The Resurrection Hypothesis Fails the Test || Minimal Facts Pt 2
Reason to Doubt - A podcast by reason2doubt
Categories:
@MikeLiconaOfficial , New Testament historian and Christian apologist, thinks that the Resurrection Hypothesis best explains the Minimal Facts. Today we test Licona's hypothesis using his own historical criteria. While Licona (unsurprisingly) gives his own hypothesis high marks for being the most likely historical explanation of the Minimal Facts, Jordan & Jared come to a different conclusion. If you're not familiar with the Minimal Facts approach to arguing for the Resurrection, check out last week's video. Next week, we'll be running a natural alternative through the same criteria! Interact with us:Twitter: https://twitter.com/PressX_toDoubtFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/Reason2Doubt/Podcast: reason2doubt.podbean.com Timestamps0:00 - Recap of the Minimal Facts2:00 - Inference to the Best Explanation4:21 - Plausibility5:10 - Explanatory Scope5:34 - Explanatory Power6:30 - Simplicity or Less Ad-Hoc8:10 - The Resurrection Hypothesis10:45 - Rating the Resurrection13:55 - You can't know everything in the past15:22 - Hume's miracle objection18:40 - Naturalism of the Gaps21:33 - Equal probability isn't necessarily correct25:20 - Horses, not zebras27:00 - Not all supernaturalist ideas are equivalent30:30 - RH is ad-hoc35:40 - The resurrection isn't good history37:50 - Summary40:00 - Fallacy of the Day: 50/50 Fallacy #atheism #history #resurrection #jesus #christianity
