Doesn’t matter. They have impulse control. Like adults. If what they’re saying is true, and they believe so, it doesn’t matter how long someone talks for. Take your ADD meds and have some respect for whoever is speaking until they finish.
Another problem Matt has here... "People who don't have something to sell." Trent brings up "Is the Roman historian Tacitus trying to sell us something?" Matt, right here gets caught... the answer is "No"...cause Tacitus was NOT a believer.... yet what does Matt do? Moves the goal posts... "Tacitus is not a contemporary. That is after the fact." Well, of course, MOST HISTORIANS gave accounts AFTER the fact.
Hi Matt here are some future debate suggestions. Shannon Q vs Mari Pablo ( Athiest psychologist vs Catholic psychologist) on Is belief in God healthy? Jason Evert vs A s*x worker on Should you have s*x before marriage? Matt Dillahunty vs Ben Watkins on Do atheists have a burden of proof? (The new atheism vs Philosophical atheism) Paulogia vs Trent Horn on Are the martyrs good evidence for the resurrection?
Proof of resurrection Shroud of Turin . The Shroud of Turin is a centuries old linen cloth that bears the image of a crucified man. A man that millions believe to be Jesus of Nazareth. Is it really the cloth that wrapped his crucified body, or is it simply a medieval forgery, a hoax perpetrated by some clever artist? Modern science has completed hundreds of thousands of hours of detailed study and intense research on the Shroud. It is, in fact, the single most studied artifact in human history, and we know more about it today than we ever have before. And yet, the controversy still rages. This web site will keep you abreast of current research, provide you with accurate data from the previous research and let you interact with the researchers themselves. We believe that if you have access to the facts, you can make up your own mind about the Shroud. Make sure you visit the page where you can Examine the Shroud of Turin for yourself. We hope you enjoy your visit. Barrie M. Schwortz, Editor. shroud.com/ th-cam.com/video/w4RBXVs70_g/w-d-xo.html m.th-cam.com/video/4G4sj8hUVaY/w-d-xo.html
Wouah, surprised! Simon Kimbangu that Trent mentioned was a Congolese preacher who preached Jesus and Congo DR liberation from colonialist Belgium. My sister in law and her family are kimbanguists , they literally believe that Simon Kimbangu is 'God' because among other many reasons he raised people from the deads just like Jesus . They call him, God the Holy Spirit, Tata Kimbangu. I ve had some heated debates with them, trying to 'make them catholic', LOL!
Keep praying for your families conversion and fast for them. God bless you and I pray your family come home to the Catholic Church to be part of the true Church and fullness of faith.
Hey brother I think it’s a kind of joke when you say you want to convert them ( your sister in law and her family) to Catholicism... if not why don’t you accept their claim that Simon Kimbangu is God and rose from the dead? By the way Kimbangu is still dead according to the latest informations so is Jesus if he ever existed because dead people stay dead
Very disappointing that Trent did not seriously take up Matt's challenge to provide hostile witnesses that affirm Christian claims. Gary Michuta wrote the book _Hostile Witnesses_ taking up this challenge. One mention of Tacitus was not sufficient or satisfactory.
@GodsDefender- I'm not saying there are no hostile witnesses. I'm saying Trent could have done a better job providing them and explaining their significance for the debate. I'm referring viewers to a book that does a better job meeting that challenge.
@GodsDefender- It’s still strange that none of those sources mention a resurrection or any of the supposed miracles of Jesus… almost as if no non-Christian source who wrote about Christians knew anything about their most basic beliefs. Also… those would be great sources in debates like "Is it reasonable to think that Jesus existed?“ or "Is it reasonable to think that some Christian sects already existed in the 1st century?“… but in this debate those sources are irrelevant.
@@tomasrocha6139Yeah Jesus wasn't unique in his ability to perform miracles at the time. But whenever someone came in, performed miracles, and claimed to be the Messiah, he always took up violent revolt against the Romans. Jesus was unique in his insistence to be nonviolent, to love your enemies, and to give to give to Caesar's what is Caesar's. Unfortunately, my fellow Christians have moved away from those messages. Atheist Libertarians like Ayn Rand have poisoned Conservative thought. And we've taken Trump as our leader... A guy who is an adulterer, bears false witness regularly, and encourages hating your enemies, against Matthew 5:43 and 1 Cor 13
In his opening Trent said it was important that resurrections weren't a common occurrence so that it can clearly be seen as a miracle and a sign from God. Then during cross-exams he turns around and tries to attack Matt's position by saying Matt doesn't have proof that resurrections don't happen commonly, while not acknowledging it would also undermine his own world view. A bit later he goes on to say that he doesn't particularly care about other cases of resurrection because it wouldn't change his view of Jesus' resurrection. What ?
I wonder whether he would accept a miracle from another religion if it had the same type of evidence. Many people claiming that they saw it, people allegedly dying for the belief, women instead of men making the report of something relevant to the miracle (for example an empty tomb if we are talking about a resurrection miracle) etc. At some point they would have to accept it in order to be consistent.
During cross exam, he attacked Matt's standard for resurrection claims generally. The fact that Matt doesn't really have any objective standard. Trent's position is consistent throughout: 1) Trent has a 3 prong approach for establishing the reasonability of unique historical claims. (Detailed in his opening) 2) Matt does not have an objective approach for establishing reasonability of unique historical claims. 3) Jesus Resurrection is the most unique claim that satisfies the objective three prong criteria for establishing reasonability. Therefore, since Trent gave a standard that Jesus satisfies and Matt failed to provide a standard at all, Trent wins.
Mat missed a trick when Trent confirmed that he believes resurrections on purely testimonials. The immediate response should have been to revisit all those testimonial resurrections in Keners book previously mentioned and again ask if he also believed in those just on those testimonials provided as well
There're several events that has to be explained in that context, the atheist/agnostic/whatever mistake about this subject is thinking that discussion is only about the resurrection, ignoring that it's about a whole set of events wich, in the christian view, it's better explained with Christ resurrection. Either you disprove these set of events or come up with a better explanation for those.
@@urbandesitv3529 uh, no, in cases like this, you have to adequately demonstrate that something has happened before you can expect another to believe it. In this case, you’d have to demonstrate that a resurrection had occurred, you wouldn’t be able to say “a resurrection occurred” and tell us we now have to show that it didn’t occur.
This was the best debate of its kind I've watched. Both interlocutors were engaging to listen to and actually responded thoughtfully to each other instead of what you typically see in this kind of discussion, where the speakers go back to delivering their monologue when they have the floor. Absolutely fantastic job by both speakers and the moderator, who did an excellent job of keeping things on track and was obviously closely following the discussion. I'm just sad I found this so long after it was broadcast.
This shows that Trent is a good conversor, a lot of people Matt debates just are in such denial and so ready to rumble at every moment that it ends in a shouting party between both, so this was a nice contrast
Maybe if being a "good conversor" was to grasp at "gotchas" and creating strawmans. You should really look up what these words mean if you are having trouble understanding what a "good conversor" would be...
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 01:23 🧐 Trent Horn argues that belief in the resurrection of Jesus is reasonable by presenting three tests for evaluating unusual event claims: contradicting established facts, absence of expected evidence, and uniqueness of evidence. 08:12 🕊️ Trent critiques alternative explanations for the resurrection, arguing that they fail to account for factors such as group appearances, sincerity of disciples, and early church growth. 11:57 🧠 Trent presents the "argument from change" as evidence for a cause of the universe, arguing for the existence of a purely actual, immaterial, and timeless cause. 16:40 😲 Matt Dillahunty starts by emphasizing that belief in an event's reasonability doesn't imply its truth. He highlights the challenge of determining reasonability and stresses that consistency with known facts is crucial. 19:46 ❓ Matt questions the lack of empirical evidence for the resurrection and criticizes reliance on testimonials and hearsay. He challenges the untestable nature of claims like the resurrection, arguing they should be verifiable or falsifiable. 21:11 🤨 Matt distinguishes between verification and falsification, illustrating the challenges of exhaustive verification and concluding that reasonable belief requires the consideration of practical risks. 21:25 🧪 Falsifiability and unverifiability: Falsifiability is the ability to be proven false, while unverifiability means a claim cannot be tested. Unverifiable claims should be mundane and trivial to be considered reasonable. 22:09 📜 Evaluating historical claims: History relies on reports, testimonies, and accounts. Claims should be proportional to the evidence supporting them. The wise man proportions belief to the evidence. 23:05 🕊️ Hume's principle of superiority: David Hume's principle suggests choosing the explanation that involves the least extraordinary or improbable event. Reject the greater miracle and choose the more probable explanation. 25:11 💭 Eyewitness testimony limitations: Eyewitness testimonies are unreliable under various circumstances, and their reliability diminishes over time. The Bible's gospel accounts may not be from direct eyewitnesses. 26:21 🧠 Consistency with reality: Beliefs should be consistent with what is known to be true. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and all claims need sufficient evidence to be considered reasonable. 29:11 🧪 Lack of physical evidence: The absence of physical evidence, such as a body, tomb, blood, or artifacts, challenges the reasonability of the claim of Jesus' resurrection. 31:00 👥 Emotional factors: Emotional connections, fear of being wrong or excluded, and narrative compellingness can influence belief, but they do not constitute strong evidence. 32:12 🕊️ Historical beliefs and evidence: Historical beliefs may not necessarily align with strong evidence, and beliefs about extraordinary events require rigorous examination. 37:24 🔎 Investigating resurrection claims: Discussion about investigating resurrection claims beyond the Bible, considering historical and testimonial evidence. 40:15 🤔 The basis of reasonability: Differentiating personal belief from what's reasonable for others to believe. Exploring beliefs held by historians and the role of evidence. 43:26 🧩 Trent questions Matt's view on ethical veganism. 43:54 🤔 Matt expresses gratitude for a true statement made by Trent in the debate. 44:08 🙅 Matt clarifies his position on belief in resurrection, emphasizing his lack of conviction. 44:34 📚 Discussion on claims of historical resurrections and the evidence supporting them. 45:16 🤷♂️ Debate on the likelihood of current resurrection stories. 46:16 🤔 Trent argues that if Jesus rose from the dead, he could perform miracles today. 46:57 🧪 Matt questions the lack of physical evidence for resurrection claims. 48:13 🤨 Discussion on the reasonable acceptance of resurrection claims based on testimonial evidence. 48:41 🙋♂️ Matt probes whether Trent would accept resurrection claims without physical evidence. 49:14 🔄 Matt asserts his unwillingness to accept extraordinary claims based solely on testimony. 50:09 🙅♂️ Matt emphasizes his position on the unreasonableness of accepting extraordinary claims from testimonial evidence. 50:26 🧐 Transition to a discussion period with both participants questioning each other. 52:22 🗣️ Participants question each other's views on miracles and testimonial evidence. 53:30 🎙️ Trent asks Matt about his stance on uniformity of natural laws against miracles. 54:26 🗣️ Matt and Trent discuss their perspectives on reasonable acceptance of claims. 55:38 📚 Trent argues that history relies heavily on testimonial evidence. 56:06 🎙️ Transition to a conversational phase for further exploration of topics. 58:00 🧐 Matt challenges Trent about recognizing sufficient evidence for resurrection. 59:08 🤔 Trent defends his epistemology and view on evaluating testimonial evidence. 01:00:19 🧪 Discussion on how epistemological biases shape perspectives on evidence. 01:02:42 🔄 Participants engage in a discussion about different epistemological approaches. 01:04:08 🤯 Matt presents an analogy related to testimonial evidence and courtroom bias. 01:04:49 🧪 Trent explains his approach to evaluating historical claims based on evidence. 01:05:04 🤔 Matt Dillahunty emphasizes he's not a historian and cannot dictate historical reasonability. 01:05:33 🧐 Historical reasonability involves assessing evidence and scholarly consensus. 01:05:46 🏛️ Consensus: Jesus' crucifixion and death accepted by historians worldwide. 01:06:14 📚 Trent Horn excludes some historians with fringe views from "major universities." 01:06:56 🌎 Number of believers doesn't determine reasonableness or truth. 01:07:11 💉 Analogy: Medical consensus is strong evidence; science is distinct from history. 01:08:08 🧪 Debate on historical vs. scientific methodology; history not scientific. 01:09:34 ⚖️ Matt clarifies epistemological goals: minimize false beliefs, maximize truth. 01:10:03 🌌 Supernatural claims lack scientific verification; evidence needed. 01:10:29 👥 Historical claims can be credible based on evidence and consistency. 01:10:45 🛐 Elvis resurrection analogy; evidence and context determine reasonableness. 01:12:26 🌍 Historical knowledge compared to scientific knowledge; justification. 01:12:44 🗂️ Historical evidence: evaluation, sources, consensus, opposition's view. 01:13:07 📖 Applying historical method to claims about Jesus; consistency of accounts. 01:14:01 💬 Q&A session begins; audience questions for Trent and Matt. 01:19:09 ❓ Trent's hypothetical response to discovering Jesus' bones; faith evaluation. 01:19:31 ❓ Matt's stance on discovering Jesus' bones; atheism and theism. 01:22:01 ❓ Matt's view on resurrection artifacts; investigation and skepticism. 01:22:45 ❓ Apostles' martyrdom as evidence; possible motivations and beliefs. 01:24:11 ❓ Matt's response to apostles' martyrdom; conviction vs. truth. 01:25:12 ❓ Historical analogies of people dying for beliefs; not proof of truth. 01:26:12 🤔 Sincerity, not truth, is demonstrated by willingness to die for a belief. 01:26:40 📜 Disciples' enduring persecution indicates sincere belief in resurrection. 01:27:48 🗣️ Repeating "not convinced" isn't a cop-out; responding to arguments matters. 01:28:17 🤷♂️ Embracing "I don't know" can be unsettling but intellectually honest. 01:30:55 🔄 Speculation: If Jesus was born today, evidence might differ. 01:31:21 💡 Reasoning about God's reasons for revealing himself is complex. 01:32:48 ❓ Historical events' confidence levels vary based on evidence. 01:33:30 🌌 Accepting possibility of multiverse and extraterrestrial life isn't unreasonable. 01:38:09 🙏 Matt's criteria: Evidence should be sufficient to convince him. 01:41:48 🧠 Trent's distinction between "reasonable" and "convincing" beliefs. 01:43:15 🧐 Disagreement on reasonable matters when considering same information is a complex topic. 01:45:40 🧠 Evidence isn't a neon sign, but interpretations; courtroom analogy. 01:46:08 🚀 Beliefs become reasonable based on contradictions, expected evidence, and alternate explanations. 01:46:51 🧐 Even if there were physical evidence of resurrection, it might not convince everyone. 01:47:57 🤔 Questioning trust in someone with no absolute certainty; confidence vs. absolute certainty. 01:48:55 📏 Absolute certainty not always necessary; reasonable to act based on high confidence. 01:50:15 🕊️ Belief's impact on life doesn't alter evidence needed to affirm it. 01:51:29 🌎 Matt's disagreement on uniformity of experience; cultural variance, false beliefs. 01:52:47 👻 Matt's stance on belief: belief in experience, not necessarily the content. 01:55:13 🤝 Importance of respectful debate, focusing on reasons and evidence. 02:01:47 📚 Encouragement to research, read both sides, reach conclusions, and engage in informed dialogue. 02:05:53 🕰️ Gradual diminishing certainty with time; challenge of investigating distant claims. 02:06:20 🔍 Comparison of evidence quality for recent vs. ancient resurrection claims. 02:06:47 🧪 Importance of scientific method's reliability in understanding the world. 02:07:02 👥 Lack of supernatural/religious claims overturning established science. 02:07:30 📜 Historical argument for resurrection; reliance on book's reliability, lack of physical evidence.
@@Mayordomo32how was asking if Matt thinks it’s unreasonable to be an ethical vegan just bc Alex O’Conner is one? Alex and Matt are not bound to agree with each other bc they are self described Atheists. Ethical veganism is a moral decision and morality is relative to the individual. This conversation has nothing to do with morality.
Yh great debate but matt needs to relise God gives us free will so it's up to you to believe or not. God proves himself by miracles and witnesses which is good evidence.
@@chrisdistant9040 fair point but there are many Christians who lived and died. Scientists and philosopher's who had more knowledge then you? and understood epistemology and believed in God. Or are you saying you're smarter then every Christian who's ever existed??
@joshuanewsted2560 and I kept waiting for Matt to take off his debater hat, put on his audience member hat, and say, "I'm just not convinced." Didn't have to wait long, actually.
@@el-duderino975 And I'll keep waiting for you to realize that atheists have it easy because naturalism is the null hypothesis, since the natural world is all that we can perceive and discover truths about. And therefore, when theists claim that God is more probable than not, it's completely reasonable for atheists to refute their arguments and then say "I'm not convinced" without also presenting evidence for "no gods".
I must say that this was one of my favorite debates I have ever seen. The differences seem to stem from evidence versus testimony, which was a refreshing change from what I usually see in this sort of debate.
Honestly why not accept testimony that is kinda stupid. Based on this period of time what would have been the best evidence. A news article? Video footage? Blogs? Audio recordings? Idk what he wants but if there is sufficient evidence. We can look at testimony in this case as well as the impact of jesus till this day. He either duped people for 2000 years or he is telling the truth.
@@Jonathan-tw4xm Either somebody violated the laws of physics and reality as we know it, or somebody didn't and it was just a myth, like Zeus? Arguing from longevity isn't a good argument either. Christianity has primarily been around for as long as it has because of how brutally it has forced itself upon others. Plus, there are older religions. Wouldn't that make them more plausible, since they have been around even longer?
@@Jonathan-tw4xm Do you accept testimony from all the *OTHER* religious books, too? Have you ever read about Romulus or other gods? We'd expect an all-powerful god to do better than write a book in a dead language with no surviving copies. Honestly putting a message presumed to be this important, all in a book, when you know languages die out and change over time, is absurd. Goes along with the rest of the absurdity, frankly. talking donkeys, virgin births, fish swallowing men, resurrection. Seems to be obviously the stuff of fairy tales and legend... but if you grow up with it and your parents and community tell you it's true then you create a special, lower-threshold of evidence in our minds.
That because it isn’t Protestantism. I was an atheist for a long time. I followed Matt for years as well, I learned much from him and others. I found now that I am a Catholic my problems were with protestants. I don’t ever hear Catholics debate. There are so many problem with protestanism and their beliefs I can’t list them all. When it comes to Catholics and Orthodox you’ll get consistent answers. You will get reason, and not some fallacy filled protestant making stuff up.
@@11bsavage64it's is been my experience that most Catholics consistently fall back on god of the gaps, argument from ignorance, and argument from authority. If you disagree, how do you logically explain the Trinity?
2:04:33 does Matt hear himself? He literally said he doesnt agree with historians methods. So of course he wont deny the existence of Khan but will deny Jesus because it fits his narrative.
We have far more evidence for Khan than we do for Jesus. Khan was a conqueror. We have sources both from Mongolians themselves talking about Khan, and we have sources from non-mongolians talking about him, and not just from the Chinese, but also from lots and lots of different people across Eurasia talking about him. He was also a rapist, and we can test people's DNA that indicate that they share a particular common ancestor. The same is true of Mohammed. Mohammed had children, Mohammed conquered land and we have evidence of these battles having taken place and various written accounts of that individual, from complaints of invasion to cries for help to treaties. We do not have that for Jesus. We have contradictory testimony that was not from people who witnessed the events themselves that were written hundreds of years after it allegedly happened. Some information in the new testament is completely false, for example the Romans did not have a census in Judea, simple as that. It's false. The evidence for Khan is overwhelming. The evidence for Jesus is lacking. By a lot.
@@NxRCe Matt not only denied his Godhood but also denied that Christ was even crucified and says we don't have sufficient evidence to believe in him. Can you find any point in the video where Matt even starts to show he believes in Christ even as a person/historical figure.
@@yourlocalyoutuber6145 you are lying, even worse, you didn't even watch the debate where he clearly says at minute 01:06:08 he disagrees with historians who lciam Jesus did not exist. How pathetic
At 51:00, Trent was trying to say he accepts facts through testimony then from those facts, he accepts the resurrection. It's not really A > Resurrection, it's A > B > Resurrection. Just yes or no isn't really fair, it's more complicated.
That’s exactly why Matt doesn’t want to give Trent even a chance to elaborate what he means. Matt knows what he’s doing, and it’s absolutely dishonest.
@@icebread8857 Well, it has to either be dishonesty or shallow thinking because basically everyone who watched understood Trent's position and in turn knew why he was having a hard time picking yes or no. Either way it's bad for Matt.
Matt said on a debate with Braxton that even if Jesus wrote on the sky that He exist that would still not convince him because it could be done by extraterrestrial. I think he also said he wouldn't be convinced even if he prayed to God part the sea and God does it, he wouldn't still believe. If Jesus appear to him he will think it was an hallucination.
@@pup1008 in his assertions of ruling out those other possibilities is where he hides. He could not prove it would be extraterrestrials if it was written in the sky, therefore his would be arguing with his conclusions already reached.
@@richpalmer9886 I'm not 100% following your reply but my comment was a general observation that anything that initially appeared "supernatural" would have to be extensively tested to rule out other possibilities. I imagine 1000's of years ago it was a given that volcanoes & lightning were in that bracket but how did that play out....🤔
@@pup1008 My point is, Matt will always point to something he still would be unable to validate. It becomes circular for him. As far as volcanoes and lighting, ultimately it doesn't change from 1000 of years ago. If God was to be real, he ultimately is the cause for all natural things. We just have a better understanding of how and why they work today.
Great,good clean debate,it’s nice to see mutual agreements concerning different worldviews,they both treated each other with respect,I’m an atheist but enjoyed listening and watching Trent’s arguments and debate methods,great watch.
youre an atheist? im not sure so i am asking. every atheist has their own worldview....atheism is just about one question....thats it. you werent implying that atheists have some collective world view were you? you meant matt and trents personal worldviews? which
@@pleaseenteraname1103 : I didn't get that at all. He's just expressing his reasoning and that will by it's nature conflict with a different view. The questioner dismissing what Matt claimed to be his view was condescending as if Matt didn't know or explain what that belief was already.
Sorry Trent, no one has ever been confirmed to have come back from "clinical death" three days later. If there were evidence of that it would rock the scientific and medical communities and we'd all know about it within days. Claiming you know it is true that someone did requires compelling evidence which you did not provide in this debate.
I think Matt's point around the 40 or so mark was pretty spot-on. In many cases, we might accept testimonial evidence when it comes to things we have witnessed temporally, but that standard of evidence increases drastically when it's something we have not seen prior.
You ever heard of ppl dying on an operating table and coming back to life? I’m confused why anyone would think bringing someone back to life isn’t possible
@@Ponysoldier12 yeah okay, let's all pretend that medical science and resuscitation of someone whose brain has not yet rotted is the same thing as MAGIC raising someone from a state of actual exsanguination and ROT. Are you suggesting God sent a team of doctors to give the (mostly) dead Jesus a blood transfusion and some chest compressions? After his brain was starved of oxygen for THREE DAYS?? What a pathetic, bad faith attempt at WORD GAMES. In a medical context, to borrow from a great movie again, people who are brought back are only MOSTLY dead, which means they are slightly alive. The BRAIN is still alive. Many of your cells remain alive for hours after the heart stops beating and brain cells start to die IRREVERSIBLY. As long as there is little to no BRAIN DAMAGE, then if you get the PIPES going again, then you ARENT ACTUALLY DEAD because the BRAIN didn't die. So, it isnt resurrection. It isn't raising someone from death, it's ACTUALLY bringing someone back from the BRINK of death. So, what are you talking about? A medical intervention in 1st century Judea to save Jesus from the BRINK of death? Or a miracle saving him from ACTUAL death? Do not even dare, EVER, compare the two again.
@@Ponysoldier12 Yeah, a million times in fact (slight hyperbole). The difference between those is that Jesus didn't require a defibrillator to come back to life, nor did he come back to life with the aid of another person on Earth. It was something he did in a time without that technology and it was something he sort of did himself (maybe Yahweh helped, too, if Yahweh is separate in this case). So, no, not even slightly similar in terms of epistemological scale.
Trent admitted he starts with a belief in god when approaching the resurrection. Of course, in that thought-world, the resurrection is entirely reasonable. If that's his starting point though, I think this entire debate is bunk, because it's the foundation of his belief that bolsters the reasonableness of the claim.
Insert that argument against every religious person ever. They start from “I believe in God” then work their way backwards from there to try and make the evidence fit. A person of science goes wherever the evidence takes them whether they like it or not.
@@crobeastness Because one is contingent on the other. If you believe in god, then you can believe in resurrections, arks that contain 2 of every single animal, miracles, etc. It all follows if you presuppose god. That's why going after that presupposition should have been the topic, but instead they talked past each other due to not accepting each other's starting position.
@@victoriaaltun7425 Well, yes, but that's true for literally any belief. The point is that the belief in god is Trent's superordinate belief that creates a framework of reasonableness, in his mind, for all the other subordinate beliefs he has (which includes resurrections). It does not necessarily follow that if resurrections happen, then god exists because resurrections could have some other explanation, but if god exists, gods properties are such that god's existence makes resurrections not only possible but plausible. Matt has no such superordinate belief. It is rejected. You must start with that belief, therefore, in order to have any kind of discussion where both interlocuters are on the same page.
Okay. That was a good, respectful back and forth between a slightly exasperated realist, a personable fantasist, and a dude in the top corner moderating well, with a great beard. God didn't turn up in the end, but that was always the prediction , so there it is.
Matt is not a realist since he says it's unreasonable to believe that Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate in defiance of Tacitus, Josephus and so on.
Additionally, Matt gets the "argumentum ad populum" fallacy wrong. It doesn't matter whether it's history or science -- a fallacy is a fallacy, no matter what field it's in. Trent's point wasn't that most reputable historians believe Jesus was crucified, therefore it's true. His point was that no reputable historian teaching at a reputable university would deny that fact. Richard Carrier and Robert Price are on the fringe of historians for denying Jesus existed, and Carrier even admitted that in his debate with William Lane Craig.
@Kyle R Arguments from authority are just fine. They are only fallacious if you are appealing to an illegitimate authority. All of us rely on authorities for a lot of the things we know.
@@vincentranger09 He didn't make it up. Bart Ehrman (an agnostic) makes that claim. In fact, Ehrman has some very harsh words for atheists who deny Jesus was a real person.
@@vincentranger09 Well, you can disprove it by finding a historian who teaches at a reputable university who doesn't believe Jesus was a real person. But the evidence for Jesus being a real person is very well attested; the only reason to deny it is if you have a prior commitment to atheism. But there's no need to deny there was a real person named Jesus. You don't have to give up your atheism to do that.
1:08:40 wanting to acquit as many guilty people as possible and spare as many innocent are actually directly correlated. This is a concept in statistics called type 1 and type 2 errors. They are inversely related, meaning they are dependent on each other. It would be entirely unreasonable to believe what he was saying, which is funny given he believes anything he is convinced of is reasonable
The trouble with testimony is that, yes, we can say there's enough testimony to assume that Jesus was real and was crucified, but the problem is that that's not the extent of the claim. The claim is not just that Jesus was real and crucified, but that there is a God conforming to certain properties of justice and mercy and creativity and omnipotence and omnipresence, who was somehow alive in this Jesus and had also sent him to be sacrificed as payment for the sins of a woman named Eve, who was directly created by God via the rib of the first man, and that by believing this story and abiding by a series of rules relating to cleanliness, charity, chastity, property ownership and diet, we will circumnavigate the natural order of the world and have instead eternal life. Now, taking all THAT on account of testimony, which was written down dozens of years after the fact, is a whole different ball game. And the fact that this all powerful being would by definition KNOW that the testimony in the Bible would not convince most people to belief, is enough evidence for me that the story isn't true.
@@ruaraidh74 It’s been a long time since I watched the video and posted the comment so I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt - your points sound reasonable, especially regarding exaggerating the claim. Perhaps I was recycling an argument I have with my dad where he thinks if he can persuade me that evolutionary theory is flawed that that gets him God, the kingdom to come etc. You’re incorrect about atheism but I think that was your point. Atheism, as I suspect you know, is the lack of belief in a god, nothing else. And certainly nothing to do with exogenesis or the formation of the cosmos. You could be an atheist and think that the universe was eternal, or multi universe or the vomitus of a giant space turtle. And your final point I’d challenge on a logical basis. It’s just a habit of mine to look at claims and want to test them. It’s not my opinion that God wants to convince me of its existence because, like you say, I don’t imagine it exists. But it’s a religious claim that God wants people to know him, not to mention being self evident from the existence of the Bible, often described as ‘God’s Word’. If they drop this claim I have no need to challenge it, and overnight their doctrine becomes one step more believable.
This presumes God is worried about most people not following his word lol. “Before the foundations of the world” he chose his sheep. If someone isn’t swayed but the evidence of the bible then that is of little concern to God lol.
1:08:04 all scientific reports and findings are testimony. If you didn’t do the experiment yourself, you are still trusting what other people said they found.
@@robwolchek2265 im confused; im saying that the science that others bring to the table is falseifyable and testable; wheras religious claims such as the resurrection are not
Lol Matt said a medical report (on Jesus death and resurrection) from a doctor would prove it's true. As if he wouldnt just discount that doctor, as a Christian conspirator like he does the other witnesses. Plus he would want tons of doctors to confirm it also.
I agree… even if the evidence was much much better than the hearsay of some cult members who didn’t witness any of the events that you actually have… it wouldn’t be good enough. A doctor who confirms the death of Jesus in a made up story is still just part of a made up story. The funny part is that God could effortlessly provide all of the necessary evidence that would convince even the most skeptical person on the planet instead of demanding to believe the story based on the same weak evidence that we have for thousands of other legends and conspiracy theories.
You are so used to not questioning reality concerning your beliefs that you can't grasp such a simple notion. How would you PROVE it then? Not talking about random unverified testimonies, because then all sorts of magical things would be considered proven, some of which in direct opposition to Christianity. Actual proof.
@@Zripassure. Matt asked for a doctor’s note. There are lying doctors and inept doctors too. It just boggle my mind that this seems like a strong point. The best evidence available can still lead to false conclusions. That’s literally science. That’s why science changes theory based on evidence. Why not just say miraculous claims requires miraculous evidence. It’s like ok. That’s the real take and I am fresh out of miracles so good day sir.
If the resurrection really happened, then how come it was not documented right away? that would have been BIG news, and yet it wasn't written about till at least 50 years later?
@@urbandesitv3529 "that's approximately 30 years" For perspective, that would be like writing down news that occurred in 1991. Paul never claims to have met Jesus, didn't see anything first hand, and claims that a crap ton of unnamed other people who totally really existed were the witnesses.
1:45:13 - what Matt said is fine so long as you believe humans are capable of being reasonable. If a reasonable argument can be made, and people can be reasonable, then it is possible for the two to combine so that there is only one reasonable position. Whether or not a reasonable argument will always find a reasonable person to make it or hear it in a group of people can be debated. The possibility of it happening is totally there. If it wasnt then there would be no point in arguing cause then you are just denying reason.
Trent accepts the claims of the resurrection based on other people he can’t even identify 2000 years ago saying an event happened that would have been absolutely extraordinary. But he doesn’t accept the claims of resurrection in India that happen today all the time where we can actually investigate those claims.
56:32 "In the vast majority of cases, testimony is sufficient" Lol Trent must believe in every alien kidnapping, every miracle claim for every other religion, and even other gods if he believes the vast majority of testimonies is enough. Great logic!
I guess Mohammed did once ride upon a unicorn and split the moon in half. Not only is there testimonial evidence in the nature of Quran there's also thousands of people who have sacrificed their lives for this and continue to do so now as well.
@@andesvirgo If someone went to jail because the witness said "The 13 (Mary's age at Jesus conception) year old girl gave birth to a child despite never having intercourse, the dude she born then committed never seen before miracles like healing people and resurrecting the dead and himself oh and totally there was like 500 people that have seen it, totally" Then I think that's great injustice. I think the only courts which count "I prayed/had a dream/vision and revelation came upon me that this individual is guilty" is evangelical american court and 3rd world bumholes in the middle east and africa.
@@mathiasrryba We do not have the witnesses in history confirming the virgin birth, but we do have those witnesses for the resurrection, which is what the example was. The quality of these witness testimony is such that, even under threat of torture and death, these witnesses would not deny what they saw. And even non-Christian historians accounts for these witnesses. This is more credible testimony than any court in the world requires.
1:35:51 As Asimov said either way if life exists elsewhere in the universe or not amazing The Laserous (sp) effect is a technique (still not proven conclusively ) whereby the brain is super cooled (by various means) to such an extent that metabolically it can survive relatively intact so that when the body is repaired (ie heart attack) or restored to basic life functions one can be wholly restored.
I don't get Trents point about only 12 people believing in a resurrection 2000 yrs ago. People believed in all kinds of myths prior to the bible. Also Trent; someone saying they saw a demon isn't strange but it is still an extraordinary claim that needs extraordinary evidence.
It’s not that 12 people believed in the resurrection. It’s the fact that we have the preserved testimony of 12 individuals from 2,000 years ago which is far, far more than any other historical figure living in that time period; these writings also date to within mere decades of this figure’s life. Most historians date the apostles’ creed to just three years after the death of Jesus. Did you know the earliest evidence we have of Plato is a few translated copies of some of his writings from the Middle Ages? Do you doubt that Plato existed? The earliest evidence we have of Tiberius Caesar’s existence comes from about 80 years after his death. This obscene standard would make the entire practice of history impossible. This is why even the vast, overwhelming majority of *skeptic* New Testament scholars say the fact that Jesus lived, was crucified by Ponticus Pilate, was buried in a tomb, the tomb was found empty (this one’s a little more controversial with “only” three-fourths of scholars attesting to this fact), and that hundreds of people at the very least hallucinated encounters with the risen Jesus, are undeniable. “But muh empiricism,” can be applied to just about any historical figure.
@@xavieryounger1631 I could believe that Plato existed, that's a mundane claim. If someone said he was murdered, buried & walked home 3 days later would you believe that? If you said you were a eye witness. I would think you are mistaken or lying.
I as an atheist will agree Jesus more than likely existed and was crucified. However sufficient evidence of a resurrection? No i do not see that. What you have is the second hand account of 12 disciples who believed in the risen jesus. These accounts were taken decades after the fact which is a long time. Think about an incident 30 years ago and tell me if you honestly believe a second hand account from witnesses will be accurate. You say “hundreds” of witnesses. Where? Who? As Matt and so many others have pointed out to the point of exhaustion: the standard of proof for something as outlandish as a resurrection is going be much higher than another mundane claim. Do i believe Hitler had 1 testicle? Sure. That is a strange but relatively mundane claim that i suppose i am willing to accept. BUT if me believing Hitler having one testicle is supposed to be the foundation of my ENTIRE life, world view and worship well then i’m gonna demand an extraordinary amount of evidence and certainty.
I was gonna type the same thing. Finally a debate not filled with shouting and nonsense... but instead, we had a proper discussion. Well done by both guys!
Not really for Dillahunty I mean I appreciate that he came on, only to get decimated by Trent, because he treats these debates as if they’re just discussions and not actual debates, he’s asking questions as if he’s in the audience and not actually debating. His only argument is basically I’m not convinced and you didn’t provide evidence, when Trent literally asked him what evidence would satisfy him and he said testimonial evidence and then when he gave examples of testimonial evidence, he just said that’s not sufficient.
@@pleaseenteraname1103 Matt didn't say that just any old testimony would convince him. In a court of law, for example, evidence may be completely dismissed in certain cases, such as if it's unreasonable/impossible ("Matt killed that guy using black magic"); if it contradicts previous testimony; if the info is too vague to be useful ("I only saw his shadow, but it looked like a tall guy, and Matt's tall, so it must have been Matt"); if the witness falsely claims expertise in some area ("I knew Matt was having a heart attack rather than a seizure", when s/he has no medical training). There are many examples of statements which negate or diminish the veracity of testimony, so all evidence is NOT created equal.
@@judyfrancis4515 yes and that was also the point Trent was making sometimes we have to trust testimonial evidence, and sometimes that’s all we have. And Matt literally said that’s what would convince him but then he backtracked once Trent explained to him that we have examples of that in the Bible, but then he tried to bully him into saying that he would except nothing but testimonial evidence alone when he literally said that’s what he would accept. Yes but you have to prove this is actually what is said in the gospels. Yes I agree yes I definitely agree.
Well, half of the letters of Paul are considered to be forgeries written many decades after his death… and most historians no longer believe that Moses, Abraham or Noah existed or that the Exodus happened or the Conquest of Joshua.
I feel like Matt could have used certain examples to better counter the theists questions. For when said its reasonable to believe what you see. Matt could have said, not when its an extraordinary event. Ex: unexplained lights in the sky could be an alien spacecraft, but its not reasonable to assume so based only on sight. Its more reasonable to assume a cause explained by known reality.
I mean, if you saw a dude get crucified and stabbed, and then he is walking around and tells you he was stabbed, it's pretty reasonable to think that he is telling the truth.
The thing I love most about debates is also the thing I hate most. Debaters heavily invest themselves in defending their position, but the problem is most invest themselves so much they are unwilling to ask and answer questions honestly, concede points, admit being wrong, and refrain from caricaturing their opponents position. It’s human nature though and nothing unique to them.
@@fakename3208 All the theists need to do is present objectively verifiable evidence for the existence of their god(s). If they can do that, they win, the atheists lose, and the debate is over. So, why don't they?
@@unduloid for the same reason atheists can’t prove there is not a God. You are speaking of God as if her were Bigfoot or some other being floating through space that I could point at with a telescope. If such a being existed it would not be God. It’s sort of like asking Macbeth to show you Shakespeare.
at about 1:37:15 Trent is asked if he didn't believe, would the "evidence" of jesus resurrection be enough to make him believe. Trent then admits that if he did not first believe in that god, it would be alot tougher for him to believe in jesus. So right there he admits to doing what most religious people do.....they START with the Conclusion. That Conclusion being whatever "god" they were indoctrinated into. Bottom line is, we should NEVER start with the Conclusion like religion does. Instead, we should Collect all the Evidence we can. Then, test that evidence. Then, Evaluate the results of those tests. Then, Evaluate it again. After some time of research, you FOLLOW THE EVIDENCE. Let the Facts form your beliefs. That is what Science does. Religion is the opposite. They are all about starting with the Conclusion and denying anything that goes against it to keep their beliefs alive at any and all cost. That is what makes belief in gods so dangerous.
@Andrew Davis You can come up with a reason to do, belief or feel just about anything. But it should be a good reason with reliable evidence. The point is that there is no reliable evidence in the case of religions.
@Andrew Davis I said there is no reliable evidence, not just evidence. None of the things listed could possibly be considered reliable for supernatural claims that religions make. When Julius Caesar describes how his army crossed what is now known as the English channel it is a believable historic account. Why? Because he describes how his army spent months building ships and then they were too flimsy to even make it across without a bunch of them getting wrecked. If his story was that he prayed and Jupiter dangled his co*k from the heavens to split the sea in half so his army could go across it would be a very different story. Neither I nor anyone else would be justified in claiming there is reliable evidence for this. If we apply your standards to everything else we will end up accepting alien abduction stories, astrology, alchemy, vodoo, flat earth nonsense, homeopathy and every other species of human ignorance and superstitions. And many people do just that. But It doesn't make it reasonable by any means.
@Andrew Davis I'm not surprised at all that you disagree. Like I said, many people apply just such standards of evidence. What really is disturbing though is that most people who do this (you as well most likely) are very hypocritical and only apply such flimsy standards of evidence to their own biases. Christians who accept the bible stories as true because of eye witness testimonies reject the same evidence from other religions or alien abduction sotries even if they are more reliable by the same account. We all have freedom and the privilege to believe anything and share it with others, but that doesn't make it right. You don't live in a vacuum. So feel free to belive whatever you want based on whatever you consider as evidence, but don't expect me, as someone who cares about what is true and that this has consequences, to say "that's ok". It's not, we just have our rights of free thought and expression, as we should - something the god of the bible denies us btw. Anyway, take care and I hope you change your mind someday 😉
@Andrew Davis -- You make the Claim that there are "Scientific" reasons for belief in god. You made the Claim, Prove it. Show everyone this Scientific Proof that can be Tested and Falsified. Will you do this? Let's be honest, if ANY religion has ANY Real Scientific Proof, there would be no need for the Blind faith is currently Demands. BTW, which of the tens of thousands of 'god's' is the one you claim to be true? “SCIENCE adjusts its views based on what's observed. FAITH is the Denial of observation so that belief can be preserved.” - Tim Minchin “Where there is evidence, no one speaks of “faith”. We do not speak of faith that two and two are four or that the Earth is round. We only speak of faith when we wish to substitute Emotion for Evidence.” - Bertrand Russell
@Andrew Davis -- So like all the others, you Claim your god with Science....but Provide Zero Proof. If you used anything, it was the usual God of the Gaps. Next. You can still fall back on Blind Faith. BTW, which of the Tens of Thousands of "god's" is the one you claim?
If a large number of the 600 mentioned resurrections were proven with concrete evidence to be true, this would not be good for the Jesus resurrection story as it would make it a commonplace event not necessarily connected to an intervening diety, rather the result of unknown physical processes.
Pretty interesting that it took Matt several times to get an answer from Trent that he would believe the resurrection solely on testimonial evidence and then Trent immediately goes to Paul's hearsay of the Apostles told him so. This is he really good testimony.
@@breandanh4912 I would say, based on my current beliefs, my suffering today won't have a large enough effect to be noticed by those far enough away from me in space or time, which makes it by a measure "meaningless" in a colloquial sense. Beyond the (chemical) reactions that lead to suffering (mental stress or physical pain) that also lead to us possibly trying to reduce or seeking to reduce painful consequences for the self or others; experiencing suffering might make one want to reduce it. I, personally, take my few experiences of "suffering" by reducing, or working on, my behavior that I think causes suffering in others, ie "Not being an asshole." Do you think suffering serves some greater purpose?
Trent has no idea how many times he proved Matt’s point for him. History does not require near the rigor or evidence as science and historians understand that.
@@solimarra right except when it comes to history, just because something is accepted historically doesn’t always mean it is a reasonable thing to accept.
Matt showed his double standards when he said it's unreasonable to believe Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate in defiance of Tacitus, Josephus, Mara Bar Serapion, pre-Pauline creeds, the Gospels etc.
Respect to Matt Dillahunty for finally debating a strong opponent. It's like offering the red pill, after this he can go back and continue to debate phony Christians or come and see how deep the rabbit hole goes.
I'd like to see more of Trent in these discussions. It's refreshing to see someone I don't agree with argue honestly. I gave his arguments more weight (I still don't agree) because I didn't feel like he was straight up lying to me. It was an honest differing opinion. Soooo much better than the Ken Ham type
@@natew.7951 I agree, except, when I was a Christian I believed that very thing. In sunday school, we sang about "Lazarus rise up and walk" weekly, for years. I had more trouble letting go of resurrection and immortality than I did of the existence of any gods.
@Tyler B #2 "the resurrection"? I'm pointing out that the debater tried to pretend that "resurrections" are ordinary. That's absurd. People aren't coming back to life on a regular basis.
Honest?! You gotta be kidding me. This lunatic is literally saying that not only is raising the dead normal and possible, but that it might actually be happening today!.....without any serious scientists or media investigating it I might add. I'm sorry, but as a lifelong atheist, I'm not going to give this Trent character any leeway as you seem to be doing. I fear that your past beliefs are clouding your judgement. If you didn't think he was straight up lying to you about resurrecting the dead, I'm scared to think what you would actually believe.
@Tyler B #2 Microbiologist here! The stardust thing you mentioned isn’t at all what scientists believe regarding abiogenesis. We can already do experiments in lab that generate amino acids from electrically energized water and various sterilized soil/rock particles. The early earth had lightning, stone, and water. It isn’t improbable, but almost guaranteed, that amino acids generates on earth that way. From there, amino acids can sometimes combine and eventually create proteins. There are many self-replicating proteins/proto-proteins on earth (think prions like mad cow disease). We don’t believe magical stardust made life. We believe a lengthy natural process which we can test for ourselves in lab eventually created life.
You always know when bullshit is incoming when any phrase is used that' starts along the lines of "that's a great question, thanks for asking it etc etc". Just a delaying tactic when people realise they are about to spout bollocks instead of just answering a yes or no question.
Yeah, well, OR... They actually want to convey respect for their debate opponent while they quickly gather their thoughts on how to best formulate an answer to the actual way the question was asked.
@@rijden-nu you missed the part about it being a yes or no question. It's normally the pause when they are trying to square away the fact that they just realised that they have a higher moral standard than the god they are about to try and defend.
Just because an extraordinary claim puportedly occurred in ancient times when we arent able to investigate any such claims rigorously, doesnt mean we should be lowering our standard of evidence. If someone today claimed to have Superman powers, I would need some serious well-documented, scientific evidence. If someone 2000 years ago claimed the same thing, I would STILL need some serious well-documented scientific evidence.
What do you mean by "scientific evidence". "Science isnt just beakers and measuring devises. Thats what Horn was trying to get through to Dillahunty. The VAST majority of history, which IS a science despite Dillahuntys ludicrous claim to the contrary, doesnt have physical evidence. The Pyramids being Tombs for the Pharaohs for example. There has never been a Pharaoh mummy found in the Pyramids. Nor are there texts saying "this is the Tomb of X", but it is the leading theory for all academics who study the Pyramids, even though they have no physical evidence for the claim. I guarantee you, Dillahunty accepts the theory without a second thought. "Just because an extraordinary claim purortedly occurred in ancient times when we arent able to investigate any such claims rigorously, doesnt mean we should be lowering our standard of evidence." What are you even talking about? This is possibly one of the MOST rigorously investigated claims there is. Standards arent being lowered for anything. If they where, no one would be Atheist, nor would the Religious have "crisis of Faith".
@Requinix17 I think that standards are lowered for the ancient past. Many things we believe about the functioning of societies are based upon a few sources. In the modern era, we would try to go through a lot more sources before being convinced that a particular claim about the way a society exists is accurate. What is required is the best possible explanation of what occurred with all the evidence one does possess. It's not the intrinsic probability alone that counts (winning a lottery is extraordinary, but we generally don't demand extraordinary evidence for it), but also the ratio between the probability of the evidence that is available given the occurrence of the event vs the probability of the evidence if the event did not occur. If the ratio tilts towards the view that the evidence is a lot more probable if the event occurred than if it didn't, then that can counterbalance any intrinsic improbability of the event itself. Naturally, the theist would also use other arguments for the existence of God to show that a resurrection is not as improbable as it may initially seem.
@MrPeaceGuy54 The best possible explanation for Christianity is that it has the same amount of credibility as all the other ancient religions. If you lower your standard of evidence for Christianity then you have to lower it for all ancient religions
@@Requinix17 while I agree the standards of proof do not change, the standard of reasonability does. If two events had the same low level of proof with no more evidence in sight, but one occurred yesterday and the other 2000 years ago. It would be more reasonable to assume that the ancient claim has evidence that has been lost to time. Therefore more reasonable overall.
@Lady Macbeth You can't use reason or evidence to reach the conclusion someone came back from the dead, or that there is anything other than the physical world. It can't be reasonable to make something up and act on that assumption with no reason to do so. It would be just as reasonable to imagine anything with no evidence and say that it's totally reasonable because you believe there's some other plane of existence that can never be evidenced but that justifies it. The whole point of religious faith is that it isn't reasonable.
@Lady Macbeth It's rather reasonable to approach it through the lens of a naturalistic worldview when we are literally living in the Natural and not the Supernatural. Demonstrate the Supernatural to begin with and (as Hitchens once said) you'd have a ghost of a point.
@Lady Macbeth well yes, that and the fact that we live in a world where miracles are never observed to happen, so regardless of worldview, why should we believe ancient accounts of a dubious nature relating multiple miraculous events?
"God couldn't live up to certain standards of evidence?". That is a strawman. God can give sufficient effidence for His existence (as 1 over 10 ^136 the probability that is chance rather than God that is the reason for the order in the universe) or can wait later to give such evidence people will reject Him in their current state of mind. It seems that Matt is in the second category. Thus, no evidence is enough for him since He decided so. And you?
@@EstudioVoitheia In-fact, god MUST give the evidence for his existence - evidence sufficient to convince every human being of god’s existence. The fact that he has failed to do so, based on very existence of human beings who disbelieve god’s existence, renders the omni-god of the Christian faith nothing more than a logical contradiction. Therefore, the Christian god can NOT exist as defined. -If something is omniscient, it can never fail to know a thing... if it lacked any knowledge, it wouldn’t be maximally knowledgeable. -If something is omnipotent, then there is no thing (within the constraints of logic) that it cannot do... if there were, then it wouldn’t be maximally powerful. -If something is omni-benevolent, it can never do anything but good... AND if it could fail to do something good, it wouldn’t be maximally good. In order for god to exist, as he is defined, nothing that god does OR fails to do, can place god in a violative relationship with ANY of the preceding characteristics. Consider: -In order to believe in god, people might require different kinds of evidence or different levels of evidence, but god must know what evidence is required to prove his existence, not just to one person...or some people...or even most people...but to EVERY single individual. If he didn’t know this, then he wouldn’t be all-knowing. -If god is all-powerful, god must be able to provide this evidence to everyone individually. Not a general presentation of creation for humanity collectively, but a Damascus road experience for each individual - whatever it takes so that every soul KNOWS god exists. If god could not do this, he wouldn’t be all-powerful. -And the final one is where the conflict lies. Does god care? Surely he must. If god is all good, then god must want his creations to avoid eternal damnation. Even if god cannot ensure this because of some appeal to human free-will, god can at a minimum, give his creation all the tools necessary for belief. The most obvious tool being KNOWLEDGE OF HIS EXISTENCE. If god knows what it takes for each soul to believe in his existence, and is powerful enough to provide it, but chooses to withhold this knowledge from even a single soul, for any reason at all, then god cannot be all-good. We live in a world where people do not believe that the Christian god exists. Some of those people believe in other gods, some of those people believe in no gods, and some of those people (like the pirahã tribe in the Amazon) never formed a concept of god and don’t even understand it. The very fact that people don’t have the evidence necessary for UNIVERSAL belief in the existence of the Christian god, means that some people will suffer eternal damnation because god either: 1) Didn’t know what evidence was necessary, 2) Wasn’t powerful enough to provide it, or 3) Chose to withhold it. But whichever option applies, the Christian god CANNOT exist as defined. That is what this argument reveals. The fact that we live in a world where disbelief is even possible, proves that the omniscient, omnipotent, omni-benevolent god of the Bible CANNOT exist.
Have you noticed that you completly ignore my reply. No. You can noticed around you that people do not aways want to listen to a truth (probably you too). Sometimes they can be even very angry at you. So that is also the case for God. God priority is lead people to Good (which is another name for God).
@@Deathwish026 Christians never said the resurrection was a natural event so please stop pretending we did, to be Christian you would have to believe it was a divine miracle. Dragons are dinosaurs and what everyone called them before the name dinosaur was used. And if the website you used to learn that said it has a unicorn, that is just a rhino, and not the horse thing on cartoons. You believe in a lot of things that can't be tested, so stop pretending you require testing ability for something to be believable. I strongly doubt you've used this for any of your beliefs anyway, atheists in practice have the most insane beliefs of all time, including gender fluidity. Something that IS testable fake. Dilahunty said he "doesn't care what historians say" which is a blatant omission that history is on the Christian side, and to do atheism you have to throw it out.
The inability of believers to answer straight forward questions is so frustrating. Does Trent believe that Jesus returned AGAIN but in India 100yrs ago? Believed by millions.. eyewitness testimonies
Another thing I often don’t hear enough of here is that claims of gods resurrecting was not uncommon for the times. Jesus wasn’t the first claim of this happening. Sounds more like plagiarism then facts.
@@jaromsmiss Because there are lots of stupid people in the world. Check your mirror. BTW by 2050 Islam will be the #1 religion. Does that mean it is true? In 2000 BC most people thought pharoah was a god. Were they right? (the stupid, it burns).
Jesus Christ is the only one to resurrect himself. it is one thing to resurrect another person but to resurrect one's self is unheard of and is why people were compelled to die in martyrdom after having witnessed Jesus Christ after his resurrection
@@scambammer6102 there are 4000 religions in the world roughly and the only two that really stand out are Christianity and Islam. Christianity is the only religion that has witnesses. how do you get 12 men to die for something that is not true? of course you as a sketpic gonna have some explanation for such, but there comes a point where a skeptic has to cut corners to make good sense of things
What's reasonable to you isn't the same for the next. The fact your body does almost all its functions on its own can already be considered a miracle but in your mind you won't see it.
@@mrwhite2039 That is stupid. That relegates evidence to subjectivity. This is why I walked away from Christianity. Your God is condemning me in hell for lacking belief.
@@mrwhite2039 Yes I have free will, but your God is condemning me to hell for not believing. The only evidence we have are accounts about eye witnesses. For the stakes being so high, any reasonable person would ask for sufficient evidence.
@@SaintCharbelMiracleworker a simple search on TH-cam or google will provide you with numerous examples of Matt debating theists. He always brings his A game. Watch some atheist experience episodes on here with him hosting if you want to see him discuss theism with average theists or he has many debates with religious scholars posted as well.
Matt put an end to this nonsense between 48:23 and 50:25, as Trent squirmed in his seat trying every debate deflection and redirect tactic in the book to avoid answering a very simple question. A question he could only answer one way because he'd boxed himself in with this religious voodoo nonsense. An answer he knew would remove any hint of credibility he had to determine reasonableness, at least on this topic. This podcast was over for me when Matt said he was done and popped a snack into his mouth at 50:25. Savage.
Trent is prepared to believe that something miraculous happened based on hearsay alone. He pointed out that two thousand years ago we were limited in what could be tested, as though that somehow makes it acceptable to believe in something that defies modern science/medicine. It doesn't. By that reasoning we can't rule out anything that happend back in the day. This is one of the dangerous things about religion - otherwise sensible people believing in the ridiculous. And once you let the ridiculous in, the door's wide open for a whole lot more.
Listen Carefully.Do not let the evil woman put fear in your heart and if you know that you have faith in Christ do as he says and wait for the testimony.I don't know you in person but God knows you well God reveal a revelation to me when I was going through your profile to observe things about your spiritual life. while I was meditating, I saw a divine breakthrough in your life and I saw evil attack of the enemies manipulating on seizing your favour and to come against your hand work for you to be confused and lost hope. As I was praying the Lord reveal to me and instruct you to sow a seed into the life of a baby suffering from leukemia in children of Saviour motherless foundation,located Edo state,Nigeria, before the end of tomorrow and let me know so I can join you in prayers deeply because he want to manifest his promises in your life and that of your family Nobody should know about the seed is between you and God, you will testify to the Glory of God after you have done it if only you believe in him and do what he says Proverb (3:27;21:26;22:9 ,,Deu.28:1-5) contact the MD of the orphanage foundation WhatsApp:(+2349064374487)or Email:(saviourfoundation111@gmail.com) send your donation to them.God bless you...
No, we can’t rule out anything that is purported have happened in the past. Recorded history is based entirely on testimonial evidence. Then if evidence is discovered that disproves that event, it is then disproved. Pointing to the evidence that exists as proof that it didn’t happen is not acceptable. That’s dillahunty’a entire schtick. He “claims” he doesn’t have to debate the historicity of the evidence because it is only “claims”.
@@simpleplan8914 it's more that there's no point debating miraculous claims based on sketchy testimonials from 100s of years ago. We'll never know reliably, but can make a pretty good guess at was possible based on what we observe as being possible now. Magic doesn't exist. Men can't part water and conjure fish out of mid air. If anyone chooses to believe that based on some ancient texts cobbled together and edited a bunch of times, that's on them. It doesn't make it sensible tho.
Trent H. does quite well against Protestants. Trent H. did not do well at all in this debate. Matt D. clearly has honest reason in his arguments that Trent H. does not possess in his assertions.
Trent is ultimately admitting to believing in the resurrection based on nothing but people's word for it, and the fact that ALOT of people believe it. Forget the fact that Christianity was spread under the sword for thousands of year by the largest empire to ever exist. The greatest Con ever pulled off.
I’m an aCarrierist. The “evidence” we have for Richard Carrier is allegorical space spiritual alien none sense. Richard Carrier is just a copy of older pagan gods. I always tell people that believe that Richard Carrier exists “you don’t believe in multiple Richard Carriers, right? I just believe in one less Richard Carrier than you.”
@@ChristLover435, Ikr. There are no eye witness accounts attesting to his existence, no contemporary accounts, no one who wrote about him knew the people who knew him, no archeological evidence for Richard Carrier, all the sources written on him are late and unreliable, the books written by him are forgeries, the videos that show him on TH-cam are fabrications, and he’s just a copy of other skeptics who lived before him. It is quite rational to be a acarrierist.
@@generalkenobi6792 exactly. Being an aCarrierist will exclude you from any political office and polite society...everybody just takes it for granted that Carrier exists. We aCarriests are supremely rational unlike these superstitious people who believe in mythical characters because their parents said so. Richard Carrier exists? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And don’t cling to biased Carriest sources to justify your myths.
@@ChristLover435, Exactly. Richard Carrier is sooo fake! I’ve never been presented sufficient evidence to support his existence. He’s just as real as Trump is the greatest president of all time! In fact I don’t even think Trump existed either!
Let's apply a bayesian analisis of the historicity of Richard Carrier The initial odds that Richard Carrier exists are - let’s be generous - a hundred to one in favor of the proposition. Part of the definition of Richard Carrier is that he is supposed to be a scholar with a Ph. D. in History. He is also supposed to be relatively young, which makes him one of, say, 3,000 or so History Ph. D.s to have been minted in the past five years. These factors will become important as we proceed. Now we throw some of the other factors into the mix. Richard Carrier (if he exists) is a Jesus mythicist, someone who disbelieves in the existence of Jesus of Nazareth as a real person in space and time. Of the 3,000 or so History Ph. D.s minted in the last five years, and bracketing Carrier for the moment so as not to beg any questions, how many are mythicists? It’s a pretty safe bet that the number is close to zero. Let’s be generous, however, and suppose that there are 30, all of them devout mythicists (though in secret, for fear of damaging their careers). But - and this is the point we must dwell on - if the internet atheist community wanted to create a superhero who could defeat the Christians by his superior credentials, would we not expect them to invest him with a doctorate in History and, at the same time, have him endorse, nay, vindicate, the mythicist position? Surely this is not very improbable, say, even odds (for the mythicist position is very well represented online). And that the internet atheists should invent such a character, though it might seem a bit far fetched, is not really that unlikely, since all of history amply documents the human response to the felt need for superheroes. (Vide not only Egyptian and Greek mythology but also the Edda and The Avengers, due to be released in a couple of weeks.) Upon the whole, it seems safe to say that the probability of the invention of such a character is at least .1. At a conservative estimate, the likelihood ratio P(Historian-myther-hero|Richard Carrier is not a real person)/P(Historian-myther-hero|Richard Carrier is a real person) is therefore .1/(30/3,000), or 10 to 1. But Richard Carrier is also supposed to be a “world renowned philosopher and historian” (according to the blurb on Why I am not a Christian). Problems now begin to crowd more thickly around the definition. How many History Ph. D.s are philosophers at all? Surely not very many. How many are world renowned philosophers, even though they have just obtained the Ph. D.? The percentages are vanishing; the probability cannot sensibly be estimated at greater than 0.0001. But this would be a very useful accomplishment to add to the credentials of a historian-myther-hero, if he were an invented character. Let us suppose the probability to be merely 0.1 (though it should probably be higher), and we get the likelihood ratio: P(World-renowned philosopher|Richard Carrier is not a real person & Historian-myther-hero)/P(World-renowned philosopher|Richard Carrier is a real person & Historian-myther-hero) = 0.1/0.0001, or 1000 to 1. We can go further. This world-renowned philosopher-historian-myther-hero is also a mathematician. Given historians’ well-known disdain for mathematical methods, the probability of this if Carrier is a real person is low, though perhaps not so drastically low as it would be if our hero were not also a philosopher, since perhaps as many as ten percent of all philosophers can and do use mathematical methods from time to time. Call the conditional probability of this detail, given the reality of Carrier and all of the other factors considered thus far, 0.05. But the mythic Carrier would only be enhanced by adding mathematical abilities to his other powers; it is at least even money that, if he is entirely mythical, this additional qualification would be tacked onto his resume. However, so as not to overestimate the probability, let us reduce the estimate to: P(Mathematician||Richard Carrier is not a real person & Historian-myther-hero & World-renowned philosopher)/P(Mathematician|Richard Carrier is a real person & Historian-myther-hero & World-renowned philosopher) = 0.2/0.05, or 4 to 1. Putting these factors together, we have to weigh odds of 100 to 1 for Carrier’s reality against the combination of other factors, which tip the scales at 40,000 to 1 against. These considerations alone leave us with odds of 400 to 1 against, or a probability just a bit in excess of .9975 that Richard Carrier is not a real person. We might go on in this vein for quite some time, noting further incongruities in the Carrier myth. How many trained historians would misread Plutarch’s “On Isis and Osiris” 19.358b as declaring Osiris’s physical resurrection from the dead here on earth? How many mathematicians would bungle basic probability calculations? How many philosophers, world-renowned or otherwise, would endorse the position that the laws of logic “obviously” derive from the laws of physics? Yet such blunders are what we might well expect to crop up as the community feigning Carrier’s existence attempted to demonstrate his expertise in one field after another. So the calculation given above seriously underestimates the probabilities in the case. Almost certainly, by strict Bayesian reasoning, Richard Carrier does not exist. And yet, I venture to predict that the vast majority of Carrier-believers will pay no attention whatsoever to Bayesian reasoning when it is applied rigorously to conclusions that they hold sacred It explains why so many people talk about Richard Carrier as if he existed. Talking about him, and convincing other people of his existence, strengthens their faith. That’s how cognitive dissonance works. Such is their desire to convince others that they even write pseudonymous books in his name. Furthermore, ikons of Richard Carrier look vaguely like the Karate Kid, who was a popular mythic figure of Generation X children. Richard carrier alleged age is around that of Generation X. With such clear similarities, it is obvious that the Richard Carrier Myth began as a copy cat of the Karate kid As we all know, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and, based on the recent analysis, the existence of Richard Carrier certainly qualifies as an extraordinary claim. Have you, then, verified that the video and written testimony attributed to Dr. Carrier actually meets this reasonably high standard? Until you meet him in person (and verify that the experience is not a group hallucination, which we all know is much more probable than his existence, since any explanation is more probable than his existence), isn’t it rational to hold to the default position, that of A-Carrierism? Feel free to copy and paste this to extend the a-carrierst movement
While I don't agree with Trent and his beliefs, he was really enjoyable to watch. I feel like he is a bit more reasonable than most people Matt has debated.
@@Handlethis342 "You’re conflating reasonable with nice. Very little of what his proposed was reasonable"-- The fact that people falsely equivocate those two is one reason why those same people could think this is even a debate. Someone can believe in the resurrection, but it is not reasonable to do so. Supernatural claims cannot be reasonable by definition since if we had a reasonable explanation they would just be natural claims.
I agree, I don't ultimately agree with his beliefs either but I couldn't help but like the guy. I thought he came across as thoughtful and considerably more open and honest than most Christian apologists.
This is how debates should be. Both men were respectful and respectable. My favourite beer is Keith's IPA and Keith's Red. Except in the summer, it is Pump House Blueberry Ale.
When the women arrived (Matthew) they encountered the angel sitting on the rock. In Luke no angel on the rock but one inside and in Luke they encounter two women inside.
@@stephendvorak1043 it wasn’t Disrespectful it was the truth. The disrespect came from Trent refusing to answer the questions and speaking over Matt during Matt’s turn. Facts don’t care about your feelings
@@JonYen69 The truth can be expressed in disrespectful ways. In this case, that's what Matt did. Whether or not facts care about feelings has nothing to do with the fact that a respectful conversation is more successful than a disrespectful conversation.
"If in a thousand years somebody says Elvis rose from the dead ..." Yes, but we did not start believing Jesus rose from the dead a thousand years later. Historians show this was an immediate belief that arose among His closest Disciples. And, yes, we do know the tomb in which He was placed.
Think I've already tried to explain this to you but maybe not. Two things called google and definitions will help with that. Can't help you anymore than that.
@@jamalchristian wow. Go right to lying? Couldn't be that maybe I'm having several discussiona at once and couldn't remember if I had said that to you or someone else. Do you always automatically jump off the handle like that? I'm totally fine with having a discussion with you but please grow up a bit if you so wish.
I got a headache from that hahahahah. Science has to use history within their theories which was developed using the scientific method hahaha. But science translated literally means knowledge. Idk if he's taking about social sciences or natural sciences (although I presume 100% that he's talking about natural sciences- like physics bio and chem). Also, when he mentions that miracles are supernatural that doesn't obey the laws of nature, he's right to an extent, but miracles can still happen obeying the laws of nature, except the the work being done (in joules) is done by a supernatural entity.
Religious people arguing that their religion, which defies all scientific laws and everything we know about the universe, is reasonable is as silly as someone arguing for the existence of pixies and polka dotted unicorns.There is simply no reason to give these people any more credence then the flat earthers.
What a ridiculous statement. Christianity is based on historically verifiable events, the only question is whether you believe the miraculous parts claimed by the Bible and believers. What do you believe?
It does not defy any scientific laws. Science is the study of the natural world, not the supernatural. Your example of the flat earth is perfect...in the bible the earth is described as a circle within a void and suspended in space. This book was written thousands of years before humans really understood what it meant.
Further, I am exactly on your page with regards to all religious except Christianity. That is because Christianity makes a completely unique claim among religions...that this story actually happened within our natural world.
@@stephenwilson0386 the Bible claims a 900 year old man built a boat and survived a worldwide flood. It also claims slaves escaped Egypt by fleeing into Egypt lmao.
To touch on what Trent was hinting at around 38:21, there have been countless occurrences for centuries of people being mistakenly thought to be dead, and seemingly "coming back to life" as a result of things like high-grade fever or medical shock. But those are natural occurrences, not supernatural. Even if hypothetically Jesus was not actually dead but just experiencing medical shock, it still wouldn't prove he was the divine son of god.
You want us to believe a tri-omni creature who despised it's own creation so much that it destroyed it in a flood had the brilliant idea to sacrifice itself to itself to appease it for the creation it created, and destroyed, for the sins it's creatures would commit, even though it knew from the moment of creation that these creatures would do these things (like wear clothes of 2 different materials) before it even conceived of the creation, but it would do this wonderful sacrifice to a backwards tribe in a small part of the world, so that it could create a religion which is so confusing that it would split into thousands of sects, even though the book it provided us said that it wouldn't as proof of this creators existence, all so 144,000 thousand of it's billions and billions of creatures could be saved. That's what you believe?
It's comments like this that convince me of the fact that prideful stupid people do exist, name one theological paper you've consulted on the relavent literature ??? If not then how could you cherry pick fragmented aspects of a particular religous theology to bash it.
@@hlulanizitha9920 Countless christians over the years have warned me that I need to save myself from Jesus, the architect of hell, by bending the knee. They warn me that he is threatening me with the hell he created and I have to be "saved". Since Jesus created hell, we must save ourselves from the creator of hell. I am not opposed to believing in Jesus the god, if he would just heal someone of other than ambiguous things. When people pray to Jesus he never heals 3rd degree burn victims, cleft palates, clubbed feet, pfeiffer syndrome, amelia syndrome, quadriplegics, retardation, or of course amputees. I would convert if Jesus would just heal a simple chipped tooth! That should be an easy one for a god.
@@hlulanizitha9920 It's what they believe. Their god is tri-omni. I'm not cherry picking. They say that. If their god isn't tri-omni, then it's not god or not worth worshipping. What does pride have to do with it. It prideful to say this imaginary creature had a personal relationship with you. That's prideful, what in my statement is prideful? That's a stupid talking point.
@@visforvegan8 Fair, but that's just a surface level understanding of the matter. You haven't gone through and cited any credible papers on the matter to bolster your views. Great theologicans have wrestled with such questions for centuries, and you expect us to truly believe that it's a simple matter that can be dismissed ad stupid by a simple you tube comment.
Ultimately, your statement is just an arbitrary value claim as to what or how many beliefs we should desire to have. However I could say, I would much rather be right on a few supremely important topics even if it means I'm wrong on millions of unimportant topics. Because if I'm wrong on say "facts about the presidents" or "the mechanics of refrigerators" or "the description of the internal combustion engine" but I'm right on supremely important moral principles and the existence of God, I'm going to live a better life and have eternal life. If knowledge was all weighted equally, then sure that statement would just be mini-maxing. But all knowledge is not weighted equally. Therefore trying to believe as few false things as possible, can lead you down a path of ambivalence on supremely important topics which ultimately would then be not as good for you. There's no objective measure you have to say your value claim about beliefs is any better than mine.
@@mikethemonsta15 My statement is literally the equivalent of saying I want to eat as many poison free foods and as few poisoned foods as possible. This is the mental gymnastics you have to go through to justify your beliefs because you know they aren’t reasonable. We can’t choose which things we believe, we can only try to use the best epistemology possible in order to prevent ourselves from being fooled or taken advantage of.
@@Ant1Lgbtq yea, theres a difference between imagination and reality so we need standards to determine which is which What are the standards for belief in religious claims?
@HIIIBEAR So imagination as in what the human mind has observed? Or imagination as making a conclusion such as the big bang theory with what we've observed?
@@joerdim I totally agree. Kudos to Trent for not being dishonest, like most religious people will be during a debate. But his language throughout this debate shows that Trent never has been really challenged on his religious beliefs. Talking for example "plausible" vs "unplausible" when talking about things that has never been proven to have happen shows a troublesome knowledge with probability and rationality. Knowledgeable, honest and sincere about his beliefs? Yes. Intellectual? No. Trent is showing that most honest, decent people are fully capable of being tricked into believing almost anyhing because they haven't ever learned basic critical thinking.
Fun debate, but you're missing Hannibal's elephant in the room. What is reasonable depends on the place that you start. Trent _starts_ from a place that God exists and miracles happen. If you grant that starting position, then the conclusion that the resurrection happened is at least _more_ reasonable than it would for someone who doesn't start from that same position. This inclusion of a starting position was entirely ignored in the debate. If it had been explored, it could have potentially resulted in an even more productive conversation. Second, regarding Matt's analogy of a legal trial and wanting to minimize the number of innocent people who go to jail while maximizing the number of guilty people who go to jail. There's an important context to consider. For a particular crime, there are hugely more innocent people of that crime than guilty people, so it's rational to weigh the system of evaluation toward freeing the innocent. For claims, there are _infinitely_ more false claims than true ones, so it's rational to weigh the system of evaluation more toward denying the false.
Interesting thought. Maybe next debate title should be "is it reasonable to start from a place that god exists and miracles happen"? To me it sounds = "should we allow confirmation bias to go unchecked"
Absolutely not. Your starting point says nothing about the reasonability of _any_ argument, and things don't get any better if you start with asserting the existence of some magical man in the sky.
I missed the part where the theist argues why it's reasonable to believe someone rose from the dead. I mean, it's hard to detect any reasonable argument for or against anything amonst all his word blabber.
Same old talking points with no evidence behind them outta Trent. Seriously it's like talking to a Broken record they just repeat and repeat even if it's not the answer. When he was told over and over you aren't answering he just switches to another talking point. Matt has way more patients then I could ever have with someone who is going to Talk over me, not let me answer the Question and then play Victim because he gets an Iota of the same treatment.
It's reasonable because if Jesus Christ was God incarnate then resurrecting himself from the dead would be no problem for him since God is omnipotent. Do you even think about what you're writing... Like ever? You're so full of irrationality that it is absurd.
@@csongorarpad4670 It's not reasonable because you haven't established the existence of a god. Religion and thinking do not go together as you so painfully personify.
Sure. If there is an all-powerful god then that god can do anything. That's an explanation that works, but we need to establish that explanation is a possible explanation to begin with (i.e. god's existence).
@@les2997 Correct. When theists are asked the basic questions, like what is god, where is it, where is heaven/hell, show us someone in hell, they MUST immediately defer to supernatural woo woo, like god is beyond time and space, etc.
@@NeverTalkToCops1 Yeah it's that and 'you need to open your heart and put on your spiritual glasses to see the Truth'. Which is just a woo woo way of saying you need to believe first and ask questions later.
Trent at 3:00 has a good point for a flaw in our attempt at being non biased but obviously showing selective skepticism. I personally believe every action has a cause but that it does not have to be intelligent to act and effect another entity or chain of events.
Highlight at 49:20 and pretty much the end of the debate for Trent. (Trent admits that he is simply going off of testimony.) Another good highlight here: 1:10:30 Trent doesn't even pretend to be able to demonstrate his claims in any way here. Which the point of this whole debate, Trent just concedes the whole debate over and over and still ask questions like he has a leg to stand on. Kind of a joke tbh.
Ya it was pretty sad that he just accepts on testimony (which religion doesn't have that?) and didn't want to admit it and then gave no good evidence for the subject of the debate
@@blackfalkon4189 If you can show it's actually history. Nothing supernatural can be considered history according to historical methods because there is no way to conform such an event.
My kid has loose grasp on reality, when he's at play. I agree, Tent was losing the debate as every second passed. Matt had no regard with being loose with speech since Trent took the loss. You know..... Loose and lose are two different things..... Just saying..... You know?
I don't get it how do you determine who wins or loses these debates are stupid and a waste of time everybody believes exactly what they believe before the debate started it's the same words with different people speaking them with all these theists against atheist debates there's no new evidence if atheist aren't going to believe based on the evidence that's already out there they're never going to believe so why does everybody waste their time everybody will find out when they die or if the atheist is right he'll never know the only thing I learned from these debates is how egotistical you have to be to be an atheist I mean you have to really think you are incredibly smart and sure of yourself because well you can say there's no proof of God's existence at the same time there's no proof that God doesn't exist no one can be 100% certain and it would be a shame if otherwise really good decent people which most atheist are lose eternal life with God simply out of arrogance
@@dennisdonnelly7794, first, can a brother by a sentence? Your post is one run-on sentence and difficult to read. writes _and it would be a shame if otherwise really good decent people which most atheist are lose eternal life"_ Please look up Pascal's Wager, if you read up about it you'll find out why your thought here is ridiculous because you're making the same basic argument. BTW: "I don't know" is hardly an egotistical position to hold.
He kinda flipped out by not letting Trent finish his question just because he mentioned the name “Alex O’Conner”. I’m only 45 minutes in, and this is the only outburst so far. But it was a rude interruption nonetheless
If they were a good doctor thwy wouldn't "believe" the person was dead. They'd take vitals, feel the temperature of the skin etc . And that just the start of it.
@@cbtam4333If the doctor is legit than that doctor is making a claim. It's not a testimonial evidence. A testimonial evidence is if someone says "I saw the dude get hit by a truck".
54:00 Trents swan example is debunking his own argument. People did NOT accept black swans exist UNTIL physical evidence was provided to the relevant authorities with pics, videos and tests conducted on black swans. Trent should maybe try gymnastics. His mental capacity to contort reality to fit his ideas is the definition of hyper flexibility (or ignorance)
The people who saw black swans accepted its existence when they saw it. They don’t need to bring it to a sort of “relevant” authority to be convinced of it. Likewise, the disciples were convinced of Jesus’ resurrection because they saw him alive, not because they needed to first confirm it to some “relevant” authority.
@@ChristianSigma But there's no evidence that actually happened. All we have is an ancient book that CLAIMS that happened. There's no actual evidence that those people ever actually existed let alone saw a person named jesus rise from the dead. We can see black swans. Do you understand now?
@@jamesm1580 That’s like saying there’s no evidence that Alexander the Great lived and conquered many places because all we have are ancient documents talking about him. When a historian sees 2 separate documents supporting same events, they drool. Now compare that to the resurrection which has multiple sources-that is why so many believe.
@@ChristianSigma There are not multiple sources. There is one source that CLAIMS there were multiple people who saw a resurrection. You keep making false equivalencies. And correct, we can't know without a shadow of a doubt that Alexander the Great lived. Although there is A LOT of evidence and different sources that back up the claim that he existed... and since whether Alexander the Great lived in the past does not affect the way we live our lives or whether we accept the existence of a god or supernatural events, we have no reason to disbelieve the evidence. You're acting as if accepting someone lived in the past carries the same weight and holds the same significance as accepting supernatural claims are true which leads us to accepting a god exists. That's disingenuous of you. I hope you can acknowledge that. Not to mention there are TONS of claims of supernatural or otherwise unbelievable events in other religious texts that also solely rely on what those texts say about what other people supposedly experienced. If we go by your standard of evidence we would have to accept those as true as well.
@@lmmn3164 It’s not an argument, the burden of proof rests on the person who asserts because that’s how we seek value in a case. If a person for example says so & so is guilty of a crime, you ask for evidence. If they cannot provide evidence, then the assertion is void because there’s no value in it. Now if they can provide evidence, then there is value in it & the discussion can go further to see if it holds up either by more testing or if there are no other options available. Could you prove a negative? Yes but that’s not the job for us to prove you wrong, especially if you cannot prove you’re right to begin with since there’s no value in your God argument.
@@lmmn3164 It still works the same way, if you make a claim you cannot prove, you might as well say anything is true because I cannot prove it. If I were to tell you the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists, then by your definition you’d have to accept my claim since you cannot prove me wrong. Same with other religions you don’t believe in. But the thing is nobody can prove each other wrong cause all Gods are invisible & works in mysterious ways. Go figure. Sounds like you just badly wanna believe in some God & that’s fine but just admit that. I don’t because I am not convinced of any God for various reasons other than simply not being able to demonstrate his existence.
@@lmmn3164 That’s my point dude, you’re killing me. You cannot prove me wrong so now you’re stuck believing that it’s a possibility. Yet you believe in a God you cannot provide evidence for. That’s utter nonsense. With your epistemology, all we are left with we don’t know until proven otherwise & for your view, we accept any claim you give us as long as we cannot prove the negative.
@@IndiaNumberOneCoubtry And how exactly does one confirm this? Or you saying that they are not _"true Christians"_ because they don't believe what you do? Most important for Christians is the fact that there is no agreement on the wishes of Jesus. EX; What is the agreed upon _"Christian World View"_ on the wishes of Jesus in regards to, 1. homosexuality 2.abortion 3.assisted suicide 4. capitol punishment 5. cloning
@@IndiaNumberOneCoubtryEven Trent says the Word is open to interpretation. In regards to God commanding Israelites to kill Canaanite children, Trent believes we could interpret this literally and that God allowed authors to inject their own beliefs into the Scriptures. Or he said maybe it was exaggerated and not meant to be literal. The Word is open to interpretation. God wrote the truth in our hearts.
@@MrWinMrWin-qr2bn That is considered and so does the whole debate.okay. You have not watched the others debates os Matt till he was pissed and one debate he even left the debates.
@@MrWinMrWin-qr2bn Actually every atheist hates one thing which is Christians not answering their simple questions directly instead they talk about something else which does not answer the question.
Trents opening statement: 3:40
Matts opening statement: 18:30
Trents cross exam: 36:56
Matts cross exam: 45:50
Open discussion: 58:10
Q&A 1:20:36
Trents closing statement: 1:59:42
Matts closing statement: 2:04:49
All superheroes don't wear capes lol
Connor Harris is a superhero.
thanks for the timestamps
Thanks for doing this!
Thanks :)
Yes to the cross exam. No one wants to just hear you talk for 30 mins and not be questioned about what your saying.
Doesn’t matter. They have impulse control. Like adults. If what they’re saying is true, and they believe so, it doesn’t matter how long someone talks for. Take your ADD meds and have some respect for whoever is speaking until they finish.
At one point I thought Matt was going to hang up on him 😁😁😁
@Roberto Cartwrighto yeah I would too if my performance was embarrassing as matts 😅
he did it ....when it was over :P
@@catearth8864 0/10 troll attempt. That was so bad that you should feel bad.
@@BenJover right! Lol 😂
That actually is funny
Another problem Matt has here... "People who don't have something to sell." Trent brings up "Is the Roman historian Tacitus trying to sell us something?" Matt, right here gets caught... the answer is "No"...cause Tacitus was NOT a believer.... yet what does Matt do? Moves the goal posts... "Tacitus is not a contemporary. That is after the fact." Well, of course, MOST HISTORIANS gave accounts AFTER the fact.
@@Vinylrebel72 a lot of what matt says is like this. Inconsistent and contradictory or dodgy
Tacitus doesn’t say anything about a resurrection
@@Dialogos1989 so?
@@Vinylrebel72 So it has no value as an argument
@@Mutation80 have you watched the video, what does Tacticus say?
When Matt said "my mom is a fundamentalist southern Baptist" I understood many things...
He’s an atheist now 🤔
😂
Ex fundie lol
So did I.
@@paul_321 but he is still arguing always against fundamentalism which no Catholic believes either.
What a great debate. Very interesting and respectful. Also a big shout to the moderator who did a great job. 👍🏻
When it comes to debates, Matt is very tolerant and respectful.
@XICODECOPA Well you don`t have to believe, or obey, just don`t complain about the consequences when they catch up with you
This isn't even remotely a debate 😂. Trent was obliterated.
@@johndoney2665 There's no hate quite like Christian "love."
@@johndoney2665 That sounds a lot like a threat to me, do you have any proof something is going to catch up with you?
Hi Matt here are some future debate suggestions.
Shannon Q vs Mari Pablo ( Athiest psychologist vs Catholic psychologist) on Is belief in God healthy?
Jason Evert vs A s*x worker on Should you have s*x before marriage?
Matt Dillahunty vs Ben Watkins on Do atheists have a burden of proof? (The new atheism vs Philosophical atheism)
Paulogia vs Trent Horn on Are the martyrs good evidence for the resurrection?
Oh Yes, please. Add Molinism vs Thomism
@@YovanypadillaJr I feel that the Gramh Oppy-Alexander Pruss debate is the debate I want most
@@alpacamaster5992 It would be the endgame of debates
@@alpacamaster5992 Final boss of theism vs final boss of atheism
Oooooo I would love Shannon q and Mari pablo!!!!
What a great show! I enjoy these two actually talking about everything civilly. Great debate!
I am so excited to watch the replay of this debate!
Proof of resurrection
Shroud of Turin .
The Shroud of Turin is a centuries old linen cloth that bears the image of a crucified man. A man that millions believe to be Jesus of Nazareth. Is it really the cloth that wrapped his crucified body, or is it simply a medieval forgery, a hoax perpetrated by some clever artist? Modern science has completed hundreds of thousands of hours of detailed study and intense research on the Shroud. It is, in fact, the single most studied artifact in human history, and we know more about it today than we ever have before. And yet, the controversy still rages. This web site will keep you abreast of current research, provide you with accurate data from the previous research and let you interact with the researchers themselves. We believe that if you have access to the facts, you can make up your own mind about the Shroud. Make sure you visit the page where you can Examine the Shroud of Turin for yourself. We hope you enjoy your visit. Barrie M. Schwortz, Editor.
shroud.com/
th-cam.com/video/w4RBXVs70_g/w-d-xo.html
m.th-cam.com/video/4G4sj8hUVaY/w-d-xo.html
Weirdo
Wouah, surprised! Simon Kimbangu that Trent mentioned was a Congolese preacher who preached Jesus and Congo DR liberation from colonialist Belgium. My sister in law and her family are kimbanguists , they literally believe that Simon Kimbangu is 'God' because among other many reasons he raised people from the deads just like Jesus . They call him, God the Holy Spirit, Tata Kimbangu. I ve had some heated debates with them, trying to 'make them catholic', LOL!
Same 😅 but you know they have a kinda huge adherents as well . I’m from Congo too and It was just fun hearing his name mentioned 😅
@@ImTiredOfThisChurch which Church are you tired of by the way?
Keep praying for your families conversion and fast for them. God bless you and I pray your family come home to the Catholic Church to be part of the true Church and fullness of faith.
Hey brother I think it’s a kind of joke when you say you want to convert them ( your sister in law and her family) to Catholicism... if not why don’t you accept their claim that Simon Kimbangu is God and rose from the dead? By the way Kimbangu is still dead according to the latest informations so is Jesus if he ever existed because dead people stay dead
I was surprised too! I'm from Benin and I discussed some kimbanguists before.
Very disappointing that Trent did not seriously take up Matt's challenge to provide hostile witnesses that affirm Christian claims. Gary Michuta wrote the book _Hostile Witnesses_ taking up this challenge. One mention of Tacitus was not sufficient or satisfactory.
@GodsDefender- I'm not saying there are no hostile witnesses. I'm saying Trent could have done a better job providing them and explaining their significance for the debate. I'm referring viewers to a book that does a better job meeting that challenge.
@GodsDefender-
It’s still strange that none of those sources mention a resurrection or any of the supposed miracles of Jesus… almost as if no non-Christian source who wrote about Christians knew anything about their most basic beliefs.
Also… those would be great sources in debates like "Is it reasonable to think that Jesus existed?“ or "Is it reasonable to think that some Christian sects already existed in the 1st century?“… but in this debate those sources are irrelevant.
@@ramigilneas9274 Agree, surely there were people who would have know about Lazarus being raised from the dead and at least one person seeing him.
@@ramigilneas9274Celsus and Prophyry mention miracles but they say that plenty of other people have performed miracles like Apollonius of Tyana.
@@tomasrocha6139Yeah Jesus wasn't unique in his ability to perform miracles at the time. But whenever someone came in, performed miracles, and claimed to be the Messiah, he always took up violent revolt against the Romans.
Jesus was unique in his insistence to be nonviolent, to love your enemies, and to give to give to Caesar's what is Caesar's.
Unfortunately, my fellow Christians have moved away from those messages.
Atheist Libertarians like Ayn Rand have poisoned Conservative thought. And we've taken Trump as our leader... A guy who is an adulterer, bears false witness regularly, and encourages hating your enemies, against Matthew 5:43 and 1 Cor 13
Every time I watch any clip with Matt, TH-cam’s broken algorithm auto plays this video.
An Aron Ra video sent me here
In his opening Trent said it was important that resurrections weren't a common occurrence so that it can clearly be seen as a miracle and a sign from God. Then during cross-exams he turns around and tries to attack Matt's position by saying Matt doesn't have proof that resurrections don't happen commonly, while not acknowledging it would also undermine his own world view. A bit later he goes on to say that he doesn't particularly care about other cases of resurrection because it wouldn't change his view of Jesus' resurrection. What ?
I wonder whether he would accept a miracle from another religion if it had the same type of evidence. Many people claiming that they saw it, people allegedly dying for the belief, women instead of men making the report of something relevant to the miracle (for example an empty tomb if we are talking about a resurrection miracle) etc. At some point they would have to accept it in order to be consistent.
@@Chris-cs7nv Do you watch PineCreek ? This seems a lot like his "flying man"
@@john_reese that's exactly it. His idea.
During cross exam, he attacked Matt's standard for resurrection claims generally. The fact that Matt doesn't really have any objective standard. Trent's position is consistent throughout:
1) Trent has a 3 prong approach for establishing the reasonability of unique historical claims. (Detailed in his opening)
2) Matt does not have an objective approach for establishing reasonability of unique historical claims.
3) Jesus Resurrection is the most unique claim that satisfies the objective three prong criteria for establishing reasonability.
Therefore, since Trent gave a standard that Jesus satisfies and Matt failed to provide a standard at all, Trent wins.
Just cause someone is using a form of argumentation to explore an opponents views doesnt mean they need to subscribe to it personally
That sponsorship made me almost spit out my coffee lmao
i spat out mine, then proceeded to sign up.
🤣🤣🤣🤣
It almost seemed like a parody
ME TOO LMAO
They making it too easy for priests now.
Mat missed a trick when Trent confirmed that he believes resurrections on purely testimonials. The immediate response should have been to revisit all those testimonial resurrections in Keners book previously mentioned and again ask if he also believed in those just on those testimonials provided as well
There're several events that has to be explained in that context, the atheist/agnostic/whatever mistake about this subject is thinking that discussion is only about the resurrection, ignoring that it's about a whole set of events wich, in the christian view, it's better explained with Christ resurrection. Either you disprove these set of events or come up with a better explanation for those.
@@ghostapostle7225 You're shifting the burden of proof there.
@@ghostapostle7225 I notice you didn't address my point at all. Strange that
@@ghostapostle7225 Nope, that's not how the world works.
@@urbandesitv3529 uh, no, in cases like this, you have to adequately demonstrate that something has happened before you can expect another to believe it.
In this case, you’d have to demonstrate that a resurrection had occurred, you wouldn’t be able to say “a resurrection occurred” and tell us we now have to show that it didn’t occur.
This was the best debate of its kind I've watched. Both interlocutors were engaging to listen to and actually responded thoughtfully to each other instead of what you typically see in this kind of discussion, where the speakers go back to delivering their monologue when they have the floor. Absolutely fantastic job by both speakers and the moderator, who did an excellent job of keeping things on track and was obviously closely following the discussion. I'm just sad I found this so long after it was broadcast.
No
This shows that Trent is a good conversor, a lot of people Matt debates just are in such denial and so ready to rumble at every moment that it ends in a shouting party between both, so this was a nice contrast
Apart from the word salad
@@backinblack03"youre just playing word games!🤓"
Maybe if being a "good conversor" was to grasp at "gotchas" and creating strawmans. You should really look up what these words mean if you are having trouble understanding what a "good conversor" would be...
@@ThichabodCraneyou are good commentor
@ThichabodCrane Do you have any examples of those strawmans and "gotchas".
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
01:23 🧐 Trent Horn argues that belief in the resurrection of Jesus is reasonable by presenting three tests for evaluating unusual event claims: contradicting established facts, absence of expected evidence, and uniqueness of evidence.
08:12 🕊️ Trent critiques alternative explanations for the resurrection, arguing that they fail to account for factors such as group appearances, sincerity of disciples, and early church growth.
11:57 🧠 Trent presents the "argument from change" as evidence for a cause of the universe, arguing for the existence of a purely actual, immaterial, and timeless cause.
16:40 😲 Matt Dillahunty starts by emphasizing that belief in an event's reasonability doesn't imply its truth. He highlights the challenge of determining reasonability and stresses that consistency with known facts is crucial.
19:46 ❓ Matt questions the lack of empirical evidence for the resurrection and criticizes reliance on testimonials and hearsay. He challenges the untestable nature of claims like the resurrection, arguing they should be verifiable or falsifiable.
21:11 🤨 Matt distinguishes between verification and falsification, illustrating the challenges of exhaustive verification and concluding that reasonable belief requires the consideration of practical risks.
21:25 🧪 Falsifiability and unverifiability: Falsifiability is the ability to be proven false, while unverifiability means a claim cannot be tested. Unverifiable claims should be mundane and trivial to be considered reasonable.
22:09 📜 Evaluating historical claims: History relies on reports, testimonies, and accounts. Claims should be proportional to the evidence supporting them. The wise man proportions belief to the evidence.
23:05 🕊️ Hume's principle of superiority: David Hume's principle suggests choosing the explanation that involves the least extraordinary or improbable event. Reject the greater miracle and choose the more probable explanation.
25:11 💭 Eyewitness testimony limitations: Eyewitness testimonies are unreliable under various circumstances, and their reliability diminishes over time. The Bible's gospel accounts may not be from direct eyewitnesses.
26:21 🧠 Consistency with reality: Beliefs should be consistent with what is known to be true. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and all claims need sufficient evidence to be considered reasonable.
29:11 🧪 Lack of physical evidence: The absence of physical evidence, such as a body, tomb, blood, or artifacts, challenges the reasonability of the claim of Jesus' resurrection.
31:00 👥 Emotional factors: Emotional connections, fear of being wrong or excluded, and narrative compellingness can influence belief, but they do not constitute strong evidence.
32:12 🕊️ Historical beliefs and evidence: Historical beliefs may not necessarily align with strong evidence, and beliefs about extraordinary events require rigorous examination.
37:24 🔎 Investigating resurrection claims: Discussion about investigating resurrection claims beyond the Bible, considering historical and testimonial evidence.
40:15 🤔 The basis of reasonability: Differentiating personal belief from what's reasonable for others to believe. Exploring beliefs held by historians and the role of evidence.
43:26 🧩 Trent questions Matt's view on ethical veganism.
43:54 🤔 Matt expresses gratitude for a true statement made by Trent in the debate.
44:08 🙅 Matt clarifies his position on belief in resurrection, emphasizing his lack of conviction.
44:34 📚 Discussion on claims of historical resurrections and the evidence supporting them.
45:16 🤷♂️ Debate on the likelihood of current resurrection stories.
46:16 🤔 Trent argues that if Jesus rose from the dead, he could perform miracles today.
46:57 🧪 Matt questions the lack of physical evidence for resurrection claims.
48:13 🤨 Discussion on the reasonable acceptance of resurrection claims based on testimonial evidence.
48:41 🙋♂️ Matt probes whether Trent would accept resurrection claims without physical evidence.
49:14 🔄 Matt asserts his unwillingness to accept extraordinary claims based solely on testimony.
50:09 🙅♂️ Matt emphasizes his position on the unreasonableness of accepting extraordinary claims from testimonial evidence.
50:26 🧐 Transition to a discussion period with both participants questioning each other.
52:22 🗣️ Participants question each other's views on miracles and testimonial evidence.
53:30 🎙️ Trent asks Matt about his stance on uniformity of natural laws against miracles.
54:26 🗣️ Matt and Trent discuss their perspectives on reasonable acceptance of claims.
55:38 📚 Trent argues that history relies heavily on testimonial evidence.
56:06 🎙️ Transition to a conversational phase for further exploration of topics.
58:00 🧐 Matt challenges Trent about recognizing sufficient evidence for resurrection.
59:08 🤔 Trent defends his epistemology and view on evaluating testimonial evidence.
01:00:19 🧪 Discussion on how epistemological biases shape perspectives on evidence.
01:02:42 🔄 Participants engage in a discussion about different epistemological approaches.
01:04:08 🤯 Matt presents an analogy related to testimonial evidence and courtroom bias.
01:04:49 🧪 Trent explains his approach to evaluating historical claims based on evidence.
01:05:04 🤔 Matt Dillahunty emphasizes he's not a historian and cannot dictate historical reasonability.
01:05:33 🧐 Historical reasonability involves assessing evidence and scholarly consensus.
01:05:46 🏛️ Consensus: Jesus' crucifixion and death accepted by historians worldwide.
01:06:14 📚 Trent Horn excludes some historians with fringe views from "major universities."
01:06:56 🌎 Number of believers doesn't determine reasonableness or truth.
01:07:11 💉 Analogy: Medical consensus is strong evidence; science is distinct from history.
01:08:08 🧪 Debate on historical vs. scientific methodology; history not scientific.
01:09:34 ⚖️ Matt clarifies epistemological goals: minimize false beliefs, maximize truth.
01:10:03 🌌 Supernatural claims lack scientific verification; evidence needed.
01:10:29 👥 Historical claims can be credible based on evidence and consistency.
01:10:45 🛐 Elvis resurrection analogy; evidence and context determine reasonableness.
01:12:26 🌍 Historical knowledge compared to scientific knowledge; justification.
01:12:44 🗂️ Historical evidence: evaluation, sources, consensus, opposition's view.
01:13:07 📖 Applying historical method to claims about Jesus; consistency of accounts.
01:14:01 💬 Q&A session begins; audience questions for Trent and Matt.
01:19:09 ❓ Trent's hypothetical response to discovering Jesus' bones; faith evaluation.
01:19:31 ❓ Matt's stance on discovering Jesus' bones; atheism and theism.
01:22:01 ❓ Matt's view on resurrection artifacts; investigation and skepticism.
01:22:45 ❓ Apostles' martyrdom as evidence; possible motivations and beliefs.
01:24:11 ❓ Matt's response to apostles' martyrdom; conviction vs. truth.
01:25:12 ❓ Historical analogies of people dying for beliefs; not proof of truth.
01:26:12 🤔 Sincerity, not truth, is demonstrated by willingness to die for a belief.
01:26:40 📜 Disciples' enduring persecution indicates sincere belief in resurrection.
01:27:48 🗣️ Repeating "not convinced" isn't a cop-out; responding to arguments matters.
01:28:17 🤷♂️ Embracing "I don't know" can be unsettling but intellectually honest.
01:30:55 🔄 Speculation: If Jesus was born today, evidence might differ.
01:31:21 💡 Reasoning about God's reasons for revealing himself is complex.
01:32:48 ❓ Historical events' confidence levels vary based on evidence.
01:33:30 🌌 Accepting possibility of multiverse and extraterrestrial life isn't unreasonable.
01:38:09 🙏 Matt's criteria: Evidence should be sufficient to convince him.
01:41:48 🧠 Trent's distinction between "reasonable" and "convincing" beliefs.
01:43:15 🧐 Disagreement on reasonable matters when considering same information is a complex topic.
01:45:40 🧠 Evidence isn't a neon sign, but interpretations; courtroom analogy.
01:46:08 🚀 Beliefs become reasonable based on contradictions, expected evidence, and alternate explanations.
01:46:51 🧐 Even if there were physical evidence of resurrection, it might not convince everyone.
01:47:57 🤔 Questioning trust in someone with no absolute certainty; confidence vs. absolute certainty.
01:48:55 📏 Absolute certainty not always necessary; reasonable to act based on high confidence.
01:50:15 🕊️ Belief's impact on life doesn't alter evidence needed to affirm it.
01:51:29 🌎 Matt's disagreement on uniformity of experience; cultural variance, false beliefs.
01:52:47 👻 Matt's stance on belief: belief in experience, not necessarily the content.
01:55:13 🤝 Importance of respectful debate, focusing on reasons and evidence.
02:01:47 📚 Encouragement to research, read both sides, reach conclusions, and engage in informed dialogue.
02:05:53 🕰️ Gradual diminishing certainty with time; challenge of investigating distant claims.
02:06:20 🔍 Comparison of evidence quality for recent vs. ancient resurrection claims.
02:06:47 🧪 Importance of scientific method's reliability in understanding the world.
02:07:02 👥 Lack of supernatural/religious claims overturning established science.
02:07:30 📜 Historical argument for resurrection; reliance on book's reliability, lack of physical evidence.
I'm guessing this was A.I. generated...? If so, I would really appreciate it if you could tell me which tool it was please.
This is a compendious summary - you're a legend. 43:26 was an incredible "gotcha" by Trent.
@@Mayordomo32 Hmm...you must have watched a different debate then, as there was no "gotcha" at 43:26.
@@Mayordomo32how was asking if Matt thinks it’s unreasonable to be an ethical vegan just bc Alex O’Conner is one? Alex and Matt are not bound to agree with each other bc they are self described Atheists. Ethical veganism is a moral decision and morality is relative to the individual. This conversation has nothing to do with morality.
@@Mayordomo32you’re an idiot
As an atheist, props for the civilized format and debate!
Yh great debate but matt needs to relise God gives us free will so it's up to you to believe or not. God proves himself by miracles and witnesses which is good evidence.
@@Omar.313 I am infallible and all-knowing, and I say you have no idea how epistemology works or what qualifies as evidence.
@@chrisdistant9040 fair point but there are many Christians who lived and died. Scientists and philosopher's who had more knowledge then you? and understood epistemology and believed in God. Or are you saying you're smarter then every Christian who's ever existed??
Try having a debate with a muslim lol. Very rare to see a civilized and format debate. It happens, but it's rare.
@@Omar.313 fool!
I love how Matt was looking for the button to hang up @49:15.
lol he couldn't help himself
HAHAHAHHAA
And I kept waiting for Trent to change his drawers when cornered on the fact that he has yet to see a resurrection claim he didn’t buy into.
@joshuanewsted2560 and I kept waiting for Matt to take off his debater hat, put on his audience member hat, and say, "I'm just not convinced." Didn't have to wait long, actually.
@@el-duderino975 And I'll keep waiting for you to realize that atheists have it easy because naturalism is the null hypothesis, since the natural world is all that we can perceive and discover truths about. And therefore, when theists claim that God is more probable than not, it's completely reasonable for atheists to refute their arguments and then say "I'm not convinced" without also presenting evidence for "no gods".
I must say that this was one of my favorite debates I have ever seen. The differences seem to stem from evidence versus testimony, which was a refreshing change from what I usually see in this sort of debate.
Honestly why not accept testimony that is kinda stupid. Based on this period of time what would have been the best evidence. A news article? Video footage? Blogs? Audio recordings?
Idk what he wants but if there is sufficient evidence. We can look at testimony in this case as well as the impact of jesus till this day. He either duped people for 2000 years or he is telling the truth.
@@Jonathan-tw4xm Either somebody violated the laws of physics and reality as we know it, or somebody didn't and it was just a myth, like Zeus?
Arguing from longevity isn't a good argument either. Christianity has primarily been around for as long as it has because of how brutally it has forced itself upon others.
Plus, there are older religions. Wouldn't that make them more plausible, since they have been around even longer?
@@Jonathan-tw4xm Do you accept testimony from all the *OTHER* religious books, too? Have you ever read about Romulus or other gods? We'd expect an all-powerful god to do better than write a book in a dead language with no surviving copies. Honestly putting a message presumed to be this important, all in a book, when you know languages die out and change over time, is absurd. Goes along with the rest of the absurdity, frankly. talking donkeys, virgin births, fish swallowing men, resurrection. Seems to be obviously the stuff of fairy tales and legend... but if you grow up with it and your parents and community tell you it's true then you create a special, lower-threshold of evidence in our minds.
@@Jonathan-tw4xmsince he’s god, how about just a tiny bit more than stories from anonymous authors?
@@Nick-Nasti well we have Pual's letters so that's something
Trent having to keep switching to last names to distinguish between Matts brought a little bit of levity to the conversation.
Thanks Trent, from a Dillahunty fan. A Christian apologist with an intellectual view is refreshing.
If by refreshing you mean rare, there are numerous intelligent Christian scholars, and ID theorists.
That because it isn’t Protestantism. I was an atheist for a long time. I followed Matt for years as well, I learned much from him and others.
I found now that I am a Catholic my problems were with protestants. I don’t ever hear Catholics debate.
There are so many problem with protestanism and their beliefs I can’t list them all.
When it comes to Catholics and Orthodox you’ll get consistent answers. You will get reason, and not some fallacy filled protestant making stuff up.
@@fletcher373
If by numerous intelligent ID theorists you mean 5… then sure.
And none of them are taken seriously by actual scientists.
@@11bsavage64it's is been my experience that most Catholics consistently fall back on god of the gaps, argument from ignorance, and argument from authority.
If you disagree, how do you logically explain the Trinity?
Are you being sarcastic? PLEASE say yes, because if not, we didn't watch the same "debate."
2:04:33 does Matt hear himself? He literally said he doesnt agree with historians methods. So of course he wont deny the existence of Khan but will deny Jesus because it fits his narrative.
We have far more evidence for Khan than we do for Jesus.
Khan was a conqueror. We have sources both from Mongolians themselves talking about Khan, and we have sources from non-mongolians talking about him, and not just from the Chinese, but also from lots and lots of different people across Eurasia talking about him. He was also a rapist, and we can test people's DNA that indicate that they share a particular common ancestor. The same is true of Mohammed. Mohammed had children, Mohammed conquered land and we have evidence of these battles having taken place and various written accounts of that individual, from complaints of invasion to cries for help to treaties.
We do not have that for Jesus. We have contradictory testimony that was not from people who witnessed the events themselves that were written hundreds of years after it allegedly happened. Some information in the new testament is completely false, for example the Romans did not have a census in Judea, simple as that. It's false.
The evidence for Khan is overwhelming. The evidence for Jesus is lacking. By a lot.
He never denied Jesus, but the supernatural aspect of Jesus.
@@NxRCe Matt not only denied his Godhood but also denied that Christ was even crucified and says we don't have sufficient evidence to believe in him. Can you find any point in the video where Matt even starts to show he believes in Christ even as a person/historical figure.
@@yourlocalyoutuber6145 you are lying, even worse, you didn't even watch the debate where he clearly says at minute 01:06:08 he disagrees with historians who lciam Jesus did not exist. How pathetic
At 51:00, Trent was trying to say he accepts facts through testimony then from those facts, he accepts the resurrection. It's not really A > Resurrection, it's A > B > Resurrection. Just yes or no isn't really fair, it's more complicated.
Right. And so its a little strange to demand the yes or no response.
@@Againstfascist Yes, exactly, because it's technically both. In reality no, in the long term, yes.
That’s exactly why Matt doesn’t want to give Trent even a chance to elaborate what he means. Matt knows what he’s doing, and it’s absolutely dishonest.
@@icebread8857 Well, it has to either be dishonesty or shallow thinking because basically everyone who watched understood Trent's position and in turn knew why he was having a hard time picking yes or no. Either way it's bad for Matt.
Don’t really get the “math,” can you explain?
First time on the channel .. VERY well organized debate! Really enjoyed both speakers...
No
@@scottblack7182yes
Pints with Aquianas is the Catholic version of Capturing Christianity
Is there a point or are you just sharing an obvious observation? lol
@zacharyshort384 hello there two years later. Just was sharing an obvious observation.
Well Capturing Christianity is Catholic
Matt said on a debate with Braxton that even if Jesus wrote on the sky that He exist that would still not convince him because it could be done by extraterrestrial. I think he also said he wouldn't be convinced even if he prayed to God part the sea and God does it, he wouldn't still believe. If Jesus appear to him he will think it was an hallucination.
Matt, fundamentally, is unreasonable himself.
He's not saying that he *_wouldn't_* believe it just that he would have to exhaust every other possibility *BEFORE* he believed it.
@@pup1008 in his assertions of ruling out those other possibilities is where he hides. He could not prove it would be extraterrestrials if it was written in the sky, therefore his would be arguing with his conclusions already reached.
@@richpalmer9886
I'm not 100% following your reply but my comment was a general observation that anything that initially appeared "supernatural" would have to be extensively tested to rule out other possibilities.
I imagine 1000's of years ago it was a given that volcanoes & lightning were in that bracket but how did that play out....🤔
@@pup1008 My point is, Matt will always point to something he still would be unable to validate. It becomes circular for him.
As far as volcanoes and lighting, ultimately it doesn't change from 1000 of years ago. If God was to be real, he ultimately is the cause for all natural things. We just have a better understanding of how and why they work today.
Great,good clean debate,it’s nice to see mutual agreements concerning different worldviews,they both treated each other with respect,I’m an atheist but enjoyed listening and watching Trent’s arguments and debate methods,great watch.
As a Christian I fully agree with you about the tenor of this debate.
youre an atheist? im not sure so i am asking. every atheist has their own worldview....atheism is just about one question....thats it. you werent implying that atheists have some collective world view were you? you meant matt and trents personal worldviews? which
At least one of the views is erroneous.
Except for 48:47 Matt was quite condescending.
@@pleaseenteraname1103 : I didn't get that at all. He's just expressing his reasoning and that will by it's nature conflict with a different view. The questioner dismissing what Matt claimed to be his view was condescending as if Matt didn't know or explain what that belief was already.
Sorry Trent, no one has ever been confirmed to have come back from "clinical death" three days later. If there were evidence of that it would rock the scientific and medical communities and we'd all know about it within days. Claiming you know it is true that someone did requires compelling evidence which you did not provide in this debate.
@@Kitiwake So the weight of the evidence attributes a high probability?
@@Kitiwake The weight of the "evidence" here is zero, in any units you want.
@@NeverTalkToCops1 Jesus rose from the dead. He is alive now and i met him. Thats how we know he rose from the dead.
@@thomashess6211 I guess you spent the time washing the Shroud of Turin in your Maytag.
@@MrKit9 The shroud? Thats a hoax. Catholics fall for that idolatry.
He turns his camera on at one minute remaining? So subtle, yet such a perfect indicator. The simplest things can win you a sub ❤️
this was a satisfyingly funny comment
I think Matt's point around the 40 or so mark was pretty spot-on. In many cases, we might accept testimonial evidence when it comes to things we have witnessed temporally, but that standard of evidence increases drastically when it's something we have not seen prior.
Yeah, it's not a black and white thing, it isnt that testimony either IS or IS NOT reliable. There is a huge spectrum of trustworthiness.
You ever heard of ppl dying on an operating table and coming back to life? I’m confused why anyone would think bringing someone back to life isn’t possible
@@Ponysoldier12 yeah okay, let's all pretend that medical science and resuscitation of someone whose brain has not yet rotted is the same thing as MAGIC raising someone from a state of actual exsanguination and ROT. Are you suggesting God sent a team of doctors to give the (mostly) dead Jesus a blood transfusion and some chest compressions? After his brain was starved of oxygen for THREE DAYS?? What a pathetic, bad faith attempt at WORD GAMES.
In a medical context, to borrow from a great movie again, people who are brought back are only MOSTLY dead, which means they are slightly alive. The BRAIN is still alive. Many of your cells remain alive for hours after the heart stops beating and brain cells start to die IRREVERSIBLY. As long as there is little to no BRAIN DAMAGE, then if you get the PIPES going again, then you ARENT ACTUALLY DEAD because the BRAIN didn't die. So, it isnt resurrection. It isn't raising someone from death, it's ACTUALLY bringing someone back from the BRINK of death.
So, what are you talking about? A medical intervention in 1st century Judea to save Jesus from the BRINK of death? Or a miracle saving him from ACTUAL death? Do not even dare, EVER, compare the two again.
@@Ponysoldier12 Yeah, a million times in fact (slight hyperbole). The difference between those is that Jesus didn't require a defibrillator to come back to life, nor did he come back to life with the aid of another person on Earth. It was something he did in a time without that technology and it was something he sort of did himself (maybe Yahweh helped, too, if Yahweh is separate in this case). So, no, not even slightly similar in terms of epistemological scale.
@@Ponysoldier12 Burried for 3 days? And accended to heaven?
Trent admitted he starts with a belief in god when approaching the resurrection. Of course, in that thought-world, the resurrection is entirely reasonable. If that's his starting point though, I think this entire debate is bunk, because it's the foundation of his belief that bolsters the reasonableness of the claim.
Insert that argument against every religious person ever.
They start from “I believe in God” then work their way backwards from there to try and make the evidence fit.
A person of science goes wherever the evidence takes them whether they like it or not.
Well, Matt also admits that he doesn’t believe in the resurrection. So his statements are also affected by his thoughts.
@@crobeastness Because one is contingent on the other. If you believe in god, then you can believe in resurrections, arks that contain 2 of every single animal, miracles, etc. It all follows if you presuppose god. That's why going after that presupposition should have been the topic, but instead they talked past each other due to not accepting each other's starting position.
@@victoriaaltun7425 Well, yes, but that's true for literally any belief. The point is that the belief in god is Trent's superordinate belief that creates a framework of reasonableness, in his mind, for all the other subordinate beliefs he has (which includes resurrections). It does not necessarily follow that if resurrections happen, then god exists because resurrections could have some other explanation, but if god exists, gods properties are such that god's existence makes resurrections not only possible but plausible. Matt has no such superordinate belief. It is rejected. You must start with that belief, therefore, in order to have any kind of discussion where both interlocuters are on the same page.
@@Station9.75 so how about the multiple people who didn’t do that? have you heard of the case for Christ?
Okay. That was a good, respectful back and forth between a slightly exasperated realist, a personable fantasist, and a dude in the top corner moderating well, with a great beard. God didn't turn up in the end, but that was always the prediction , so there it is.
Is the Hebrew/Christian god Yahweh watching this?
Matt is not a realist since he says it's unreasonable to believe that Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate in defiance of Tacitus, Josephus and so on.
Additionally, Matt gets the "argumentum ad populum" fallacy wrong. It doesn't matter whether it's history or science -- a fallacy is a fallacy, no matter what field it's in. Trent's point wasn't that most reputable historians believe Jesus was crucified, therefore it's true. His point was that no reputable historian teaching at a reputable university would deny that fact. Richard Carrier and Robert Price are on the fringe of historians for denying Jesus existed, and Carrier even admitted that in his debate with William Lane Craig.
@Kyle R Arguments from authority are just fine. They are only fallacious if you are appealing to an illegitimate authority. All of us rely on authorities for a lot of the things we know.
"His point was that no reputable historian teaching at a reputable university would deny that fact" that seems like a very bold assertion.
@@vincentranger09 He didn't make it up. Bart Ehrman (an agnostic) makes that claim. In fact, Ehrman has some very harsh words for atheists who deny Jesus was a real person.
@@clintonwilcox4690 regardless whoever made the claim it still seems bold. I'd like to see some sources for that. I wonder how it could be done?
@@vincentranger09 Well, you can disprove it by finding a historian who teaches at a reputable university who doesn't believe Jesus was a real person. But the evidence for Jesus being a real person is very well attested; the only reason to deny it is if you have a prior commitment to atheism. But there's no need to deny there was a real person named Jesus. You don't have to give up your atheism to do that.
1:08:40 wanting to acquit as many guilty people as possible and spare as many innocent are actually directly correlated. This is a concept in statistics called type 1 and type 2 errors. They are inversely related, meaning they are dependent on each other. It would be entirely unreasonable to believe what he was saying, which is funny given he believes anything he is convinced of is reasonable
The trouble with testimony is that, yes, we can say there's enough testimony to assume that Jesus was real and was crucified, but the problem is that that's not the extent of the claim. The claim is not just that Jesus was real and crucified, but that there is a God conforming to certain properties of justice and mercy and creativity and omnipotence and omnipresence, who was somehow alive in this Jesus and had also sent him to be sacrificed as payment for the sins of a woman named Eve, who was directly created by God via the rib of the first man, and that by believing this story and abiding by a series of rules relating to cleanliness, charity, chastity, property ownership and diet, we will circumnavigate the natural order of the world and have instead eternal life.
Now, taking all THAT on account of testimony, which was written down dozens of years after the fact, is a whole different ball game. And the fact that this all powerful being would by definition KNOW that the testimony in the Bible would not convince most people to belief, is enough evidence for me that the story isn't true.
@@ruaraidh74 It’s been a long time since I watched the video and posted the comment so I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt - your points sound reasonable, especially regarding exaggerating the claim.
Perhaps I was recycling an argument I have with my dad where he thinks if he can persuade me that evolutionary theory is flawed that that gets him God, the kingdom to come etc.
You’re incorrect about atheism but I think that was your point. Atheism, as I suspect you know, is the lack of belief in a god, nothing else. And certainly nothing to do with exogenesis or the formation of the cosmos. You could be an atheist and think that the universe was eternal, or multi universe or the vomitus of a giant space turtle.
And your final point I’d challenge on a logical basis. It’s just a habit of mine to look at claims and want to test them. It’s not my opinion that God wants to convince me of its existence because, like you say, I don’t imagine it exists. But it’s a religious claim that God wants people to know him, not to mention being self evident from the existence of the Bible, often described as ‘God’s Word’. If they drop this claim I have no need to challenge it, and overnight their doctrine becomes one step more believable.
This presumes God is worried about most people not following his word lol. “Before the foundations of the world” he chose his sheep. If someone isn’t swayed but the evidence of the bible then that is of little concern to God lol.
1:08:04 all scientific reports and findings are testimony. If you didn’t do the experiment yourself, you are still trusting what other people said they found.
Facts… I’m not sure why ppl think resurrection doesn’t happen. Ppl die daily and are brought back to life.
@@Ponysoldier12 Not after being buried for 3 days for sure.
but the fact that you can and get the same results it's what is different
@@lhqs It is not the same result snd and thos people don't drmand my worship either.
Stop shuting down your brain because of religion
@@robwolchek2265 im confused; im saying that the science that others bring to the table is falseifyable and testable; wheras religious claims such as the resurrection are not
Lol Matt said a medical report (on Jesus death and resurrection) from a doctor would prove it's true. As if he wouldnt just discount that doctor, as a Christian conspirator like he does the other witnesses. Plus he would want tons of doctors to confirm it also.
Agreed, I call BS (and I'm an atheist).
It was an expression dork, not a literal statement.
I agree… even if the evidence was much much better than the hearsay of some cult members who didn’t witness any of the events that you actually have… it wouldn’t be good enough.
A doctor who confirms the death of Jesus in a made up story is still just part of a made up story.
The funny part is that God could effortlessly provide all of the necessary evidence that would convince even the most skeptical person on the planet instead of demanding to believe the story based on the same weak evidence that we have for thousands of other legends and conspiracy theories.
You are so used to not questioning reality concerning your beliefs that you can't grasp such a simple notion. How would you PROVE it then? Not talking about random unverified testimonies, because then all sorts of magical things would be considered proven, some of which in direct opposition to Christianity. Actual proof.
Yes, I would want a peer-reviewed study to prove that Jesus resurrected. Otherwise, it's just one doctor's opinion.
50:22 There is such a thing as bad testimony, however, there is good testimony as well. Dismissing all testimony is shallow thinking at best.
It's still testimony either way and for you to know that this testimony is good one would need to be supported by actual objective evidence.
@@Zripassure. Matt asked for a doctor’s note. There are lying doctors and inept doctors too. It just boggle my mind that this seems like a strong point. The best evidence available can still lead to false conclusions. That’s literally science. That’s why science changes theory based on evidence. Why not just say miraculous claims requires miraculous evidence. It’s like ok. That’s the real take and I am fresh out of miracles so good day sir.
If the resurrection really happened, then how come it was not documented right away? that would have been BIG news, and yet it wasn't written about till at least 50 years later?
the irony is that you're talking about something that was documented 2000 years ago lmao so it must have been BIG news.
who wrote about the mt vesuvius eruption do you know
was it the people who witness the event?
@@urbandesitv3529 still 30 to 35 year later at a time when people rarely lived to see 40.
@@urbandesitv3529 "that's approximately 30 years"
For perspective, that would be like writing down news that occurred in 1991. Paul never claims to have met Jesus, didn't see anything first hand, and claims that a crap ton of unnamed other people who totally really existed were the witnesses.
Because it didn’t happen
That was really interesting.
1:45:13 - what Matt said is fine so long as you believe humans are capable of being reasonable. If a reasonable argument can be made, and people can be reasonable, then it is possible for the two to combine so that there is only one reasonable position.
Whether or not a reasonable argument will always find a reasonable person to make it or hear it in a group of people can be debated. The possibility of it happening is totally there. If it wasnt then there would be no point in arguing cause then you are just denying reason.
46:20-49:32 A microcosm of why debating religious people is a waste of time. You have to twist their arm to get them to give direct answers.
Trent accepts the claims of the resurrection based on other people he can’t even identify 2000 years ago saying an event happened that would have been absolutely extraordinary. But he doesn’t accept the claims of resurrection in India that happen today all the time where we can actually investigate those claims.
@@pastormikewinger7212 unless you can demonstrate this god exists and is real I’m not interested in your preachings. Can you demonstrate this?
@@pastormikewinger7212 if you know god and can speak to him, ask him what his message is for me to make me believe
Then why don’t you except them?
@@MarlboroughBlenheim1 : I think "Pastor Mike Winger" has a scam asking for money for a non-existent charity.
@@anonymousjohnson976 yes. Mike called this person out a few weeks ago. He keeps trying to get people to give him money by masquerading as Mike.
That was as good as I had hoped it would be
@@pastormikewinger7212 get out of here scammer
56:32 "In the vast majority of cases, testimony is sufficient"
Lol Trent must believe in every alien kidnapping, every miracle claim for every other religion, and even other gods if he believes the vast majority of testimonies is enough. Great logic!
I guess Mohammed did once ride upon a unicorn and split the moon in half. Not only is there testimonial evidence in the nature of Quran there's also thousands of people who have sacrificed their lives for this and continue to do so now as well.
@@mathiasrryba Mohammed rode a muslim Pegasus named Buraq.
You do know we put people in prison for life with less testimony, right?
@@andesvirgo If someone went to jail because the witness said "The 13 (Mary's age at Jesus conception) year old girl gave birth to a child despite never having intercourse, the dude she born then committed never seen before miracles like healing people and resurrecting the dead and himself oh and totally there was like 500 people that have seen it, totally" Then I think that's great injustice.
I think the only courts which count "I prayed/had a dream/vision and revelation came upon me that this individual is guilty" is evangelical american court and 3rd world bumholes in the middle east and africa.
@@mathiasrryba We do not have the witnesses in history confirming the virgin birth, but we do have those witnesses for the resurrection, which is what the example was. The quality of these witness testimony is such that, even under threat of torture and death, these witnesses would not deny what they saw. And even non-Christian historians accounts for these witnesses. This is more credible testimony than any court in the world requires.
1:35:51 As Asimov said either way if life exists elsewhere in the universe or not amazing
The Laserous (sp) effect is a technique (still not proven conclusively ) whereby the brain is super cooled (by various means) to such an extent that metabolically it can survive relatively intact so that when the body is repaired (ie heart attack) or restored to basic life functions one can be wholly restored.
At 57:05 the guy Trent claims that he didn’t use the word “supernatural” in his opening, but he did use this descriptor at 3:30
I don't get Trents point about only 12 people believing in a resurrection 2000 yrs ago. People believed in all kinds of myths prior to the bible.
Also Trent; someone saying they saw a demon isn't strange but it is still an extraordinary claim that needs extraordinary evidence.
It’s not that 12 people believed in the resurrection. It’s the fact that we have the preserved testimony of 12 individuals from 2,000 years ago which is far, far more than any other historical figure living in that time period; these writings also date to within mere decades of this figure’s life. Most historians date the apostles’ creed to just three years after the death of Jesus. Did you know the earliest evidence we have of Plato is a few translated copies of some of his writings from the Middle Ages? Do you doubt that Plato existed? The earliest evidence we have of Tiberius Caesar’s existence comes from about 80 years after his death. This obscene standard would make the entire practice of history impossible. This is why even the vast, overwhelming majority of *skeptic* New Testament scholars say the fact that Jesus lived, was crucified by Ponticus Pilate, was buried in a tomb, the tomb was found empty (this one’s a little more controversial with “only” three-fourths of scholars attesting to this fact), and that hundreds of people at the very least hallucinated encounters with the risen Jesus, are undeniable. “But muh empiricism,” can be applied to just about any historical figure.
@@xavieryounger1631 I could believe that Plato existed, that's a mundane claim. If someone said he was murdered, buried & walked home 3 days later would you believe that? If you said you were a eye witness. I would think you are mistaken or lying.
I as an atheist will agree Jesus more than likely existed and was crucified. However sufficient evidence of a resurrection? No i do not see that. What you have is the second hand account of 12 disciples who believed in the risen jesus. These accounts were taken decades after the fact which is a long time. Think about an incident 30 years ago and tell me if you honestly believe a second hand account from witnesses will be accurate. You say “hundreds” of witnesses. Where? Who? As Matt and so many others have pointed out to the point of exhaustion: the standard of proof for something as outlandish as a resurrection is going be much higher than another mundane claim. Do i believe Hitler had 1 testicle? Sure. That is a strange but relatively mundane claim that i suppose i am willing to accept. BUT if me believing Hitler having one testicle is supposed to be the foundation of my ENTIRE life, world view and worship well then i’m gonna demand an extraordinary amount of evidence and certainty.
I very much enjoy this civil debate!
Respect to both the debaters.
Thank you for hosting this 👍
I was gonna type the same thing. Finally a debate not filled with shouting and nonsense... but instead, we had a proper discussion. Well done by both guys!
no. its soo boring like this. i want blood.
Not really for Dillahunty I mean I appreciate that he came on, only to get decimated by Trent, because he treats these debates as if they’re just discussions and not actual debates, he’s asking questions as if he’s in the audience and not actually debating. His only argument is basically I’m not convinced and you didn’t provide evidence, when Trent literally asked him what evidence would satisfy him and he said testimonial evidence and then when he gave examples of testimonial evidence, he just said that’s not sufficient.
@@pleaseenteraname1103 Matt didn't say that just any old testimony would convince him. In a court of law, for example, evidence may be completely dismissed in certain cases, such as if it's unreasonable/impossible ("Matt killed that guy using black magic"); if it contradicts previous testimony; if the info is too vague to be useful ("I only saw his shadow, but it looked like a tall guy, and Matt's tall, so it must have been Matt"); if the witness falsely claims expertise in some area ("I knew Matt was having a heart attack rather than a seizure", when s/he has no medical training). There are many examples of statements which negate or diminish the veracity of testimony, so all evidence is NOT created equal.
@@judyfrancis4515 yes and that was also the point Trent was making sometimes we have to trust testimonial evidence, and sometimes that’s all we have. And Matt literally said that’s what would convince him but then he backtracked once Trent explained to him that we have examples of that in the Bible, but then he tried to bully him into saying that he would except nothing but testimonial evidence alone when he literally said that’s what he would accept. Yes but you have to prove this is actually what is said in the gospels. Yes I agree yes I definitely agree.
2:04:00 Matt wasn't being honest as he stated that he's not rejecting history, yet he won't admit that Jesus died by crucifixion....
Well, half of the letters of Paul are considered to be forgeries written many decades after his death… and most historians no longer believe that Moses, Abraham or Noah existed or that the Exodus happened or the Conquest of Joshua.
Because there is no proof of it, get it now?
@@rethinkyourself1 There's evidencce for it. Why is it unreasonable to believe eyewittness reports?
@@rethinkyourself1It’s a well established historical fact that Jesus died by crucifixion
@niclasschulz1536 No, it's not.
I feel like Matt could have used certain examples to better counter the theists questions. For when said its reasonable to believe what you see. Matt could have said, not when its an extraordinary event. Ex: unexplained lights in the sky could be an alien spacecraft, but its not reasonable to assume so based only on sight. Its more reasonable to assume a cause explained by known reality.
I mean, if you saw a dude get crucified and stabbed, and then he is walking around and tells you he was stabbed, it's pretty reasonable to think that he is telling the truth.
The thing I love most about debates is also the thing I hate most. Debaters heavily invest themselves in defending their position, but the problem is most invest themselves so much they are unwilling to ask and answer questions honestly, concede points, admit being wrong, and refrain from caricaturing their opponents position. It’s human nature though and nothing unique to them.
Yes, theists tend to be quite dishonest in debates like these.
@@unduloid oh stop, everyone does it. No one wants to admit there’s a flaw in their thinking.
@@fakename3208
All the theists need to do is present objectively verifiable evidence for the existence of their god(s). If they can do that, they win, the atheists lose, and the debate is over.
So, why don't they?
@@unduloid for the same reason atheists can’t prove there is not a God.
You are speaking of God as if her were Bigfoot or some other being floating through space that I could point at with a telescope. If such a being existed it would not be God.
It’s sort of like asking Macbeth to show you Shakespeare.
@@fakename3208 If you can point out the flaw in atheist thinking, go ahead, and I’ll admit it.😈
at about 1:37:15 Trent is asked if he didn't believe, would the "evidence" of jesus resurrection be enough to make him believe. Trent then admits that if he did not first believe in that god, it would be alot tougher for him to believe in jesus.
So right there he admits to doing what most religious people do.....they START with the Conclusion. That Conclusion being whatever "god" they were indoctrinated into.
Bottom line is, we should NEVER start with the Conclusion like religion does. Instead, we should Collect all the Evidence we can. Then, test that evidence. Then, Evaluate the results of those tests. Then, Evaluate it again. After some time of research, you FOLLOW THE EVIDENCE. Let the Facts form your beliefs. That is what Science does.
Religion is the opposite. They are all about starting with the Conclusion and denying anything that goes against it to keep their beliefs alive at any and all cost. That is what makes belief in gods so dangerous.
@Andrew Davis You can come up with a reason to do, belief or feel just about anything. But it should be a good reason with reliable evidence.
The point is that there is no reliable evidence in the case of religions.
@Andrew Davis I said there is no reliable evidence, not just evidence. None of the things listed could possibly be considered reliable for supernatural claims that religions make.
When Julius Caesar describes how his army crossed what is now known as the English channel it is a believable historic account. Why? Because he describes how his army spent months building ships and then they were too flimsy to even make it across without a bunch of them getting wrecked. If his story was that he prayed and Jupiter dangled his co*k from the heavens to split the sea in half so his army could go across it would be a very different story. Neither I nor anyone else would be justified in claiming there is reliable evidence for this.
If we apply your standards to everything else we will end up accepting alien abduction stories, astrology, alchemy, vodoo, flat earth nonsense, homeopathy and every other species of human ignorance and superstitions. And many people do just that. But It doesn't make it reasonable by any means.
@Andrew Davis I'm not surprised at all that you disagree. Like I said, many people apply just such standards of evidence. What really is disturbing though is that most people who do this (you as well most likely) are very hypocritical and only apply such flimsy standards of evidence to their own biases. Christians who accept the bible stories as true because of eye witness testimonies reject the same evidence from other religions or alien abduction sotries even if they are more reliable by the same account.
We all have freedom and the privilege to believe anything and share it with others, but that doesn't make it right. You don't live in a vacuum. So feel free to belive whatever you want based on whatever you consider as evidence, but don't expect me, as someone who cares about what is true and that this has consequences, to say "that's ok". It's not, we just have our rights of free thought and expression, as we should - something the god of the bible denies us btw.
Anyway, take care and I hope you change your mind someday 😉
@Andrew Davis -- You make the Claim that there are "Scientific" reasons for belief in god. You made the Claim, Prove it. Show everyone this Scientific Proof that can be Tested and Falsified. Will you do this?
Let's be honest, if ANY religion has ANY Real Scientific Proof, there would be no need for the Blind faith is currently Demands.
BTW, which of the tens of thousands of 'god's' is the one you claim to be true?
“SCIENCE adjusts its views based on what's observed. FAITH is the Denial of observation so that belief can be preserved.” - Tim Minchin
“Where there is evidence, no one speaks of “faith”. We do not speak of faith that two and two are four or that the Earth is round. We only speak of faith when we wish to substitute Emotion for Evidence.” - Bertrand Russell
@Andrew Davis -- So like all the others, you Claim your god with Science....but Provide Zero Proof. If you used anything, it was the usual God of the Gaps.
Next.
You can still fall back on Blind Faith.
BTW, which of the Tens of Thousands of "god's" is the one you claim?
If a large number of the 600 mentioned resurrections were proven with concrete evidence to be true, this would not be good for the Jesus resurrection story as it would make it a commonplace event not necessarily connected to an intervening diety, rather the result of unknown physical processes.
Pretty interesting that it took Matt several times to get an answer from Trent that he would believe the resurrection solely on testimonial evidence and then Trent immediately goes to Paul's hearsay of the Apostles told him so. This is he really good testimony.
@@breandanh4912 yup, suffering is just part of life. And you deal with it by growing as a human.
@@breandanh4912 Suffering is never meaningless to the person experiencing it.
@googleisaCuNt googleisaCuNt
What history do you think he rejected?
@@breandanh4912
I would say, based on my current beliefs, my suffering today won't have a large enough effect to be noticed by those far enough away from me in space or time, which makes it by a measure "meaningless" in a colloquial sense.
Beyond the (chemical) reactions that lead to suffering (mental stress or physical pain) that also lead to us possibly trying to reduce or seeking to reduce painful consequences for the self or others; experiencing suffering might make one want to reduce it.
I, personally, take my few experiences of "suffering" by reducing, or working on, my behavior that I think causes suffering in others, ie "Not being an asshole."
Do you think suffering serves some greater purpose?
@googleisaCuNt googleisaCuNt Is that supposed to be a rebuttal to my point? Because it isn't.
Trent has no idea how many times he proved Matt’s point for him. History does not require near the rigor or evidence as science and historians understand that.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
@@solimarra right except when it comes to history, just because something is accepted historically doesn’t always mean it is a reasonable thing to accept.
Matt showed his double standards when he said it's unreasonable to believe Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate in defiance of Tacitus, Josephus, Mara Bar Serapion, pre-Pauline creeds, the Gospels etc.
Respect to Matt Dillahunty for finally debating a strong opponent. It's like offering the red pill, after this he can go back and continue to debate phony Christians or come and see how deep the rabbit hole goes.
🤦
He’s debated strong opponents in the past you know
@@MoNtYbOy101 who? Alvin Plantinga?
Richard Swineburne?
Edward Feser?
Excellent debate format; very informative
I'd like to see more of Trent in these discussions. It's refreshing to see someone I don't agree with argue honestly. I gave his arguments more weight (I still don't agree) because I didn't feel like he was straight up lying to me. It was an honest differing opinion. Soooo much better than the Ken Ham type
He was pretty dishonest actually. Trying to claim that resurrections are normal is just straight up trolling.
@@natew.7951 I agree, except, when I was a Christian I believed that very thing. In sunday school, we sang about "Lazarus rise up and walk" weekly, for years. I had more trouble letting go of resurrection and immortality than I did of the existence of any gods.
@Tyler B #2 "the resurrection"? I'm pointing out that the debater tried to pretend that "resurrections" are ordinary. That's absurd. People aren't coming back to life on a regular basis.
Honest?! You gotta be kidding me. This lunatic is literally saying that not only is raising the dead normal and possible, but that it might actually be happening today!.....without any serious scientists or media investigating it I might add.
I'm sorry, but as a lifelong atheist, I'm not going to give this Trent character any leeway as you seem to be doing. I fear that your past beliefs are clouding your judgement. If you didn't think he was straight up lying to you about resurrecting the dead, I'm scared to think what you would actually believe.
@Tyler B #2 Microbiologist here! The stardust thing you mentioned isn’t at all what scientists believe regarding abiogenesis. We can already do experiments in lab that generate amino acids from electrically energized water and various sterilized soil/rock particles. The early earth had lightning, stone, and water. It isn’t improbable, but almost guaranteed, that amino acids generates on earth that way. From there, amino acids can sometimes combine and eventually create proteins. There are many self-replicating proteins/proto-proteins on earth (think prions like mad cow disease).
We don’t believe magical stardust made life. We believe a lengthy natural process which we can test for ourselves in lab eventually created life.
You always know when bullshit is incoming when any phrase is used that' starts along the lines of "that's a great question, thanks for asking it etc etc". Just a delaying tactic when people realise they are about to spout bollocks instead of just answering a yes or no question.
Ha ha, so true
Yeah, well, OR... They actually want to convey respect for their debate opponent while they quickly gather their thoughts on how to best formulate an answer to the actual way the question was asked.
@@rijden-nu you missed the part about it being a yes or no question. It's normally the pause when they are trying to square away the fact that they just realised that they have a higher moral standard than the god they are about to try and defend.
Perhaps, perhaps not... it depends.
44.53 - and right there, we see a man willing to say something utterly, utterly ridiculous in a vain attempt at deflection.
Just because an extraordinary claim puportedly occurred in ancient times when we arent able to investigate any such claims rigorously, doesnt mean we should be lowering our standard of evidence. If someone today claimed to have Superman powers, I would need some serious well-documented, scientific evidence. If someone 2000 years ago claimed the same thing, I would STILL need some serious well-documented scientific evidence.
What do you mean by "scientific evidence".
"Science isnt just beakers and measuring devises.
Thats what Horn was trying to get through to Dillahunty. The VAST majority of history, which IS a science despite Dillahuntys ludicrous claim to the contrary, doesnt have physical evidence.
The Pyramids being Tombs for the Pharaohs for example. There has never been a Pharaoh mummy found in the Pyramids. Nor are there texts saying "this is the Tomb of X", but it is the leading theory for all academics who study the Pyramids, even though they have no physical evidence for the claim. I guarantee you, Dillahunty accepts the theory without a second thought.
"Just because an extraordinary claim purortedly occurred in ancient times when we arent able to investigate any such claims rigorously, doesnt mean we should be lowering our standard of evidence."
What are you even talking about? This is possibly one of the MOST rigorously investigated claims there is. Standards arent being lowered for anything. If they where, no one would be Atheist, nor would the Religious have "crisis of Faith".
@Requinix17 I think that standards are lowered for the ancient past. Many things we believe about the functioning of societies are based upon a few sources. In the modern era, we would try to go through a lot more sources before being convinced that a particular claim about the way a society exists is accurate. What is required is the best possible explanation of what occurred with all the evidence one does possess. It's not the intrinsic probability alone that counts (winning a lottery is extraordinary, but we generally don't demand extraordinary evidence for it), but also the ratio between the probability of the evidence that is available given the occurrence of the event vs the probability of the evidence if the event did not occur. If the ratio tilts towards the view that the evidence is a lot more probable if the event occurred than if it didn't, then that can counterbalance any intrinsic improbability of the event itself. Naturally, the theist would also use other arguments for the existence of God to show that a resurrection is not as improbable as it may initially seem.
@MrPeaceGuy54 The best possible explanation for Christianity is that it has the same amount of credibility as all the other ancient religions. If you lower your standard of evidence for Christianity then you have to lower it for all ancient religions
@@Requinix17 One can also remain agnostic. But yes, one path alone being true seems improbable to me.
@@Requinix17 while I agree the standards of proof do not change, the standard of reasonability does. If two events had the same low level of proof with no more evidence in sight, but one occurred yesterday and the other 2000 years ago. It would be more reasonable to assume that the ancient claim has evidence that has been lost to time. Therefore more reasonable overall.
Why would it be reasonable to believe someone came back from the dead?
It's a trojan horse, using the word "reasonable" to attempt to start a dialogue, a dialogue hardly necessary.
@Lady Macbeth You can't use reason or evidence to reach the conclusion someone came back from the dead, or that there is anything other than the physical world. It can't be reasonable to make something up and act on that assumption with no reason to do so. It would be just as reasonable to imagine anything with no evidence and say that it's totally reasonable because you believe there's some other plane of existence that can never be evidenced but that justifies it.
The whole point of religious faith is that it isn't reasonable.
@Lady Macbeth It's rather reasonable to approach it through the lens of a naturalistic worldview when we are literally living in the Natural and not the Supernatural. Demonstrate the Supernatural to begin with and (as Hitchens once said) you'd have a ghost of a point.
@Lady Macbeth well yes, that and the fact that we live in a world where miracles are never observed to happen, so regardless of worldview, why should we believe ancient accounts of a dubious nature relating multiple miraculous events?
for example: you saw your dead father sit down and eat with you
Trent, how do you say God couldn't live up to certain standards of evidence? He's God, he should be able to do anything, more than humans.
"God couldn't live up to certain standards of evidence?". That is a strawman. God can give sufficient effidence for His existence (as 1 over 10 ^136 the probability that is chance rather than God that is the reason for the order in the universe) or can wait later to give such evidence people will reject Him in their current state of mind. It seems that Matt is in the second category. Thus, no evidence is enough for him since He decided so. And you?
@@EstudioVoitheia "God can give sufficient effidence for His existence"
how do you know that?
@@EstudioVoitheia
In-fact, god MUST give the evidence for his existence - evidence sufficient to convince every human being of god’s existence. The fact that he has failed to do so, based on very existence of human beings who disbelieve god’s existence, renders the omni-god of the Christian faith nothing more than a logical contradiction. Therefore, the Christian god can NOT exist as defined.
-If something is omniscient, it can never fail to know a thing... if it lacked any knowledge, it wouldn’t be maximally knowledgeable.
-If something is omnipotent, then there is no thing (within the constraints of logic) that it cannot do... if there were, then it wouldn’t be maximally powerful.
-If something is omni-benevolent, it can never do anything but good... AND if it could fail to do something good, it wouldn’t be maximally good.
In order for god to exist, as he is defined, nothing that god does OR fails to do, can place god in a violative relationship with ANY of the preceding characteristics.
Consider:
-In order to believe in god, people might require different kinds of evidence or different levels of evidence, but god must know what evidence is required to prove his existence, not just to one person...or some people...or even most people...but to EVERY single individual. If he didn’t know this, then he wouldn’t be all-knowing.
-If god is all-powerful, god must be able to provide this evidence to everyone individually. Not a general presentation of creation for humanity collectively, but a Damascus road experience for each individual - whatever it takes so that every soul KNOWS god exists. If god could not do this, he wouldn’t be all-powerful.
-And the final one is where the conflict lies. Does god care? Surely he must. If god is all good, then god must want his creations to avoid eternal damnation. Even if god cannot ensure this because of some appeal to human free-will, god can at a minimum, give his creation all the tools necessary for belief. The most obvious tool being KNOWLEDGE OF HIS EXISTENCE. If god knows what it takes for each soul to believe in his existence, and is powerful enough to provide it, but chooses to withhold this knowledge from even a single soul, for any reason at all, then god cannot be all-good.
We live in a world where people do not believe that the Christian god exists. Some of those people believe in other gods, some of those people believe in no gods, and some of those people (like the pirahã tribe in the Amazon) never formed a concept of god and don’t even understand it. The very fact that people don’t have the evidence necessary for UNIVERSAL belief in the existence of the Christian god, means that some people will suffer eternal damnation because god either:
1) Didn’t know what evidence was necessary,
2) Wasn’t powerful enough to provide it, or
3) Chose to withhold it.
But whichever option applies, the Christian god CANNOT exist as defined. That is what this argument reveals. The fact that we live in a world where disbelief is even possible, proves that the omniscient, omnipotent, omni-benevolent god of the Bible CANNOT exist.
Have you noticed that you completly ignore my reply. No. You can noticed around you that people do not aways want to listen to a truth (probably you too). Sometimes they can be even very angry at you. So that is also the case for God. God priority is lead people to Good (which is another name for God).
@@EstudioVoitheia "God priority is lead people to Good"
how do you know that?
also somebody rising from the dead is not an "unusual" thing. thats down right supernatural or as you thiests prefer. magic.
Uh yeah it is supernatural. We're not denying that. Trent uses the term supernatural throughout the debate.
This comment is nonsense.
@@skdncbdjsjxbdb and by being supernatural it has the same testability as magic. shouldent be surprised. dragons are mentioned 9 times in the bible.
@@Deathwish026 You people and your testability. Go outside nerd, you're not gonna find Jesus in a test tube.
@@Deathwish026 Christians never said the resurrection was a natural event so please stop pretending we did, to be Christian you would have to believe it was a divine miracle. Dragons are dinosaurs and what everyone called them before the name dinosaur was used. And if the website you used to learn that said it has a unicorn, that is just a rhino, and not the horse thing on cartoons.
You believe in a lot of things that can't be tested, so stop pretending you require testing ability for something to be believable. I strongly doubt you've used this for any of your beliefs anyway, atheists in practice have the most insane beliefs of all time, including gender fluidity. Something that IS testable fake. Dilahunty said he "doesn't care what historians say" which is a blatant omission that history is on the Christian side, and to do atheism you have to throw it out.
The inability of believers to answer straight forward questions is so frustrating. Does Trent believe that Jesus returned AGAIN but in India 100yrs ago? Believed by millions.. eyewitness testimonies
@@kak44n your boyfriend got spanked
Another thing I often don’t hear enough of here is that claims of gods resurrecting was not uncommon for the times. Jesus wasn’t the first claim of this happening. Sounds more like plagiarism then facts.
Richard Carrier has made a career out of that
if this is the case why is christianity the number one religion in the world compared to all these other fairy tales you say happened?
@@jaromsmiss Because there are lots of stupid people in the world. Check your mirror. BTW by 2050 Islam will be the #1 religion. Does that mean it is true? In 2000 BC most people thought pharoah was a god. Were they right? (the stupid, it burns).
Jesus Christ is the only one to resurrect himself. it is one thing to resurrect another person but to resurrect one's self is unheard of and is why people were compelled to die in martyrdom after having witnessed Jesus Christ after his resurrection
@@scambammer6102 there are 4000 religions in the world roughly and the only two that really stand out are Christianity and Islam.
Christianity is the only religion that has witnesses. how do you get 12 men to die for something that is not true? of course you as a sketpic gonna have some explanation for such, but there comes a point where a skeptic has to cut corners to make good sense of things
Trent Horn never gave, in my opinion, a reasonable explanation for anything that could be so called
What's reasonable to you isn't the same for the next. The fact your body does almost all its functions on its own can already be considered a miracle but in your mind you won't see it.
@@mrwhite2039 That is stupid. That relegates evidence to subjectivity. This is why I walked away from Christianity. Your God is condemning me in hell for lacking belief.
@Skylar Hillman you condemn yourself. You have free will. Sorry you don't control anything you gave your life.
@@mrwhite2039 Yes I have free will, but your God is condemning me to hell for not believing. The only evidence we have are accounts about eye witnesses. For the stakes being so high, any reasonable person would ask for sufficient evidence.
@@skylarhillman1455 Its your choice so you are the one condemning yourself. duh
Thank you gentlemen, I spent 2 hrs watching YT clips of Ibex this morning and now this debate. Is YT debate content getting better or is it just me?
It’s just you. Matt has been doing this a long time on TH-cam and he’s always been awesome.
@@nmn3541 Ive never seen a debate on his channel before. Which debates are you referring to?
@@SaintCharbelMiracleworker a simple search on TH-cam or google will provide you with numerous examples of Matt debating theists. He always brings his A game. Watch some atheist experience episodes on here with him hosting if you want to see him discuss theism with average theists or he has many debates with religious scholars posted as well.
@@nmn3541 I wasn't taking about Matt the debater. I was talking about Matt Fradd, this is his channel. We got our wires crossed. 😂
@@SaintCharbelMiracleworker lol that’s funny. sorry about that! Still hoping that you check out Matt Dillahunty’s videos though haha
Matt put an end to this nonsense between 48:23 and 50:25, as Trent squirmed in his seat trying every debate deflection and redirect tactic in the book to avoid answering a very simple question. A question he could only answer one way because he'd boxed himself in with this religious voodoo nonsense. An answer he knew would remove any hint of credibility he had to determine reasonableness, at least on this topic. This podcast was over for me when Matt said he was done and popped a snack into his mouth at 50:25. Savage.
Really painful to see how many people think it was a close argument considering this clip
Matt lost when he said it's unreasonable to believe Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate, against all the historical evidence.
"Yep, this person is dead, because I'm very familiar with what constitutes a dead person" 49:48
Luke being a physician really drove home that point
@@Illycrium He wasn't avery good one if he diagnoses patient via second hand accounts.
@@goldenalt3166 lol trufff
Trent is prepared to believe that something miraculous happened based on hearsay alone. He pointed out that two thousand years ago we were limited in what could be tested, as though that somehow makes it acceptable to believe in something that defies modern science/medicine. It doesn't. By that reasoning we can't rule out anything that happend back in the day. This is one of the dangerous things about religion - otherwise sensible people believing in the ridiculous. And once you let the ridiculous in, the door's wide open for a whole lot more.
Listen Carefully.Do not let the evil woman put fear in your heart and if you know that you have faith in Christ do as he says and wait for the testimony.I don't know you in person but God knows you well God reveal a revelation to me when I was going through your profile to observe things about your spiritual life.
while I was meditating, I saw a divine breakthrough in your life and I saw evil attack of the enemies manipulating on seizing your favour and to come against your hand work for you to be confused and lost hope. As I was praying the Lord reveal to me and instruct you to sow a seed into the life of a baby suffering from leukemia in children of Saviour motherless foundation,located Edo state,Nigeria, before the end of tomorrow and let me know so I can join you in prayers deeply because he want to manifest his promises in your life and that of your family
Nobody should know about the seed is between you and God, you will testify to the Glory of God after you have done it if only you believe in him and do what he says Proverb (3:27;21:26;22:9 ,,Deu.28:1-5) contact the MD of the orphanage foundation WhatsApp:(+2349064374487)or Email:(saviourfoundation111@gmail.com) send your donation to them.God bless you...
@@frmikeschmitz5693 You talk nonsense, I don’t believe a word of it.
No, we can’t rule out anything that is purported have happened in the past.
Recorded history is based entirely on testimonial evidence. Then if evidence is discovered that disproves that event, it is then disproved.
Pointing to the evidence that exists as proof that it didn’t happen is not acceptable. That’s dillahunty’a entire schtick. He “claims” he doesn’t have to debate the historicity of the evidence because it is only “claims”.
@@simpleplan8914 it's more that there's no point debating miraculous claims based on sketchy testimonials from 100s of years ago. We'll never know reliably, but can make a pretty good guess at was possible based on what we observe as being possible now. Magic doesn't exist. Men can't part water and conjure fish out of mid air. If anyone chooses to believe that based on some ancient texts cobbled together and edited a bunch of times, that's on them. It doesn't make it sensible tho.
Trent H. does quite well against Protestants.
Trent H. did not do well at all in this debate. Matt D. clearly has honest reason in his arguments that Trent H. does not possess in his assertions.
Trent did great.
Trent is ultimately admitting to believing in the resurrection based on nothing but people's word for it, and the fact that ALOT of people believe it. Forget the fact that Christianity was spread under the sword for thousands of year by the largest empire to ever exist. The greatest Con ever pulled off.
I’m not convinced Richard Carrier exists.
I’m an aCarrierist. The “evidence” we have for Richard Carrier is allegorical space spiritual alien none sense. Richard Carrier is just a copy of older pagan gods. I always tell people that believe that Richard Carrier exists “you don’t believe in multiple Richard Carriers, right? I just believe in one less Richard Carrier than you.”
@@ChristLover435, Ikr. There are no eye witness accounts attesting to his existence, no contemporary accounts, no one who wrote about him knew the people who knew him, no archeological evidence for Richard Carrier, all the sources written on him are late and unreliable, the books written by him are forgeries, the videos that show him on TH-cam are fabrications, and he’s just a copy of other skeptics who lived before him. It is quite rational to be a acarrierist.
@@generalkenobi6792 exactly. Being an aCarrierist will exclude you from any political office and polite society...everybody just takes it for granted that Carrier exists. We aCarriests are supremely rational unlike these superstitious people who believe in mythical characters because their parents said so. Richard Carrier exists? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And don’t cling to biased Carriest sources to justify your myths.
@@ChristLover435, Exactly. Richard Carrier is sooo fake! I’ve never been presented sufficient evidence to support his existence. He’s just as real as Trump is the greatest president of all time! In fact I don’t even think Trump existed either!
Let's apply a bayesian analisis of the historicity of Richard Carrier
The initial odds that Richard Carrier exists are - let’s be generous - a hundred to one in favor of the proposition.
Part of the definition of Richard Carrier is that he is supposed to be a scholar with a Ph. D. in History. He is also supposed to be relatively young, which makes him one of, say, 3,000 or so History Ph. D.s to have been minted in the past five years. These factors will become important as we proceed.
Now we throw some of the other factors into the mix. Richard Carrier (if he exists) is a Jesus mythicist, someone who disbelieves in the existence of Jesus of Nazareth as a real person in space and time. Of the 3,000 or so History Ph. D.s minted in the last five years, and bracketing Carrier for the moment so as not to beg any questions, how many are mythicists? It’s a pretty safe bet that the number is close to zero. Let’s be generous, however, and suppose that there are 30, all of them devout mythicists (though in secret, for fear of damaging their careers). But - and this is the point we must dwell on - if the internet atheist community wanted to create a superhero who could defeat the Christians by his superior credentials, would we not expect them to invest him with a doctorate in History and, at the same time, have him endorse, nay, vindicate, the mythicist position? Surely this is not very improbable, say, even odds (for the mythicist position is very well represented online). And that the internet atheists should invent such a character, though it might seem a bit far fetched, is not really that unlikely, since all of history amply documents the human response to the felt need for superheroes. (Vide not only Egyptian and Greek mythology but also the Edda and The Avengers, due to be released in a couple of weeks.) Upon the whole, it seems safe to say that the probability of the invention of such a character is at least .1. At a conservative estimate, the likelihood ratio
P(Historian-myther-hero|Richard Carrier is not a real person)/P(Historian-myther-hero|Richard Carrier is a real person)
is therefore .1/(30/3,000), or 10 to 1.
But Richard Carrier is also supposed to be a “world renowned philosopher and historian” (according to the blurb on Why I am not a Christian). Problems now begin to crowd more thickly around the definition. How many History Ph. D.s are philosophers at all? Surely not very many. How many are world renowned philosophers, even though they have just obtained the Ph. D.? The percentages are vanishing; the probability cannot sensibly be estimated at greater than 0.0001. But this would be a very useful accomplishment to add to the credentials of a historian-myther-hero, if he were an invented character. Let us suppose the probability to be merely 0.1 (though it should probably be higher), and we get the likelihood ratio:
P(World-renowned philosopher|Richard Carrier is not a real person & Historian-myther-hero)/P(World-renowned philosopher|Richard Carrier is a real person & Historian-myther-hero)
= 0.1/0.0001, or 1000 to 1.
We can go further. This world-renowned philosopher-historian-myther-hero is also a mathematician. Given historians’ well-known disdain for mathematical methods, the probability of this if Carrier is a real person is low, though perhaps not so drastically low as it would be if our hero were not also a philosopher, since perhaps as many as ten percent of all philosophers can and do use mathematical methods from time to time. Call the conditional probability of this detail, given the reality of Carrier and all of the other factors considered thus far, 0.05. But the mythic Carrier would only be enhanced by adding mathematical abilities to his other powers; it is at least even money that, if he is entirely mythical, this additional qualification would be tacked onto his resume. However, so as not to overestimate the probability, let us reduce the estimate to:
P(Mathematician||Richard Carrier is not a real person & Historian-myther-hero & World-renowned philosopher)/P(Mathematician|Richard Carrier is a real person & Historian-myther-hero & World-renowned philosopher)
= 0.2/0.05, or 4 to 1.
Putting these factors together, we have to weigh odds of 100 to 1 for Carrier’s reality against the combination of other factors, which tip the scales at 40,000 to 1 against. These considerations alone leave us with odds of 400 to 1 against, or a probability just a bit in excess of .9975 that Richard Carrier is not a real person.
We might go on in this vein for quite some time, noting further incongruities in the Carrier myth. How many trained historians would misread Plutarch’s “On Isis and Osiris” 19.358b as declaring Osiris’s physical resurrection from the dead here on earth? How many mathematicians would bungle basic probability calculations? How many philosophers, world-renowned or otherwise, would endorse the position that the laws of logic “obviously” derive from the laws of physics? Yet such blunders are what we might well expect to crop up as the community feigning Carrier’s existence attempted to demonstrate his expertise in one field after another.
So the calculation given above seriously underestimates the probabilities in the case. Almost certainly, by strict Bayesian reasoning, Richard Carrier does not exist.
And yet, I venture to predict that the vast majority of Carrier-believers will pay no attention whatsoever to Bayesian reasoning when it is applied rigorously to conclusions that they hold sacred
It explains why so many people talk about Richard Carrier as if he existed. Talking about him, and convincing other people of his existence, strengthens their faith. That’s how cognitive dissonance works. Such is their desire to convince others that they even write pseudonymous books in his name.
Furthermore, ikons of Richard Carrier look vaguely like the Karate Kid, who was a popular mythic figure of Generation X children. Richard carrier alleged age is around that of Generation X. With such clear similarities, it is obvious that the Richard Carrier Myth began as a copy cat of the Karate kid
As we all know, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and, based on the recent analysis, the existence of Richard Carrier certainly qualifies as an extraordinary claim. Have you, then, verified that the video and written testimony attributed to Dr. Carrier actually meets this reasonably high standard?
Until you meet him in person (and verify that the experience is not a group hallucination, which we all know is much more probable than his existence, since any explanation is more probable than his existence), isn’t it rational to hold to the default position, that of A-Carrierism?
Feel free to copy and paste this to extend the a-carrierst movement
While I don't agree with Trent and his beliefs, he was really enjoyable to watch. I feel like he is a bit more reasonable than most people Matt has debated.
You’re conflating reasonable with nice. Very little of what his proposed was reasonable
@@Handlethis342 "You’re conflating reasonable with nice. Very little of what his proposed was reasonable"--
The fact that people falsely equivocate those two is one reason why those same people could think this is even a debate.
Someone can believe in the resurrection, but it is not reasonable to do so.
Supernatural claims cannot be reasonable by definition since if we had a reasonable explanation they would just be natural claims.
@@Handlethis342 He can be reasonable with all of his beliefs being reasonable. Also, reasonable =/= rational.
I agree, I don't ultimately agree with his beliefs either but I couldn't help but like the guy. I thought he came across as thoughtful and considerably more open and honest than most Christian apologists.
Matt destroyed him with common sense
This is how debates should be. Both men were respectful and respectable. My favourite beer is Keith's IPA and Keith's Red. Except in the summer, it is Pump House Blueberry Ale.
Try talking to your family like they spoke to each other. Let me know how long you're not on speaking terms.
You may have missed Dillahunty's cross examination. It struck me as fairly unrespectful.
When the women arrived (Matthew) they encountered the angel sitting on the rock. In Luke no angel on the rock but one inside and in Luke they encounter two women inside.
@@stephendvorak1043 it wasn’t Disrespectful it was the truth. The disrespect came from Trent refusing to answer the questions and speaking over Matt during Matt’s turn. Facts don’t care about your feelings
@@JonYen69 The truth can be expressed in disrespectful ways. In this case, that's what Matt did. Whether or not facts care about feelings has nothing to do with the fact that a respectful conversation is more successful than a disrespectful conversation.
"If in a thousand years somebody says Elvis rose from the dead ..." Yes, but we did not start believing Jesus rose from the dead a thousand years later. Historians show this was an immediate belief that arose among His closest Disciples. And, yes, we do know the tomb in which He was placed.
Great conversation here, these two bounce off each other very well.
Matt just said history isn't science then said science is simply knowledge.
Think I've already tried to explain this to you but maybe not. Two things called google and definitions will help with that. Can't help you anymore than that.
@@Frostyd241 I have never interacted with or heard of you. Stop lying.
@@jamalchristian wow. Go right to lying? Couldn't be that maybe I'm having several discussiona at once and couldn't remember if I had said that to you or someone else. Do you always automatically jump off the handle like that? I'm totally fine with having a discussion with you but please grow up a bit if you so wish.
@@Frostyd241 I apologize.
I got a headache from that hahahahah. Science has to use history within their theories which was developed using the scientific method hahaha. But science translated literally means knowledge. Idk if he's taking about social sciences or natural sciences (although I presume 100% that he's talking about natural sciences- like physics bio and chem). Also, when he mentions that miracles are supernatural that doesn't obey the laws of nature, he's right to an extent, but miracles can still happen obeying the laws of nature, except the the work being done (in joules) is done by a supernatural entity.
Religious people arguing that their religion, which defies all scientific laws and everything we know about the universe, is reasonable is as silly as someone arguing for the existence of pixies and polka dotted unicorns.There is simply no reason to give these people any more credence then the flat earthers.
What a ridiculous statement. Christianity is based on historically verifiable events, the only question is whether you believe the miraculous parts claimed by the Bible and believers. What do you believe?
It does not defy any scientific laws. Science is the study of the natural world, not the supernatural. Your example of the flat earth is perfect...in the bible the earth is described as a circle within a void and suspended in space. This book was written thousands of years before humans really understood what it meant.
Further, I am exactly on your page with regards to all religious except Christianity. That is because Christianity makes a completely unique claim among religions...that this story actually happened within our natural world.
@@stephenwilson0386 The Bible is historically, morally and scientifically wrong about all of the testable claims it makes.
@@stephenwilson0386 the Bible claims a 900 year old man built a boat and survived a worldwide flood. It also claims slaves escaped Egypt by fleeing into Egypt lmao.
To touch on what Trent was hinting at around 38:21, there have been countless occurrences for centuries of people being mistakenly thought to be dead, and seemingly "coming back to life" as a result of things like high-grade fever or medical shock. But those are natural occurrences, not supernatural. Even if hypothetically Jesus was not actually dead but just experiencing medical shock, it still wouldn't prove he was the divine son of god.
You want us to believe a tri-omni creature who despised it's own creation so much that it destroyed it in a flood had the brilliant idea to sacrifice itself to itself to appease it for the creation it created, and destroyed, for the sins it's creatures would commit, even though it knew from the moment of creation that these creatures would do these things (like wear clothes of 2 different materials) before it even conceived of the creation, but it would do this wonderful sacrifice to a backwards tribe in a small part of the world, so that it could create a religion which is so confusing that it would split into thousands of sects, even though the book it provided us said that it wouldn't as proof of this creators existence, all so 144,000 thousand of it's billions and billions of creatures could be saved.
That's what you believe?
It's comments like this that convince me of the fact that prideful stupid people do exist, name one theological paper you've consulted on the relavent literature ??? If not then how could you cherry pick fragmented aspects of a particular religous theology to bash it.
@@hlulanizitha9920 Countless christians over the years have warned me that I need to save myself from Jesus, the architect of hell, by bending the knee. They warn me that he is threatening me with the hell he created and I have to be "saved". Since Jesus created hell, we must save ourselves from the creator of hell.
I am not opposed to believing in Jesus the god, if he would just heal someone of other than ambiguous things. When people pray to Jesus he never heals 3rd degree burn victims, cleft palates, clubbed feet, pfeiffer syndrome, amelia syndrome, quadriplegics, retardation, or of course amputees. I would convert if Jesus would just heal a simple chipped tooth! That should be an easy one for a god.
@@hlulanizitha9920 It's what they believe. Their god is tri-omni. I'm not cherry picking. They say that.
If their god isn't tri-omni, then it's not god or not worth worshipping.
What does pride have to do with it. It prideful to say this imaginary creature had a personal relationship with you. That's prideful, what in my statement is prideful? That's a stupid talking point.
@@tonyt4395 how dare you be so prideful. Lol
@@visforvegan8 Fair, but that's just a surface level understanding of the matter. You haven't gone through and cited any credible papers on the matter to bolster your views. Great theologicans have wrestled with such questions for centuries, and you expect us to truly believe that it's a simple matter that can be dismissed ad stupid by a simple you tube comment.
If you have a problem with the statement “I want to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible” you already lost
Ultimately, your statement is just an arbitrary value claim as to what or how many beliefs we should desire to have. However I could say, I would much rather be right on a few supremely important topics even if it means I'm wrong on millions of unimportant topics. Because if I'm wrong on say "facts about the presidents" or "the mechanics of refrigerators" or "the description of the internal combustion engine" but I'm right on supremely important moral principles and the existence of God, I'm going to live a better life and have eternal life. If knowledge was all weighted equally, then sure that statement would just be mini-maxing. But all knowledge is not weighted equally. Therefore trying to believe as few false things as possible, can lead you down a path of ambivalence on supremely important topics which ultimately would then be not as good for you. There's no objective measure you have to say your value claim about beliefs is any better than mine.
@@mikethemonsta15 My statement is literally the equivalent of saying I want to eat as many poison free foods and as few poisoned foods as possible. This is the mental gymnastics you have to go through to justify your beliefs because you know they aren’t reasonable. We can’t choose which things we believe, we can only try to use the best epistemology possible in order to prevent ourselves from being fooled or taken advantage of.
@@Boomer22z no your statement was not that at all
@@joseonwalking8666 “Nah ah” in Christian speak.
@@mikethemonsta15 chill buddy lololol
who else rolled their eyes when he said he believes other religion claims?
In reverse, Matt believes in other science claims, would you role your eyes at that?
@@Ant1Lgbtq no because i know the standards needed for science like peer review, etc.
What are the standards needed for a belief in religious claims?
@HIIIBEAR Ok so is there a justification for why we need to appeal to what you call standards?
@@Ant1Lgbtq yea, theres a difference between imagination and reality so we need standards to determine which is which
What are the standards for belief in religious claims?
@HIIIBEAR So imagination as in what the human mind has observed? Or imagination as making a conclusion such as the big bang theory with what we've observed?
How rare and how thrilling, two intelligent and passionate men having a respectful discussion. Well done!
Who else was there other than Matt?
Being respectful is totally irrelevant.
@@steveanton763Definitely not Matt. Typical atheist comment
48:07 There is absolutely nothing intelligent about what Trent is doing there.
@@joerdim
I totally agree.
Kudos to Trent for not being dishonest, like most religious people will be during a debate. But his language throughout this debate shows that Trent never has been really challenged on his religious beliefs. Talking for example "plausible" vs "unplausible" when talking about things that has never been proven to have happen shows a troublesome knowledge with probability and rationality.
Knowledgeable, honest and sincere about his beliefs? Yes.
Intellectual? No.
Trent is showing that most honest, decent people are fully capable of being tricked into believing almost anyhing because they haven't ever learned basic critical thinking.
Fun debate, but you're missing Hannibal's elephant in the room. What is reasonable depends on the place that you start. Trent _starts_ from a place that God exists and miracles happen. If you grant that starting position, then the conclusion that the resurrection happened is at least _more_ reasonable than it would for someone who doesn't start from that same position. This inclusion of a starting position was entirely ignored in the debate. If it had been explored, it could have potentially resulted in an even more productive conversation.
Second, regarding Matt's analogy of a legal trial and wanting to minimize the number of innocent people who go to jail while maximizing the number of guilty people who go to jail. There's an important context to consider. For a particular crime, there are hugely more innocent people of that crime than guilty people, so it's rational to weigh the system of evaluation toward freeing the innocent. For claims, there are _infinitely_ more false claims than true ones, so it's rational to weigh the system of evaluation more toward denying the false.
great comment!
Interesting thought. Maybe next debate title should be "is it reasonable to start from a place that god exists and miracles happen"? To me it sounds = "should we allow confirmation bias to go unchecked"
Absolutely not. Your starting point says nothing about the reasonability of _any_ argument, and things don't get any better if you start with asserting the existence of some magical man in the sky.
In regards to the "Hannibal's elephant", Matt definitely didn't ignore that fact. He stated it in his conclusion.
@@251rmartin
Don't you mean UNreasonable?
I missed the part where the theist argues why it's reasonable to believe someone rose from the dead. I mean, it's hard to detect any reasonable argument for or against anything amonst all his word blabber.
You had to have faith at the time. /s
Same old talking points with no evidence behind them outta Trent. Seriously it's like talking to a Broken record they just repeat and repeat even if it's not the answer. When he was told over and over you aren't answering he just switches to another talking point. Matt has way more patients then I could ever have with someone who is going to Talk over me, not let me answer the Question and then play Victim because he gets an Iota of the same treatment.
It says so in the Bible and he trusts that. It's really really pathetic epistemology as it would have you believing every claim in every religion
It's reasonable because if Jesus Christ was God incarnate then resurrecting himself from the dead would be no problem for him since God is omnipotent. Do you even think about what you're writing... Like ever? You're so full of irrationality that it is absurd.
@@csongorarpad4670 It's not reasonable because you haven't established the existence of a god. Religion and thinking do not go together as you so painfully personify.
"""Is belief in the Resurrection reasonable"""...If you accept magic and the super natural as real then anything is possible
Sure. If there is an all-powerful god then that god can do anything. That's an explanation that works, but we need to establish that explanation is a possible explanation to begin with (i.e. god's existence).
I would have asked which resurrection? In the Bible, Christ was the seventh dead person to be restored to life, and he was not the last.
All explanations are supernatural.
@@les2997 Correct. When theists are asked the basic questions, like what is god, where is it, where is heaven/hell, show us someone in hell, they MUST immediately defer to supernatural woo woo, like god is beyond time and space, etc.
@@NeverTalkToCops1 Yeah it's that and 'you need to open your heart and put on your spiritual glasses to see the Truth'. Which is just a woo woo way of saying you need to believe first and ask questions later.
Trent at 3:00 has a good point for a flaw in our attempt at being non biased but obviously showing selective skepticism. I personally believe every action has a cause but that it does not have to be intelligent to act and effect another entity or chain of events.
Highlight at 49:20 and pretty much the end of the debate for Trent.
(Trent admits that he is simply going off of testimony.)
Another good highlight here: 1:10:30 Trent doesn't even pretend to be able to demonstrate his claims in any way here.
Which the point of this whole debate, Trent just concedes the whole debate over and over and still ask questions like he has a leg to stand on.
Kind of a joke tbh.
@@frmikeschmitz5693 thats some good example of antiintellectualism right there. Well done👏😇
Ya it was pretty sad that he just accepts on testimony (which religion doesn't have that?) and didn't want to admit it and then gave no good evidence for the subject of the debate
well generally speaking history is testimony
@@blackfalkon4189 If you can show it's actually history. Nothing supernatural can be considered history according to historical methods because there is no way to conform such an event.
@@49perfectss no I meant History
*all* of history
51 minutes in, Trent looses and shows he knows it with his passive aggressive response.
My kid has loose grasp on reality, when he's at play. I agree, Tent was losing the debate as every second passed. Matt had no regard with being loose with speech since Trent took the loss. You know..... Loose and lose are two different things..... Just saying..... You know?
I don't get it how do you determine who wins or loses these debates are stupid and a waste of time everybody believes exactly what they believe before the debate started it's the same words with different people speaking them with all these theists against atheist debates there's no new evidence if atheist aren't going to believe based on the evidence that's already out there they're never going to believe so why does everybody waste their time everybody will find out when they die or if the atheist is right he'll never know the only thing I learned from these debates is how egotistical you have to be to be an atheist I mean you have to really think you are incredibly smart and sure of yourself because well you can say there's no proof of God's existence at the same time there's no proof that God doesn't exist no one can be 100% certain and it would be a shame if otherwise really good decent people which most atheist are lose eternal life with God simply out of arrogance
@@dennisdonnelly7794 Can I debate you on the importance of using punctuation?
@@dennisdonnelly7794, first, can a brother by a sentence? Your post is one run-on sentence and difficult to read.
writes _and it would be a shame if otherwise really good decent people which most atheist are lose eternal life"_
Please look up Pascal's Wager, if you read up about it you'll find out why your thought here is ridiculous because you're making the same basic argument.
BTW: "I don't know" is hardly an egotistical position to hold.
@@dennisdonnelly7794 there's only one side that claims they know here. Arrogance and faith go together like lamb and tuna fish
I gotta Matt was pretty chill today. He was ver nice to Trent
Trent is super nice. I reckon it's harder being a douchebag to Trent than it would be to like 99% of people.
besides, Trent is a giant, no one with intelligence would want to antagonize an opponent like him
Matt litterally yelled at him over mentioning a debate he had with a fellow Atheist.
Edit: Was Matt Drunk?
He kinda flipped out by not letting Trent finish his question just because he mentioned the name “Alex O’Conner”. I’m only 45 minutes in, and this is the only outburst so far. But it was a rude interruption nonetheless
@@gospelfreak5828 It was bizzare.
47:40 so a medical doctor can determine if someone is dead because he/she just “believes”that person is dead… science my friends
If they were a good doctor thwy wouldn't "believe" the person was dead. They'd take vitals, feel the temperature of the skin etc
. And that just the start of it.
@@nathanmckenzie904 A non-doctor could do the same. Either way, it’s still testimony.
@@cbtam4333If the doctor is legit than that doctor is making a claim. It's not a testimonial evidence. A testimonial evidence is if someone says "I saw the dude get hit by a truck".
54:00 Trents swan example is debunking his own argument. People did NOT accept black swans exist UNTIL physical evidence was provided to the relevant authorities with pics, videos and tests conducted on black swans.
Trent should maybe try gymnastics. His mental capacity to contort reality to fit his ideas is the definition of hyper flexibility (or ignorance)
The people who saw black swans accepted its existence when they saw it. They don’t need to bring it to a sort of “relevant” authority to be convinced of it.
Likewise, the disciples were convinced of Jesus’ resurrection because they saw him alive, not because they needed to first confirm it to some “relevant” authority.
@@ChristianSigma But there's no evidence that actually happened. All we have is an ancient book that CLAIMS that happened. There's no actual evidence that those people ever actually existed let alone saw a person named jesus rise from the dead. We can see black swans. Do you understand now?
@@jamesm1580
That’s like saying there’s no evidence that Alexander the Great lived and conquered many places because all we have are ancient documents talking about him. When a historian sees 2 separate documents supporting same events, they drool. Now compare that to the resurrection which has multiple sources-that is why so many believe.
@@ChristianSigma There are not multiple sources. How can you not see that?
@@ChristianSigma There are not multiple sources. There is one source that CLAIMS there were multiple people who saw a resurrection. You keep making false equivalencies.
And correct, we can't know without a shadow of a doubt that Alexander the Great lived. Although there is A LOT of evidence and different sources that back up the claim that he existed... and since whether Alexander the Great lived in the past does not affect the way we live our lives or whether we accept the existence of a god or supernatural events, we have no reason to disbelieve the evidence. You're acting as if accepting someone lived in the past carries the same weight and holds the same significance as accepting supernatural claims are true which leads us to accepting a god exists. That's disingenuous of you. I hope you can acknowledge that.
Not to mention there are TONS of claims of supernatural or otherwise unbelievable events in other religious texts that also solely rely on what those texts say about what other people supposedly experienced. If we go by your standard of evidence we would have to accept those as true as well.
"The burden of defending the negative." I'm in for a fun ride, yeah?
Matt’s face tho. He was like oh really? 😂😂😂
@@lmmn3164 Lol, religious people man, gotta love their ignorance or even stupidity.
@@lmmn3164 It’s not an argument, the burden of proof rests on the person who asserts because that’s how we seek value in a case. If a person for example says so & so is guilty of a crime, you ask for evidence. If they cannot provide evidence, then the assertion is void because there’s no value in it. Now if they can provide evidence, then there is value in it & the discussion can go further to see if it holds up either by more testing or if there are no other options available. Could you prove a negative? Yes but that’s not the job for us to prove you wrong, especially if you cannot prove you’re right to begin with since there’s no value in your God argument.
@@lmmn3164 It still works the same way, if you make a claim you cannot prove, you might as well say anything is true because I cannot prove it. If I were to tell you the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists, then by your definition you’d have to accept my claim since you cannot prove me wrong. Same with other religions you don’t believe in. But the thing is nobody can prove each other wrong cause all Gods are invisible & works in mysterious ways. Go figure. Sounds like you just badly wanna believe in some God & that’s fine but just admit that. I don’t because I am not convinced of any God for various reasons other than simply not being able to demonstrate his existence.
@@lmmn3164 That’s my point dude, you’re killing me. You cannot prove me wrong so now you’re stuck believing that it’s a possibility. Yet you believe in a God you cannot provide evidence for. That’s utter nonsense. With your epistemology, all we are left with we don’t know until proven otherwise & for your view, we accept any claim you give us as long as we cannot prove the negative.
Everyone knows that the *written* word is open to interpretation.
Everyone except for God. lol
The Word is not open for interpretation
It has correct and incorrect interpretations
@@IndiaNumberOneCoubtry Good luck figuring out what the correct interpretation is
@@IndiaNumberOneCoubtry And how exactly does one confirm this?
Or you saying that they are not _"true Christians"_ because they don't believe what you do?
Most important for Christians is the fact that there is no agreement on the wishes of Jesus.
EX; What is the agreed upon _"Christian World View"_ on the wishes of Jesus in regards to,
1. homosexuality
2.abortion
3.assisted suicide
4. capitol punishment
5. cloning
@@IndiaNumberOneCoubtryEven Trent says the Word is open to interpretation.
In regards to God commanding Israelites to kill Canaanite children, Trent believes we could interpret this literally and that God allowed authors to inject their own beliefs into the Scriptures. Or he said maybe it was exaggerated and not meant to be literal.
The Word is open to interpretation. God wrote the truth in our hearts.
The two debaters showing respect to each other. Awesome.
No 🤣
Um are we watching the same debate? 48:50 😂
@@MrWinMrWin-qr2bn That is considered and so does the whole debate.okay. You have not watched the others debates os Matt till he was pissed and one debate he even left the debates.
@@MusikSarawak-zu3ic I think it's okay to disagree but when one side starts getting angry and rude it really never looks good.
@@MrWinMrWin-qr2bn Actually every atheist hates one thing which is Christians not answering their simple questions directly instead they talk about something else which does not answer the question.