Atheist Experience Show: Resurrection Debate

Thank you. We've got Micah and Charlotte, how are you? Good, how are you done? Good. Pretty good. What you call about? I just wanted to call about the, the, the, the resurrection of Jesus and Halle, the resurrection of Jesus and Halle, and the resurrection of Jesus and Halle, and the resurrection of Jesus and Halle, and the resurrection of life. Okay. And, I'll, here's my question. Is, since you're an atheist, my macius, we both kind of have different viewpoints. I, I believe that the words in the voice is super, that is super natural, and you believe that is natural. Yes. And, um, would you agree that I'm not saying we're here, they haven't said Jesus worked, uh, we're a soma dead. Um, if Jesus did, if Jesus wasn't dead for three days, and he wrote from the dead, would you agree that would be a supernatural event? But it's not something that we see in an natural world, so therefore it's not science. I don't know. I, that's not enough to tales. Um, see, one of the, one of the things is that death isn't extremely well defined. We pull people back from the brink of death. Um, so I can't say for sure that it would be supernatural. I can say that it would certainly be extraordinary. It would certainly be extraordinarily, and would seem to be supernatural. Okay. All right. So, so if Jesus and all of his cells were dead for three days, and somehow his whole entire body was regenerated after three days, would you agree that that would be something supernatural? It, at least, I just thought not to say. Again, we don't know. We don't know about the supernatural world. We, we just said it would be extraordinary, but we wouldn't necessarily call it. The fact that something has previously been observed doesn't mean that it's necessarily a natural. What I, what I said, when I, I answered your question is that I don't know what I would consider it. There's not enough information, but I'm willing to grant that, that sort of thing might be perceived as supernatural. And could, in fact, be. But I'm willing to grant that, that sort of thing might be perceived as supernatural. And could, in fact, be. But I'm willing to grant that, that sort of thing might be perceived as supernatural. And could, in fact, be. But I'm willing to grant that, that sort of thing might be perceived as supernatural. And could, in fact, be. Okay. But you, you would definitely agree since there's not something that is seen in the natural world. That, that, that, at this point in time, it cannot be considered science, right? We don't know. Um, I can't be considered science. Everything about the phrasing for the, about this is kind of clumsy. I mean, yeah, I'm assuming you mean that it wouldn't, there wouldn't be a scientific explanation. And the answers we don't know. Well, that, no, there would be, the answer would be no, because that would have the very first occurrence. And we would then need to investigate in order to determine. So at the time that it occurs, there wouldn't be a scientific explanation. But there's lots of things for which we don't currently have a scientific explanation. That doesn't make them supernatural. Right, exactly. So, so if that were to, if, if Jesus raised the resurrection or indeed true, it would not be in something that we could, would have empirical support. We wouldn't have any scientific theory of how it happened, right? Well, did, are you saying that science, we couldn't use the scientific method to investigate it? We could, that sense of something that we don't see in that. And that, what I'm saying is that there is a historical claim that Jesus wrote from the dead. Yes. And since we do not, we don't see men dying for degrees and we're the reckoning in the natural world. But we have to think with everyone who's there. Yes, I'm unaware of any confirmed case of that happening ever, including Jesus. Right, okay. So I guess here's the entire point I'm trying to make. Okay, is that we both agree that if Jesus did rise from the dead, there is no scientific evidence in the natural world that, let's say, think of better, better, better, better, better, better, better natural processes that I may, can we did for three days? This sales lead this, and somehow be regenerated at three days. Okay. So by your own logic. We're on, hang on. Before we get to my own logic, two quick things. You're saying we agree on something. And then the way you phrase it, sounds like it was prewritten and doesn't match what I actually agreed to. And then as far as my own logic, there's just logic. I don't have my own special type of logic. Right, right. Okay. But they still want you, they still want you're telling me. Okay. They still want we both agree on actually. Okay. But they still want we both agree on what you just told me. The order in the life when non-living material became living is not science. No, that's not what I actually did. No, that's what I actually did. You didn't listen to a word I said, did you? No. I was very, very clear that the mere fact that we haven't observed something before doesn't tell us necessarily that it's supernatural. And the fact that we don't currently have a scientific explanation for something doesn't tell us that it's supernatural. Right. And even if it's not supernatural, if we don't, if we don't, for example, if we don't see men lens or anything after three days. And the natural world, science is what we can observe in the natural world. Correct. Science is the explanations for what we deserve, observed in the natural world. Yeah, it's a method. It's not a body of knowledge. It's not a theory. It's not necessarily science. That's what a theory is. Oh, no, no, no, no. Give me your definition of a theory. A theory is an explanation that is based on the facts that we're what we observe. We have a set of facts and the theories would explain those facts. Right. But you're aware that theories, it's a broad model, are developed from doing science and that theories are the highest point of science. The graduation point, so to speak, that there's nothing higher than a theory in science. Right. Exactly. So one of them saying is that there are no facts that we have that support the idea that a man can be dead for three days and resurrect. And the same sense that there is no, there are no facts. It's a poor idea that non-living and theorem can be come living. Yeah, no, no, no, no, no, no, there actually is there are facts that support that. All right. So this is a point. Okay. If you believe that it's not supernat, so there's no two problems here. There's more than that. Yeah. There's quite a lot of people. If the resurrection of Jesus is either supernatural or it's not, there's no facts to support that such a thing can happen. It's the exact same thing with the origin of why. Yeah, except for two things. Number one, you've got a dichotomy there that is, while it's valid, is completely crazy. It's not a way that you want to phrase things of it's either supernatural or we don't have scientific facts. But the thing is, when you're talking about aviogenesis, we do have facts that have been investigated by science. We do have, we don't fully understand aviogenesis. We don't understand everything about it. But we have in the laboratory demonstrated that it is possible for natural material by purely natural mechanisms to give rise to the building blocks of life. All right. And here's the issue that I've actually studied quite a bit. This whole theory of aviogenesis can't even get to the step of producing a protein. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. For somebody who's studied this quite a bit, I just, Yeah. Huh, this is baffling because, I'm going to give any example. Can't get to the step of producing a protein. Do you realize how much further down the chain of protein is than just the building blocks of living material that you're objecting to somebody not being able to create a 747? Right. And I'm assuming you know what a protein is, correct? Yeah. Yes, however, I'm wondering why we're going through all of this because there's a fundamental problem at the base of this and one of them is this. There's absolutely nothing that we can investigate with regarding the resurrection of Jesus. It's a historical claim. There's no scientific evidence for it. And so, no, no, no, no, because A about genesis, we can't, we can never say what actually is a natural material. Or simply to say what actually happened how life formed, how our life formed unless we find a historic evidence to support that. Oh, no, because A about genesis, we can't, we can never say what actually happened how life formed how our life formed and Unless we actually find bildess to support that? Oh, no, because A about genesis, we can't, we can never say what actually happened. what actually happened how life formed how our life formed unless we actually find historic evidence to support that. Oh, no, because a about genocide, we can't we can never say what actually happened how life formed how our life formed unless we actually find historic evidence to support that. But the process, the scientific investigation of the possibility of a about genocide is demonstrates that it's possible or that it's not impossible. And therefore, you're not in this situation like you are with a resurrection where you have no examples of anything like this, something that was living become dead and then become living without any sort of action taking place on it. I think if a biogenesis is true, then it's just a failed, and I may possibly cause more grace in the bit. Well, I think that if it's demonstrated that a biogenesis can occur, then yeah, it may be possible to demonstrate that there's a scientific method by which somebody who was dead can return to being alive. All right. Okay, but that's all still natural. And it doesn't mean that it was likely to have happened in the first century. All right. Okay, but that's all still natural. And it doesn't mean that it was likely to have happened in the first century. All right. Okay. But that's all still natural. And it doesn't mean that it was likely to have happened in the first century. All right. And since you were talking about A by a genesis, now that I was talking about protein, I do have a very simple question of sending an illic protein's learned. And in order to get a protein in the form, the amino acids do not fold themselves and do a protein, you understand that? All right. I'm aware of that. Okay. They need a wide wisdom. Correct. Where are we going? And why are we going there here? Yeah. Why aren't you calling science shows? Well, I just assumed that A just study science pointed out. I am here's the thing. No, I'm no expert in the other science stuff. Genesis, that better than I am, so I should shut up except for one little thing. How is any of this relevant to whether or not there's a God? Because that's what this is all about. Right? You believe there's a God and I don't. Right? I think it is relevant because I think I can easily show how A by a genesis is scientific and possible. Aha! Now we get to the crux of it. This is why I said there's a big old fat problem at the back end of this. Your position is that A by a genesis is impossible. You are making a claim that something cannot naturally occur. Not that it has not, but that it cannot. Why would you call, why would you call into a public access TV show with no scientist to make the claim that this is scientifically impossible? Why aren't you publishing papers and actually talking to scientists about this? And why aren't other scientists making the same assertions that you are? Why are they actually investigating to find out whether or not it is possible? And why does the evidence seem to preclude the impossibility of it? I'm a lot like everything that you said that I have spoken to scientists before. You have what? I have spoken to scientists before. Okay, and what did they tell you? I never got a response. Oh, yeah, well, they probably were busy. The investigation is called A by a genesis. Which is why this call is over. If you're going to claim that a scientific position, which has not been confirmed, then people are investigating, if you're going to claim that it's scientifically impossible, you need to do it with scientists. Second of all, no, there's no second of all. Thanks for calling.