Can Anything Convince Tom Jump?

Can Anything Convince Tom Jump?

Uh... jesus rose from the dead those are. Those are potentially justifiable with evidence and i could potentially come to believe those with the correct amount of evidence. I couldn't come but to believe there is an all-powerful being those army properties the things they can justify not the supernatural.

I'm happy to grant the supernatural possible.

What the Resurrection Would and Would Not Prove

So if jesus rose from the dead what would that prove to you.

Well i'd be willing to grant things like the that there's a supernatural that their supernatural beings and they can do things uh... and there's probably a heaven and hell kind of a thing. The only things i wouldn't be willing to grant is that god was like uncreated and couldn't have been created by another greater being that there aren't other gods.

That makes no sense to me.

Uh... Okay so so uh... Well first of all you you would be misunderstanding what the concept of god is when we talk about god from a christian perspective. Uh... You can't have a greater god since the christian definition of god is that there is nothing greater.

So deposit a greater god than the greatest would would be an incoherent statement. Now if jesus rose from the dead that wouldn't make you believe that the meaning of his resurrection is what jesus would say that it is.

If he was the one that predicted it. Yes. So whoever makes the testable predictions.

Are the ones who get the... Yeah but the testable predictions can just be posited by some unknown natural explanation as to why those things occurred when those conditions were the way that they were.

You're absolutely right. You're absolutely right. But whoever makes the testable predictions first is the one who gets the credit. So like in physics the people who predicted the the delayed quantum eraser experiment was the bohm's delayed quantum eraser it's the one where he said that the two particles are probabilistically unset.

So in physics in science whoever makes a testable predictions first gets the credit. They're the theory. Their theory is the one that has the best explanation. So right now in physics the copenhagen interpretation is the best theory because it made the last predictions even though every single one of the other interpretations can also explain the predictions.

So the fact that it was first and it was right and it got it right that's good evidence.

Why Predictive Power Counts as Evidence

Okay i don't see how that's evidence. Because it's the first. Because you could always posit an equally valid as you would state naturalistic explanation. Whether it is the first or the second it doesn't.

It doesn't matter. You still have barred yourself from coming to any conclusion of as that being an evidence of the supernatural. So it's almost like you define the supernatural right from the beginning.

So if jesus rose from the dead that would not be enough evidence for you that jesus was who he said he was and that the things that he taught about god which would include everything in the old testament pertaining to his omnipotence.

That wouldn't. That wouldn't be proven so. So even the resurrection wouldn't prove the christian god for you. If I if I you know prayed and the you know the ocean split split open and we can walk through dry land like the people in the book of exodus.

If that happened on your standard that wouldn't be good evidence for you.

It got those would be good those i don't know how it's good.

I don't see how it could based on the standard of evidence what counts as.

Evidence. When you say I made I made a really a 15-minute video about the allegory of the scientific method and how it works. You're right that there are always infinitely many ways that we can explain anything like we could be in the matrix that could explain everything all of the things we've seen all the science we've seen so far we could we could have been created five minutes ago we could have been that's my favorite Boltzmann brain.

All of that is that is possible but the evidence we have is whichever one of these explanations can make predictions before we know them. Because whichever one can do it before has better evidence than all the ones that can only do it after.

Why the Supernatural Is Not Enough for Christianity

I don't see how that how that follows at all because if you can always give a naturalistic explanation then it would make vacuous and any can any event being explained either by natural or supernatural it would seem as though who cares if it's if it does it.

Before you know if I predicted the future perhaps you could argue maybe there's some unknown principle in nature that enables being such as humans to know certain things before they happen and so what I'm saying is that standard seems like an unrealistic standard.

Really there's nothing short of God imposing his own existence upon you that it would actually give you a justification on your view to believe that that he was.

Who he said he was. Well and the Omni properties. That's correct. I can't believe the Omni properties those are out but I can definitely believe everything else. Everything else is totally reasonable to justify with evidence if you can.

If you can make a prediction that Jesus is going to rise from the dead tomorrow and show up at my door and knock on my door that's good evidence. I will believe in the super evidence or what it wouldn't be evident.

It wouldn't be evidence for Christianity since Christianity posits that it's an.

Omnipotent God that raised the dead right. The Omni properties are harder. The Omni properties I can't justify. But you can definitely justify the supernatural. You can just have just definitely justified Jesus raising from the dead.

I'm those are possible. You can definitely justify that the universe was designed by some kind of a being. The only things that I can't grant are those Omni properties those infinites. Because if you said you could hold it infinitely many napkins no matter how many napkins you show me holding that's not infinite.

That's not even a single percent of infinite. So you can't be able to hold an.

Infinite number of are you referring to like an omnipotent being right holding an.

Infinite number of napkins right. Just any omnipotent thing if you say you can do. You have infinite power in this one respects no matter how many finite examples you give me that's not going to demonstrate you have infinite being.

Holding an infinite number of napkins is an incoherent concept to me. Well it's.

Just it's just an analogy to try and show the knowledge it's an incoherent.

Analogy because the whole napkins requires hands and if you have hands you have a body and you have by necessity limitations and so you wouldn't be.

Omnipotent. Well the point of the analogy is to show that if you say you can do something infinitely no matter how many finite number of times you do it that doesn't give me even a single percentage point of reliability that you can in.

Fact do it infinitely right. So. So. In other words if Jesus rose from the dead that wouldn't be enough to prove the truth of Christianity to you. Right it.

Wouldn't be able to prove the truth of the Omni's. I can still grant everything.

Else but not. Well you couldn't you couldn't grant everything else because everything else is wrapped up into the nature of God and all these other things that he reveals we from Christianity is this is a very important aspect of presuppositional ism.

Is that the the self-attesting nature of Scripture. We all all of the aspects of Christianity especially in regards to God's nature are essential aspects. Or they're a package deal. If you read you know someone like Van Til he says that we don't we don't prove God's existence.

In a piece by piece fashion we assume the package because it's the package that gives coherency to all those other individual aspects. Man.