The Resurrection Hypothesis Fails the Test || Minimal Facts Pt 2

​ @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_toDoubt
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Reason2Doubt/
Podcast: reason2doubt.podbean.com

Timestamps
0:00 - Recap of the Minimal Facts
2:00 - Inference to the Best Explanation
4:21 - Plausibility
5:10 - Explanatory Scope
5:34 - Explanatory Power
6:30 - Simplicity or Less Ad-Hoc
8:10 - The Resurrection Hypothesis
10:45 - Rating the Resurrection
13:55 - You can't know everything in the past
15:22 - Hume's miracle objection
18:40 - Naturalism of the Gaps
21:33 - Equal probability isn't necessarily correct
25:20 - Horses, not zebras
27:00 - Not all supernaturalist ideas are equivalent
30:30 - RH is ad-hoc
35:40 - The resurrection isn't good history
37:50 - Summary
40:00 - Fallacy of the Day: 50/50 Fallacy

#atheism #history #resurrection #jesus #christianity