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 non -violence 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 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 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 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 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 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 matter you still have barred yourself from coming to any conclusion 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 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 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 for 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 justify

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 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 to hold 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 omnis

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 did from Christianity is this is a very important aspect of presuppositional ism is that 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