Uploaded September 2026 | Updated September 2026, 1 week ago
Skeptics are fond of saying that they have an explanation of the evidence that does just a job as good as, the theory that Jesus rose again (or at least very close) but that has a higher prior probability than the resurrection.
Here I argue that Kamil Gregor's pareidolia theory doesn't even come *close* to being as good an explanation of the resurrection evidence, even just considering the stories in the Gospels as made-up stories. In fact, his pareidolia theory, together with his claims about what the disciples actually believed, is a *liability* to his attempt to explain the Gospel stories naturalistically. Watch to find out why.
Here is Gregor's discussion on Mythvision:
youtube.com/watch?v=1FWyZRnI4e8
Skeptics are fond of saying that they have an explanation of the evidence that does just a job as good as, the theory that Jesus rose again (or at least very close) but that has a higher prior probability than the resurrection.
Here I argue that Kamil Gregor's pareidolia theory doesn't even come *close* to being as good an explanation of the resurrection evidence, even just considering the stories in the Gospels as made-up stories. In fact, his pareidolia theory, together with his claims about what the disciples actually believed, is a *liability* to his attempt to explain the Gospel stories naturalistically. Watch to find out why.
Here is Gregor's discussion on Mythvision:
youtube.com/watch?v=1FWyZRnI4e8
