Does the Christian God Exist? Trent Horn vs. Dan Barker Debate
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 1 ต.ค. 2024
- Does the Christian God Exist?
Trent Horn vs. Dan Barker
Minnesota State University Mankato
September 24th, 2018
Trent Horn debates with Dan Barker on the topic -
Does the Christian God Exist?
DONATE: give.catholic....
SUBSCRIBE: / catholiccom
WEBSITE: www.catholic.com
Follow us on SOCIAL MEDIA
Facebook: / catholicanswers
Twitter: / catholiccom
Instagram: / catholicanswers
A debate should be moderated properly so there is no clapping during it (apart from start and finish), otherwise it can become unnecessarily rancourous. No matter your position, debates should be held respectfully and calmly so that people can be educated to both perspectives.
There's only education on one side.
And then there's the side which pretends make-believe is concordant with objective reality and they, don't learn very often. Usually doing more work to dismiss what doesn't go along with their fixed beliefs than not.
This debate was a disgrace, I'm a little surprised at Dan for getting involved in this farce.
Sarcasm and clapping is the best defense for religion!
@1:06:00 Trent tells Dan that if Jesus came down, Dan would ask for an apology but if Trent can do a magic trick he would believe
Well no he’s saying that if god was proved to be real he would demand an apology. And if Trent could use prayer like the Bible says he can then that would prove god is real. But he can’t because god will always say no.
Here I think Trent does raise a good point.
In that people who suffer, by sword, gun, torture and all pain in general, that there would truly be the possibility of them being 'saved' or 'redeemed'. In this case God would be the ultimate Savior. In modern terms the ultimate Therapist could be applied, I think.
But I'm writing this as I'm watching, so don't know if Barker will get to this.
Thank you Catholic Answers for opening the comment section here!
Agreed
Sceptic Science I am glad when anyone opens up the comment section. I encourage free speech. The best way to bring people to the truth is through debate. Don’t you agree?
@@rationalsceptic7634Men do not differ much about what things they will call evils; they differ enormously about what evils they will call excusable.
@@rationalsceptic7634 I say that a man must be certain of his morality for the simple reason that he has to suffer for it.
@@rationalsceptic7634 There are those who hate Christianity and call their hatred an all-embracing love for all religions
I find it astonishing that people who present unsubstantiated claims, when challenged, simply think that making additional unsubstantiated claims bolsters their case.
They're *arguments* not claims, if you're talking about Trent
Atheism a claim that God doesn’t exist. A claim they can’t prove. I’ll consider atheism if they can prove that things can just pop out of existence out of absolute nothingness without causes. That’s how they claim the universe came to be.
The Observer
that's what ya heard, eh'? how do you think
i know ya didn't hear that fom an atheist?
@@selfademus there is no true scotsman fallacy at play here or what? There's plenty of atheists, some of whom I know personally, who espuse the claims that "The Observer" points out and rightly ridicules for its irrationality
@@theobserver3753 Wow, you couldn't be more wrong...... Atheism is the disbelief in a god.
I'm an atheist and I do not claim that no god exists.
Know why? Because I wouldn't know how to prove that claim to be true.
I also DON'T claim things pop into existence out of nothing. In fact; it's theist that make that claim.
I don't know how the universe came to be nor do I claim to know.
They clap for anything I guess!!
Clapping makes you not sleeping during the debate xD
Nearly every debate on this topic with Trent that I've seen goes the same way: Trent calmly presents rational philosophical arguments and the atheist completely steps around those arguments with emotional buzzwords and attempts at "crowd pleasing". Funny how everyone seems to think that atheists are rational "free-thinkers" and Christians are overly-emotional Luddites.
Did you watch the part where Trent basically ended his statement on a soundbite of “I’d prefer to worship a god that saved us and gave us the free will to do…” or whatever emotional crowd-rowsing bit he did? It’s whatever. Reality is that most humans resonate with the emotional appeals over the logical or rational ones, that’s just reality I have to accept and deal with, and (as far as I can tell) the audience is “home territory” for the Catholic debater. But don’t pretend or insinuate that your priest friend made any biting argument for god and refrained from making statements of faith/devotion designed to trigger the audience’s approval.
When your argument hinges on a magic book written thousands of years ago, you’re not rational
@@13cozzmo Also, notice how J. M. had no rebuttal when I pointed out how his claim of “non-emotional rational arguments made by Trent” was complete bunk. Theists don’t tend to be comfortable when you destroy their idyllic fantasies-not only when it comes to their god, but also when it comes to their supposed best arguments in defense of said god 😆
@@13cozzmoand what makes you think it’s “fake”?
@@jenj1221 Christianity? On its face it’s ridiculous. And then we can look at things happening, very recently, like Mormonism, and see how religions are just made up yet millions of people are convinced of their reality. And that was about 200 years ago. You want me to actually believe all the magic stuff in the Bible really happened 2000+ years ago? Come on
Pro tip for atheists: Arguing that God behaved in a way that you feel was immoral is not an argument against the existence of God, it’s an argument that God does not behave in the way you would like him to.
@@SimSim-zf9if The most used argument by the atheist in this debate was pointing to God doing things in the Bible that he thinks are bad.
Nope you are correct however it does prove that if god does immoral things that he is not worthy of worship.
It doesn’t in itself argue against God’s existence. But since most religious folk have convinced themselves to believe in a God because that God gives them a source of morals, once you show that the God in question doesn’t meet our own standards of morals, then believing in that God as a source of morality is at best superfluous.
@@rustyshackelford5047worthy of worship and existence are two different realities.
I think the reason this happens we are challenged to predict what we think God would do. And through this self reflection and hearing how this God is all good when one sees something they don't predict. It becomes reasonable to assume that version of God does not exist.
Never liked this kind of debate. It doesn’t allow much room for conversion of the debaters themselves. Without the audience, Trent and Dan May be able to conduct a more heartfelt conversation between just the two of them
What good would that do? You're not thinking.
That's not the point of a debate. Debates are for the audience, not the people talking.
You can find Dan Barker at Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF). He does lots of stuff there.
I also prefer more of a conversational approach than formal debates like this. A good example would be Sam harris and Jordan Peterson's on stage conversations. It lets them flesh out ideas more and work through to the core issues
I agree. Audience participation always weakens the debate. This formate is sound - if the audience was there to listen and not cheer. This is a debate, not a sports event.
So funny - watching this debate on youtube! 1:22:16 Horn says: "You are probably an atheist, cause you are born in 21. century america and you have access to youtube"
And that's in response to........?
So basically you are likely to become an atheist when available technology grants you access to all kind of information and arguments in order to confront points of view and when you live in a free country that protects your right to access that information...I kinda agree with him
@@patricktinley6545 Having access to all kind of information allows you confront and compare, to know other and completely different points of view, that in the long term enrichess your intelect and cultural background, not because you believe everything out there but rather because you realize that nothing is really sacred anymore and is very fun to search for the truth without any guilt, of course there's disinformation but at least it is not all what there is, like in religion (Sorry about my grammar, English isn't my native language)
Patrick Tinley: Have you noticed that our conversation on this video has disappeared? Any idea why that should be so?
Patrick Tinley: No, and I was not implying that it had anything to do with you. I have formed the strong impression that you are an honest person, notwithstanding our disagreement, but somebody wants the conversation suppressed so what conclusions do we draw from that?
If you have to make excuses for immoral acts by God then I want nothing to do with it.
Exactly!
But when we humans make excuses for immoral acts commited by ourselves, then we want everything to do with it.
Immoral by what standard?
Mr. Horn- your arguments for the faith are solid!
Lol. Good one
yea, like jell-o is solid.
right on.
Too bad faith is a good thing. I don't believe anything based on faith. I need evidence.
5:06 The Argument from Existence
18:34 General Arguments against a Generic God
22:26 The Christian God
40:17 Would I Quit the Catholic Church over the Abuse Scandal
47:18 Can Something Come from Nothing
48:30 Defenses of the Biblical God
1:01:06 Child Sacrifice
1:05:59 Does God Answer Prayers
1:10:45 Story of Phinehas in the Old Testament
1:51:38 Resurrection of Jesus
1:58:25 Why Do We Disagre
Thank u💛
I think the political debates should watch them for time allotment.
The worst thing about listening to debates these days, is knowing that you'll have to endure sitting through the pure nonsense of the apologist for half the time.
Specially the atheist apologist
@@thstroyur
No such thing. We don't have a position that needs defending. We just aren't accepting yours.
@@biggregg5 Yeah, that's called _argumentum ad ignorantiam_ , 'argument from ignorance
'; if you don't have to accept the position of religious folk, we double don't have to accept the one you atheist apologists argue for with a fallacy...
@@thstroyur
Lol...no it's not. Nice try. Try again.
@@thstroyur
I understand your frustration because, I'm sure there are plenty of atheists that point out to Christians their constant violation of the argument from ignorance fallacy, so you are desperate to turn the tables on us. Your attempt was comically misguided. I realize that just providing solid evidence for the existence of your god is an impossible task, but whatever you are attempting to do here, you should reconsider.
Trent should be a politician the way he can duck questions by rambling on for minutes without actually saying anything
I just posted the same.
If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a question!
What is the spiritual name of the Conscious Universe that created us in Its image ?
gary stevenson Ha.
Dodge, duck, dip, dive and dodge! lol
@@garystevenson5560 what are you smoking ? The universe isn't conscious.
@@jonfromtheuk467 It created us. * I am God's messenger.
@ 34:10 "and he's perfect, so God won't change his mind." I guess he's forgetting all the times in the bible where God changes his mind, or regrets his decisions...
When?
@@tryhardf844 And the LORD changed his mind about the disaster that he planned to bring on his people (Exodus 32:14).
I regret that I made Saul king, for he has turned back from following me, and has not carried out my commands." Samuel was angry; and he cried out to the LORD all night (1 Samuel 15:11).
There are two examples off hand. There are at least a few others I can think of.
@@eugenecoleman8525 So you presume that God can’t change His mind? This is the Creator of the Universe we’re talking about here.
@@GeoffreyChilesTV
So you are saying that god got it wrong the first time so he had to change his mind?
And wasn't he all knowing by the way?
@@GeoffreyChilesTV I'm not saying God can't change his mind. I was talking about the apologists and person in the video who claimed God can't change his mind
Really impressed with Trent. Dan’s definition of nothing is actually not nothing; it’s something. Grateful for both these guys.
I agree with what Quentin Smith once said: we tend to conceive of "nothing" as "a very thin sort of something", because it is literally impossible to conceive. Perhaps "nothing" is the least viable concept there ever was.
Try reading Nagarjuna on the sixteen degrees of nothing
Several centuries ahead of western nihilism
These idiots who ramble on about GOD. but have not even met me make me furious
How dare they presume to know who what and how I am when I’m still dying to find it out myself through creation
Dan Barker's greatest opponent. I think he actually lost this one.
Can some Christian please let us know which passages of the Bible are literal and which ones are not literal?
By looking at the context.
The ones that support their sect are literal. The ones that don't aren't.
Looking at the context. Also, that's the point of the catholic church.
@@newkboots Context doesn't help, nor does the Catholic Church, the same sect that convicted Gallileo for saying that the Earth revolved around the Sun. They took many things literally until science or moral progress disproved it, and then suddenly those passages weren't meant to be literal anymore.
Hello Mr clown how was your day at the circus
So sad that Mr. Barker does not recognize the love of God - he keeps saying we are slaves when God specifically said "I will not now call you servants: for the servant knoweth not what his lord doth. But I have called you friends: because all things whatsoever I have heard of my Father, I have made known to you." John 15:15 - A God who bled and died for us, humbly came as an infant, does that sound like a tyrant to you? Would anyone of you know any great athiest who affected the world in a significant way? The only famous ones I could find were Margaret Sanger and Che Guevarra. I believe they both made the world a worse place.
Too bad and sad you can't see that the god of the Bible is anything but love....
Stalin, Lenin, Marx, Mao Zedong, Napoleon. Napoleon was one of the most influential people in history an atheist.
God may have said that, but he clearly didn't mean it.
@@falsexgrindx378 wdym
Jerry Noggins God loves us so much that even though we went against Him and went against an eternal being, He still decided to send Jesus down to earth so we could be saved and be with God the Father in heaven forever, that is love !
Can God create a book so confusing that we still argue about the existence of it's protagonist today? Would he allow it if he could dictate it? Why allow his "flawed" and "fallen" creation to compile those stories rather than give a instruction guide for living a good life to Adam and Eve before "the fall"? Those same two progenitors that knew nothing of sin, shame, right or wrong...yet followed the directions of another one of God's creations?
Dan is a very sad angry man… I feel so sorry for him…
Not really. Trent seemed horrified of being confronted with reason.
How is Barker angry? I don't see it. In fact he makes jokes.
Trent Horn defending Catholic Theology intelligently as always!
@Welsh Simon Hi! First off, those numbers were greatly exaggerated as well as the cruelty, violence, and uniqueness of the Inquisition. I could go into depth proving that but I don't think that's really necessary. The reason I say that is because I do agree that there was wrong-doing in the Inquisition, much smaller then what most believe, but still any amount of wrong is still wrong. My point is that the sins of men do not affect the Truth of Catholic Doctrine. The Apostolic Church founded by Christ is without blemish as she is the bride of Christ(Eph 5:27). See Paul describes this in 2 Corinthians 4:7, he says, "We hold this treasure (the Church) as Clay Jars(objects easily broken), but, the surpassing power comes not from us, but from God." So even though God entrusted his Church to sinners, the collective faith perserved by the Church and her foundation in Christ remains unscathed. The Church does not depend on the individual holiness of it's members, but relies on the unwavering fruit of the truth of Christ passed on and perserved through Apostolic Succession. Do you see where I'm coming from?
You are contradicting Jesus. He said "You will know them by their fruits." If Catholics truly had some special divine relationship with a god then they should be special and stand out from the rest of the world. Instead there are Catholics that are good, Catholics that are bad, and Catholics that are mediocre. Just like there are good, bad, and mediocre people of all beliefs and non-belief.
Strive4 You absolutely destroyed him lol
@@huskyfaninmass1042
Actually you can tell good catholics by their fruit,compare Francis of assisi to Jonh Jones,for example.
@@strive4252 You realize that quoting the Bible is pointless in an argument with people who are not accepting the book as a valid source in the first place?
You are also asserting a great many things in your comment, like the existence of a god, which makes your points begging the question. The same goes for the existence of Jesus, for which the evidence is at least arguable, and _very_ questionable when the claim includes the supposed miracles performed.
Every argument for which the primary premise cannot be shown to be true, which in this case is that a god exists, lacks a solid foundation.
It seems far more likely that humans created god/s and religion, and adjusted and changed former beliefs to contemporary thinking and needs.
So God, who embodies the ultimate good, orders the killing of a “mixed-race” couple (whatever that is), and that’s all right. But committing adultery? Tut, tut.
Interesting, I’m sure, but I was commenting on the killing by God of a couple, regardless of the definition of “mixed race.”
Moses was married to a black cushite woman named Zippora. His sister Miriam spoke ill of it and God gave her, Miriam, leprosy. I’d say God approved of the marriage.
Regardless of Barker’s mistake, people are flawed whether they believe in God, or not.
@@mikelopez8564Moses did not exist
Ok debate. Dan Barker did a good job at getting people to be angry and skeptical of God, but it was as if he didn’t even try to disprove the Christian God’s existence. Trent made a solid argument for God’s existence, and Dan just said, “but he was mean in the Old Testament.” Trent was fantastic, Dan wasn’t, that is why I call the debate “ok.”
Quoting the Bible does not prove God exicsts only that the Bible does.
God is defined in Christianity as all good if he really did do evil things then he can't be the Christian god according to that definition of the Christian god as all goos
The Atheist claims even God himself would need an explanation for how He got objective moral values. Wrong. He made them. They're His creation
Swing and a miss. If a god is real and is the only "thing" "alive" before the alleged creation, how does it have any concepts about good and evil? How does it conceptualize anything but it's self? It's nonsense.
As I said, God created the concepts of moral good vs moral evil as part of this creation.
Regarding how? I don't know how, but i do know this universe requires a creator (kalam cosmological argument and 100+ other logically valid & sound arguments for God with NO logically valid & sound arguments for the position God doesnt exist).
So I can know God created morals without knowing how.
Trying to use your own lack of knowledge regarding for how morals came to exist as if that lack of knowledge supports the position God doesn't exist is just an appeal to personal incredulity fallacy on your end.
A syllogism for your logic would be:
1. I can't understand/imagine how morals exist if God exists.
2. Morals exist
3. Therefore, God doesn't exist.
@@lightbeforethetunnel Kalam says nothing of a god. Swing and a miss
@@lightbeforethetunnel price molars "exist" and that a god created them
Is it just me, or did Trent seem awfully defensive? Like angry defensive, not just rebutting the points defensive.
You would be too if you argued with an atheist who disregards philosophy.
Why is audio for the Q and A section so poor? These people are asking questions and it sounds like the mic is not even on.
Barker- "Did god order a genocide?"
Horn- "mmmmmm...yes"
Barker- "Is genocide good?"
Horn- "What do you mean by good?...."
XDXDXDXD...man, religion is such a bad joke
Dave tell me what is good if it is a bad joke.
No dude. Defining terms is the beginning of logic. Avoiding definitions is illogical
@@patricktinley6545 Barker said use the definition of Good you mean when saying "god is good. "
@@roybartels9827 that doesn't ensure the same definition in both minds
All one has to admit and accept is how "Christian's" have acted over the 2,000 years. End of story lol. You wonder why Jewish and Catholics have been expelled out of every country in the past.
I can’t wrap my head around people applauding the argument genocide and death as the punishment for intermarriage etc is moral if god has some plan in mind that will bear fruit at some unknown to us point in the future.
@@patricktinley6545 Good luck with that afterlife nonsense. Thankfully, I will ultimately cease to exist & I'm fine with that....just means I'll make this life count!
Boglerun count for what? When you’re gone, you’ll have no recollection of whatever achievements you’ve made, so like anything else you currently don’t remember, it may as well have never happened at all. Besides, the universe will end one day and then not even the secondary effects of your life will matter. Honestly, there’s no seemingly good reason for someone who denies the afterlife to do anything but seek pleasure at any cost and give up on living when the going gets tough. I often think about this with regard to the robots taking over-people worry that robots will lord over them like in the movies, but if robots were really smart and detached from human “weakness”, the more likely scenario would seem to be that they would just instantly commit robot suicide upon achieving self-awareness, because they’d presumably realize that there really was no point at all to their doing literally anything else.
I did my research, it was not genocide. but Nephilim were involved
U miss the trick. Christians don't care about god. Nobody does ultimately. That's why we bolt our doors and load our guns. That's why ppl talk about demons attacking ppl, but if u suggest it was a demon and not a human who hurt their loved ones then suddenly it must have been a human--because it's no longer convenient to believe in demon attacks. Belief is a strategic behaviour that yields to practical concerns.
The trick is: "I am closer to ultimate authority than u, and since I ultimately own god, then I am ultimate authority. Oh no, it's not that I want to dominate u. I just want u to know that the god I own owns everything, including u. That land, god gave me, u r just resting on it. Btw, god needs me to manually make weapons and walk across the desert to face an enemy. But at the same time I imagine god is all powerful and I want to convince u of that idea too."
Mr Patterson - You just described why people like Patrick feel the need to open their big mouths about that which they have zero understanding.
I'm agnostic and lean towards atheism but I think Dan Barker is a horrible debater. He's hot headed, he cherry picks bible verses and throws context out the window (which is exactly what he and Dawkins accuse religious people of doing), he uses condescending, disparaging & accusatory language when talking to the believers in the audience, he has a cartoonishly stupid understanding of the Old Testament, of God, of the Israelites, and though he claims to have been a pastor and/or a very religious man at some point it doesn't sound like he has a deep understanding of Christianity either. He just sounds like a Dawkins wannabe. A spiteful, angry man who hates religious people and thinks they're a monolithic entity, completely irredeemable and always wrong. He's a moral hypocrite masquerading as an enlightened individual.
Beautifully said.
His opening statement was a laughable gish gallop, yet all these other commenters seem to fawn over it
What a truly rediculous statement...
Trent Horn did great!
rofl
He's still in the crayon stage
Maybe on Pluto.
Trent is just like all these smug, self righteous, self opinionated, dogmatic Catholics who will try to weasel out of every argument by coming back with utter nonsense
@@CharlotteLeviere that sums him up EXACTLY!
Is that shia labouef
No... its his twin brother
"JUST... BELEIVE IT!!!..."
O thought it was that guys from 21 and Over.
Don’t dis on Shia, jk they do look similar
Funny thing is Shia is Catholic now
Amazing debate. I'm currently trying to learn the teachings of Catholic faith well enough to defend it, and this was a great video for that.
Amazing in the sense that Dan destroyed Trent. Trent resorts to personal attacks when he’s backed into a corner. Pathetic fraud
@@Loquitaco interesting how you atheists always resort to petty name-calling and ad hominem so. I'd expect you were the rational and mature ones. Oh well
That seems kind of backwards. You are trying to learn the faith to defend it, but it should be you are trying to learn the faith to see if it’s actually true. It seems that you’ve declared it’s true and are trying to learn after that declaration ways to prove it’s veracity to yourself and others.
Imagine if you were to try to learn the effects of gravity better to defend against a-gravity people, all you would have to do is drop an apple to prove your position. Don’t try to learn the faith to defend it, learn the faith to show the apple falling and then show me the and I’ll yield my atheistic position.
@@marcusagrippa8078 I see what you're saying. What I really meant is that I'm learning how to defend the faith, not learning the faith to defend it. I will say that you can know something is true without knowing how it works and being able to explain why it works it to someone else who disagrees. Thanks for the civil comment, it's easy to just say something angry (like some of these other replies lol)
@@anthonypizza179 I’m not sure if you know who William Tyndale was, but the learning of the catholic faith is an oxymoron in my opinion because the papacy is the dictator of the faith who decides what you believe and to actually read the Bible was unheard of for most of Catholicism. If I were a theist I’d have to be a Protestant because I just can’t be told how to think!
Good luck on your learning, but I just can’t see how you can get past all the new found knowledge acquired over the 2,000(Christ) 3,000(yhwh) years since these books have been compiled and contradictory statement’s, that if looked at through an objective lens could only leave one to believe that the Jewish/Christian god just doesn’t add up.
I think Trent mentioned that the Romans used to leave sick children to die and he sees children in a hospital as an improvement from those times as we won’t leave them to die, but if god is omnipotent then an improvement to children in hospital’s with terminal illness is an omnipotent/all benevolent god healing or never allowing children to get sick.
If it’s wrong for Romans to leave children to die then why is it not wrong for a GOD to leave children to die ?if you believe said god created the WHOLE UNIVERSE!!! then the healing of a child is, well um, is Childs Play
Failure to distinguish between prescriptive and descriptive appears as a common error in misapprehension of scripture.
Decent debate. Great food for thought on both sides, and presented with respect. That alone is a rarity in any direction.
The AV Club that rigged the sound needs some work though. Good grief.
Interesting how Dan's mic was always muffled and clipping, while Trent's was clear, eh?
@Kevin Reagan interesting that technical difficulties happen all the time eh?
"Im not goin to leave Jesus because of judas"
Can anybody demonstrate the existence of God? Today? Now? Tomorrow? Yeah, didn't think so.
Like the fact that the universe began to exist?
Julio CaesarTM - What if the Universe is God and all of your thoughts are governed by the fact that you are a human who feels the need to anthropomorphize God in order to make yourself feel good.
@@JulioCaesarTM Doesn't quite fit the time frame I posed in my question. Today? Now? Tomorrow? Have you had a personal interaction with God which substantiates your belief in him? Or is it just a feeling you have?
@@JulioCaesarTM thats a weird response . You point to something like the universe and just assert an explanation without any rational. logical , let alone evidential reasons to believe that. Do you have ANY proof that god exist and created the cosmos?
@@HeWentThattaway it's always a "feeling" or the fools will say "he wrote on my heart"
How does one write on a person's heart? 🤣🤣🤣
The story of Job proves that God isn’t all knowing. Why make a wager with Satan, based on whether or not Job is loyal; when you already know the outcome?
Not only that, but if god knows all, he would know what was going to happen in the end. So god cheated and lied, which contradicts the perfect nature of god now.
Well if you read the book of Job you would know. Why don’t you start there buddy
It seems like you are purposely missing the point. Reading the book of Job doesn't discredit the criticism raised against it. In fact, it bolsters them.
Cassandra Gibson
From going to and fro on the earth, and from walking up and down on it.” 8 And the Lord said to Satan, “Have you considered my servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, who fears God and turns away from evil?” 9 Then Satan answered the Lord and said, “Does Job fear God for no reason? 10 Have you not put a hedge around him and his house and all that he has, on every side? You have blessed the work of his hands, and his possessions have increased in the land. 11 But stretch out your hand and touch all that he has, and he will curse you to your face.” 12 And the Lord said to Satan, “Behold, all that he has is in your hand. Only against him do not stretch out your hand.” So Satan went out from the presence of the Lord.
God purposefully allowed Satan to take away everything he had given a righteous man!!!!!!! I know how to read and comprehend what’s going on. God knew what would happen with Job because he’s all knowing, so why even ask has he considered Job when he knew what would happen?
Blindman Limbo the honest thing to do is to not shift the blame. As you stated “ Job was righteous.” If Job was righteous, why take from him because Satan questioned God’s servants loyalty? Furthermore, if God was all knowing, he knew the outcome and this could have taught Job a lesson in any other facet that didn’t involve entertaining Satan’s negativity.
If Horn is granted every one of his points, he now needs to formulate a way to test his claims, otherwise they are just that: claims. That's the problem with theism, it only has claims, no evidence. And without evidence, a belief is unjustified. All you have is faith, which is just a claim. Circle.
If God doesn’t exist then why do you feel the need to turn others from their faith. That is true evil and Satan is your God
@@DonnyLumpkinBecause I believe in truth. Untruths and ignorance are my "Satan".
@@joelonsdale You Sir, believe in nothing
@@DonnyLumpkinSo do you.
@@joelonsdale yep. Lol
This whole debate is Dan Barker rattling off as many atheist tik tok memes as possible and Trent simply physically not having enough time alloted to address them all
Gishgalloping is something Dan Barker is famous for.
The first words that came out of trents mouth was that science relies on rules and science can't solve philosophical problems like the beginning of existence. In other words, let's play a game with no rules and whoever wants to play will win.
@@socialsigh bullshit
I've watched dozens of debates and this has got to be one of the most intense ones I've ever seen.
It's about time,. "blind faith" created trumpism.
@Song Park blind? You obviously don’t know what you’re talking about. Did you even watch the whole thing?
@@theobserver3753 faith is always blind , no matter what you throw at it ... it's the hole point of the word
Patato2
a degree of faith can be acquired through reason...
_blind faith_ can be yours without.
Absolutely. For something that doesn't exist God sure did trigger Dan Barker.
god should have written the bible himself so it wouldnt be so confusing.
The bible was written by the holy spirit, thats why the only way to understand it is: by asking the holy spirit to give you understanding.
@@paulariveraa3512 nope written by moses and so called other people
@@emil246 i see you never read the new testament, inspire by the holy spirit. The writers themselves didnt understand the prophesis.
@@emil246 Because it offers the background of the history of God.
What about the sheer remoteness and highly improbable likelihood of our earth existing in this vast cosmos? I mean, show me a habitable planet just as friendly and fitting as ours and then I'll stop believing in God?
Well, most of the water here is undrinkable, and most of the land is uninhibatiable without technology. There is radiation from both the sun and uranium under the earth. Meteors hit us, we earthquakes and tornadoes, hurricanes, lightending, etc.
So one could imagine a better place.
But that is not the point. Anywhere life arose, human, alien etc. That life could always say, wow, how amazing is it for my type of life form to be in a place where my type of life can exist. It's like fish in the sea, saying, "what are the odds that we would be in the sea, the place with everything we need."
Or the lizard saying, what are the odds I am in a hot place, if I were in the cold I would be dead.
@@joecheffo5942 fair point. Thank you for your insight. I've learned something 😌
@@mazklassa9338 Your welcome friend. Peace.
The exchange that starts at about 1:05:00 is Trent in a nutshell. Stop evading. It's not a parlour trick. Read Matthew 21:22, read John 15:7. Dan's request is quite fair. It's important it touches on the reliability of the Bible, on the question of whether prayer is effective, on the validity of the Catholic magisterium that included these texts about prayer in the canon. Does God answer prayer as advertised? Ultimately, Trent has no expectation whatsoever of that. He says he believes those claims, but throws that under the bus a minute later. This is what indoctrinated thinking looks like. Nothing can falsify his belief in prayer. Even the realization he doesn't believe prayer as the Bible advertised will not dent that belief. Sheer lunacy. I wish I was debating Trent. Truly. Dan had all the fun.
And Trent, if you ever want to beat up on a complete unknown, do pick me. I would school you in critical thinking. Dan let you get away with a lot of BS. You think mechanically, on a script. Your view that a miracle should convince Dan, not this direct answer to prayer, underlines how you fail to think a concept though and you stop where it's comfortable. Dan's follow up could have been "what kind of miracle should convince me?" - because there are problems with making inferences, and jumping to a supernatural explanation of something when what we witness might be natural phenomena or technology we don't understand. Dan's request for a demonstration that prayer works *as advertised by Jesus himself* is laughed off by you, but it's truly the far more intellectually honest request. If God can communicate into your mind some item of knowledge that you could not have any other way, then God is causally involved.
"If prayer really did work there would be no need for 911"
Your not in the debate duh!
@@Kitiwake *you're
You think very highly of yourself
1:20:43 this aged very badly. All charges against the cardinal were dropped.
Anyone who looked into the case could see that it was a bunch of bunk. The 2 people accusing him had mental health and one of the victim's mother didn't even back him up on his story and fought for the Cardinal and the other had previous history of fake allegations. Plus they claimed to be molested in the back sacristy of the cathedral right before Sunday mass, but I've never been to a cathedral, especially one in a major city like Sydney, where people weren't constantly walking in and out of the sacristy
@@paernoser871 Reminds me of some very famous artist's case.
Talk about believing in something without any evidence
@@paernoser871 The priest gave them their mental health issues. The mother's story plus the fake claims is all lies by the papers. Because everyone knows the church has money to buy people off and protect their child abusers. :-(
@@homesweethomeexchange616 Right...
Because if the facts contradict my narrative the facts are wrong!
It's worrying that in the 21st century people still think the earth was created about 6000yrs ago by a magic man in the sky.
"sky fairy", give him his proper title or you won't get into the magic box of lovelies.
That is mankind’s biggest flaw.
Way to straw man Trent's position
Indoctrination is the worst kind of mental abuse. Theists lack critical thinking when it come to their particular god belief.
They have critical thinking about every other gods, though. So funny, theh can't seem to realize that their belief is based on a fallacy.
God of the Gaps
There are arguments for atheism, and they do not depend, and never did depend, upon science. They are arguable enough, as far as they go, upon a general survey of life; only it happens to be a superficial survey of life.
I have been through 1 hour of the video and for me a Christian, Dan Barker is winning.
Praise God. I disagree i think trent is winning. Praise God.
@@whitevortex8323 asumalalekum, Ramen noodle soup.
No, out of all the atheists, Dan is really one of the worst debaters. He's a Bill Maher-type type of atheist, which clearly isn't good, and more for the air head type of Atheist.
It's not easy defending the Christian God's immoral and vengeful ways
@@whitevortex8323lol keep defending your immoral sky daddy
Dan Barker is probably one of the weakest atheists I've ever come across. All of his arguments or lack thereof, appeal to emotion and feelings. Not logical incoherence. Totally unimpressed. Trent easily mopped the floor here.
Gods absence at the debate is telling. Justin Porter ex jw ❤️
Hell yeah my exjdub brother
Ex-JW here. Atheism is the way to go.
57:40 Barker would have done better to bring up the fact that composing a song in his head is an act of physical power, his brain is physically working to achieve that and we can see it in brain scans.
Qwerty I didn’t say it shows “units of thought” or that such a thing existed, we can see brain activity and an increase in activity.
Qwerty we know that thought is generated by the brain, if you are attempting to argue that there is or may be some supernatural or spiritual dimension to it then you must be ignoring how brain damage affects thought and you’ll need to back that up.
Qwerty what I am wondering is why your point is even supposed to be, why exactly are you trying to get at?
Qwerty you have no evidence that the mind is immaterial and it isn’t just a given that it is something immaterial. The mind is easily affected by changes to the brain and so far all that we know of the mind is related to the physical functionality of the brain.
Qwerty what evidence do you have that it is immaterial?
Although I am currently an atheist, I’m skeptical of Dan Barker’s claim that women took care of the tombs in the Middle East at the time. I can’t find anything about it.
The women were taking care of the tomb of Jesus, according to the bible.
Yeah, he didn't cite anyone either. The women were going to the tomb to attend to the body, but Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus had already finished most of the preparation.
This Christian is bonkers. I started listening, thinking I’d hold my responses until his argument was over. But it’s a machine gun of nonsense. Each false statement requires so many response! I don’t know where to begin or if I have it in my to write out a response to every awful claim, even if I found a way to narrow it to a one sentence reply. No wonder Dan is fervently writing on his notepad.
For instance, just as I submitted this comment he was saying something along the lines of “Dan claims God isn’t forgiving but the passages his cites arrest people not seeking forgiveness. It should be obvious to most everyone that forgiveness lies in the hands of the subject doing the forgiving. Just because the other person doesn’t except their forgiveness doesn’t mean The person who is forgiving them can’t forgive them.
Whether it be reading the bible or listening to any preacher, I see no god but the people who pretend to act on its behalf. After all, what is god anyway but a term or concept formed by certain people to serve their own purpose.
The more I listen to apologists the more their gods diminished. I don't see any psychologist claiming to know people as much as believers, preachers and apologists claim to know their gods. The more I read the bible and the more I listen to them the more their gods diminished.
Trent I love you dude but you did a terrible job
Jeptha didn't burn her daughter. She was only made celibate the rest of her life. There is no law of human sacrifice in the Bible.
Thanks CA.
Trent does well to dodge questions that might discredit his claims.
I think Trent debated better, but atheism is still unstoppable
@@opiniondiscarded6650 atheism is stoppable in the fact that the western world needs religion you can't have the western world without religion
@@thewanderingeuropean3522 once the cat it out of the bag on religion, it's really hard to put things back. The West is definitely at a fork in the road, but I don't know if religion is necessarily involved...
@@opiniondiscarded6650 It is the moral standings in the west are based on Judeo-Christian beliefs
@@thewanderingeuropean3522 Asserting something doesn't make it true, that's your opinion.
Okay we can not use science for the god question. What other method is proposed to differentiate the imaginary/conceptual from the real or actual? Trent Horn seems to be saying going with your gut is a good reliable method. He then starts to present syllogism for which he just assert the premises and never demonstrates them. No I do not agree with your premises. Please demonstrate their soundness.
There is science, and there is logic. They go hand in hand but they are separate systems of determining truth.
Zac logic is a formal language used to describe what is. How is that a methodology of distinguishing the conceptual from the actual?
@@rubensdesk Ok if you want to play semantics then "There is science and there is reason" I came to believe in God through reason, just as I came to believe in science through reason.
Zac okay what evidence was there to apply reason & logic to. Logic and reason is how you evaluate evidence. What it the evidence that convinced you?
Trent Won!
Dan won!
Interesting how Dan Barker's audio is always muffled and clipping while Trent's is crystal clear...
Maybe Barker needs to learn how to use a mike properly; he could probably start crafting better arguments afterward.
Kevin Reagan You might wanna adjust you’re hearing aids bud cause his Voice was clear as day 🙄
@@mikewalton599 are you seriously saying his mic wasn't clipping ? really - I think you need to have YOUR ears checked!
They probably have the same volume but Dan speaks really close to the mic, Trent speaks about 6 inches away which is ideal. Dan's intense breathing is scary.
After 130 debates Dan can't use a mic? ok@@echomike8591
Trent is the man! A truly honorable child of God
😂😂😂😂
It's interesting that Trent thinks that all the times Yahweh orders execution, genocide and death it's just "symbolic". It is presented as history, but it's inconvenient... so the Bible obviously didn't mean it!
One of the chief uses of religion is that it makes us remember our coming from darkness, the simple fact that we are created.
cring cring - what are you doing here? Go for a jog or paint your nails instead...
cring cring Catholics accept that the Adam and Eve story isn’t a literal account of history.
cring cring - was it necessary to call me an idiot? Is this your general attitude to people or only to those who are in the safe distance of cyberspace?
cring cring TV Maybe learn how to spell the word “Scholars” before using it? Look, it is not infallible teaching in the Catholic Church that Adam and Eve were real. You don’t have to believe there were literally two humans named Adam and Eve and they talked to a snake. It is taught that this is more of a story using symbolism to make a point about God and the human race rather than a story meant to be taken literally and historically. Like Trent said, “The Bible is like a library”. You can’t read every book the same way. Some are more of a historical account while some are more poetic, and others like Genesis are more like storytelling to help understand this great thing called God and God’s nature.
Dan is the cringiest Atheist if not for Aron Ra.
I actually like Aron when he talks about evolution, but yeh, he flat-lines when against the deductive reasoning for God.
Why is that?
I think it should be a criminal act for people to go round doors and preach the Bible as they can frighten people into believing if they don't do what they tell them. And fleece them for their money and give them false predictions that have not resulted in Jesus Christ second coming and if it doesn't happen give them another false predictions.
They throw the goal out of the window as soon as it starts. Props to this channel for keeping comments open.
Absolutely. I'm a former catholic, now an atheist. One thing I have noticed over the years is that christian apologists channels will normally disable comments. It shows fear, in my opinion. Although I am no longer catholic, I will commend them for opening the comments....
Esaul Viramontes sometimes i wonder if its because it causes more frustration and anger than resolutions between people. And to Christians that can be seen as bad.
@Esaul Viramontes
You live in darkness the light of Christ is not arrived to you yet. If this crystal clear presentation don’t understand it
When someone says that genocide is a moral good, but love between consenting adults is an evil punishable by death, I KNOW that I am listening to someone who has NO moral compass AT ALL. Religion is poison. Full stop.
B-but God said so
That's one impressive strawman.
@@newkbootsit's what the bible says
sorry i tried but just can not listen to trent horn it makes me so angry.
It is as simple as this, Prove it. if you cannot prove your god you have an empty bag, simple really, no different than anything else in life. #proveit
Dan barker is not a good person
Did anyone else debate barker? As a Catholic I have to say, Trent was not very authoritative and if I was a by stander sceptic watching from the sidelines of side with barker. Not because he's right, but because he never got refuted. Jimmy akin would cream barker
Barker is interesting, long time preacher, then long time atheist debater. He is also native American.
He is a very experienced debater, he might be the best, but it's often like rock, paper sciossors, maybe Jimmy would do better. I think Trent has a coldness to him, not a very empathetic guy imo, so that might not be a great match against Dan.
Jimmy akin might blunt some of Dan's arguments just because he seems more of a sensitive guy, maybe. I think Dan's way might be the best for athiests, tough to defend. He basically says since no one can really or prove or disprove, I will just show the diety to be, in his mind, simply bad. Dan is getting older, not sure if he still debates.
So basically Dan is saying that he can only be convinced with a magic trick. Interesting. That’s like saying you’ll only believe in the theory of evolution when you see a dog evolving in front of you, changing in real-time into a new animal.
I'm a devout Christian. I've spent my whole life for Jesus. This is the first debate I've ever heard. Dan Barker has made me question my faith. I cant follow God if he is as he said he is.
Ability to realize the wrong even against your beliefs is a sign of intelligence thank you my friend.
severe cringe
Fair enough...although is it possible to belive in a God, just not necessarily the God in the bible. Although if a God does indeed exist I highly doubt they care about us puny humans....
Jason, keep on digging! This rabbit hole is worth going down. If you do indeed lose your faith, I can tell you that it is often difficult and uncomfortable at first, but folks like myself (and there are many more that have gone through this process) are here to tell you that there is a deep peace on the other side after a massive exhaling of stress ... followed by laughter from time to time.😊
If you don't lose your faith, than you'll only have a stronger conviction based on more soul searching, and any reasonable person would only respect you more for that, no matter the outcome.
Best of luck!
"Dan Barker has made me question my faith" God, faith and so on are _not_ easy questions to answer - specially when we live in a world that grows increasingly intellectually _hostile_ against belief. My two cents to you are this: if all your devotion meant anything to you, _don't give up so easily on it, in spite of the world; God tests our faith for the entirety of our short lives, and passing this test is no trivial achievement_ . Try and read other opinions on this matter, for starters - like Newton's, Galileo's, and Ellis', as well as one of Lennox's talks (guy unfortunately self-plagiarizes too much, but he means well) - but as importantly as that, do _not_ be seduced by the easy answers of scientism - _question_ it critically, like everything else!
The more I learned of this bible the less I could defend it. How am I to respect a bible/religion/god whose morality is inferior to mine?
You are supposed to find a charismatic leader and follow him. Pay him to do all the thinking for you. It is the only way. /s
You read a theological and poetic book literally? :-0
@@qetoun some text is written in allegory and some is written as literal. It is of course a myth
@@lawrenceeason8007 And how does it being a myth negate theological truths?
@@qetoun what theological truths? Such as
Trent demolished Dan in the rebuttal.
Just like trent, you believe what you want to believe
@@luchiu9362 just like anyone*
@@luchiu9362 cope
Actually, Dan's statement was poorly articulated and unenthusiastically delivered. He made it very easy for Trent to dismiss it.
Catholic defeated atheist easily...
Amen
@@gaiusclaudiusglaber6279 give me a good argument for the genocides caused by atheist regimes.
@@backtonature3464 What?! Why would I have to do that? nobody's talking about atheist regimes
Aha and without god actually showing up.
Lol the guy who didnt know if genocide was bad won??
Yet another debate that confirms the long held view that theists will use every single ridiculous and often bizarre excuse and verbal gymnastics, in a pathetic attempt to justify their absurd beliefs.
Talking with an atheist is mental gymnastics
@@berkan7662
Atheists are honest, religious folk aren’t, they continually fool themselves.
You sound unbiased! Glad you consumed the debate with an open mind 😉
Trent is asking for Dan to demonstrate the reasonableness for his lack of belief, which is absurd, shifting the burden of proof. Does one present evidence for their lack of belief in the existence of bigfoot? Simply, no, one does not demonstrate why belief is unwarranted, rather, it behooves those who DO believe to demonstrate why their acceptance is reasonable.
It's the same reason why I don't believe in SpongeBob
I know it's an old comment, but I think in the case of God, it would be nice to see atheism as a position being defended. Wheter bigfoot existed or not, there is very little that would change about our understanding of the world. However, if God does not exists, it begs the question to ask if invisible things exist. And by invisible, I don't mean souls, angels and other things like that only, I mostly mean things like concepts such as innocence, honor, or justice and injustice.
In a world without God, how are we to prove that a human being is innocent? I read this book called the Rape of Nanking which talks about a genocide commited by the japanese in the war between China and Japan in 1937-1938 and the book claims that there were decapitation contests made in the streets, live feedings to german sheperds, over 80 000 women were raped by the japaneses, unborn babies were carved out of the belly of their living mother to be toyed with around their sword, etc. A world without God begs the question, how can we prove that the chinese people who suffered theses attrocities were innocents, objectively, and how can we prove that such actions were injust, objectively, without appealing a moral law. But if we were to appeal to a moral law, such as "It was bad because it caused useless suffering", then we ought to ask, well why is this bad at all and not just meaningless? Or even better, who put in legislation this moral law in the first place? If there is no God, then it was Man, and so, it is only a social contact, and so, not objective (the japaneses might have thought it was okay to do so).
The worldview of atheist do need to be proven or at least provide a coherent worldview where invisible things such as innocence and injustice, goodness and evil, do exist, without God. If it cannot, then it is a deeply cynical view of the world that will bring nothing but darkness and nihilism.
@@TiJacQc18morality is a difficult issue and there’s many ways to look at it. You can be a realist or a nominalist in regards to how morality exists. You can believe that morals are just socially constructed values that attempt to reduce our suffering as a species, or believe that an objective moral standard exists out there. Either way, you don’t need god to ground your morality. Adding god is unnecessary. Are actions morally bad only because god deemed them to be bad? If so, then that just means gods morals are arbitrary. Or are they bad because of the facts about action and its effects on beings? If so then that means there’s something other than god that explains the morality of an action. And if you think that god is needed to enforce consistent morals, then that is hard to believe given the various differences in the moral beliefs of god-believers.
its 2018... and this theist went from fallacy to fallacy trying to prove something he has no actual evidence for. This was pathetic, and sad.
You spelt atheist wrong.
@@xgreedxx naw, i didnt. That was a crazy embarrassing performance by the theist. Barker did great.
@@Omnorimli you did, barker made embarrassingly bad arguments. Trent did really well to debunk his silly rhetoric.
Must be sad to live in denial like that.
@@xgreedxx wow, the fact that you think that shows how little you understand about any of this.
Trent didn''t prove a single thing. he spat out misunderstandings on every level, and arguments that weren't even his own, that have already been debunked.
Nice try though.
@@Omnorimli the fact that you can’t point out a single debunked argument speaks volumes.
Trent dismantled the atheist,
The atheist couldn’t even provide any proof against god, and avoided the main supporting arguments for a creator by Trent. Instead he attempted to stick to scripture and label god as evil. Which was easily dismantled as well.
'God can kiII whoever he chooses.' - a christian
'We get our morals from God.' - also a christian.
... Awkward!!!
Trent got a round of applause for saying God was justified in torturing Job for no reason. This is what religion does to people.
It's scary
It was to test his faith. He stayed faithful under all circumstances, just beautiful. Loyalty is everything.
@@toma3447 If you had a daughter who was married to a man that tortured her to "test her loyalty," what would you do? YOU WOULD TELL HER TO RUN
@@victoriamckenzie6352 logical fallacy of false equivalency
@@victoriamckenzie6352
A. That’s different (daughter scenario).
B. God didn’t do anything to job, he let that stuff happen to him.
C. You’re missing the moral of the story
D. The moral- job kept a good faith. He planted his seed in the right spot. A lot of bad stuff can happen to us that can make us lose our faith. Someone dies, we lose our job, things don’t go our way, and etc. There are levels to faith. Some never believe, some believe and later fall away, and some are unshakable keeping a good faith for all there life.
Trent philosophized circles around Danny boy.
He was unable to actually answer a question. He was squirmy and slimy and parroted the same arguments that all other "apologists" do.
27:25 there it is, God isn't good because I said so. Not based on an objective standard, but his opinion
That was my thought exactly when he brought up the problem of evil. He was using a lot of what I'd call "DJT reasoning" where his justification is just "and we all know it, you know this,I know this." Or arguing from intuition, which has been shown to be faulty. Alternatively, it could be viewed as arguing from incredulity where he sees no way a good God could allow this, so there musnt be one. The rest of his opening seemed to be a poor pop-atheist gish gallop that these comments seem to be on complete and total awe of for some unknown reason.
I could say the same about you or God that's your opinion as well
Trent Horn has to be the most dishonest debater I’ve ever seen.
His entire position is a tautology based on presuppositions and backed by circular reasoning.
His entire position can be summarized as:
1) I presuppose that God and miracles can exist within or outside our universe
2) The Bible is the revealed word of God and everything in it is true even the unbelievable things
3) If God does exist and he raised Jesus from the dead, because Jesus believed in the Old Testament, I can believe it too even if I don’t understand or agree
Essentially his whole position is “If these things are true than they are true”
The cognitive dissonance one needs to hold this position is insane.
Where are you getting this information? Trent never articulated his position in this way and all of the premises that you have articulated as Trent’s position seem disconnected and ambiguous.
Trent articulates arguments to show that a God exists even if not the Christian God. He then gives more evidence to show that Jesus rose from the dead and thus showing that the Christian God exists.
Dear Catholic Answers-folks: How does _"god did it"_ explain anything?
@Qwerty That's a strawman, mister (miss?) keyboard. No-one is suggesting _'nothing did it'._ The superior (because honest) position is: _'we don't know (yet) what did it, but let's keep working on finding out'_
If I may ask: If you can say it must've been a being that has always existed (so without a beginning), why not say that the universe itself could've always existed in one form or the other?
@Qwerty A universe that has always existed in one form or the other _'makes no sense'?_ (sic) but an immensely complex being who's always existed and thus hasn't got a cause, who supposedly created the universe, does?
Then: _"Yes time and space are contingent which implies the necessity of another being to explain them"_ ? No it doesn't imply anything of the sort. Does the salt content of the oceans _imply the necessity of another being to explain_ it?
And what do you mean by _another being_ anyway? It might need explanation, but why does that has to be a being, and what's the explanation for that being?
Also: If we're unable to explain the origin of our particular universe, then we're unable to do so, period. _"God did it"_ still doesn't explain anything, imperially or otherwise.
Btw: It _was_ a strawman, cause no-one is suggesting that it popped into existence _'out of nothing'._ At least it's a false dichotomy to suggest it either must've been created OR popping up out of nothing.
It's dishonest.
@Qwerty ps: My initial question was: _"how does 'god did it' explain anything',_ meaning: how does it explain HOW the universe was created, Where the matter and energy etc. came from; stuff like that.
Does: _'and god SPOKE it all into existence'_ tell us anything, other than _'and then MAGIC did it'_ ?
@Qwerty Okay; So you're (most likely) a troll.
Goodbye.
It doesn't. We don't use the God of the Gaps BS
All Trent horn does is twisting the meaning of good which is ridiculous. Everyone knows what good is . Trent is twisting things to fit his beleif even if it makes no sense.
What is good then? You can't just appeal to everyone, because everyone is different and will give you different answers. It can't be both subjective and universal/objective.
Trent's claim that atheists need to provide justification for a lack of belief is absolutely crazy. Religious people make claims, they are the ones that need to justify their positions.
Philip Berthiaume why is it absolutely crazy? If atheist use science as their greatest asset to there justification of atheism. Yet science stands on truth but atheism asserts god does not exist without any truth. That doesn’t make any sense
Jon Howerton Atheists do not assert that god does not exist. They simply do not believe a god exists due to the lack of sufficient evidence. Science isnt the sole reason for an atheists lack of belief and it isnt always used to back up that lack of belief. Science is also not always a basis for anyone to believe anything. Children believe in the tooth fairy 🧚♀️ because parents indoctrinate them to believe it until either the parents tell them it isnt true or they find out for themselves. No science was required by the child. So it is in fact, absolutely crazy for a theist to demand justification for a lack of belief. I assume you dont believe dragons 🐉 exist, so it would be absurd for me to ask you to give justification for your lack of belief in dragons.
Atheists make an assertive claim that God dossn't exist so they have a burden of proof to prove that statement... how difficult can that be to understand?
@@csongorarpad4670 that position makes no sense. A claim needs to be proved to have validity. Those who question that validity are under no obligation to legitimize that claim one way or the other. The bottom line is simple: people claim there is god(s), it's up to them to prove why they should have credibility..
41:23 “and all trent offered was words, philosophy and stuff” this is so revealing that Dan does not care about the truth
Dan doesn't want to hear from Mama's boy
Words and philosophy are not evidence, and until the bar for evidence is raised we'll get the same kind of word salad that Trent uses. And I kind of like Trent. But his analogies are poor to say the least.
@@dwolfcoach You're right. Words and philosophy are not evidence. They're something much greater
@@justinmarty127 Not when making extraordinary claims. But I hope your life is full and peaceful. 👍
@@dwolfcoach Philosophy and 'words' are the foundation of all knowledge, including science. You are low IQ
Dan Barker is so calm and eloquent, he's a delight to listen to. And unlike many atheists, he's not afraid to claim that god doesn't and cannot exist, instead of just arguing for the weak "I'm not convinced" position.
Trent on the other hand, is a morally bankrupt liar. Killing someone for marrying the wrong person is fine, but worshipping something other than Yahweh is an abomination? All this talk about how God does this and does that and God is this and God is that... he doesn't actually know any of that, yet he asserts it as fact. That makes him a liar.
If God does not exist then there would be no atheists
"he doesn't actually know any of that, yet he asserts it as fact. That makes him a liar" We we'll just assume that that doesn't apply to Barker, as well
Amazing arguments by Trent and Dan is such a hater of truth!
Message to all atheists. If Christianity is done away with, you will all be speaking arabic and praying to Allah in a few generations.
You worship a demonic monster that is the most evil entity imaginable.
'Behold, I WILL BRING EVIL UPON THIS PLACE, that they might not hear my words. I will make this city desolate; every one that passeth shall be astonished because of all the plagues thereof. *I will cause them to eat the flesh of their sons and of their daughters.'*
Jeremiah 19
Baker is Baked and can't reason.
At least everything he's saying is within reason 🥰
I found Dan to be more reasonable and grounded in reality.
Of course he is. Barker isn't afflicted with monstrous nonsense.
That’s because you’re profoundly retarded
People wrote the bible, I dont trust people.
Bingo.
Humans are both flawed and untrustworthy by nature.
God is The Creator, the life giver. Life is a gift. The Creator is The ONLY ONE who can destroy or end it as He sees fit. It would not be wrong, because he created it, God is the ONLY ONE with That Authority.
I cannot believe people applaudes all the non falseable ideas proposed by the theist speaker.
I think the oddest thing about the atheist people is that, while they are always talking about things as problems, they have hardly any notion of what a real problem is.
Maybe they clapped because not everyone is as closed minded as you?
I can't understand how an atheist can follow a blind fanatic like Barker.
If you are an atheist, do yourself a favor, find an better apologist for your faith.
Must be tough having to defend slavery and genocide by an all good god 😂
@@ethansy2978"Must be tough having to defend slavery and genocide by an all good god"
Oh? How do you defend the massacre and mutilation of human beings by the millions in abortion clinics and the millions killed in atheist governments?
@@ethansy2978 "Must be tough having to defend slavery and genocide by an all good god"
Oh? And how do you defend the massacre and mutilation of human beings by the millions in abortion clinics and the millions killed in atheist governments?
Do you think ISIS should be stopped? Do you think HAMAS should be stopped? If so how...? Ticking them?
@@ethansy2978 It is harder to justify the massacres and dismemberment of abortion clinics that kill children by the millions. And the massacres of atheist governments that are among the worst in human history.
@@ethansy2978 God didn't enslave or kill anyone. Atheists did.
41:18 Way to smack literally all of philosophy in the face, Mr. Barker
Trent is one of the most dishonest debaters I have ever seen. He ducks all the questions when he gets back into a corner. Then asking what do you mean by good when asked if genocide is good. It's a simple answer NO but he does everything he can to defend god committing genocide. When a book makes you defend things like killing another person, god committing mass genocide, it's time to toss out that book and that god. It's beyond F'd up how Trent defends a god that tortured someone and killed all his kids.