¶1never being exceeded or suspended under any circumstances. Like what? What? Provided that puditive naturalistic explanations involving insane conspiracies and group hallucinations and fabricated medical and laboratory evidence and whatnot do have super low prior. This alternative explanation is just like guzzling unconscionable amounts of copium straight from the fire hose.
¶2Are you seriously going to risk damnation for that? Am I seriously going to embrace like the craziest set of frauds and conspiracies and coincidences that all just happen to point consistently in one direction? In one direction. Come on. Come on.
¶3There's overwhelming evidence for Catholic miracles. We have photographs and videos of stigmatists who supernaturally reduplicate Christ's passion wounds. Overwhelming. That word is going to do a hell of a lot of work because Joe didn't make a video. He made a massive wall.
¶420 plus hours across three videos. He did 7 hours of philosophy, 10 hours of miracles and a finale answering his critics before most of us said a word at all. I said a little bit about his testimony, but not we we didn't go deep into all of this. And his first recording was even bigger. his words.
¶5>> It turns out I recorded the entire comprehensive case video and it was 25 hours long. 25 hours in one sitting. And you know Joe, if you've been on this channel, you've heard me say it. He's serious philosopher, decent guy, sharp as they come. Which is exactly why when a guy like that says overwhelming, I want answers to three questions.
¶6What counts as evidence? What would count against it? And how does any strange event get you all the way to Catholic Church specifically? I I don't I don't see where that's at. But okay, those are three different questions.
¶7And across this series that I plan on doing, I'm going to show you Joe sliding between them again and again. In this video, I'm going to give you a promise, and it's going to sound a little bit strange. We are not opening a single miracle case. Not one. Because before you weigh the evidence, you got to check the scale.
¶8All right, I want to talk about method. Joe rigged that scale before exhibit A ever hit the table. This video shows you the rig. His own sources are going to help me. His own Bible is going to finish the job.
¶9And yes, I've watched the finale at two times speed. I could still understand a lot of what he said. Sometimes I have to slow it down where he answers objections so nobody in the comments has to tell me to. All right, let's go through this together. First, let's talk about the wall that he built itself because the size of it is doing rhetorical work.
¶10There's a name for what's happening. In 2013, a software engineer named Alberto Brandolini wrote one sentence that became a law of the internet. The amount of energy needed to refute is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it. Now, the polite move here is to rush in and say, "Oh, I'm not calling Joe's project that word. I'm skipping the polite move." All right.
¶11I think the pile is exactly that word. And sincerity doesn't rescue it. Philosophers have actually fought about this. Harry Frankfurt wrote a famous little book arguing is about the speaker not caring what's true. Another philosopher GA Cohen fired back that can live in the product itself in claims built so that no check can ever pin them down.
¶12No matter how sincere the person stacking them, that second kind is what we're dealing with. Joe believes every brick in this wall. I'm sure of it. But a wall of claims asserted at maximum confidence as he has at a volume no human being could verify in a lifetime where checking cost 100 times what asserting cost. I mean if you do 25 hours how much more work imagine goes into this.
¶13That is the thing Brandolini named. Sincere is still Sincerity just means Joe drank it before he served it. He's drinking that Kool-Aid. I really there's no way I would have the time without the funding behind it on actually analyzing down into the meticulous actual primary sources on this level of picking apart every single thing. All right?
¶14It takes him 90 seconds for example to say seven doctors examined Padre Pio. It takes me a week in the Vatican archives literature to show you what those examinations actually found. It takes him one sentence to say two blinded laboratory analysis. It takes an entire episode to walk you through who ran those labs, who chose the samples, and what blinded actually meant. Look, 20 hours of claims at that exchange rate is not a case.
¶15It's it's a siege and your brain is built to surrender to sieges. Psychologists call it the illusory truth effect. Hear a claim enough times repetition in enough forms from a confident voice and repetition starts to feel like confirmation. Even Joe himself feels the weight of his own pile. Listen to him near the end of the 10-hour video.
¶16>> Lots of saints, lots of canonization, healing miracles. I could go on and on and on on. I'm just barely scratching the surface, you guys. Barely scratching the surface. I believe him.
¶17But here's the thing about surfaces. A thousand unvetted claims do not add up to one vetted claim. Stack 10 leaky buckets. Put them inside each other. All right?
¶18They hold exactly as much water as one leaky bucket. So, this series makes you a deal. All right? as I'm going to unravel this. He gets still manned every single episode, best version of every argument, and then every case gets walked up the same ladder in the open with receipts on screen and sources in the description as far as I can fit them.
¶19Hopefully, I remember to put every single one. It's kind of hard to fit it in the YouTube descriptions, all of the sources. He spent 20 hours pouring pouring. All right, we're going to spend the season checking the buckets. And in this video, before any bucket, we check the scale they're all sitting on.
¶20He built this massive wall with these three videos in three sections. Philosophy of God, then the miracles, then the answers to objections. And he knows people like me are coming because in the miracles video, he says this. >> Like, I want to hammer it home that in the next video, not this video, the next video. Noted, Joe.
¶21Noted. I hold my horses. Okay. Did you want better? I watched the next video and later in this video I'm going to assess those answers on camera.
¶22But this video isn't an alternative explanation of your data. Look at this video as the upstream of your data. Okay? It's about the machine that decides what counts as evidence in the first place. And there's no video where you get to dodge that.
¶23So what is the machine in his words? >> So miracles are basically events produced by God within the natural world that are naturalistically inexplicable. In other words, they are divine deeds that exceed the powers that created things have by their natures. Catch the slight of hand inside that definition. A miracle is by definition an event produced by God.
¶24But when an investigation starts, nobody hands you a miracle. They hand you a report. A person got better. A a wafer turned red. Lights appeared over a roof.
¶25The report is the evidence. Produced by God is a proposed explanation of that evidence. Produced by God to certify Roman doctrine is a second conclusion stacked on that first one. Three different labels. Call the report a miracle too early and the grammar does half the apologetics for you.
¶26So in this series, the files get neutral names until they earn better ones. And then the engine of the entire 20 hours, he splits miracles into two kinds. Vindicatory miracles are God signing his signature on a doctrine or a messenger. Nonindicatory miracles are God just being kind, no message attached. And when somebody asks the obvious question, hey, every religion has miracle stories, watch the tool he reaches for.
¶27>> That there's a pious person who maybe has lots of mistaken religious beliefs, but God as an act of compassion or maybe even because he foresees a bunch of downstream consequences that are going to be good, grants them a healing, you know, or sends them a sign that points them in a direction that's going to send them down the right path. I literally want you to hold on to that clip. At the end of this video, I'm going to hand this back to him. He's not going to want it. And one more fact stated once cleanly.
¶28You need to hear this because it matters for the math. Joe was raised in a devout Catholic home. He said so himself. So out of every wonderworking religion in humanity has ever produced and we have a lot of them. The miracles that finally cracked the code of the universe belong to the church of his childhood.
¶29H what a kinka dink. Anyway, I'm not questioning his sincerity though I cannot read his mind. I'm pointing at a pattern that runs through our whole species. Hindus find the Hindu miracles overwhelming. Muslims find the Quran signs overwhelming.
¶3020-year-old me found the Holy Spirit overwhelming every single day and especially on Sunday. Everybody's overwhelming evidence wears the jersey of their own team. Keep that in your pocket as well. Now, let's pay attention to the scale. Joe's first move in the miracles video is to take out David Hume, whose 1748 essay on miracles has been ruining apologists weekends for almost 300 years.
¶31Listen carefully to how Joe characterizes what Hume said because there's a car trick in it. This is a bad objection to miracles. First of all, Hume, what uniform experience? What are you talking what uniform experience to inviable laws of nature? Right?
¶32Like what are you talking about? Like since when can we help ourselves from the get-go to the idea that oh yes, we all definitely uniformly experience the laws of nature always operating, never being exceeded or suspended under any circumstances. Like what? What? No, that just assumes from the get-go that like the billions of reported experiences of miracles throughout history and today are mistaken.
¶33But that's the thing you're that's like the very thing you're trying to establish, Mr. Hume. Joe, I love the energy, but watch the swap. He's acting like Hume's uniform experience means nobody ever reports miracles. Billions of people report miracles.
¶34So checkmate, Hume. That was never the claim. The claim is this. In the entire history of human investigation, no miracle report has ever survived controlled verification reports. There are oceans of them.
¶35Confirmed suspensions of nature. The kind that forced the physics textbooks to add a chapter. zero. That's the uniform experience. It's not circular.
¶36It is a scoreboard. I mean, we have to keep track. And humanity has been keeping score for a very long time. 2400 years ago. A Greek doctor looked at epilepsy, which is whole culture called demon possession, the sacred disease, and wrote this.
¶37It is thus with regard to the disease called sacred. It appears to me to be no wise more divine nor more sacred than other diseases, but has a natural cause. Men regard its nature and cause as divine from ignorance and wonder. Hypocrates on the sacred disease from ignorance and wonder 400 years before Jesus. And he was right.
¶38possession became epilepsy and mental illness. One can plausibly see Jesus thinking the exact way Hypocrates is criticizing. Meaning Jesus is, you know, dwelling on ignorance. He is living off an ignorant point of view. But lightning stopped being thrown by gods the moment Benjamin Franklin flew a kite.
¶39And we realized it wasn't the gods. There was something else going on. plague stopped being divine judgment and became a bacterium you kill with pills and vaccines. Every mystery humanity has ever actually solved has moved exactly in one direction out of the god column into the nature column. Thousands of transfers, one direction and zero confirmed transfers the other way.
¶40Not one. And that's not a bias. That's a track record that anyone can check. All right. When a team is 10,000 and 0, betting on them isn't dogma.
¶41It's counting. Even the gods themselves were once read straight off nature. We stopped thinking the volcano erupts because its deity is angry. And the storm gods, Bahal, Zeus, Yahweh, stopped being the explanation for thunder. Most believers today don't even think that way anymore.
¶42When there's a thunderstorm outside, they're not inside going, "Huh, Yahweh is sending lightning bolts. Yahweh's got the clouds running right here." That's Yahweh right there operating and functioning. They don't think that way like that. I know that I wasn't thinking like that as a Christian. We're so removed from the way that that ancient mindset worked.
¶43But get this, that's all methodological naturalism is. It's not a secret vow that nature is all that there is. It's how every competent investigator on Earth already works. For example, if your wallet disappears, the detective checks who had access, whether you misplaced it, what the camera caught. He doesn't write a possible demon stole the wallet in the report just because nobody can disprove demons didn't do it.
¶44Not anti-demon bias. It's that a natural explanation tells you what to check next. and an invisible intelligence did it can be stretched around any result after the fact. One of those is an investigation. The other is a story that we tell ourselves.
¶45Now, Joe has numbers of his own, and I want you to hear them because they're real numbers measuring the wrong thing. Now in 2006, Pew Research conducted a survey of Christians in 10 countries, including the United States, and found that in those 10 countries alone, which contained only about onethird of the global population, approximately 200 million Christians believe that they had witnessed miraculous healings. In a 2004 survey by the Lewis Finkelstein Institute at the Jewish Theological Seminary found that 55% of American medical doctors believed that they had witnessed miraculous healings. And note, these aren't just people who believe in miracles. These are people who claim to have seen miracles with their own eyes.
¶46>> 200 million people who believe they witnessed a healing. Doctors, too. I don't doubt the surveys for a second that this kind of thing happens. But surveys of belief are sociology, not physics. They measure the report generator, not the world.
¶47And a mountain of dependent reports is not a mountain of independent evidence. 10,000 retellings can trace back to one ambiguous event. Cognitive scientists like Pascal Ber and Justin Barrett have spent careers showing that human brains are agency detectors wired to find intention behind every rustle in the grass. And Elizabeth Loftess has spent 50 years demonstrating that memory doesn't record events. It rebuilds them and it rebuilds them to fit the story we already believe.
¶48So if you want to see that magical report generator, the noggin run at full speed, you don't need the 17th century. September 21st, 1995, word spreads out of Delhi that statues of Ganisha are drinking milk from spoons. By nightfall, that same day, by nightfall, it's happening in temples across India and around the world. Millions of participants, cameras rolling all in one day. And scientists from India's own department of science and technology demonstrated the mechanism that same day.
¶49capillary action. Plain surface physics shown by offering the statue's milk with dye in it and watching it sheet down the stone all in one day. Zero miracles, millions of sincere eyewitnesses, they were claiming otherwise. Run Joe's logic on that story and Gania wins by Tuesday. And that's the problem with the 200 million figure.
¶50It's not 200 million people witnessing one verified miracle. It's an estimate of Christians who said they had either experienced or witnessed something they believed was a divine healing. So no, when Joe stacks up that number, he isn't measuring God's activity. He's measuring our activity. But now, credit where I owe it because Joe's next move is actually a good one.
¶51Listen to this thought experiment. Surely there is some amount of evidence that would be able to convince you that something supernatural occurred. You know, like you and all of your friends, right, are watching this. You see this person, you're interacting with them. You feel their leg.
¶52They don't have a leg. It's a person who had their leg amputated. And like you feel the stump. You have videos of the stump beforehand. You have the doctor's notes saying that they amputated it you about a decade ago.
¶53Signed, notorized. You go and talk to the doctors like, "Yeah, I know this person. This is my patient. I amputated their leg." like dozens of people examining. Okay, then we take this person to a church.
¶54We're all praying around. We literally see a leg magic kind of just instantaneously regrow on that. All of us say this like we produce signed documented reports from doctors afterwards. >> He's right. I mean that.
¶55Give me the notorized amputation records, the before video, the surgeon saying that's my patient and then put me in the room. Not a live stream, not somebody's upload, me standing close enough to touch the stub, watching the leg grow back with my own eyes in front of a crowd of witnesses. Because in the age of AI video, really any video footage has been fudged since the beginning of cameras. But footage really is cheap. Anybody can fake a clip.
¶56And people have done this with UFOs. They've done it with Marion apparitions. They do this often. Documents can also be forged. Testimony arrives secondhand.
¶57Presence is the only thing that I feel is the best level of evidence that can't be edited. Give me that and I will update so fast it'll blow your hair back. I'll go get baptized twice. An apologist never mentioned this part. Hume himself left that door open, too.
¶58in the same essay his own words. There may possibly be miracles or violations of the usual course of nature of such a kind as to admit of proof from human testimony. David Hume, an inquiry concerning human understanding, section 10, part two, 1748. The door is open. That's the honest skeptic position.
¶59But now fill the floor drop. In 2,000 years of Christianity, Joe's slam dunk case has never once happened. Not once. His best evidence for miracles is a hypothetical he made up. And the cases he actually leans on reach him the same way they reach you.
¶60Somebody else's paperwork, somebody else's footage, somebody else's memory. He's downstream of the room, same as the rest of us. Now watch the pattern underneath his whole file cabinet because it should keep him up at night. Of course, it won't, but it should. The miracles shrink as the cameras begin to multiply before photography.
¶61Legs regrrew, friars flew in the sky, statues weep. Joe's one regrown leg in 20 hours of evidence lives in 1640, ladies and gentlemen, in rural Spain, safely outside the reach of every camera ever built. After photography, light blobs over a Cairo rooftop, oil on a woman's hands, tissue samples nobody can trace. And at Fatima, the photographers were standing in the field. Every photo we have shows the crowds staring at the sky.
¶62The miracle itself never made it onto the film. There are billions of cameras on the planet right now and the wonders have never been smaller or blurriier. So run the logic. An all powerful god who wants public belief keeps scheduling his biggest demonstrations just out of the frame. Either the director of the universe has stage fright, you know, divine hiddenness, or the wonders were never out there to film.
¶63Every one of those cases gets its own episode. The distance between the leg that Joe described and the files Joe has, that distance is this entire series. Now, where did Joe get this scale from? Not from the miracles. It was set 7 hours before the first miracle showed up.
¶64Listen to how the philosophy video ends. Okay, deep breath. That, my friends, is my comprehensive philosophical case for theism. Recall my master argument which you can see on the screen. And consequently, theism is probably true.
¶65But trust me, you haven't even seen the best evidence yet. As we're about to see, there is truly overwhelming evidence for miracles. And not just any miracles, but miracles that only make sense if Catholicism is true. There it is. The floodgates.
¶667 hours of contingency and fine-tuning and psychophysical harmony, all marching to one conclusion. God is already probable. So by the time a light blob shows up over a church roof, God isn't a wild hypothesis anymore. God is already waiting in the room and every anomaly on Earth gets a divine head start. He says it out loud in the miracles video.
¶67>> Third, I've already argued that theism is super likely on purely philosophical grounds. And in the philosophy video, he explains why he thinks a big pile beats its parts. He borrows an analogy from the philosopher Brianqar. Listen. Suppose you come home and find that the lamp, the TV, the microwave, and the phone charger all aren't working.
¶68You would naturally favor a common cause explanation. For example, you know, the power went out over an explanation that posits a coincidence of independent causes. For example, you know, the bulb burned out, the kids unplugged the television, the, you know, the dog broke the microwave. You know, there's dust in the charging port. Joe is right about the power outage, but notice why that explanation works.
¶69It can fell if the whole neighborhood lost power. Your neighbors lights should be out too. So walk outside and check their porch light is on. Then your outage theory is probably wrong. That is what a real explanation does.
¶70It takes a risk. It tells you what you should expect and what could count against it. Now try that with God had a reason. Somebody gets healed. God did it.
¶71They do not get healed. God said no. A Catholic miracle. That is God confirming Catholicism. A miracle in another religion.
¶72Maybe it was a mistake. Or maybe it was a demon. Or maybe God helped them without endorsing their religion. Nothing happens at all. God wants to remain hidden.
¶73All of these excuses. Do you see the problem? Do you see the problem? In every single case, every possible result gets explained after the fact. There is no porch light we can check.
¶74Nothing is allowed to count against the theory. And I'm not saying every one of those answers must be false. I am saying that if your explanation can absorb every possible outcome, then the outcome is not evidence for your explanation. That is not a prediction. It's a way to escape the criticism.
¶75And Joe's cumulative case has another problem. A lot of his evidence is not independent as his math needs it to be. Many of these stories travel through the same church investigations, the same devotional communities and later authors quoting earlier authors. That does not automatically make the stories false. But it does mean you cannot treat every retelling like a brand new witness.
¶76Before Joe starts multiplying these cases together, he needs to show us which sources are genuinely independent and which ones are echoes. Otherwise, he's not multiplying evidence. He's counting the same evidence more than once. And then buried in hour six of the philosophy video comes the confession that ties the whole machine together. Joe is talking about the problem of evil and divine hiddenness, the heaviest evidence against God.
¶77And he says this, >> "I didn't have a satisfactory response to all these problems until after I was just utterly flooded with overwhelming evidence for miracles." Did you hear it? Evil and hiddenist had no satisfactory answer until the miracles flooded in. So follow the plumbing. The miracles rescue theism from its own counterevidence. And theism supplies the friendly prior that makes the miracles believable in the first place.
¶78Each end of the bridge is holding up the other end. That's a loop, not a foundation. And this series is going to test whether the evidence inside it can carry the weight in both directions. We're not adjudicating 7 hours of natural theology in this video. Hopefully, the philosophy gets its own treatment down the road.
¶79Maybe we will get some cosmology content and with uh with Phil Halper and other experts that will go straight to the finetuning issues and all that kind of stuff. But two things jump out right now. First, his backup argument. Even if you reject his philosophy, he says so many reasonable and intelligent people believe in God that theism's prior can't be negligible. Okay?
¶80But brilliant, reasonable people believe in every religion on the planet. There are worldclass Muslim philosophers, Hindu logicians, Jewish sages, Buddhist epistemologists. If smart believers pump up the prior, they pump it up for everybody and the floodgates open in every direction at once, which drowns the argument for picking Rome. Second, and I really want you to hold on to this. Even if I give Joe every argument in his philosophy video, he still would not be at Catholicism.
¶81At most, he would have some kind of God behind the universe. That does not get him to Jesus. It does not get him to Mary, Fatima, or the Catholic Church. Those are all separate claims, and they need separate evidence. That's where Joe's case makes its biggest leaps, the biggest jumps, and that is where it starts falling apart.
¶82Okay, these next 9 seconds tell you exactly what is wrong with Joe's probability calculation. Listen to the labels he gives the explanations he does not like. Provided that puditive naturalistic explanations involving insane conspiracies and group hallucinations and fabricated medical and laboratory evidence and whatnot do have super low prior. >> Insane conspiracies, group hallucinations, fabricated medical and laboratory evidence. That is how the skeptical side enters Joe's calculation.
¶83Sounds like Craig Evans somewhat. Meanwhile, his explanation enters with one clean word. God. A God whose probability he says he already established in his philosophy video. So before he examines the individual cases, one side already sounds reasonable and the other sounds completely unhinged.
¶84Now, we do need to be fair. Some of Joe's cases may require fraud or coordination if every reported detail is accurate. But a skeptic is not committed to one enormous conspiracy connecting every miracle claim in history. Each case can have a different explanation. One may involve incomplete records.
¶85Another may involve a mistaken diagnosis. Another may involve honest misperception, changing memories, later embellishment, contaminated evidence, shared sources, or plain fraud. And sometimes the most honest answer is simply, and you're probably going to hear this from me in some of these cases, we do not know. In a lot of the cases, I might throw out some plausible explanations and still conclude, we're not sure. That's the honest answer.
¶86We know those human failures happen that I just said. We observe them. We document them. We catch them happening all the freaking time every day. That does not prove that one of them explains every case Joe presents.
¶87It means they are real possibilities. I'd even say higher probabilities that must be investigated before anybody declares a miracle. Joe still has to show that a supernatural event explains each case better than those ordinary possibilities. Then he has another job, showing that the event points specifically to Catholicism. Instead, he gathers the skeptical possibilities into one giant conspiracy of conspiracies, gives that package an incredibly low probability and compares it with a god he has already given a head start.
¶88That is not a neutral calculation. The conclusion is already built into the setup. Play it again. This time, listen only to the labels. >> Following insane conspiracies and group hallucinations and fabricated medical and laboratory evidence.
¶89>> Insane hallucination. Fabricated. He did not calculate the skeptical side there. He caricatured it and then assigned the caricature a low probability. When your starting assumptions already say skepticism is crazy, do not act surprised when your equation comes out Catholic.
¶90Keep that in mind, ladies and gentlemen. Now, Joe brings up John Earman, a philosopher of science who went straight at Hume's argument, and Joe is right about that. Listen, >> quote, "Hume's argument is largely derivative, almost wholly without merit where it is original, and worst of all reveals the impoverishment of his treatment of inductive reasoning." Wow. Which apologist said that? None.
¶91This is the judgment of John Earman, who is an agnostic philosopher of science, recently retired from the University of Pittsburgh. >> That quote is real. Earman thinks Hume overreached. His point is that you cannot create a philosophical rule where testimony automatically loses before you even examine the evidence. I understand that much.
¶92But I do not think testimony alone is enough to establish a miracle. Testimony can show that people reported something. It could show that they were maybe sincere. It might even give us reason to think something unusual happened. But testimony alone cannot tell us what caused it.
¶93If somebody claims an amputated leg grew back, do not just bring me 200 people saying they saw it. Bring me the medical records. Bring me the scans. Establish the person's identity. Document the missing limb beforehand.
¶94Record the gen regeneration while it happens. I mean, then let independent doctors examine it afterwards. Now, we have more than testimony. We have physical evidence of an event that needs an explanation. It would surely help to be present for these events rather than trying to sway others by testimony.
¶95Even in the case I just laid out, all of that could be there. And if you evaluated it carefully, what if you found out that the doctors later said that earlier or they backdate, you know, when they supposedly wrote this stuff. I mean, there is a lot of human factors that I just think that miracle believing types like Joe are falling gullibly into rather than open to the fact that humans do this kind of stuff because that's what humans do. I just don't buy it. I would need to be present and I would imagine someone who was really cautious would want to as well.
¶96But but even then, we have not automatically proved God did it. Even if that were the case, we definitely have not proved God did it to confirm Catholicism with all that data I just listed. Man opens the door to investigating miracles. He does not prove that any of Joe's miracles have walked through what he argued. In fact, man says that in most all actual cases, very little credibility should be given to miracle claims.
¶97He says the real work requires detailed casebycase investigation. He also warns that multiplying witnesses only works when those witnesses are genuinely independent. If they are getting their information from the same stories, the same media, the same books, or the same religious community. You cannot simply multiply them together. That sounds a lot closer to what I've been saying than what Joe is doing.
¶98I do not need Hume to give me a universal ban on miracles. My standard is pretty simple. First, establish that the event really happened. Then, show that the ordinary explanations fell. Then, show why a supernatural cause is the best explanation.
¶99And after all of that, show how you identify the cause as the Catholic God. Quoting John Earman does none of those things. It only means the investigation is allowed to begin. Hume can be wrong and every miracle in Joe's video can still be poorly supported. Knocking down one argument against miracles is not evidence for a particular miracle.
¶100Now watch what happens when Joe addresses the possibility of a Catholic selection effect. The objection is pretty simple. Maybe Catholic miracle files dominate because the Catholic Church is one of the largest, oldest, and most organized religious institutions in the world. It has spent centuries collecting, preserving, investigating, and publishing Catholic miracle reports. Here is Joe's answer.
¶101>> Seventh, the very fact that God arranged history so that the Catholic Church mogs everyone else in its institutional functionality and diligence is itself not something we would expect if Catholicism is false. You know, since God would know that doing so would lead to a massively skewed perception of the quality of miraculous evidence for Catholicism. That's very surprising if Catholicism is false, but precisely what we would expect if Catholicism is true. Did you see what he just did? The objection is that Catholicism may have the biggest miracle archive because Catholicism built the biggest machine for collecting Catholic miracle stories.
¶102Joe answers by saying, "God arranged the Catholic Church to have that machine and therefore the machine itself becomes evidence for Catholicism. If the Catholic archive is bigger, Rome wins. If somebody points out that Catholicism's size, age, organization, and recordkeeping might explain why the archive is bigger, Joe says God arranged all of that. So Rome wins again. He's counting the same fact twice.
¶103The ordinary explanation is sitting right in front of us. A massive institution that spends centuries collecting, preserving, investigating, and promoting its own miracle claims is probably going to have a larger and more impressive archive of miracle claims. That does not prove the miracles are false. It means the size of the archive cannot be treated as a separate piece of evidence for Catholicism until Joe accounts for the system that created the archive. Instead, Joe says God would never allow a false Catholic church to gain this kind of evidential advantage because that might mislead people.
¶104We'll get to that. So, how does Joe know what God would or would not allow? He gets that from the Catholic picture of God, the very picture he's trying to prove. So, Joe assumes Catholicism is true, puts God behind the Catholic archive, and then points to the archive as evidence that Catholicism is true. That is a circle.
¶105You can make the argument 10 hours long, but it's still a circle. Now, if you think doubting Catholic miracles is an atheist hobby, I have news for you and even Joe knows it. Because listen to who he's gunning for in his finale and where I'll extensively criticize Protestantism and other sex. And I'll also exhaustively respond to the best objections to Catholicism from hell, moral objections, biblical objections, theological objections, magisterial objections, and so many more objections. He has to criticize Protestantism because for 500 years, the loudest people on earth calling these exact miracles fake were Christians.
¶106John Kelvin in 1536 in the opening address of the most influential Protestant book ever written answers Rome's demand for new miracles by pointing to the gospels own. And then he turns to the wonders Rome brags about and drops this. Those to which our opponents lay claim are mere delusions of Satan. John Calvin Institutes of the Christian Religion 1536. delusions of Satan.
¶107And look at what Calvin kept. God, angels, demons, scripture, resurrection. He kept the whole supernatural furniture and still called the rival miracle tradition fake. That became the mainstream Protestant position for centuries. It has a name, cessationism.
¶108Real miracles ended with the apostles and everything Rome waved afterward was fraud, nature, or the devil. In 1749, the Anglican scholar Conurs Middleton published a free inquiry torching the postbiblical miracle record so thoroughly it scandalized England. And it made so much noise that David Hume, whose essay dropped the year before, grumbled that nobody was talking about his. And in 1918, the most famous conservative theologian at Princeton Seminary, Joe Smith, Princeton Seminary, Benjamin Warfield, published an entire book titled, I'm not making this up, okay? Counterfeit miracles with these exact Catholic case spies, Lords included, in the crosshairs, fam.
¶109Princeton. Joe Princeton. A century before you got there, Princeton's most celebrated theologian looked at your evidence and titled his verdict counterfeit. And it's not just Protestants. In May of 2024, the Vatican's own doctrine office rewrote its rules for apparitions and other reported phenomena.
¶110And buried in those rules is a sentence Joe's viewers deserve to see. As a general rule, the church will no longer declare these events supernatural at all. The best weeping statue or an apparition can now earn is a nhil abstat. I'm probably butchering this. Nih i l o obst which basically means nothing stands in the way.
¶111Devotion may continue while the Vatican explicitly withholds any certainty that heaven did it. To be accurate, those norms cover apparitions and similar phenomena. Not every healing file. So, let's be clear. But watch which way the church itself is moving.
¶1122 years before Joe converted on the strength of church vetted wonders, the church itself quietly retired the stamp that says this was God for apparitions and their whole family of phenomena. Which brings us to the moment Joe hands me the murder weapon. He's about to quote David Hume praising the evidence for certain Catholic miracles. Hume actually got something right in his discussion of miracles. I I know that's a miracle in of itself.
¶113Specifically, he briefly discusses and summarily dismisses without evidence uh some highly well-ec miracles. Here's a passage from his famous essay of miracles. So, Hume is basically saying, look at the flimsy historical miracles from which our British Protestant apologists construct elaborate arguments for the miracles of Christianity. If they had evidence as impressive as Catholic miracles for one of their favorite miracles, imagine how loudly they would trumpet Pascal and Rine and Arno and Nicole, the physicians, the hostile investigators and so on. If they were consistent, he says, they ought simply to accept this Catholic miracle, too, because its evidential case is worth vastly more than the evidence for other miracles that they do accept and deploy in their case for Christianity, like the resurrection.
¶114So, he was like literally poking fun of Protestants because they reject Catholic miracles that are manifestally better evidence than the resurrection. and you'll soon see that he is most certainly correct. >> Joe is right about the strength of the evidence. But here's the part he leaves out. Who was using this miracle as a sign that God was on their side?
¶115The Jansenist, a Catholic movement centered at Port Royal that Rome had already condemned. In plain English, this miracle was being used to support the Catholics Rome was fighting with. The cure Hume describes is Pascal's own niece, Margaret Pierre. I'm probably butchering her name, h of an eye fisttoista in 1656, certified by physicians at the time. And the sequel was bigger.
¶116Starting in 1727 at the Paris tomb of a Jansenous deacon named Francois de Paris, I'm probably butchering the last name. Cures broke out that were documented like nothing before them. A royal magistrate, which I would butcher the name trying to pronounce, compiled sworn medical dossiers, hostile examinations, the works, bound them in volumes, and handed them to King Louise the 15th in person. It cost him his freedom. And what did the Catholic Church do with the best documented miracle outbreak in early modern Europe?
¶117It condemned the movement those miracles were blessing. Jensenism crushed by papal decree. Port Royal itself had already been leveled on royal orders years before the St. Madard cures even began. The nuns dispersed, the graves dug up.
¶118Then the cemetery at St. Madard was shut by the king in 1732 and some Paris wit nailed the perfect epitap to the gate. By order of the king, God is forbidden to work miracles in this place. Epigraph posted at the St. Madard Cemetery in 1732.
¶119And here's the part of Hume's essay Joe did not read to you from that same section about those very cures. Many of the miracles were immediately proved upon the spot before judges of unquestioned integrity attested by witnesses of credit and distinction. And what have we to oppose to such a cloud of witnesses, but the absolute impossibility or miraculous nature of the events which they relate? David Hume, an inquiry concerning human understanding, section 10, part 2, 1748. Now, put this through Joe's own test.
¶120These were not rumors. There were physicians and sworn statements, hostile investigators, and volumes of documentation. Literally, Kerier de Montagaran, I'm probably butchering his name, presented the St. Madard evidence to the king and ended up in prison for it. The Jensenist pointed to these cures and said, "God is backing us." Rome condemned the movement they were defending.
¶121That is the problem. The evidence did not arrive with a note from God explaining what it meant. The Jensenist saw divine approval. Rome did not. In fact, I was approached by camera on Twitter not long ago about how how they have their own investigators and Rome makes sure that these are all fact checked and they're accurate and stuff like that.
¶122And it's like, dude, if you don't see the human hand at play here and the political game that goes on with Rome and I mean, come on. You're just naive. You might as well just let your life be controlled by others at this point. Look, Joe can always say those cures were not vindicatory. Maybe God healed those people without endorsing Jensenism.
¶123But look at what he gives up when he says that. If doctors, witnesses, sworn testimony, hostile scrutiny, and stacks of documentation still cannot establish God's intention, then that same kind of evidence cannot suddenly establish God's intention when the miracle happens to support Rome. Or what if Vishnu in the Hindu religions or whatever deity is performing the miracle is really just showing some kind of general love in these miracles that these Christians are doing, but really it's their god. I mean the game can can get played, right? So when the paperwork favors Catholicism, Joe calls it divine confirmation.
¶124When similar paperwork appears around a movement Rome condemned, suddenly it's just a healing with no doctrinal meaning. You cannot have it both ways. A medical file might give us evidence that somebody recovered. It cannot tell us who caused it, why it happened, or which church God supposedly endorsed. And Joe's entire argument depends on making that leap.
¶125Then in his final video, Joseph's people have searched for a wellsupported vindicatory miracle outside the Catholic column and cannot find one. Listen to this. And I think that this is not a serious explanation of the miracle record for various reasons. Let's go through those. So for like starters, you know, Ethan Muse, hordes of Substackers have been scouring the internet and books and articles for other examples of putitive vindicatory miracles.
¶126And I've also done my own digging. People have been desperately trying to find them for a long while. Desperately trying to find one. Joe, you read us one. You read it out loud in your own video.
¶127Pascal's niece, Saint Madard. a miracle file strong enough that Hume used it at his as his showcase vindicating a movement your church crushed. The counter example was in your own script. And there's a second concession buried in that same Hume clip and it's a bomb. Joe agreed on camera that these condemned French cures are better evidence than the resurrection.
¶128He said that his words only talking about evidential strength and Hume is most certainly correct. File that away for our resurrection episode. Play it again. >> So Hume is like literally poking fun of Protestants because they reject Catholic miracles that are manifestally better evidence than the resurrection and you'll soon see that he is most certainly correct. >> Did you catch it this time?
¶129He's most certainly correct that the church rejected miracles carrying better evidence than the one his entire religion stands on. Wow, there's so much to be said. All right, this is probably my favorite part and the longest because this is where Joe's finale gets checked. All right, for the next few minutes, I'm the best Catholic in this room. Every miracle is real.
¶130All of them. The sun danced. The hosts bled. The frier flew. Watch what happens to Joe's case.
¶131Anyways, because a strange event, even a real supernatural one, doesn't tell you who sent it. Remember that phrase from earlier, certify the sender. This is the wrecking ball. Joe's whole system rests on one premise that's supposed to do the certifying. And he says it out loud.
¶132to get to the veracity of God when you start denying that vindicatory miracles could actually point you to the true religion. >> It's basically it would be God bearing witness to a lie. >> God would never bear witness to a lie. Beautiful premise. One problem.
¶133I've read that Bible. So has he. And that Bible says on record repeatedly that this God signs off on deception whenever it serves him. Don't take my word for it. Take the text his own church canonized.
¶134Deuteronomy chapter 13. If there arise among you a prophet or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder, and the sign or wonder come to pass, saying, Let us go after other gods, thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, for the Lord your God proveth you. Deuteronomy 13:1-3. Read it slowly. The sign comes to pass.
¶135A real wonderworking, verified, pointing at the wrong God. And the text says, "The Lord himself is running the test." The Torah's official position is that true firing signs can back false religion, and God is the one administering the exam. First Kings 22 goes even further. Yahweh in his own throne roomm staffing a deception. And he said, "I will go forth and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets." And he said, "Thou shalt persuade him and prevail also.
¶136Go forth and do so." First Kings 22:22. Look at the scene. This is King Ahab's court. 400 prophets. And these are not pagans.
¶137These are the king's own prophets of Yahweh. all delivering the same message in his name. Go to war, you will win. And where did that message come from? A lying spirit volunteered for the job.
¶138And Yahweh said, "Go do it." The deception didn't sneak in from outside. It came down the official channel on orders from the top. Remember that because Joe is about to walk face first into it. And in case you think kings is a one-off, Ezekiel has God say it in the first person. And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet.
¶139Ezekiel 14:9. I the Lord have deceived that prophet. Hold that verse up to Joe's premise. Play him again. basically it would be God bearing witness to a lie because miracles are the way that he can sign his signature to a revelation objectively rather than subjectively.
¶140>> The Bible he converted to says the thing he says God would never do. And the New Testament doubles down. Jesus warns of sign workers good enough to fool the elect. And in Matthew 7, he goes darker. people who did mighty works in his own name get turned away at the door.
¶141For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets and shall shug great signs and wonders in so much that if it were possible they shall deceive the very elect. Matthew 24:24 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name, and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you? Matthew 7:22-23. Even the right name on the miracle doesn't certify the miracle.
¶142Paul says, "Impersonating the good guys is literally the devil's signature move and no marvel. For Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore, it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness." 2 Corinthians 11:14-15. And 2 Thessalonians closes the loop with the most chilling verse in the canon describing a deceiver arriving with all power and lying wonders sitting in the temple of God itself. While Revelation 13 has its beast winning converts with great signs, and for this cause God shall send them strong delusion that they should believe a lie.
¶1432 Thessalonians 2:1. Holy crap, Joe. God shall send them strong delusion that they should believe a lie. So that's the problem. And Joe knows it because his finale spends a whole chapter trying to answer it.
¶144I watched every minute. Fair is fair. Before I grade his answer, you get to hear it straight from him. The whole thing comes down to one move. Deuteronomy 13 Deuteronomy 18.
¶145and everything he says about telling true miracles from false ones hangs on it. Roll it. >> So, first let's look at the miracle of the sun. Deuteronomy draws a distinction between two kinds of false prophets. False prophets that speak in the name of pagan gods and false prophets that speak in the name of God the creator.
¶146In Deuteronomy 13, God admonishes the Israelites not to follow a prophet that speaks in the name of pagan gods under any circumstances, even if the prophet announces a sign or wonder and it comes to pass. By contrast, in Deuteronomy 18, we read, quote, "And if you say in your heart, how may we know the word that the Lord has not spoken?" When a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word the Lord has not spoken. Father Reginald Gary Gulrange explains the rationale for this distinction as follows. Quote, "A miracle performed in the name of God the creator in confirmation of some revelation to be accepted by all cannot be false, especially if the wonderworker first denounces it. This is so because it stands in contradiction with the infinite good goodness, wisdom, and truthfulness of God that he would permit his name to be alleged in order to substitute a false miracle for a true one, and that he would suffer his name to be brought forth as a witness to a lie through which man would necessarily and invincibly be led into error.
¶147So that's the system, right, Joe? That's the system. Prophets in the name of pagan gods reject them even if their signs come true. That's Deuteronomy 13. Prophets in the name of God, the creator, apply Deuteronomy 18.
¶148And if the prediction comes true, trust it. Because quoting his theologian, Geredigu Lrange, I'm probably butchering his name. I'm terrible with pronunciations. God would never permit his own name to be brought forth as a witness to a lie. That's the safe lane.
¶149That's his theologian's lane. Name of the creator plus fulfilled sign equals certified by heaven. One question, Joe. Where exactly does First Kings 22 happen? 400 prophets of Yahweh prophesying in Yahweh's name to Yahweh's anointed king.
¶150Prediction delivered inside the safe lane and the deception was commissioned by Yahweh himself in his own throne room on the record. Your theologian says God would never permit his name to witness a lie. Your Bible says God ordered it. Ezekiel's deceived prophet, a prophet of Israel in Yahweh's name. Second Thessalonians is deceiver, sitting in the temple of God, claiming to be God, powered by God sent delusion.
¶151Matthew 7's rejects working wonders in thy name. Every single counterfeit the canon describes is parked in Joe's safe lane. The lane isn't safe, ladies and gentlemen. The lane is where the Bible stores the counterfeits. Deuteronomy 28 is not a stamp of approval from God.
¶152It says that if a prophet makes a prediction and it fails, that prophet is false. But it never says the reverse. That one successful prediction proves a prophet came from God. Deuteronomy 13 makes that clear. It warns that a sign can come true and the prophet can still lead people toward a false god.
¶153Jeremiah 28 makes another important point. Hananiah spoke in Yahweh's name and he was still a false prophet. So using God's name proves nothing. Even getting a sign right is not enough. Deuteronomy 18 gives people one reason to reject a prophet.
¶154It does not give Joe a system for certifying one. Test two, the fruits test, the house divided test. Watch Joe apply it to Fatima. In Matthew 12, Christ rebutted accusations he was driving out demons by the power of demons by saying, quote, "If Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then will his kingdom stand?" End quote.
¶155If Fatima were demonic, then it is completely incomprehensible that Satan decided to perform his most colossal deception in history in an overwhelmingly Catholic country at a time when secularism was on the rise with the sole effect of converting atheists to Christianity. >> Why would Satan run a deception that produces piety, conversions, and prayer? Joe, Paul answered you 2,000 years ago. Angel of light, ministers of righteousness, looking holy is not evidence against a counterfeit. Looking holy is the counterfeits entire job description.
¶156A deception that produced blasphemy and empty pews would be a terrible deception. And ask who grades the fruit. Joe counts rosaries and marry and devotion as good fruit. Calvin counted them as the rot itself. A Muslim runs the same fruits test on the Quran's transformation of Arabia and passes Islam with flying colors.
¶157A Hindu runs it on amma devotees and passes Hinduism. The fruit test certifies every religion that administers it to itself because every tradition grades its own homework with its own rubric. That's not discernment. That's the mirror again. And we're not done with mirrors in this video.
¶158Test three. He says the deceiving spirit idea leads to total skepticism. Brain in a vat. Can't trust anything. Watch.
¶159What does this amount to? There's like super powerful spirits running around deceiving people into believing Catholicism. Performing boatloads of deceptive signs and wonders. Putting tons of people like St. Padre Peio and Mir Nazour and Theresa Vala and Joseph Cupertino and St.
¶160Fina and St. John of the Cross and Venerable Lucia Dos Santos and the Truman Show. Like that is your hypothesis, >> Joe. I didn't put the lying spirit in the throne room. The Bible did.
¶161I didn't write God shall send them strong delusion. Your canon did. If a licensed sign working deceiver breaks the possibility of knowledge, then the book you converted to breaks yours because it doesn't whisper the scenario. It legislates it, narrates it, and signs God's name to it three separate times. You cannot foreclose axiomatically what your own scripture asserts repeatedly.
¶162And I don't need a demon faking the whole world either. One counterfeit bill doesn't make every dollar fake. It means a convincing look isn't enough. You check the features that discriminate. Local doubt about a science sender is not global skepticism.
¶163And his last answer isn't an argument at all. It's a wager. And he runs it twice. First in the selection effect chapter. You know, just like finally to my selection effect peeps, are you comfortable betting your soul on a selection effect in the face of this miraculous evidence?
¶164>> And then closing the demonic chapter, the full version. >> And then sixth, and finally, my friend, do you hear yourself? Do you hear yourself? Padre Peio and Mirina Nazour are being united to Christ's passion. The Blessed Virgin Mary is appearing to people and explicitly agreeing to convert named individuals to Catholicism.
¶165She's telling them to pray the rosary. She's saying, you know, she's calling herself, I am the immaculate conception. Catholic priests are praying over bread and it's turning into suffering myocardial tissue. Like again, how do you look at all of that, all of that, all the miracles that I went through and say aliens? How do you do that?
¶166I don't know. First, and secondly, how do you not feel existential dread at the thought that you're betting your entire soul for all eternity on the hypothesis that aliens replicated exactly what we'd expect if God were just screaming that Catholicism is true? Are you seriously going to risk damnation for that? Are you seriously going to risk damnation, Joe? That's not more evidence.
¶167That is fear being added after the argument. Any religion can threaten you with punishment for rejecting its claims. That does not make those claims true. And Deuteronomy 13 actually warns against doing exactly what Joe wants us to do. It says, "A sign can come true and still lead people toward the wrong God." So, an impressive sign is not enough.
¶168Fear of damnation is not enough. Joe still has to prove that his interpretation is right. If fear is what finally closes the gap, then the evidence never did. On your own text, trusting wanders is a damnable move, and the wager fires from every direction. The Protestant demonist, you spend an hour fighting, say marry and devotion dams you.
¶169Islam says the trinity dams you. There's two forms of hell you're going to. Everyone's hell is pointed at everyone else's head, which means dread cancels out and evidence is all that's left. And that's the one thing the wager was brought in to replace. So no on his own cannon a sign cannot certify its sender.
¶170Not because I'm a skeptic because Deuteronomy, Kings, Ezekiel, Matthew, Paul, and Revelation all say the certification channel carries counterfeits. And the counterfeitter sometimes has a license signed by God. And now the thought experiment. It's a hypothetical. I don't believe a word of it, but Joe has granted me every piece of furniture I'm about to use.
¶171Suppose the signworking spirit behind the apparitions and the bleeding hosts is not the good guy. Sound crazy? It's one of the oldest ideas in Christianity. Within a century of Jesus, Marcen of Sinnote read the Hebrew Bible and concluded its God was a lesser strictly just lawgiver, real, but not the father. Jesus revealed and entire churches followed him for generations.
¶172Other early Christians went further and called the creator outright malicious. We've got a whole Marcian deep dive with Professor Marcus Vince that we've done. But also, I'd like to do a documentary. I have a lot of material on this. I'm just looking for someone who's interested in funding a project like that.
¶173Reach out to me mythvisionpodcast@gmail.com. Let's make that happen. If any scenario in that family is even on the table, then a deceiving spirit vindicating the one true church with wonders isn't a reputation of Joe's data. It's a prediction of Joe's data. And Joe cannot rule it out with more signs.
¶174Because signs are the very thing in question. Ask the sign whether the sign is honest. Go ahead. I'll wait. And remember the clip I told you to hold on to >> that there's a pious person who maybe has lots of mistaken religious beliefs, but God as an act of compassion or maybe even because he foresees a bunch of downstream consequences that are going to be good grants them a healing, you know, or sends them a sign that points them in a direction that's going to send them down the right path.
¶175That's Joe's tool for demoting every Hindu healing and every Pentecostal wonder to divine charity. No doctrine attached. It's intent reading. pure mind readading of God. So watch me borrow the tool.
¶176Every Catholic miracle is a deceiving spirit's charity. Doctrine faked. His tool, his evidence, and the exact opposite religion comes out the other end. A sorting method that can bless any conclusion you walked in with isn't a method. It's a mirror.
¶177One last test before I hand you the tool. Somewhere in 20 hours, there should be a sentence where Joe names what would lower his confidence. try to find it. Strong miracles in rival religions, those get filed as nonvindicatory divine charity. You watched him do it.
¶178Weak Catholic cases. Well, the cumulative pile survives. Not every piece has to work. Better a Catholic paperwork than anyone else. God arranged the paperwork.
¶179You just heard him say it. A natural explanation for a case. There are always more cases. Four exits, fam. Four.
¶180No entrance. So, a direct question, Joe, and I mean it as an imitation, not a gotcha. Name a realistic pattern of miracle evidence that would lower Catholicism for you. Not disprove it, but lower. Because if nothing on that list exists, then overwhelming was never the result of your investigation.
¶181It was the rule your investigation was built to protect. So, this is the tool you're taking out of this episode, the one we'll hold up every case file in the series. Every miracle claim has to climb five rungs. One, did it even happen the way the story says? Two, is there really no natural explanation?
¶182Three, is there positive evidence for a supernatural cause, not just a gap in our knowledge? Four, was it the Christian God? Five, was he endorsing Catholicism specifically? Strange is not supernatural. Unexplained is not God.
¶183And even God is not automatically your church. In this video, we never left the ground floor and we still watch the top two rungs snap because even in fantasy land where everything happened and nothing has a natural cause, no sign can identify its cinder. And the sender, according to his own book, runs deceptions on the regular. This is a normal aspect of Yahweh in the biblical account. The rest of this series is rungs one and two, case by case.
¶184The road map. Here's what I'm hoping to accomplish. Padre Pio and a pharmacy receipt. The stigmatist and the oil. The healing files and the Lord's arithmetic.
¶185Fatima's growing story. Zetun's photographs. The eukaristic labs and who actually ran them. And yes, the resurrection concession Joe made in this video comes back at the end. I promise you almost nothing in his 20 hours survives rung one.
¶186One more thing before Joe gets the last word. The day I announced this series, my replies filled up. I didn't even have an episode. I just had the title and thumbnails saying I'm going to end up doing this series. And you got to watch this.
¶187This guy comes out of nowhere. Who's the judge of this trial? Lol. You know what? Honestly, fair question.
¶188Hold that thought. This next guy told me to save myself further embarrassment and damnation for my quote abominal incompetence. Damnation, brother. The video didn't exist yet. Sounds like defense mechanisms are kicking in for a lot of these people.
¶189So, who is the judge? Great question, my friend from Twitter. You are. That's the whole design. Every claim in this series can be questioned and the sources are in the description as far as I can fit them.
¶190If you catch me wrong, put it in the comments and I'll pin it. Try getting that offer from an apologist and think about what showed up in the replies instead of an argument. Hell did. They brought hell to me. Damnation.
¶191Fire. You watched Joe run the polite version of that move twice in this video, and the version without the Joe Schmid manners was in my mentions before the trailer finished uploading. When the receipts are thin, the threats come out. Keep an eye out on that as the series rolls because once you see the shape of it, it's going to show up everywhere. You're not going to miss it.
¶192One last clip. Joe near the end of his 10-hour miracles video sums up his whole journey like this. Am I seriously going to embrace like the craziest set of frauds and conspiracies and coincidences that all just happen to point consistently in one direction? In one direction. Come on.
¶193Come on. Everything points in one direction. He's right about that. It just isn't the direction he thinks. It points at us.
¶194pattern-hungry, storytelling, signseeking human beings. The same species that watched Ganisha drink milk on Tuesday. And Joe, I get it. I really sincerely do. I spoke in tongues.
¶195I felt the room change when the music swelled. I would have bet my life on it because I basically did bet my life on it. I wish someone had told me back then what I'm telling you now. The feeling is real and the explanation is us. Wonder is not the enemy, y'all.
¶196Certainty that outruns evidence that is. There's a verse I love. When I was a believer, when I became a man, I put away childish things. Look, you want a documentary made by Myth Vision Podcast? Reach out.
¶197Mythvision podcast.com. They are affordable. You're not going to find anywhere where you're going to get a documentary this polished, long documentaries that cover this kind of content. And we're wanting to promote and make this make some noise, bring your ideas to a broader audience. For the prices that we have, you can't beat it.
¶198So, make sure you email me. You want to make history, you have a book, a paper, whatever. You're interested in helping to fund something like the Marcian project I mentioned earlier, or if you want to help us make these polished documentaries in this miracle vein, I'd love to do that. Not just these kind of response videos, but actual polished uh videos that dismantle the evidence and break down the case. Anyway, if you want to help, please help.
¶199Subscribe, like, share, hike, the whole nine. Comment down below, yell at me from the comments. And until next time, never forget we are meion.