need to understand qualitative evidence. You kept quoting evidence that simply supports details that all things of the time would demonstrate. Not anything that supports supernatural takes.
If I wrote a historical piece describing what clothes people wear, the current political structure, popular media of this year, the current trade conditions of my country and that Santa Clause is real and visits all the good children within a night, delivering innumerable toys made by elves on a worldwide scale...the accuracy of those previous statements doesn't make the last part true. This is what your stance appears like from an epistemological view. Proven general cultural historical accuracy of one part doesn't give a free pass to other parts. Matt was using the gambler fallacy (I think there were better ways to say this), but it's kind of the same thing. Just because something else works, doesn't mean a claim that is independent will work.
Your entire argument was dead before it took off in that debate, because you weren't prepared. Citing such "facts" are rather hollow in content. I admire your courage and conviction, but the structure of your stance had feet of clay.
You have better hair.
LOL
😂
That is the sole factor in which it could be said that Mike “won” the debate.
@@sandsmarc What do you think about the subject of the debate?
Matt had better Beard
38:53 Pretty sure Matt specifically said that the closest *extra-biblical* contemporary was Clement, so it's kinda dishonest to say he's after the NT writers when that wasn't Matt's point?
"Not even the gospels are contemporary, Paul isn't contemporary... *the various historians that people are likely to reference - Clement the first was probably the closest to contemporary* because he was at least born about the time that the crucifixion would have occurred."
It's pretty obvious Clement is the closest of the *historians*, he's already ruled out the gospels and Paul as contemporary, because even if they were *contemporaries* if Jesus, the writings themselves aren't contemporary.
Exactly. Accounts written later from the perspective of contemporaries in which we have no contemporary source material to confirm it's accurately contemporary is simply not contemporary, by definition.
For it to count as evidence it actually has to make the thing your trying to prove more likely.
I can not see how the claim that supernatural thing x occurred could be backed up by the historical sources at hand, or at all, really.
Before even putting a supernatural explanation forward you'd have to establish that such things
A. Can/could exist -->
B. Does/did exist -->
C. Can/could make x happen.
Then you'd have to compare that explanation to other explanations, and evaluate it in the light of the historical sources. In my opinion, that pretty much any explanation that covers ABC is more likely (even if its 0.00000000000000000001 chance) than any supernatural one (not shown to be possible at all).
So the "evidence" you put forward, ARE just claims, meaning they can not support your "hypothesis". So yes, Matt treats supernatural claims different than natural ones, but that's only because they ARE different.
Also: As a teacher of history, it really annoys me that the historian you are quoting so thoroughly misrepresents how historical evidence works; we do not take supernatural explanations in to account. Never ever.
now I realize that he is literally applying solipsismp to history, and that's an infalseable claim
This was one of the first debates I had seen on Christianity. Mike thank You for doing an explanation video and review.
I had left feeling totally confused about what Matt was saying, and have felt that way from watching other debates with Christian vs Atheists, since. I feel like I have a better understanding as to why!
It also explains a lot about other debate topics I have seen online.
Thanks again Mike for 'splanin' things well, to those of us who aren't philosophers or theologians!!
Please read how logic works for yourself, you're not that stupid to not understand it trust me. Don't let someone whom you already agree with explain to you what you should believe.
@@pascalsimioli6777 that’s a fair criticism, I feel like there’s nobody that doesn’t already agree with Matt who thinks he won this debate.Really he had nothing to say it all beyond just the most shower talking points, but he presents himself very confidently, and he gives you the impression that he’s very knowledgeable when he’s actually not.Here’s proof that rhetoric is what matters the most to people, you don’t actually have to be prepared or well-informed about the topic you’re debating about, at all.
@@pleaseenteraname1103oh here is the slavery guy talking again.
Already "Claims are not evidence" fails because Mike Winger fails to realize that I can claim I got a dog is separate from I can read minds. dogs exist, reading mind does not.
You do if you want to be worth their time. Mike here is making us worth everyone’s time to watch, Matt just made a claim and didn’t back it up, and then decided to start poking holes in the historical evidence and then make double standard claims without logic. He might not even be living in reality.
@@kyebanman4044 then all Mike has to do is prove that his version of God exist
Mike - I’m gonna call it a meme.
Whaddo you meme - did someone say meme!?!
It's called gaslighting. Trying to convince people that it was your opponent who was just "smart-talking", while you had the facts on your side.
Not only did Mike repeatedly accuse Matt of holding positions he didn't, and even accusing him of denying the evidence and its significance, he failed to understand what historians view as real evidence and made outrageously false statements about what is accepted as fact by the scholarly consensus.
15:00 - It's ironic that Mike actually proved Matt's point about claims and evidence while trying to show he was wrong. Matt wasn't particularly clear, but his point was that you cannot just take a piece of text and understand it without context. Mike demonstrated this by pointing out the knowledge he has of Licona - which is external to the email - puts the reference to the problem of evil in context and gives evidence for Licona's personal view of it.
A statement in the Bible - "Jesus rose" - is the claim.
The evidence for that claim must come from an external source that can substantiate the reliability of the statement. Without such evidence, one must believe it on faith or reject it. That would be fine for something trivial - but a resurrection demands the same evidence that a sudden plague of unicorns would, to be accepted by any logical person.
@G Will
You just showed that you don't know what you're talking about. How do you know the Bible is a reliable source? Would it be external evidence, or do you just like what it says and take it for granted.
You don't even accept established science because it casts doubt on your religious belief, so you're in no position to judge how evidence is verified.
I like you vids very much. Mike Winger is like any number of Sunday school teachers I have had. My fleshy body wants more entertainment but spiritually, right on.
My thoughts on Matt's performance: I've noticed a recent trend among some skeptics in these debates, they take the 'lazy route' of instead of presenting a positive case that Jesus never rose(hallucination/legend/conspiracy theories), they simply appeal to their own personal psychology: "Nuh-uh I'm not convinced!" "Arguments aren't evidence therefore I don't believe you" "That's a claim not evidence! Still not convinced!" :-p
"Appeal to Personal Incredulity", or "Argument from Outrage" are really common. I wish apologists would directly call people out more often on this.
As the common understanding goes... a "regular" claim requires regular evidence. An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence. Here's an example:
If I told you "I drove my car the other day", are you going to say "I don't believe you!"? You could, but most people find this as a reasonable claim and don't inquire too much about it and find no reason to disbelieve the person, since it is a reasonable claim.
If I told you "Aliens abducted me last night, and they told me that they were slowly killing the world with undetectable toxins and that we will all suddenly die within 5 years", what would be your response to that? Would you be more likely to believe me? Of course not. You would be like "Wow... ok... you need to get on some meds, dude... you're crazy".
This is what it's like on the other side of the fence. It's not an extraordinary claim to say that Jesus existed. Anyone from anytime could potentially exist. It's the fact that the Bible claims him to be God, and that he rose from the dead... THAT is the extraordinary claim. This is no different than someone saying "Muhammad is the last prophet of God", or "Buddha became a pure spirit". You don't believe any of these claims, even though it is very likely that Muhammad existed and Buddha existed as well. Claiming that Jesus existed does not automatically mean that the resurrection happened. One is a regular claim, and the other is an extraordinary claim.
This is the burden of proof for the Christians. Many will admit that it is likely that Jesus (or Yeshua) existed, therefore, not much evidence is needed. It is *not* likely that he rose from the dead, since that is a much more uncommon act (which many other people have claimed to rise from the dead before as well), and that requires more evidence outside of just "I believe it happened". I can believe that Christianity was made by the devil in order to mask the real truth about God... and, as you should, question my claim about that. Just because I believe something, and I have other people agreeing with me... doesn't automatically mean I'm right.
@Rich G Exactly. I'm no stranger to resurrection debates, and I've seen atheists who positively argue, via hallucination/conspiracy/legend theories, that Jesus never(or probably never) rose. I expected Matt to have taken this usual route, but this is the second time I see the 'lazy route' being taken instead.
@Rich G No offense but, to suggest that Jesus' resurrection and history are 'a relatively new phenomena' is in itself unreasonable. I'm not aware of any Christian who views the resurrection as "just another event in history" with no theological significance. The resurrection has been/is seen as both historical and supernatural by the NT authors and early/modern Christians. The only way to claim otherwise is to create a false dichotomy between the two.
@Rich G Oh ok I misunderstood the first time. If I correctly understand this time, your position basically is: even if the resurrection happened, it can't verified by the historical method, and within Christianity, if it was verified via such method, it would be subject to certain conditions, taking away its supernatural elements.
*My response:* I partly agree that some formulations of the historical arguments are relatively new(however the points they argue for aren't new). The early Christians, including the apostles, did appeal to somethings (such as eyewitness testimony) while preaching that their master Jesus indeed rose from the dead. Not to mention, Paul's emphasis on the historic reality of the resurrection in 1 Cor. 15. In other words, the apostles preached the Good News, because of their confidence in the physical resurrection of Jesus occurring in their particular point of history (Acts 2: 22-24, Acts 2: 32, etc).
Regarding Kunneth's quote, idk much about him, however, I disagree. Since the resurrection is a historical event (or is claimed to be), the topic can certainly be explored from a historical perspective. Yes, the resurrection was dependent upon/subject to certain 'conditions' (God's plan, Jesus' human existence, prophetic fulfillment, Roman empire rule, crucifixion, etc) and did have an impact(rise/ spreading of Christianity in its first century, etc). This doesn't reduce the resurrection to a 'regular event' nor strip off its theological significance.
(I just saw now you edited your previous comment with the question "if it can be proven, then how can it be supernatural?" --- I'm skeptical of the 'natural vs supernatural' divide, I don't define supernatural as 'breaking laws of nature' as some skeptics do when approaching these discussions. In short, I view 'supernatural event' as simply 'adding onto the laws of nature'. In the case of the resurrection, I think it can be 'proven', through certain points/arguments, that an event occurred most likely due to an external being 'adding onto the laws of nature' in that particular moment--this 'proving' wouldn't strip off the fact that, from our local perspective in a universe with certain observed laws of nature, its not within the universe's nature that a man rises from the dead unless an external being added on-to these observed laws for that moment)
BTW, I don't really do much back-and-forth online comment dialogues so this is my final reply
I think they invented the phrase " ignorance is bliss" just for you
Robert Moase your claim just shows you haven’t thought deeply about your beliefs. Take a history and logic class please.
@@Solideogloria00 I'm not sure what part of your weird and irrelevant little comment to
respond to.
I haven't watched this debate in years but based on your assessment, I remember that you weren't as interested in 'facts' as much as you were in 'claims'.
No matter how much your belief relies on claims; claims are not evidence. Evidence is that which proves a claim. Claims cannot BECOME evidence.
You repeatedly refer to the CLAIMS of the bible as FACTS....that's the conflation that you made in the debate and are missing in your assessment.
Matt simply pointed this out; that you continually assert claims and treat them as evidence. Once you see it, you'll realize your mistake....and probably stop believing.....which is what you're most afraid of and why you revere these claims as you do.
I watched that debate, one guy was talking pure logic, the other was a man child believing in magic.
Every theist believes in magic.
And a talking snake 🐍
It is worth wondering why it is you get so angry over people believing in a God
@@henrytims4745 because they go on to write health and education policy
Sorry Mike but I've seen Matt face more challenging arguments on his TV show.....you come across as very intelligent and reasonable but your arguments I'm afraid to say do not.
Clear victory to Matt on this one, which I expected but was disappointed that you did not give him more of a challenge
What about when Matt dilluhunty said that claims are not evidence. Yet his entire debate he said claims so? he made a contradiction there
@@christiandanario not really, because Matt can demonstrate that claims are not evidence, if you can demonstrate a claim to be true then that can be used as evidence.
But claims alone can not, they are just empty baseless assertions and nothing more.....as Matt explained
@@aonary5382 His answer was clearly wrong. Imagine is every historian and archiologist, picked up a papyrus or a document and said "wow this is amazing but because its just a claim so its worthless"
Do you think homocide detectives work like that? or do you think they pick up evidence and link it with others forming a strong argument?
This is why mythisists are not respected
@@christiandanario if I tell an investigator someone was murdered they will of course investigate, but if they find no weapon, no body, no reports of missing people, no crime scene, no witnesses and no suspect then my claim there was a murder is irrelevant, it's a baseless claim unsupported by any evidence.
Likewise historians will rely on discovered records to a degree, if a scroll claims Julius Ceaser was scared of bees historians may well take it at face value, we know bees exist, there is collaborating contemporaneous evidence to suggest Julius Ceaser existed, we know some people fear bees.
But if a scroll is discovered that claims Julius Ceaser once flew to the moon on the back of a dragon then that claim is going to need more evidence and no historian would believe it.
And even the bee claim would likely still be argued over if no collaborating sources were ever found.
@@aonary5382 Have you heard of Cold Cases? If i showed you a video of a homocide detective who became a christian over the evidence, would you watch it?
Also- DO MORE VIDEOS WITH NEW AGERS. I'm not yelling lol- just want the post to stand out. New age spirituality types are more often than atheists actually seeking truth and are willing more times than not to have a solid discussion once you get past the whole zeitgeist deception. I thank you for your courage and pray for you all the time brother. Keep up the Spirit led outreach!
Yes!! I second this. I know tons of new age people, but not even 1 true athiest.
This debate gives me hope that ALL can be saved... Matt made a several solid arguments that were thoughtful, reasonable, articulate, and logical. As believers are we willing to ask these honest questions and address them? If you believe only because you grew up with the traditions of Christianity, the moment you begin to examines the "claims" the scriptures make, they begin to fall apart and quickly appear contradictory. So the "claims" from scripture, is only by the Holy Spirit that we can even recognize Jesus as the Christ. So "evidence" of the Resurrection and all the testimony of the saints contained within scripture, doesn't not occur when we become convinced the claims are true because of comfortable cultural surroundings, but rather make the choice to believe when God is revealing Himself to us, in spite of all of the past baggage we carry that would speak to the contrary of His goodness to even choose us. This "evidence" of the resurrection is now found in the changed lives we live out after this profound supernatural event we call Salvation and can be testified to by those around us that see the difference and they may be even compelled by the Holy Spirit to believe as well. Matt's Lottery ticket analogy is "show me the money and I will Believe!", so if we have the "money" as our Changed Life in Christ, we can't be accused of just making a the "claims" that the "numbers match"(i.e."Just Believe because the Bible say so message")! The Atheists are out there watching every move we make as the church and truth be told, we are missing a lot of the "evidence" for the "claims" we make. Wake up oh sleeper, rise from the dead...
Beleif in something doesn't make it true.
I haven't watched the whole video yet, but I hope someone points out these crucial facts:
(1) *Epistemological Probability*
Sometimes called "Subjective Probability", Epistemological Probability is the assignment of some figure to the confidence of some person in the truth of some belief. An example of this type of probability might be to say or think something along these lines of 'it seems to me that there is an 85% probability that he killed his brother'.
(2) *Ontological Probability*
Sometimes called "Classical Probability, Ontological Probability is the assignment of some figure to the actual likelihood that some event has, or will, occurred. An example of this type of probability might be something like the fact that there is a 13/52, 1/4, chance of drawing any particular suit of card from a deck of cards.
(3) *Evidence*
Evidence, since it doesn't increase the actual probability that some event has, or will, occur, ought to (it seems to me)--given a correct epistemology and a doing of one's epistemic duties--increase confidence in the truth of some belief, that is, Evidence is anything that warrants believing in some proposition, whether or not that belief is fully justified. This would seem to include claims. Therefore, claims can, indeed, be evidence so long as there is no overriding reason to reject them.
For the non-theist to reject proposed support for a belief in the existence of God, then, while maintaining intellectual integrity, it seems that one of the following has to be the case:
(1) The definitions given above are incorrect;
(2) The definitions are correct, but the support provided by theists doesn't satisfy the definition of Evidence;
Or
(3) The theist is not doing his epistemic duty or has a faulty epistemology.
If I'm wrong here, then I would like to know where and how?
I hope this adds to the conversation.
I would say that yes, claims can be considered a very weak form of evidence in support of a proposition. And for mundane, common propositions that's probably all you need. For example, if you claim you have a puppy, that's probably enough for a stranger to reasonably accept that you likely have a puppy. We know there are puppies. We know people keep puppies as pets. You don't seem to have any reason to lie. So yes, a claim that you have a puppy might be enough for a stranger to accept that proposition.
The proposition that the observable physics of this universe were suspended without any evidence other than non-contemporary, anonymous claims is a different situation altogether. In that case the proposition requires more than claims as evidence if you expect someone to reasonably conclude that it likely happened. This is a very simple concept. And I bet you agree with this concept on almost everything else in your life. If someone said they heard about someone else being abducted by aliens, do you believe them automatically based on second-hand claims? Of course not. I'm guessing you would need more evidence to support such a proposition. And if they were able to describe the field where the supposed abduction happened down to the smallest detail, that still wouldn't be sufficient to warrant belief.
@@kylehubbs651 *"I would say that yes, claims can be considered a very weak form of evidence in support of a proposition."*
Agreed. I don't think testimony is strong evidence or anything; however, I think that you need a real defeater to believe that some testimony is false, not just the fact that such things don't usually occur.
*"The proposition that the observable physics of this universe were suspended without any evidence other than non-contemporary, anonymous claims is a different situation altogether."*
If you assume that the writings are true, then the testimony from the eyewitnesses which is recorded, such as Paul's account in 1 Corinthians 15 (specifically verse 6), is contemporary. The recording of the testimony is not, but the eyewitness testimony is. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15:6 that although some of the over 500 witnesses are dead, most are alive at the time of the writing (pre-70 A.D., since Paul died in the mid to late 60's). Most scholars even put the source for 1 Corinthians 15 to within 6 months to 2 years after the supposed resurrection event.
*"In that case the proposition requires more than claims as evidence if you expect someone to reasonably conclude that it likely happened."*
I think that it is still quite reasonable to believe on the basis of the testimony. Some might have higher standards, and that's fine, but that doesn't mean that those who believe on the basis of the testimony are not epistemically justified in doing so.
*"If someone said they heard about someone else being abducted by aliens, do you believe them automatically based on second-hand claims? Of course not."*
No, but that is because of the presence of defeaters for those claims and other such problems. It is not because I just dismiss their testimony. I weight the evidence, for and against.
*"I'm guessing you would need more evidence to support such a proposition. And if they were able to describe the field where the supposed abduction happened down to the smallest detail, that still wouldn't be sufficient to warrant belief."*
It's not about more evidence being needed; rather, it is about the presence of defeaters.
@@Real_LiamOBryan "You need a real defeater to believe that some testimony is false." You're saying you're justified in believing a claim until it can be proven false. That's an argument from ignorance. Its a logical fallacy. The rational approach is to only accept a claim once sufficient evidence has been provided, not based on the absence of defeaters. But if you want to believe a supernatural claim based on stories in a book that you have no way of verifying, no one is going to stop you. It doesn't make it reasonable though because the stories say other people also believe the supernatural claim. Enjoy your day.
@@kylehubbs651 *"That's an argument from ignorance."*
No, an argument from ignorance is to say that something *is* true because it hasn't been shown false. You, yourself, said that you can believe that someone, say, owns a certain type of dog on their testimony. We all know that you are epistemically justified in believing on the basis of claims *in the absence of defeaters.*
*"The rational approach is to only accept a claim once sufficient evidence has been provided, not based on the absence of defeaters."*
Then, pray tell, what is *sufficient* evidence to believe a particular claim? I believe that since you are, or should be (given a correct epistemology) 50/50 regarding any new claim you hear, then, if there are no defeaters present, on the basis of the testimony, you should be at least 51/49. I believe that we should something to be true in proportion to our confidence in the truth of that proposition, and that such confidence should be based on warrant. That would leave us with a tentative, positive belief, on the basis of testimony alone, in the absence of defeaters.
*"But if you want to believe a supernatural claim based on stories in a book that you have no way of verifying, no one is going to stop you."*
I don't do that, because I don't believe in Christianity on the basis of the Bible, so... Also, there are arguments for God's existence. There are non-biblical records of the key facts undergirding an inference to the resurrection (although, they are newer and inferior to the facts that scholars agree are historical from the N.T.).
*"Enjoy your day."*
I don't know if this was sarcasm or not, but I'll sincerely return it in hopes that it was sincere. I hope you enjoy your day as well.
28:52 Matt said "no contemporary sources", I thought. And to be fair to him, there aren't - we don't have anything written in the 30s AD. I don't think we can use Tacitus as a source that Jesus was crucified...
Like, I obviously think Jesus was crucified, but I also get why atheists don't think the evidence alone is convincing, because it isn't... I honestly don't believe you can argue people into Christianity, faith is the difference.
I agree, but faith is not a reliable pathway to truth, isn't it?
Mormons, Muslims, Hindus, Jews, Scientologists, Jehovah's Witnesses, all of them are deeply convinced of what they believe and all of them rely on faith.
But faith is just hope. Do you really hope the god of the bible is real? The genocidal, prideful sadistic god that wants to torture people forever just for not believing in him?
I agree. Faith is hope based on evidence.
@@elijahhenderson5955 Are you sure about that?
Mormons, Muslims, Hindus, Jews, Scientologists, Jehovah's Witnesses, all of them are deeply convinced of what they believe and all of them rely on faith.
I honestly do not think that their hopes are based on evidence, but on a deep inner conviction. Like Peter Boghossian said, “If one had sufficient evidence to warrant belief in a particular claim, then one wouldn't believe the claim on the basis of faith. 'Faith' is the word one uses when one does not have enough evidence to justify holding a belief, but when one just goes ahead and believes anyway.”
Well you can actually, many people have found Christ through evidence, and then put their faith in him
Mike, people will throw stones at you and you may end up like Stephen. I pray for you brother! Wow you are beginning to start a riot, Amen!
Hi Mike,
Firstly, thank you for your Ministry and I am very grateful for the content you provide here.
I have been recently reviewing the debate you had and would like to offer my encouragement and observations. I think these are good endeavours and hope that you will continue in them.
There were a couple of specific points I would like to mention where you may have got your opponent to concede more (this is obviously with having the time to analyse what was actually said).
When you ask that if Jesus had lived now and had been put to the electric chair and then come back to life that would he "believe God exists, and that God had raised Jesus from the dead?". The way that this was phrased was made far too easy for your opponent to rebutt, which he rightly did. This would have been more effective if the question was the belief in the supernatural, as the point was already conceded that it would be sufficient evidence for resurrection, and you could immediately press on concession for supernatural evidence. The cause of the supernatural would have to come later in the debate.
This follows on about exceptional claims requiring exceptional evidence (sufficient) and the example of winning the lottery was used and Matt said that "when I have the money" was the extraordinary evidence. You elaborate by saying "even better" evidence would be effectively checking the results against the ticket. And this is where is it really important to remain precise with the language used in a debate because if you had called this sufficient the 'moving of the goal posts' that Matt then does would have been easier to expose. Matt sublty introduces the caveat that sufficient evidence must now be unfakeable, thus by his own logic he would have a very hard time providing evidence for even the most mundane of claims.
I do hope this helps and gives you some additional things to think about. Debate is battleground of rhetoric, which first builds it foundation on grammar and logic.
"Behold, I am sending you out as sheep in the midst wolves, so be as wise as serpents and as innocent as doves." - Matthew 10:16 (ESV)
God bless you
Winning the lottery is not anything exceptional. People win the lottery every day What is so exceptional about that?
"When you ask that if Jesus had lived now and had been put to the electric chair and then come back to life that would he "believe God exists, and that God had raised Jesus from the dead?"
No that would not be evidence god raised Jesus from the dead nor would it make Matt believe god exists. There could be any number of reasons why that person came back to life. It does not have to be a god.
@@davelanger Did you even watch the video?
@@akeenamateur7844 I did two years ago and I also watched the live debate. So what is your point exactly?
@@davelanger Hi there, the reason I asked was because I thought your initial reply it seemed to suggest that I was raising those points. They were actually points that were raised by Matt and Mike in the original debate.
My original reply was for the attention of Mike to encourage him to continue in this style of debate, which he has acknowledged that he is less comfortable with, and with Matt as the opponent his rhetorically style was clearly more advanced. But as we know successful debating is seldom to do with truth and is more to do with persuasiveness.
Just to clarify then from my original comment. Firstly it was Matt who used the lottery example as an exceptional event, which I would agree with as winning is the exception rather than the norm so by very definition 'exceptional'. However, that was not what was being debated but rather sufficient evidence for the event. You'll have to re-watch the debate to see the details on this.
Secondly, I addressed Mike on the electric chair and resurrection analogy and my comment was to highlight that pushed too far for a concession from Matt which was easy too rebut. Matt had stated that he had no belief in the supernatural, so it would have been more effective for Mike to have framed his question as if an execution and resurrection would be sufficient evidence for the supernatural, being that resurrection typically does not occur in nature hence supernatural.
Hope this clarifies things.
@@akeenamateur7844 I disagree with those points in the original debate. LIke said winning the lottery is not an exceptional event since people win the lottery every day. It was a bad example. I didn't like Matts's lottery example during the debate. That is what I was getting at.
Like I said about your EC example. Even if someone came back to life after being put in the EC that still would not be good evidence for the supernatural. You would have to demonstrate it was supernatural reasons why the person came back to life.
People die all the time and come back, there is nothing supernatural about it.
I've been a Christian my entire life - been to church pretty much every week since I was born - read the bible fully twice - all of that stuff - and I have never heard it said that Paul thought he saw a bodily resurrected Christ. I have only ever heard the story of him seeing a vision, after Jesus had ascended to heaven.
Sorry, this assertion just caught me by surprise. Is this a commonly held belief among American Christians? Genuinely just curious, this is a completely different take on the well-known story for me.
I think you are right your presentation skills need improvement.
He is an athiest. He denied that your god if he existed cannot defy the laws of physics. If God cannot defy the laws of physics then He is not God. If Matt believes this logically he cannot acknowledge any EVIDENCE which reasonably interpreted demonstrates the truth of Christianity.
He has made it impossible to believe.
Here's a continuation of my review of this reviews, starting at 25:00.
Mike, your non-Christian sources only provide a claim, not evidence. For example, when Tacitus writes about Christus being served a penalty, that is a claim. If what he wrote had been proceeded by "According to the Roman record, Christus served a penalty", or according to a named eyewitness, this would be considered real evidence, particularly if we had copies of that record. All one can surmise from these quotes is that multiple non-Christian writers thought that an important person to the Jews was crucified in Palestine, which started the Christian religion.
As far as the philosophical piece of the debate, though I don't necessarily agree with Matt high standards of evidence, I do agree with the basic argument. Look at it this way. Suppose you wake up in the morning and cannot find your keys. You wonder around looking and they just aren't where you thought they would be. You ponder the options of what could have happened to them. Maybe your partner picked them up and moved them. Maybe they got kicked under some furniture. Maybe gremlins came in the night and stole them. Maybe the family pet found them and took them some place. Maybe I just forgot where I put them. You wake up your partner and ask him/her, but are told he/she hasn't seen them. You look under all of the furniture, no keys. The family pet is in his/her cage. So, we have two options left, gremlins and you forgot. Would you seriously consider gremlins as an option, even though they would be the best explanation, since you generally have a good memory and you've never forgotten where your keys were previously? Would you be willing to use your partner's extra key for the day, drive to work, and explain to your boss that you were late because gremlins stole your keys? Would you expect your boss to believe that, since it seems to be the best explanation, explaining to your boss that maybe he hasn't really seriously examined this as a reasonable possibility? To not do so would be your boss using bad epistemology.
Ok so we are left with either Gremlins or forgotten.
Yes forgotten sounds more possible then Gremlins.
Now, let's apply that to the resurrection.
By ruling out all the other possibilities, you are left with "Jesus resurrected". What do you do now? Simply say "nope that's impossible"? Or try to come up with a more possible alternative?
I watched the debate until the 1h15m mark and I did not hear any other explanation that Dillahunty brought up to explain the resurrection in the Bible.
This guy must be sparking the owl.
Loving this so far. Slight correction to what you've said (I'm currently at the 41 minute mark; you may correct it later): a lot of scholars consider 2 Peter to have been written in the 2nd century. I wholeheartedly disagree with that claim (I think all of the books were written before the Destruction of the Temple; if the Temple was destroyed, the biblical writers certainly would have used that information as evidence for their claims of Jesus' Work), but it is important to have that information out there so it doesn't look like you're pulling a trick on non-believers. Thanks for your work, Br. Mike!
All that matters is no one (that wrote about it in the bible) was around when the Resurrection was supposed to have happened. At best it was 10 years and that is being kind, after it was supposed to have happened. Its all hersay.
@@davelanger so...people's lifespans are...less than 10 years?
@@davelanger what is your aim, here? What are you demanding? That it be written, like, literally WHILE it's happening? Someone's got quill and parchment in hand while witnessing it all? And please don't do that "memory fades" bull; yeah, memory fades. But that "memory fading" thing doesn't amount to forgetting whether or not Jesus rose from the dead: "Hm, did I SEE Jesus rise from the dead? Ugh, I can't remember if I saw that, or saw a llama doing backflips. Curse this brain!" -_-
@@barelyprotestant5365 You know what hearsay is right? No one that wrote about the Resurrection was there to see it when it was happening. Its all hearsay from stories that supposed to have happened at least 10 years prior if not more.
Well to start an actual eye witness and not people that are just writing about stories they heard happened 10 years if not more years prior.
I know Mike is likely to frown at this post (because it seems to be an attack on the person, etc...) but I think this is an important observation as it is relevant to the wider debate and battle of worldviews we are witnessing, on a rather unprecedented scale, I think, today; in the West especially: It's funny how similar Matt's approach and methods are to mainstream media's approach to handling their business (reporting, analysis, etc). Is a profile starting to form here for Matt?...😊
It is overwhelmingly evident that there are an odd number of spiders in Brooklyn - Matt won't even explain to me why he only questions this, instead of defending why he thinks there is an even number. He only says it's a possibility! Sneaky rhetoric! He must defend this possibility!
@@sugartoothYT that was very much my point as well by doing this caricature of the objections to Matt's "rhetoric"
@@sugartoothYT I can see now that I should have been more clear xD
The main problem with your stance is exactly what Matt said.. you started off believing in God and Jesus and used all of your "facts" to fit your argument
Can’t you say the same about atheists in return? They start from the position that Christ isn’t real and they refuse to accept any evidence simply because they don’t want to. For an atheist to say “even if Christ were real I wouldn’t follow” says a lot.
Why would Paul, a rising star in Judaism, a Roman citizen, who studied under Gamaleil, who was a persecutor of Christians, give it all up for a life of pain and struggle, only to end up being beheaded?
That he did those things is merely a claim. (Devil's advocate, so I am not going to argue with you.)
Mike Winger, I love your passion for the field but one thing that is holding you back is your misuse of the circular argument fallacy. Just to take one example: your point about Matt making a claim, that your evidence is a claim, is a circular argument. This is in fact no such fallacy. One unfortunately fact of life is that when we communicate we can only use claims to do so. That's just true. It is in no way using it's conclusion to prove one or more of it's premises, which is the circular argument fallacy. Matt is just trying to say that the bible makes claims, but only because every form of communication makes claims about what it's trying to communicate in the first place. Furthermore because there cannot be a reproducible experiment (which is how we judge the validity of a claim) of the bible, we have to do what Matt was saying from the start. Say it's not convincing to me and it shouldn't be to you either.
You are right in saying that all human communications are individuals making various claims. It's impossible to argue the contrary. That being said, when a claim is made about the naturally Impossible, that is to say, the Ressurection of a man, let alone a man who is historically recorded as stating himself to be God, then *by definition* there can be no reproducible experiment and therefore your only options about said claim is to either (A) outright reject the claim as Matt has done, or (B) take the claim on faith.
If option (A) is taken, then no amount of tertiary evidence will ever convince you of the veracity of the claim since the claim is naturally impossible.
If option (B) is taken then that person can then bolster their faith, that is to say, build a reasoned structure *around* their faith like a logical/revelatory fortress of sorts, such that the tertiary evidence (such as Josephus, Tertullian, Imperial documents, Jewish histories, etc.) can provide context and comfort to your faith.
At the end of the day, accepting the cornerstone of the Christian faith, the Ressurection of Jesus, as a historical fact will *ALWAYS* be *THE* test of faith for anybody encountering Christianity for the first time, as Jesus seemingly intended if you read his words throughout the New Testament. If God wants your heart instead of your mind, as Christ made abundantly clear, then heartfelt faith would be required, i.e. full trust that His Word is true, that he did what he said he would do and that *NOBODY* can deny that he at least said these things.
At the end of the day the problem of the Ressurection is the problem of whether or not the historically-verified Jesus of Nazareth is a liar or if he truly is God in the flesh. Even Matt won't deny that Jesus existed. The sticking point with him and all atheists, it seems, is if Jesus was anything more than a delusional rabbi who had miracles wrongly attributed to him. This is the crux of faith and, if found in your heart, the very mustard seed which Christ said would grow to move mountains.
Why do you need to take anything on faith?
Mike you are great brother, I love all of your videos and watch everday, you taught me so much. God bless you and your family.
Its always going to be hard to make a case for the impossible.
@Dave Judd. Fair point. Do you mind engaging a question? What type of case would you make for how the existence of the universe happened? Would you think it merely popped into existence uncaused out of absolutely nothing? Would such a proposition seem reasonable? Or would it be more reasonable that something caused it? Because nearly all contemporary cosmology tells us the universe had a beginning. According to Astrophysicist Luke Barnes, "If it was a genuine singularity, then nothing came before the bang. There is no time 'before' the singularity. Running the clock backwards, there is only a finite amount of time." And when he says, "nothing" it is meant in absolute terms meaning the absence of anything. Not a soup of particles. Before the singularity there was absolutely nothing. Not space. Not emptiness. There was absolutely nothing. So the universe seems to have popped into existence out of absolutely nothing. Do you believe it's reasonable to think it was "uncaused?"
@@kenokelley9395 You can observe the Universe in all its glory why add a God or Gods to the mix. In 50 year all will be answered and they will be miraculously natural but not necessarily repeatable.
@@DaveJudd would you mind giving your thoughts into what I specifically wrote? You didn't really engage any of it. Have we ever observed anything that just pops into existence uncaused out of absolutely nothing? Do you believe it's at least reasonable to think it was uncaused or that it's at least reasonable and rational to believe something caused it? Thanks for the discussion.
@@kenokelley9395 As a child i lived next to the woods near Sherwood forest, i noticed large mushrooms coming in to existence over night. Mum would say the fairies made them. Dad would say "when the conditions are just so they grow very fast". Nothing supernatural in the universe needs to exist, just because the course isn't yet known . Plus who said there was nothing pure speculation.
@@kenokelley9395
Obviously the most reasonable proposition is that the Universe is eternal or at the very least that the stuff that our Universe is made of is eternal.
And no, scientists don’t think that there ever was nothing or that a state of nothingness is even possible.
You have totally lost the script with your claim that Matt’s comment about your list, “were just claims”, was in itself just a claim and therefore could also be disregarded. His comment was contrasting what you said, “were claims”, with being “evidence”.
Of course his comment was a claim. He then proceeded to back up his claim with reasons why your “evidences” were just claims. But his comment was not in itself evidence or even presented as evidence.
I think that you need to explore the difference between evidence and claims because the comment you made shows that you have no clue what the difference between them is.
i think your rhetoric was fine. no one has perfect rhetoric. matt had rhetorical issues as well, hence the "apparition" issue that came up. here's a major point you stated in one of your rebuttals. it boils down to matt dillahunty not actually being a skeptic but rather a cynic. he stated multiple times that the evidence isn't "sufficient", but then admitted that he can't think of any evidence that would convince him. that's definition cynicism.