When Skepticism Undermines Itself: A Critical Look at Paulogia’s Resurrection Scenario

Introduction

In February 2020, Paulogia—a former Christian turned atheist and a well-known YouTube personality—introduced his "'What If' Challenge for Christians." (1) In this challenge, he presents a hypothetical scenario in which Jesus appears only to Peter and Paul. To construct this alternate history, he relies on the historical credibility of canonical texts—specifically, the Gospels and the Book of Acts—while deliberately barring critics from using those same sources to challenge his claims. This double standard amounts to special pleading. The following analysis highlights key points that expose the internal inconsistencies in his argument.

I. Inconsistency in Source Treatment

Paulogia’s challenge assumes the historical reliability of the narratives in the Gospels and Acts, which together construct a coherent picture of a bodily resurrection through numerous testimonies. (2) However, in his "What If" Challenge, he forbids citing these very sources in any rebuttal. If the Christian sources are indeed trustworthy enough to build his hypothetical scenario, then logically they should also be available to test its validity. Denying their use in counterarguments creates a scenario where one side of the evidence is selected while other relevant evidence is arbitrarily excluded—a clear case of special pleading.

II. Circular Reasoning and False Dilemma

The challenge sets up a false dilemma by insisting that acceptance of an alternative historical narrative must be detached from any appeal to Scripture, creeds, or Christian tradition. In doing so, Paulogia dismisses the integrated historical testimony that early Christianity relied on. His argument thus becomes circular: he uses the scriptural accounts to fabricate an alternate history and then declares those same accounts off-limits for critiquing that history. This self-imposed restriction creates an unfair burden on critics and suggests that if a resurrection claim is to be disproven, it should not be tested against the very evidence that supports it. The resulting debate is skewed by this predetermined set of rules.

III. Unrealistic Historical Development

Historical evidence from early Christianity indicates that the resurrection claim was not limited to a small, exclusive group. Multiple witnesses—including women, disciples beyond Peter and Paul, and even non-Christian sources—attested to experiences of the risen Christ (see, for instance, 1 Corinthians 15:3–8, which Paulogia explicitly precludes from consideration). (3) If, as Paulogia's scenario posits, only Peter and Paul experienced the resurrection, then it is difficult to reconcile this with the rapid and widespread emergence of early Christian belief. The full testimony suggests a broader base of experience that significantly influenced the momentum of the nascent Christian movement. Limiting the resurrection to only two individuals would likely have altered the historical trajectory of Christianity, making it highly improbable that the movement would have evolved as it did. (4, 5)

IV. Reliance on Skeptical Presuppositions

Underlying the "'What If' Challenge for Christians" is a deep-rooted naturalistic presupposition that favors explanations excluding supernatural intervention. Paulogia’s challenge implicitly assumes that any account of resurrection must be reconstructed on naturalistic grounds even if such a reconstruction calls upon biblical texts to formulate the scenario. By disallowing these texts from the refutation process, he essentially commits to a double standard—selectively using evidence to support one’s view while refusing to subject that same evidence to critical scrutiny. True historical inquiry requires that all available evidence be assessed on its merits rather than being dismissed because it challenges a preferred worldview. This biased approach undermines the integrity of the debate, making the challenge less about objective historical evaluation and more about reinforcing predetermined skeptical conclusions.

V. Conclusion

The hypothetical scenario advanced in Paulogia’s "'What If' Challenge for Christians" ultimately fails to provide an objective framework for testing the resurrection claims. By selectively privileging Christian sources when constructing his alternate history—but then disallowing those same sources in any proper refutation—Paulogia’s argument falls prey to special pleading and circular reasoning. Moreover, the scenario unrealistically narrows the historical development of early Christianity, ignoring the broad—oftentimes counter-cultural—testimony that underpinned the resurrection claim. The reliance on skeptical presuppositions further biases the debate, rendering his thought experiment less a genuine inquiry into historical truth and more an exercise in rhetorical control.

A fair and balanced discussion of the resurrection must allow all relevant evidence—including the rich testimony of the early Christian community—into the conversation. Only through such an inclusive and unbiased approach can the historical and theological claims be meaningfully evaluated.