I thought Matt really under performed in this debate. He needed to undo his philosophy about the Bayesian conclusion.

33:19 "Attack the Data itself" I see what you did there.

WLC sounds like those gishgaplop callers eho argue with Planet Peterson...

Can we agree what we have is a claim, a story that's not even claiming to be a purely history and not claiming to be eyewitness testimony - very much a story that many conflicting religions' stories each start with, each story written by people admittingly wanting the reader to believe, each also containing apparent contradictions? Any story may claim a mundane event or a very surprising event - either could be true or untrue as the story is simply the claim. Why would a tri-omni-God make "belief" or not be any criteria for an important outcome...a thought crime, a few brain circuits in the wrong position of a binary switch out of billions we all otherwise share? Sounds much more like a preacher trying to motivate converts, ether long ago or currently. Does it count if someone once had that belief, or must the last dying brain cell be the one having that belief (all regardless of what really matters in life - actions)? Why is the time-limit death out of infinity years? This whole thing seems laughably preposterous! Even if someone raised from the dead - exactly how does that make any claim he may have made automatically true? (Sounds like a good magician's or demon's trick, or something a superstitious primitive would think proves something - as they used this repeatedly in the old stories). To skeptics it just seems like a failure of rationality while it seems this apologist simply "wants" to believe, providing himself with his easy answers to placate his existential dread.

3 withnesses. If it was made up yes there would be one and if, three they would all the same.

Meh. Sometimes bad things happen to bad people. Can’t say I’m sorry.

I really find the Bayesian analysis line of argument to be just wildly unconvincing. Every time I hear someone talk about it it sounds like a bunch of really rigorous analysis done on practically no data. I don't care how good your math is, if your data is sparse and poor or even non-existent, your calculations are garbage

I misheard "life begins at breath" as "life begins at bread" at first.

I guess I don't understand how giving good, demonstratable evidence would "force" belief? These "explanations" are really stretching the believability factor. All that aside, what is really concerning is, as these people begin to realize they have no way of proving their beliefs, they will feel backed into the proverbial corner. Like the saying goes, "To those used to privilege, equality feels like persecution" and that is when they believe they have a license to use whatever means necessary, (i.e. violence, deception, misinformation...), to maintain their dominance. I think we are even seeing that at play today.

Once in a livestream, Dapper Dinosaur says that creationists don't care about life on Earth nearly as much as they claim. The only animals they talk about are dogs and dinosaurs, and they dismiss everything else as "just an X".

I think we identify a claim as extraordinary when, at first blush, second thought, and a more considered examination, we cannot find ANY sign of ANY evidence. That's how extraordinary it must be. So, ANY little bit of evidence should be cause for deeper examination. But there has not been any.

So, this is the 4 all time classic "I don't know or misunderstand X, therefore god" arguments. Yikes

Lol Christians are the ones that are not on a truth quest but a happy quest as they turn a blind eye to many problems both morally and biblically.

Isn't this amazing? On the one hand, the Bible tells us how Christianity (for lack of a better term) actually began. On the other hand, we have Mr. Genius here telling us how it PROBABLY began. Ookaaayy... 🤔

Since this video has references to 11 other videos, I can't claim to have a complete understanding of the whole discussion, but there was one element in the discussion that I found particularly puzzling. I thought I heard you say that if Christianity is false, then the believer has given up 100% of the only life he has. Maybe you mean that if you believed Christianity were true, then you'd spend your life as a missionary or spend your life trying to find a cure for cancer or something like that, but if Christianity were false, you could be a stand-up comic or a musician etc. But it seems to me that a person can believe in God and still be a standup comic (Jim Gaffigan, for example) and a person can find satisfaction in working on a cure for cancer even if God doesn't exist. Whether God exists or not, you can still marry your high school sweetheart, or volunteer to work in a soup kitchen, or hike the Appalachian trail, or hundreds of other fulfilling things. I don't see the issue as a 100% loss of life if God doesn't exist.

"No one can afford children" might be hyperbolic, but its absolutely ACCURATE... Children are extremely expensive and we can't even afford ourselves... The price of EVERYTHING is skyrocketing, like we can barely afford food and shelter for ourselves

Nah, Odysseus was way better than Moses. Sorry Jews.

7:19 this card with the list of things to look for if you’re looking for a god incarnate reeks of building a list to fit the desired already known candidate. I worked in IT for a government contractor. A federal office had systems that we had built. They wanted to develop a new web application, and, of course, it would make sense to have a contractor who knows their workings already. But, law requires bids from multiple vendors. So, they created their project requirements so that only my company would win.

Christianity's longevity is testament only to the power of the Roman Empire. I watch several content creators that promote and explain atheism, but I never miss a Paulogia video. Please keep up the excellent work, sir.

Even with modern medical tech, an occasional “resurrection” of a presumed dead person still happens. Some guy sits up in a body bag in the morgue, and he’s not declared the Messiah.

But Paul, 1 Timothy is a proven forgery. So Paul didn’t actually say it, so this verse is invalid.

This song was written by someone on our side, right? Right??🤨 🤮

Testimony is not evidence.

Because the Bible and evangelical statements have zero evidence.

"Just as they were handed down to us by those from who from the first were eye witnesses" - He is just saying in a poetic way as to cover this embarressing fact "They came to us by traveling word of mouth originaly form the people who saw these things themsevles (so we presume) and now we are writing an offical version of these traveling tales down".

Makes more sense than Habermas.

That is a very high level of circular arguing. He would make a great politician. 🙏

Kent is quite possibly has the world record for number of lies told in his life.

“Proof is all around you” what I hear is “I don’t understanding some things so you can’t understand anything”

Today I learned that Viced Rhino is Canadian.

Paulogia has a killer’s instinct.

Hume was an historian and a philosopher putting him way ahead of WLC when it comes to interpreting ancient writings.

Reasonable hypothesis. But as an atheist, I would simply say survivorship bias. That's really all the explanation needed.

"Do you believe in Justice?" What if it exists? Because overwhelmingly it seems that it doesn't and the only recourse we have is to try our best to try to find a tiny bit of it. Boy, I sure hope you don't follow up by some hopeful cosmic justice in which bad people will be punished after death, because that's literally what causes so much injustice in the world, the apathy from assuming that justice will happen without effort.

Anything theoretically possible is, by default, more likely than a miracle that suspends the natural order of the universe. A miracle by definition is an unlikely event & involves the supernatural, which has never been sufficiently substantiated. It is preposterous to ever say that the odds are that “a miracle was the most likely event.”

Why would God want to rez someone He'd just k¡lled?

Dear Paulogia, don’t ever get rid of the cartoon you! I love this format.

So based entirely upon this list of data taken from a book. Harry Potter is not only true, gospel and believable. It is Historic Fact. There are people that witnessed the actions of Harry. It is written in a book. He came back from the dead so to speak. He defeated evil and had followers. Or that Gilligan's Island is just as real. I can go on and on, but the point here is the list is nothing more then a list of words with no proof. There is more proof of UFOs than the events in the wholly fable book. Peace

"If christianity were true would you become a christian?" "How is it reasonable you wouldn't believe if something were true?" I'm super confused, these two statements don't follow each other... becoming a christian is more than just believing or acknowledging if its true or not... christianity comes with so much negative baggage. Like... this question should be reframed to like "If nazi's exist would you become a nazi?" "How is it reasonable you wouldn't become a nazi even tho it exists?" Because again, there is much more to the problem than just whether or not its true.

Resurrection is always more probable than staying ded. My fried chicken comes back to life 50.1% of the time..

Beggar doesn't actually answer his own question. Why doesn't God just show himself? Pivot to pitching the gospel. again.

Love the new point you raised about Paul's experience not qualifying him as a "post-resurrection eyewitness" of Jesus. (Moses and Elijah, etc.) I've often thought, if he qualifies as another witness to the resurrection, then more witnesses could continue to pop up all throughout history, even to the present day. Therefore, any sighting of Jesus after the ascension shouldn't qualify as an eyewitness to his resurrection.