Not that we were in any doubt as to the value of Dillahunty's expert opinion, but we now know that he opines that the man in his late twenties with whom he lives and engages in a sexual relationship, is in fact, a woman.
Then how about: Luke, a medical professional that lived when Jesus had lived, received the testimonies of others about the Resurrection, and Luke, a medical physician, believed it and reported about it. As a bonus, the last person in Jesus' time you would think would believe and accept the Resurrection of Jesus is a member of the Sanhedrin that rejected Jesus and actively hunted people who believed in his Resurrection.
@@ajamusic7322The gospels are anonymous and were only given their "authorships" sometime at the earliest in the second century. "Luke" was the third gospel compiled and it's earliest date is feasibly around the year 80, some 50 years after the events it covers, making it extremely unlikely to be any better than probably 2nd or 3rd hand but far more likely more remote than that. No serious bible scholar today, be they believers or not, dispute this. Your point regarding martyrdom is completely irrelevant as people have suffered torture and death for refusing to deny other religions, unless you believe Islam etc is true. All you have is the one book that claims these things not multiple sources, just one and that isn't even contemporary or written by anyone who was there.
That's one way to be a dishonest creatard, sure. He was way more specific than just "a doctor's report". But you decided to ignore that nuance to make it sound like any ole doctor's assertions about what happened would be sufficient. Moreover, we don't know who wrote the Gospel of Luke. The Gospels are anonymous, unsigned documents. We have no evidence that Luke was real or was the person who wrote the book of Luke.
@@PrismBot Nice psychologizeing, immediately attacking peoples motives and accusing them of being dishonest because I disagree with you. There was no nuance, because they want to use no idea what the hell he’s talking about he hasn’t looked into this issue whatsoever because he doesn’t care too, he’s just throwing out claims he doesn’t know what even constitute as evidence. That’s an assertion and several scholars such as Richard Bachman, Craig Blomberg, Daniel Wallace, Greg Evans, N.T Wright, D.A Carson would beg to differ, there’s a lot of good reasons to believe Luke actually wrote the gospel of Luke. The gospels are formally anonymous, in many scholars were disagreed that’s just an assertion. Another assertion, 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 this is laughably False are you a Christ Myther, we literally know where his gravesite is. We also have him being mentioned by later writers, there are no scholars that dispute that Luke was a real person not even Robert price or Richard Carrier, do you believe Heraclitus, Cicero, democracies, Zeno, or most of the Egyptian pharaohs are real people? Because for a lot of those people have for those people I mentioned Heraclitus and democracies we have absolutely no archaeological evidence of them are we have a fragments of later writers who mentioned them, do you believe they existed? Both of those statements are false we have plenty of evidence he wrote the gospel of Luke and we have plenty of evidence that he exists, we have undeniable proof he existed, but we don’t have undeniable proof that he wrote the gospel that’s debatable and there is a lot of opinions on both sides. I mean if you’re gonna deny that Luke is a real person you might as well just deny that Julius Caesar is a real person or Alexander the Great. We also have the book of acts not just the gospel of Luke.
1.we actually don't know that.2. Luke never met Jesus or saw the body.3. what it meant to be a doctor back then is not the same.4. We actually have no idea who Luke was.
@@shaqyardie8105 It's many books, not "a book". What evidence is there that any historical events happened other than "a book said it happened"? By MD's standard we should deny all things that are outside immediate sensory perception.
@@realmichaelteo It's many books, not "a book".- Wow, really? It's constructed into 1 book, so it's 1 book, not that it's even relevant to whether it's true or not. "What evidence is there that any historical events happened other than "a book said it happened"? " - The problem is that the bible is filled with supernatural claims that have yet to be proven. A virgin giving birth, man moonwalking on water, raising the dead, feeding 5000 people with 7 food items, dying and coming back to life, you just believe all this stuff because a book said it happened? The koran says that the moon split in 2 and mohammad ascended to heaven on a winged horse. Why don't you believe that. Supernatural claims require supernatural evidence. By your logic, the dementors in Harry Potter are real too.
@@realmichaelteo the real life effects. King Edward abdicated and his brother wouldn't have been king otherwise. QEII wouldn't have been queen. Everyone agrees she was, not just her cult followers.
@@Preservestlandry "the real life effects" is not an argument... but let's go with your logic. If Jesus did not exist we could not date his birth. Everyone agrees it's 2023 AD, not just his "cult followers". To be clear... I'm *not* saying that's a good argument. I'm just demonstrating with a parallel example that your argument is fallacious. The fact that QEII was queen does not prove events in the past. It only shows that the received story may possibly explain common perceived reality.
In asking Trent the ressurection claim questions, Matt demonstrates that he missed the point. He was so caught up in "getting back" at him that he didn't understand why that question applied to his position and not to his opponents. This is a typical atheist mistake. They sometimes forget the debate and get emotionally caught up in trying to make the highlight reel.
This isn't helping your case. You're basically conceding that resurrection claims are as ludicrous and equally lacking in evidence as a man claiming to be a woman.
Resurrections have never been confirmed. This is simply a fact. Does Trent provide any support for his claim that at least one resurrection has occurred? No, of course not, and that is his burden of proof. How sad that you teach debate, but understand nothing about critical thinking or epistemology.
@@cygnusustus Where is the science behind that? Chemical reactions exist in your brain. One can see those but can one see the words you are about to write. I mean, if you are married can you see your wife's love? I mean love is said to exist but I have never seen a picture of love. The whole point of Trent is that events occurs that defy science and logic. How many stories have you seen of people dying of terminal cancer only to not have it one day to the next? Same thing with death. Most people who die are gone and never return. But once in a while a person comes back and science can't explain it.
@@juanisaac5172 "One can see those but can one see the words you are about to write." In fact, yes. Neuroscience has gotten to the point where it can predict the decisions people are going to make before they make them. "I mean, if you are married can you see your wife's love?" I can see expressions of love, and we would also be able to detect increased endorphins or activity in specific areas of her brain. So....yes. "The whole point of Trent is that events occurs that defy science and logic." A. Show me some. B. How would this justify belief in God? In the end, it is a fact that resurrections have never been confirmed. Trent claimed that at least one has occurred. Either provide evidence for that claim in your next reply, or your objections are dismissed.
I think a big problem with Matt as a debater is he often isn’t taking a hard stance as the majority of his positions in debate are the other side hasn’t provided reasonable evidence to make their claims. And appealing to a historical account to prove non-natural claims isn’t sufficient, unless I’m to accept all of the historical accounts of sea monsters, Norse, Roman, Egyptian, Greek…, gods that also interfered and or resurrected. Which them makes resurrections a fairly common experience and not something that would help to demonstrate a god.
That's only a problem if you view debates as yes vs no battles. There's another way to view these types of interactions: as honest conversations where 2 honest people try to converge on what's actually going on in reality. Viewed through this lens, Matt is just honestly conveying his position. Matt is living his life, and people are going around making tons of assertions about the universe that can't be tested or verified, and Matt is genuinely asking from the bottom of his heart "what reason/evidence is there to believe this is the case?" That is an honest position; he's not arbitrarily defending a "side," he's giving his true thoughts on the matter. It's not a problem in any sense for him to ask this, and the fact that the reasons given don't rise to the level of scientific skepticism isn't a problem with Matt either, it's a problem with the claims people are making and the poor evidence for them.
@@AbleAnderson that wasn't in reply to you, but the original commenter. Just saying the whole, "I'm not taking a hard stance, I just don't think you've got sufficient evidence to justify your beliefs". Which is true, and accurate, and keeps the burden of proof where it needs to be.
That's not a problem, that's just the position he happens to find himself in. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and the burden of proof is on the claimant, not the refuter. It's not Matt's job to convince everyone why it isn't reasonable, because that isn't the extraordinary claim. It's Trent's job to convince people that it is reasonable, and the only question that matters is did he do that?
Matt Dillahunty ( opening speech):' If you are here to hear Trent say' Jesus rose from the dead'... And for me to say-' No...he didn't!!'... Well.. then.. you're at the wrong debate. I am here, to try and explain to you how I went from 25 years a Southern Baptist, to now being pathologically angry, and fixated at something that I don't believe exists. I have been hosting, for years now..a radio call in show-' The I don't believe that something exists Experience'. Sometimes,as part of my pathological anger at something that I don't believe exists, I will insult this non existent being. Indeed I have called something that doesn't exist according to me....I have called it a" thug'. I take great issue, with something that doesn't exist according to me. I am,as well, a member of the " People who don't believe that something exists community', of Austin, Texas. I believe that it is far more rational to spend years, ranting against a non existent entity, than to hold Trent"s position. I mean.. that's it! That right there is the fundamental difference between our epistomologies!! Trent is willing to say that he doesn't believe that something exists and simply walk away... I'M NOT!!! I will pathologically rant, insult, become angry at, host podcasts for years... against a non existent entity. And that... ladies and gentlemen..is why I am here today. Thank you'
I think Trent did a really good job. I do, however, think his first statements were problematic when he threw folks under the bus in order to find some common ground with Matt by asserting as absolute fact things that are not necessarily so, such as the age of the universe and a blanket statement regarding vaccines and other "science." Consensus/majority does not equal fact. Otherwise though, very good job.
I agree totally.... that being said perhaps Trent was aware of Matt's tendencies to bring such things up as passing statements to bolster his position, and Trent wanted to stop him from the start (although he probably does in fact believe the things he said, whuch is problematic).
He’s OK and just regular discussions, but my god is he awful and debates, The only way he gets the upper hand is rhetoric,And really the only debates he wins is his opponents are supremely weak like Ray comfort, but in my opinion Dillahunty is just the Ray comfort of atheism.
Your Bias blinds your views on this. I feel it would be more entertaining if it was from a neutral standpoint. But it's clear you are pushing an agenda rather than being fair and reporting on debate tactics.
Very surprised Matt now seems to question Jesus’ death. It’s very reasonable to think from the historical records that this happened. Maybe Trent’s only mistake maybe was bringing up the Craig keener resurrection accounts and not knowing the end results of them.
There’s actually no contemporary historical accounts for Jesus, the fact that it’s treated as historical fact that a Jesus existed is because for history it is assumed someone did exist if they’re written about as a historical figure. But the accounts written in the Bible are uncorroborated and hearsay at best as to the actions of the historical Jesus. Essentially Jesus being a historical person doesn’t mean he did anything accounted in the Bible.
@@stephenwilson2292 no I would disagree here. There are accounts written by people contemporary to Jesus. Paul, John Mark, Matthew, Luke, John, James, Jude. There’s your contemporary sources and multiple attested to sources. Luke in his intro says of the eyewitness accounts before him, and he uses both Matthew and Mark in his work. The New Testament is a contemporary, multiple attested to historical source. It’s got the whole package.
@@farmercraig6080 The Pauline epistles we’re written the earliest still about 1-2 decades after the events, he also never once mentions a physical Jesus. The other books we don’t know the authors, those are who the early church fathers attributed them to, if you read the notes on the first page of the gospels in a NIV Bible they say we don’t actually know who wrote those, but regardless the earliest anyone dates Mark, the earliest gospel, is about 70AD, 40 years after the events would have taken place. The gospel of Jude is roughly 70-90AD by the most generous estimates, And the gospel of James is estimated around 145AD. So by the best estimates we’re looking at 10-20 years after the events when the first written accounts are coming out, and even then the first ones being written don’t mention Jesus as a actual person. I’m not saying there wasn’t an actual person named Jesus at the time who was preaching things and seditiously got himself executed for inciting a rebellion, but we don’t actually have evidence for that, we have story’s from people decades and even lifetimes after the supposed events, those are what you’re pointing to, not actual historical accounts. So Luke claims Mark and Matthew are eye witnesses but doesn’t identify them, but neither of them claim to be eye witnesses. Luke was written well after Mark and Matthew would likely have died unless they died at age 80+ if that’s the case when did they get martyred? The New Testament isn’t contemporary, it was written decades later, and none of its events are supported by a single historical document. We don’t have a record from anyone in Rome talking about the execution of someone claiming to be god, there wasn’t a custom anywhere on the books about the release of a prisoner at Passover, the gospels don’t read like history and only Luke claims to be trying to write a history but he borrows from two books that don’t claim to be history or from eye witnesses.
@@stephenwilson2292 Hey Stephen Yes so Paul did write a few decades after Jesus’ death. He was executed in the 60’s. But does he mention a physical Jesus? The answer is yes. Just in Romans alone he makes reference to a physical Jesus Romans 5:15 15But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! Romans 5:17 For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ! Romans 5:19 19For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous. Romans 1:1-3 1 Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God - 2 the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures 3 regarding his Son, who as to his earthly life [ a ] was a descendant of David, Romans 8:3 3For what the law was powerless to do because it was weakened by the flesh, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man, Romans 9:5 5Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of the Messiah, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen. He makes reference to the man Jesus quite a few times, his death by crucifixion etc. Plus he makes note that he meet Jesus’ brother James. My NIV doesn’t say that, it gives the authors. But we have good evidence for the authors, people such as Polycarp and Papias who are contemporaries of the apostles (Polycarp was a disciple of John, who wrote the Gospel of John). There isn’t any disagreement for the authors for the Gospels among the church fathers. In fact there isn’t any anonymous copies of Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John have ever been found. They do not exist. The letter of Hebrews is a good example of what happens when they didn’t know, the early church fathers put out four names for the author of the letter. Paul (Pantaenus), Barnabas (Tertullian) Clement of Rome, Luke (Origen). This sort diversity is exactly what we do not find in references to the authorship of the Gospels. With James and Jude, they were brother of Jesus. James death was in 62 A.D as its recorded in Josephus. Also James is quoted by Clement of Rome in 95 A.D or earlier and Ignatius in about 107 A.D. James is sometimes dated in the 40’s. So we have eye witness reports to Jesus. Mark is earlier than 70 A.D, because Luke in his intro talks of the eye witness sources before him, and he quotes from Mark. Really the only reason people date it to 70 A.D is because Jesus’ correct prediction of the fall of Jerusalem and the temple. But since Luke doesn’t make any mention of this, in his second book Acts, this isn’t possible. Matthew (who he quotes also) and Mark are all before 70 A.D. Luke doesn’t say who the eye witnesses are, but since he uses Matthew and Mark in his work. They are eye witness sources. I don’t know when Matthew and Mark died. It doesn’t matter than the NT isn’t comtempory, only that it uses eye witness accounts, which it does. There are plenty of events in the NT that are mentioned in outside sources, such as in Josephus, Tacitus, Thallus, Phlegon, and more. Even archaeology backs up the history contained in it. We have a record of Rome talking about Jesus as a God, the emperor Tiberius wanted to make Jesus a roman god, but the senate turned down the proposal. Quite interesting.
19:46 but how can you "be convinced" if there is a claim that goes against ALL human knowledge to date and nothing that can attest to the claim as being real?? feels to me that the claim that a supernatural event happened (without any proof) is Gobbledygook itself, right?
Completely misses the point, the debate isn’t about a “supernatural” event, but an unlikely event. Your clear fedora bias is showing and it’s embarrassing
@@stcolreplover what is really embarrassing is to believe in unreasonable stuff, like you do! Don’t mind replying I don’t want to hear stupid arguments!
@stcolreplover okay, would you say that a baby being born and then put back in the womb would be a "supernatural" occurrence or an "unlikely" occurrence?
Matt is a pure skeptic. He almost never gives his opinion and and never says you have proven yours. He never has to debate his side. He only gets to tear down the other. In the end there is not much reason to speak to skeptics such as Matt. There is not upside for anyone else.
Christians are making the claim that the Bible is true… Matt is not making any claim beyond “I don’t believe in the Bible because is hasn’t been proven,” that is his opinion that he has given plenty of times, and this is how any conversation works when somebody makes a claim, you have to prove your claim and Matt explains why it’s wrong because, at the end of the day, there is no proof of the Bible being true
No, my dude, Matt wasn't saying "I don't accept it" just as an audience member was. Matt was expressing that it is not reasonable to believe that, as he said, "all of physical reality and every law we know about the universe suddenly got suspended for this one person to rise back from the dead" (paraphrasing). This is not "Matt acting as an audience member", this is Matt defining what he considers "reasonable belief" to entail (or not entail, in this case). The fact that such a definition applies to him isn't the point, the point is that Trent has to then argue that "actually, believing that all of physical reality and every law we know about the universe suddenly being suspended IS reasonable". Which... I mean... Good luck with that...? I feel like you're not listening to what Matt is pointing out. His personal opinion is irrelevant to his argument, he's just defining what is or is not reasonable to believe, and that Trent clearly has other standards, so he's trying to make him SAY IT IN THAT WAY in order to point out the absurdity of his standard. That's the point.
If that is the case, then maybe Matt needs to debate someone like Alvin Plantinga, Michael Rea or some other reformed epistemologist. We are talking about epistemology, not theological or archeo-medical claims, or anything other than what warrants true beliefs.
@@mountbrocken Yes... Which "all of physical reality and every law we know about the universe suddenly getting suspended for this one person to rise back from the dead" is not. That's the point Matt is making... If Trent wants to argue for the opposite, he's welcomed to. If not, the point is conceded.
@@mountbrocken "Laws" are human-made, my dude. They're just concepts WE make to describe how reality seems to operate. There's reality, which is "what is", and then there's laws, which is "HOW WE DESCRIBE what is". Matt just assumes that resurrection is not "a thing that reality allows" (at least as how Trent seems to understand the word) through inductive reasoning (we don't seem to have any scientifically confirmed cases of resurrection, ergo, it has not been proven to be possible yet (in the way the bible describes it, at least).)... TRENT is the one arguing against the point, ergo, TRENT is the one who has to explain WHY "all of physical reality and every law we know about the universe suddenly would or could get suspended for this one person to rise back from the dead". You're running away from the point. Argue against it or don't. If you don't, it's conceded by default. This is how argumentation works.
@@FuddlyDudI wouldn't expect a response from him. This is just one of those atheist who does what's called a hit-and-run comment. They post a comment and then ignore everyone who responds to them who challenges what they say. Why? Because they lack belief in God so therefore they apparently don't have to meet a burden of proof whenever they make claims.
@@josephthomasmusic True, although I think it's more just its easier to be content in his comfortable worldview than to push himself into being genuinely uncomfortable. :/ I also say this not as an insult, but as genuine sadness since I had to do the same thing to fully have faith in God. My hardened heart made (and still makes) it hard to even accept the clear wisdom God offers in the Bible. :/
@@josephthomasmusic yeah pretty much. If an anti-theist asked me to prove God exists, I usually just tell them I don’t have to because I just have a lack of belief in their atheism I don’t actually believe in God I just like the belief that there is no God 🤣. Also I’ve came across this guy in other comment sections before if I remember correctly and he leaves the same typical trollish comments you would expect from atheists to just just a waste of time.
W.D.- Whenever your guy uses a shady debate tactic, you say he did a good move. And when the other guy does the same thing, you say, he's not allowed to do that. This is such a joke.
@@who-lo-lolee-oh1079 Trent "changes the framework" of the debate by shifting the onus onto whether Matt can personally prove that resurrections don't happen. W.D. calls this a great move. When an extraordinary claim is made that violates everything we empirically know about the natural world, the evidentiary standard is necessarily extremely high in order for a reasonable person to believe that it is true. The burden of proof in this case isn't on Matt to prove that resurrections don't happen. But Trent's tactic of reframing the question to require equal burdens of proof to establish the likelihood of truth or falsity of resurrections is sidestepping the debate question, which is, "is it reasonable to believe in the resurrection of Christ." In W.D.'s opinion, reframing the debate around a false premise is brilliant. But when Matt says that he doesn't find resurrections plausible due to a deep lack of evidence surrounding that extraordinary claim, WD says, "he's talking like an audience member and he isn't allowed to do that. It's not his job, etc." Matt's "I don't find that compelling" distinction is inconsequential, because he could have just as easily said "no, its not reasonable to accept extraordinary claims on insufficient evidence." Matt essentially made that correction when he was asked to clarify if he thinks other people can have reasonable beliefs that he doesn't share. And he said no. Trent does all kinds of work to try to shift the burden, and indeed the question of the debate. If the question was "is it reasonable to believe that an elephant walked on water 2000 years ago?", setting up the premise that your opponent can't go back in time and prove that an elephant didn't walked on water, doesn't justify the belief that it did. And for WD to claim that he's winning debate points by doing that is a biased assessment.
@@who-lo-lolee-oh1079 Around -19:30, there is the exchange that WD criticizes where Matt says "I am not convinced...", but quickly afterwards Matt clarifies that he equates what he believes to what is reasonable for others to believe. WD calls the entire exchange a "sneaky tactic that has no place in debates." It was a mere inconsequential slip of the tongue at most. Meanwhile, WD applauds Trent's tactic of shifting the entire premise of the debate around Matt's burden to disprove, instead of around likelihood or reasonableness. WD goes on to include his own commentary around the idea that Matt hasn't personally investigated all sorts of resurrections and therefore can't "claim" they don't happen. This is a false framework that WD is championing both as a tactic and as his own position. Here's why this is false. If I say, "5 cats throughout history have been able to shoot lasers out of their eyes," you don't have the burden of proving that didn't happen. You're not making a claim. It is my job to provide evidence that would be enough to justify a reasonable belief that it is true.
@@who-lo-lolee-oh1079 around 17:46, WD criticizes Matt for saying something is unreasonable to believe without evidence if it violates what we know to be true about the natural world. WD says "who is Matt to say what we know to be true." Well, again, if WD is claiming that cats with laser eyes could be well within what science says is possible, then how do I debate anything with a person that doesn't agree about reality as we collectively see it? Shortly after this, Matt re-frames the topic to say that "it's not my job to disprove magical events. It's your job to convince me of the reasonableness of your extraordinary claim." This is the correct framework of the debate, yet WD criticizes this as a shady tactic that is "gobbledygook." When Trent framed it the other way, it was brilliant according to WD. If we are debating whether it is reasonable to believe that leprechauns live in your garden, its your burden to provide evidence that would justify the belief. I don't have to provide "proof" that such a thing is impossible. I am allowed to say that such a claim isn't reasonable on its face, because there is no evidence that such a being exists, until you can provide such evidence.
Atheist here: So yeah I'm going to have to agree with this debate that Matt was having trouble sticking with the points that are being made. I like that you pulled apart what he said and showed that this is not a proper defense when in a real debate. Not making excuses for the guy but this is the reason why I think he's having this issue. He's having trouble dividing real debates with his talk show. And I personally think that this has tainted his ability to follow up. And to be clear when it comes to atheist debaters and or "celebrities" it would be a huge mistake to defend them if they were wrong cuz the only thing that actually matters is the truth not someone's opinion on the matter I am going to listen to the full debate soon and maybe reply again.
@@dannyberinger4634 cause I haven't seen this debate yet ? I'm going to make an assumption that you think I was talking about this video . I'm talking about the full debate cause the only part of the debate that was shown here was the cross examination
That said something really interesting. He said, do we have a Doctor of testing to death and resurrection? In the Bible, yes, we do. Luke was a physician.
Yeah, the upper cut of "How many resurrection claims have you investigate?" sounds like, "How many witches or unicorns have you investigated"? Of course, Matt did a poor job answering, but the question just tries to flip the burden of proof for lack of proof, and Wise Disciple’s "joke" about a science fiction show reveals that it is ok to make fun of unreasonable beliefs, like resurrection.
@Boko Cycle So, do you think believing in resurrections, as a matter of verifiable fact, is reasonable? If that is the case, could you explain what good reasons you have to believe so?
@Boko Cycle BTW, you say that I am “Criticizing a debate tactic base on the fact that you’ve already decided the position itself is unreasonable…” that might be narrowly right, but my main point is that the example/joke of a science fiction show puts resurrection on the same reality level as fictional beings.
@Boko Cycle Oh, see, your comment was not about an open discussion, but about "winning". Well, congratulations, you've won an argument on the internet! Great job, son.
@Boko Cycle Is this the only video of Wise Disciple you’ve seen? He doesn’t agree with Matt, his joke was clumsy at best, and if you are correct, he contradicted his own beliefs and intentions. You say I change the subject, but the subject of my comment and of Matts intervention is the irrationally of resurrection, it is not that my writing is unclear, confusing or mistaken. I never wrote that the existence of a joke makes anything fictional, I don’t how you get to that, it is content and nature of the joke that does support Matt’s view on resurrection being similar to fictional beings.
I find it so weird that skeptics use this line of reasoning ; "If X were true, we necessarily would see awards" As if people who profess the truth are always rewarded. Instead, history shows that those who profess the truth are persecuted.
Missed opportunity for Trent during Matt’s cross. When Trent asked what evidence is needed for a resurrection, Matt said a doctor’s note. What Trent could’ve mentioned is that we have a doctor who wrote a note about Jesus’s resurrection. Luke’s account
True, Luke was a physician. However, Scholars overall consider Luke's works (Luke-Acts) to be closer in genre to "*pure"* history. That said they also note that *"This is not to say that he [Luke] was always reliably informed, or that - any more than modern historians - he always presented a severely factual account of events." Therefore, Luke's testimony could be deemed sketchy at best.
If Matt would have just admitted in the opening statement that he would not argue the topic, but rather change it to "Do you believe in the resurrection?", than we could have all been spared a lot of time by a simple "yes" and "no" from the interlocutors. On topic however; Matt's claims about needing physical evidence for things that have happened in the past, should be annoying all historians in the world. If that would be the an answer to whether it is reasonable to believe in something, all historians are unreasonable in Matt's mind. Provided of course that we no more believe the founding of the city of Alexandria is physical evidence to the testimonies of Alexander the Great, than that the founding of St. Peter's basilica is physical evidence to the testimonies of Jesus.
I came here expecting some interesting discourse from a "debate expert" and instead got a biased christian complaining that Matt was asking for evidence and then lampooning him. He gave clear preferential treatment to the christian and clearly only cares about "debate" as a format, and not the actual truth of the proposition. I then looked at the name of the channel and realized the problem... this is a christian channel that obviously already assumes the resurrection is true. I don't care about "good" christian debaters. I care about truth and evidence.
@@user-wg5dm6oc3t Matt Dilahunty asked several times during the debate for evidence for the claims made. None were provided. All the the so called debate teacher could say was that MD was not following the debate structure. The problem with thiest v atheist debates is this. A thiest makes the claim, an athiest asks for good evidence for the claim made. If no good evidence can be presented, then the thiest has lost by principle but not according the structural debate rules. Most athiests do not care for the rules because atheists transcend time, space and matter and exist outside the rules of logic.
Dillahunty is a totally unserious boy. It's ironic how similar his last name is to "dilettante" which is exactly what he is. Trent is a machine. I thoroughly enjoy his books, debates, and dialogues. I enjoy your debate breakdowns a lot too. God bless ✝️
How many big foot claims should one have to investigate in order to conclude that the current claims made are without evidence? Do we have to rule out fairies, unicorns and elves to rule out magic performed by a god(s). Or can we rule out magic based on scientific evidence of it?
@wisedisciple I didn’t know you were religious when I clicked on this page, thinking it would be a little more unbiased, but once you said William Lane Craig is a good debater that was the final confirmation you’re fully biased, mainly because his technique to win debates is to spout off as many arguments that require a lot of specific unpacking and definitions like “begins to exist” could be an entire debate in and of itself, it’s like if an atheist just spouted every single bad thing in the Bible and in order for a Christian to win the debate they would have to address all of them. It’s a slippery tactic to win points and most atheist debaters aren’t there to win points but to educate and express views.
I hear what you're saying. This is typically what atheists tell me when I determine that "their guy" lost: they tell me, "You're biased." I never hear from the same folks when I've determined that William Lane Craig lost to Shelly Kagan, or John Lennox lost to Richard Dawkins, or Ken Ham (very badly) lost to Bill Nye. Maybe I'm biased, but not in the way you're thinking. Maybe I'm just biased towards strong arguments and good debaters.
@@WiseDisciple No, you are actually not that biased at all. I think it is silly to even make that point - of course you are, who cares, so what? Talk about the actual arguments, and that goes for you all. It is much more interesting to highlight the framing that you are "biased" towards with these debates, which is an attempt to strengthen your world view and give your audience of believers something to make them feel good.
@@WiseDisciple I agree Matt lost the debate by rules of debate, but it’s the same way WLC “wins” debates by employing a Gish Gallop tactic, it’s a loss in terms of debate, but Matt has always stated formal debates are meaningless when looking for answers so obviously he isn’t going to be looking to score points in a structured debate that’s why he rushes to the discussion portion whenever possible that’s where the interesting information comes out, like how Trent can accept that, every understood fact about how death works was suspended based on the writings from anonymous sources decades after the supposed events, and that he believes that is a reasonable position.
About halfway through the video Matt apparent like Trent bringing up O’Connor and Matt says, “oh my god”. So in other words he said “oh my that thing I don’t believe in”. Weird. 🤣
I also notice that Matt never gave a simple Yes to a question even when Trents questions were also yes/no questions. Such as "do you think it is unreasonable for historians to believe Christ was crucified under Pontius Pilate?"
15:40 Yeah! How dare Matt give his honest opinion about his position of not being convinced. His position IS NOT A "NO", it's a "not Yes". You should be embarrassed to call yourself a debate teacher to not understand the difference between "I affirm no", and "I do not affirm yes".
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 you mean weasel out of the debate like a foolish coward. 🤣🤣🤣🤣 same I’m not convinced every single argument and point somebody gives, with no justification is not honest. 🤣🤣🤣🤣 Who should be embarrassed.
Matt routinely expresses that he is not a typical “debater”. He usually prefers a “conversation” style debate. I agree with this. Conversations are almost always more productive.
Maybe so, but then he shouldn’t agree to a debate form. The reason the guy steers from debates is because he has no arguments. He never has. And that’s coming from an atheist.
Our ministry is glad to hear you say you're done with Dillahunty. He comes in hoping to win with an authoritarian non-verbal style and a verificationist worldview. When he puts all his eggs in those baskets and assumes all of human reality will simply line up under those categories for himself, it makes for a terrible debate strategy. As you said, it doesn't make for profitable instruction. Sadly, many other atheists have relied on the same methods, so Dillahunty didn't even come up with it. If I had to guess, I would say Dillahunty tried his best to be a Christopher Hitchens-styled debater, but because he doesn't have the worldly experience of the late Hitchens, he lacks the depth behind his comments so his attitude just comes off as mere shallow condescension. Trent was excellent in his ability to shrug off distractions, focus on the arguments, and not lose himself in the senseless condescension thrown at him. Well done, Trent!
Matt Dillahunty A.K.A. King of the presuppositional bias of the supernatural. "Doubt asks sincere questions, but unbelief refuses to hear the answers." Dr. David Jeremiah
Christian debate teacher debates with Matt Dillahunty instead of actually trying to be unbiased. Here, I fixed the title for you. It's like you're putting yourself in the christian debater's shoes and thinking of what you would have said to Matt. You're so biased that it's not even worth watching your video.
I've got a question about debate. Would it be appropriate to point out in a debate like this as Matt is claiming that he is not convinced something along the lines of, "Well, that's great, however you are not the audience or the standard of reason, so I don't have to convince you." I mean all topics with Matt are secretly named, change my mind, but I don't accept your evidence because I've judged it as faulty.
I like Trent Horn; my only real issue with him is the same issue I have with William Lane Craig; they criticize fellow Christians who believe in young-Earth Creation too harshly. For the first 1500 years of Church history, all the Early Church Fathers held to either a six-day Young-Earth Creation view or a hyper young-earth view. The hyper-young earth creationist believed that God created the universe in full maturity instantly; Origin and I think Augustine fell into this camp. Yes, Agustine and Origin believed in a young earth; I have noticed that few people know this, especially scholars. Also, and more importantly, for many modern Christians, this still seems to be the plain reading of Scripture. So, while Young Earth Creationists may be wrong, they seem to line up with not only the Church taught for the first 1500 years of Chruch history, they also line up with the thoughts of the second temple Jews and all the Jewish theologians before them and the majority of them after. The YEC position may be wrong, but if so, we are honestly mistaken. This post was not posted to argue the OEC or YEC positions, only to say that Christians need to show love or at least kindness to one another, not to attack or speak down to fellow Christians we may disagree with on secondary issues.
Fair points and a great review of this one sided debate!! Totally agree with you that it’s important that we respect where people have arrived in life at that particular point on their journey to faith whether they are a theist, deist, panentheist, agnostic or even an atheist. For Emanuel Kant, God's existence is utterly unknowable from the theoretical standpoint. It is for this reason, no doubt, that most theologians, particularly those who favour the use of such arguments, label Kant as a "deist." But Kant himself would have protested loudly, for he always regarded himself as a theist, i.e., as one who believes not just in "a God ," but "in a living God." His reason for denying the possibility of theoretical knowledge of God's existence is to insure that man stays in his proper place, as a believer, not as a knower. For "in order to believe in God," he maintains, "it is not necessary to know for certain that God exists." And by this he does not mean to deny the importance of upholding a finn conviction of God's existence, but only to point out that, however certain we are of God's reality in our lives. our certainty will be of a different sort than our empirical certainty that this chair exists, or than our transcendental certainty that all objects of our perception appear to us in space and time, or than our logical certainty that A=I=-A. Our certainty is different because all questions about belief in God belong to the practical perspective. To fail to recognize this difference is to open oneself up to a number of dangerously misleading illusions about the extent to which man can establish conclusions about a supremely perfect ontological ground of reality and existence. For any attempt to know God's existence theoretically implicitly requires "attributing omniscience to yourself." Nevertheless, modern scholars have critiqued Immanuel Kant including David Hume showing the Hume and Kant's famous critiques are not nearly as strong as has been assumed. That’s just the nature of science, philosophy and modal logic. It’s a constantly changing landscape. Equally the natural “sciences” can’t prove anything as they are provisional and can only infer. However, paradigmatic truth and values, that is the metaphysical presupposition that there is “truth” teleology, epistemology out there and that we “ought” to protect human rights, freedom, the right to life, that is the idea that value exists remains basically the same. Also I could be wrong but I thought it was Aquinas who suggested that creation didn’t have to occur literally 6000 years ago and he suggested the possibility of a sequence of events (potencies) or stages in nature that have similarities with evolution. No offence intended all the best to you and your family and keep safe ❤️
This is going to be a shock to you because you probably arent aware. Christians have fought wars with each other because of the old Christian tradition that heretics must be killed. Of course I realize that killing on behalf of Jesus is all part of a long tradition that you would support if ordered to do so. .
I missed the part where Trent proved his claims. Two wrongs don't nake a right. But I suppose you have to cling to any straw you can when your position is faith based.
Yes. That's all he has to say. He's not making the claim, Trent is. If you told me you had breakfast with a Leprechaun I would just say "You might have. But I won't believe it until I have proof."
@@sly8926 True. And considering that there has never been a proven documented case since the beginning of time of someone dying and three days later coming back to life then I would have to say it is unreasonable
@@SimpleCivil But that’s just your belief, it’s not actually known to be true. You can’t assume that there’s never been such an event. How many of these claims of it have you investigated? Nor can you assume that the absence of a previous occurrence makes it less likely to ever occur… You’ve never died before. Does that mean it’s unreasonable to hold the belief that you will die?
Simply dismissing arguments with "I'm not convinced" isn't real debate-it's avoiding engagement. To participate meaningfully, one must offer actual counterarguments, not just passive skepticism.
No, belief in the resurrection isn’t reasonable, because we have no evidence that resurrection is even possible, and every reason to think that it isn’t. End of debate. In no world is the resurrection actually happening the best explanation for stories about it. Clearly the best explanation is it’s simply a story.
The Iron Man analogy was basically a sketch from Kids in the Hall back in the day. Not sure if you were familiar with it but it's that exact scenario. th-cam.com/video/5PyAO91qArI/w-d-xo.htmlsi=2hWWx_QDnKAbWJ4y
Watching matt get mad is hilarious. He can't or wont answer the harder questions he's asked. But you damn well better answer his questions or his temper will rise.
I am not interested in what you believe, but in what you can prove. Seems like an equally satisfying blow, but let me guess, you don't think so, right?
@@ztrinx1 It not because "I'm not convinced" is like, Dillahaunty's most obnoxious phrase. Thus, saying "'I'm not convinced' is not an argument" is far more satisfying than saying "'I believe X' is not an argument".
This was weird. I've never seen someone interpret an encounter so completely opposite of me. You claim him saying I'm not convinced is a sneaky tactic but that's his position in the debate. Trent never proved anything and tried to play word games and matt didn't bite. I'm glad you liked the other side because I don't at all and I hate for Trent to go unappreciated.
You don't understand the structure of the debate. The debate is not an intervention to convince the opposing side of anything, but rather to convince other parties. Trent laid put arguments, and Matt ignored them. As someone who has debated this is a big no, no. Think of it on some other topic. Like, we should paint all cars blue or whatever. Trent lays out arguments. Matt doesn't say he's convinced. Trent WINS. There is no presumed correct position (thats what the debate is to determine). And each side is SUPPOSED to not be convinced, so Matt unwavering on his position is irrelevant. And judge (i.e. the audience) you are to judge based on the merits of the debates, not on your own opinions. So if Trent offers reasons, and Matt does not, there is no other foundation to determine Matt as the winner.
I really find it rather silly that one could claim that Trent Horn "won" the debate purely on following the technical aspect of it, or Matt Dillahuntu's inability to support whatever claims you think he was making. The topic of the debate was "is belief in the resurrection reasonable" and considering what science has show us about medicine, biology, and just how the human body works, I don't feel like we need to go any further than to answer "suggesting that it might be reasonable to believe in any resurrection is flagrantly anti-scientific". How you could possibly "win" a debate on this topic if you take the affirmative position is just beyond my understanding. Focusing only on the technical aspect of the debate format and declaring that Trent Horn "won" this debate doesn't at all accurately portray the strength of the two positions being argued.
The only real question that I found worthy of pause is "what resurrection claims have you investigated?". That's an interesting question, but I'd like to know what resurrection claims have been published in peer reviewed scientific journals for me, or others, to investigate? What resurrection claims are taken seriously by any reputable scientific organization or by the scientific community as a whole? I think the answer is clear: None! Actual resurrection just isn't something we take seriously as something that really happens or has happened. This debate was over before it started.
The question is gibberish. A claim is an unsupported assertion by definition. Why on earth would you ask someone if they have investigated something that has already been assigned the property of unsupported?
@@Lucky7Wolfin A claim is an assertion, that is true, but not necessarily unsupported. You can make a claim and provide support for that claim. Whether a claim is supported or not is separate from the assertion of the claim itself. You can investigate a claim, supported or not, to determine its veracity. My point is that resurrection claims and the mechanics of life and death have been investigated, thoughouly, and are no longer taken seriously by the scientific community. That's why you won't find any published work on it worth examining.
The problem, of course, is that he assumes that his position is the default position, and that anyone who disagrees with him has either rejected the default position, or added something irrational on top of it. I may take slightly a different approach, I actually kind of agree with Matt Dillahunty on this issue (and I am indeed a Christian). I don’t personally think that the eyewitness testimony of the writers of the gospels and the sincere belief that Jesus had risen from the dead, necessarily proves anything in the ordinary sense that we normally think. I trust their testimony, that they believed it sincerely, but it’s also my personal experience of following Christ that confirms in my mind, my belief that Jesus rose from the dead. I wouldn’t match that up with historical verification necessarily in the same way that we might verify outcome of some war in the 1200s or who the 14th president was. It may be a bit softer of a version of what William lane Craig calls reasonable faith. I think it’s reasonable to believe that Jesus rose from the dead, but I don’t think that we can prove that it happened by ordinary means, and I’m not certain God expects us to. We are to always have a reason for the hope we have within us, but that reason is Christ himself, not proof of his resurrection. But overall, horn did do a phenomenal job of calling out dillahuntys absolute arrogance in establishing himself as the arbiter of truth, and I appreciate how you have distilled out his role shifting, his use of rhetoric in place of logic, and avoidance of actually answering questions.
Love these videos, you catch things that I don't! I liked this one especially, because I can't stand Matt dillahunty! He's a guy that's always kind of snarky, and looks like he's on top. Now I can listen to his debates and others with a better understanding, thank you!
I don’t understand why Matt Dillahunty gets the following he does. Yeah, he’s funny and charismatic, and he’s quick on his feet but some of the methods he uses are just stupid, apart from a few exceptions. This is a random note: Matt identifies as an atheist, but at times he sounds like an agnostic. That’s to me at least.
Ah yes, this one again. Christians having no idea about what Atheists have said for decades. Unbelievable ignorance. Once and for all - the vast majority of atheists are agnostic atheists.
@@plzenjoygameosu2349 So you have no idea what a cult is. Please, explain exactly how either of our comments even remotely suggested that we are part of a "cult". Come on, explain. I'm sure you can back up what you said, right? It wasn't just more unjustified nonsense from a theist, was it? What am I saying--that's all you people have. (By the way, nice projection. A zombie Jesus believer screaming "cult". Pathetic.)
hmm, both men were, in hindsight, incorrect about vaccines, and the professional in that field who spoke the truthful facts were right. note the 'professionals' who held both these men's views were wrong. right was to speak and not be shut down.
Argh! Thought this was an objective reaction frim a debate expert. You should tell people you're a one-sided Christian before they waste time on your videos
just because you want there to be a resurrection doesnt justify you claiming there was one...prove it prove that its medically / scientifically possible and I would think using bronzed aged " ignorant of moderan science" story's " which they are " story's"wouldn't be honest
Weather you wanna believe in the bible or not, its definitely not unreasonable when you honestly look into it, Matt basically claims all historical evidence is nonsense while at the same time not knowing how they get historical knowledge. Matt changed the subject mid debate claiming you cannot convince him when that was never what the debate was about. Im not religious and dont claim one but I understand how people believe it and respect all opinions. The more I listened to Matt the more I saw his bullshit.
Tent Horn definitely won the problem is a lot of people reason the Matt does and then take offense when someone tells them no amount of evidence would convince them. It’s getting harder and harder to speak with people who presuppose their own views without being willing to listen to contrary evidence.
Matt Dillahunty has a large, sycophantic following. Many are impressed by the" Dillahunty Dodge'. A time honored tactic of Matt Dillahunty-' ' Well it depends on what you mean by............!'( insert word here). -' Not necessarily!!! There could be a third option!!! One which I am not going to provide!!! I'm only going to mention it!!'.. Etc
You mean specificity for the sake of clarity? He asks for a specific definition so the other side doesnt try to play the definition game and trick him into saying something he doesn't agree with. For your second point, he usually does provide a third option if there is an obvious one, but oftentimes the point is that the opposite side is using a black and white fallacy in those cases.
You are correct Nate. That is exactly what Matt is doing, on purpose, and he does it a lot. He thinks sying im just not convinced is an argument. Im so glad someone is calling out his bs.
I mean… all that the apologists are saying is that they find the evidence convincing. Obviously they wouldn’t accept the same evidence in any other situation or for other religions.
I think your the expression "pints with Aquinas" has less to do with blood and vampires and more to do with having an intelligent discussion over a beer. Although it's a very British expression, 'to have a pint.' meaning to go to the pub. And having, as your drinking companion, the great medieval philosopher and priest, Thomas Aquinas.
Have you analyzed Peter Williams' debates -- particularly with James White? You should. Williams tackles tougher tthings in catholicism (marian dictrines, purgatory) and is very good.
It is true that matt claimed ressurections do not happen as a positive claim and that gives him the burden of proof which he can't do , and you and trench call him out on it and you're correct , but you didn't provide the correction or the better rephrasing for this argument against the ressurection which is ( I'm not aware of any ressurection that has been objectively demonstrated ) and you kept reacting as if ressurection are something normal and matt is just an idiot to deny, he is wrong about his argument but his position of not taking for granted a claim still stands and you ignored that but, which shows that the very least your reaction was not fair to both debaters and it was idealogically biases against a certain position.
I have listened to hours of him on the atheist experience and “I’m not convinced” along with a barrage of insults and then hanging up on callers was his tactic the vast majority of the time.
Sure, but was *reasonable evidence of a resurrection presented?* Should we be convinced? Because I'm not really seeing theist commenters on this video presenting evidence, and all we seem to have is *one book's claims,* and I feel like you wouldn't believe if 4-6 commenters showed up in this thread telling you I resurrected, right?
@@tonygoodkind7858 If you are saying that all there is for the Resurrection is some TH-cam comments then you are either absolutely illiterate on the topic you want to speak so confidently to, or you are under the influence of some semi legal or directly illegal substance....
@@luboshcamber1992 Well we have 4-6 anonymous authors in the Bible saying it happened (equivalent to anonymous youtube commenters). *Now: provide all the extrabiblical evidence of a resurrection you can find.* (Please do try. It's important you go through the process of realizing how non-existent it is.)
Matt Dillahunty has been doing this for a long time. I’m so glad someone is finally calling him out on his BS. He never deals with the real questions. He is a master rhetorician!
As Nate said on another debate review, no one should ever debate Dillahunty. Nate was more polite about it but I'll just say it bluntly. Dillahunty is a clown.
I’m Agnostic but that last exchange was incredibly frustrating. Matt literally says that what he would need to accept a resurrection is testimonial evidence, but then disguises it as something else. Then he tries to pin Trent by making him admit that he would accept something on testimonial evidence alone, while saying that that is not sufficient, even though that’s literally what Matt just said he would need. That makes absolutely no sense yet he continues to try and just bully Trent into it and take it as a big win. Incredibly confusing and dishonest take by Matt. Honestly pretty embarrassing and incredibly unreasonable on his part there.
Matt isnt concerned with the truth only winning the debate. This is why he has it set up to his advantage. im glad people are finally calling him out on it.
And the thing I dislike about him in particular and his brand is his audience, I can’t stand 90% of his audience. And also what annoyed me was in his debate with Tyler Vela,people in the comments were complaining, that Tyler didn’t present evidence for God, he kept asking Matt throughout the entire debate what evidence would convince him, and he couldn’t even make up his mind. And Tyler ask him if God rearranged the stars to spell his name, would he accept that as evidence and he said yes and then literally immediately after he said he would accept that he immediately undermines that, by saying that’s ridiculous and he could never accept that.
Matt's been doing this for a loooong time. He has a loyal following so he won't change his methods. David Robertson also showed how to handle Matt in a 1 on 1 discussion/debate.
I'm not even a Christian, and yet I find that the comments on the original video being laudatory of Dillahunty shows how people simply do not know what a debate is...
@@FuddlyDud Well, obviously I am culturally a Christian, like everyone in the West, but I can't say that I'm a believer. I'm very sympathetic toward a theistic worldview because of the various philosophical and scientific arguments derived, notably, from the Big Bang and the fine-tuning of the universe, as well as the possible implications of quantum physics. Nevertheless, I find myself unconvinced by the evidence regarding the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. Some of it is fascinating but not quite enough for me, as I find myself rather violently struggling with it. I just can't make the leap of faith despite being thoroughly unimpressed with the debating skills and intellectual prowess of so-called atheist thinkers.
@@j-psavoie8173 Well, it sounds like you've really wrestled with all the best arguments so far! Good on you man! :) On the evidence for the ressurection of Jesus, how do you approach the evidence that we do have? I am curious since I have changed how I measure the evidence and would love to chat about it and (hopefully) we can trade perspectives on it! :)
I like how Matt asks a loaded question at the end. He can't answer yes or no without appearing guilty of something. If he says no, then that proves Matts point that you shouldn't believe solely on testimony. If he says yes, he's going to be saying that yes this is the only thing that will make him believe. When It's not that Trent is saying either of these, he's saying he's going to have a confidence level by accepting these testimonials as a piece of evidence not that this is the ONLY WAY he's going to accept the resurrection. Which is leading into a strawman fallacy. Matt just likes to get hot headed when ever he's against the ropes and always resorts to some type of fallacy. This is the problem when the time belongs to only one person asking questions. Matt however loves to not answer questions when ever he thinks someone is misinterpreting what he's saying but demands the other person to answer the question regardless of what he has to say. This just makes Matt a hypocrite with anger issues.
That’s why they call him a Dillahunty dodge he doesn’t even attempt to give a justification for his stance in this debate, and really he doesn’t ever take a position in any debate most of the time, because he says that he doesn’t need to take any position he lacks any and all the burden of proof because atheism is nothing more than a lack of belief and requires no justification and carries no proof proof, I find it hilarious that people say Christian take the burden of proof and there definitely are questions I do shift bonus proof, but a prime example of an atheist who does this especially debate is Dillahunty he will change the subject or he will move the goal post or he will just completely dodge the question altogether just so he doesn’t ever have to defend his own claims and presuppositions, I don’t get why he has such a big fan base I mean I’m sure that he’s a nice guy if I met him in person, but he doesn’t seem to be able to actually engage in any topic dealing with philosophy or Christianity be on the most superficial level possible.
It’s not a loaded question because every piece of evidence Trent has is testimonial. He doesn’t have physical evidence and probability isn’t on his side. Other than hearsay Trent has no way to link his claim to being a real world event.
@@pleaseenteraname1103 The reason why Dillahunty has a large fan base is because Atheism is a cult religion, so his fellow cult members feel they must follow him.
@@CelticSpiritsCoven I feel like the appeal also comes with the fact that Dillahunty used to be a Christian fundamentalist, so he speaks to people who also had fundamentalist upbringing who have a resentment towards the Christian faith now. So they cling to people like Dillahunty and etc.
@ Wise Disciple: It would be cool to see you review James White vs Trent Horn. They have only had one debate and it’s on TH-cam. I believe it is on can a Christian lose their salvation. It seems like it would be edifying to see a review of a well-handled debate from both sides. Love the reviews. They are helpful.
18:40 Dillahunty believes in "Only the things that can be empirically verified are the things that we should hold onto." This is somewhat ironic and hypocritical considering that he believes that trans-women are real women.
That is a bad argument because Matt is using a different definition of woman than you are, one that can be empirically verified by merely asking a person what gender they are, and receiving a sincere answer.
Three questions for Matt: 1. Matt wants physical evidence for Jesus since (according to him) historical records are just claims, and (again according to him) claims are not evidence. In that case how would he know that the physical evidence that he so desperately wants, belonged to Jesus? There would be only historical claims that those physical evidence belonged to Jesus. But (according to Matt) he shouldn't trust claims, which means he shouldn't trust the physical evidence neither. Which means he shouldn't trust anything from history. 2. If Matt is not a historian and he doesn't care what methods historians use, does that mean that because historians agree that Jesus was real, means that there is proof of Jesus, but since he's not a historian, he doesn't know that there is proof of Jesus cause he doesn't recognize it as proof since, again he's not a historian. 3. Yes, the covid vaccine is science, but did he test the vaccine in the lab to see if it works, or does he just trusts the doctors' claims that the vaccine works, and that he should take it?
The next time someone shows up to debate Matt Dillahunty, they should come wearing a t-shirt that says, "I'm not convinced!"
Not that we were in any doubt as to the value of Dillahunty's expert opinion, but we now know that he opines that the man in his late twenties with whom he lives and engages in a sexual relationship, is in fact, a woman.
Andrew Wilson did something along those lines and Matt 'I'm not convinced" Dillahunty sulked and refused to debate
Matt: "in order for me to believe in a resurrection story i need a doctors note"
Luke: "am i a joke to you?"
Luke never says that he saw Jesus; in fact the Gospel of Luke is, in its own terms, a compilation of what others have said
Irelelvant, but Luke was not written by Luke.
Then how about: Luke, a medical professional that lived when Jesus had lived, received the testimonies of others about the Resurrection, and Luke, a medical physician, believed it and reported about it.
As a bonus, the last person in Jesus' time you would think would believe and accept the Resurrection of Jesus is a member of the Sanhedrin that rejected Jesus and actively hunted people who believed in his Resurrection.
@@ajamusic7322The gospels are anonymous and were only given their "authorships" sometime at the earliest in the second century. "Luke" was the third gospel compiled and it's earliest date is feasibly around the year 80, some 50 years after the events it covers, making it extremely unlikely to be any better than probably 2nd or 3rd hand but far more likely more remote than that.
No serious bible scholar today, be they believers or not, dispute this.
Your point regarding martyrdom is completely irrelevant as people have suffered torture and death for refusing to deny other religions, unless you believe Islam etc is true.
All you have is the one book that claims these things not multiple sources, just one and that isn't even contemporary or written by anyone who was there.
Trent - "What do you mean by physical evidence?"
Matt - "I don't know, um, a doctor's report..."
Luke was literally a doctor, debate over.
Love this 😂😂😂
What a stupid comment.
That's one way to be a dishonest creatard, sure. He was way more specific than just "a doctor's report". But you decided to ignore that nuance to make it sound like any ole doctor's assertions about what happened would be sufficient. Moreover, we don't know who wrote the Gospel of Luke. The Gospels are anonymous, unsigned documents. We have no evidence that Luke was real or was the person who wrote the book of Luke.
@@PrismBot Nice psychologizeing, immediately attacking peoples motives and accusing them of being dishonest because I disagree with you. There was no nuance, because they want to use no idea what the hell he’s talking about he hasn’t looked into this issue whatsoever because he doesn’t care too, he’s just throwing out claims he doesn’t know what even constitute as evidence. That’s an assertion and several scholars such as Richard Bachman, Craig Blomberg, Daniel Wallace, Greg Evans, N.T Wright, D.A Carson would beg to differ, there’s a lot of good reasons to believe Luke actually wrote the gospel of Luke. The gospels are formally anonymous, in many scholars were disagreed that’s just an assertion. Another assertion, 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 this is laughably False are you a Christ Myther, we literally know where his gravesite is. We also have him being mentioned by later writers, there are no scholars that dispute that Luke was a real person not even Robert price or Richard Carrier, do you believe Heraclitus, Cicero, democracies, Zeno, or most of the Egyptian pharaohs are real people? Because for a lot of those people have for those people I mentioned Heraclitus and democracies we have absolutely no archaeological evidence of them are we have a fragments of later writers who mentioned them, do you believe they existed? Both of those statements are false we have plenty of evidence he wrote the gospel of Luke and we have plenty of evidence that he exists, we have undeniable proof he existed, but we don’t have undeniable proof that he wrote the gospel that’s debatable and there is a lot of opinions on both sides. I mean if you’re gonna deny that Luke is a real person you might as well just deny that Julius Caesar is a real person or Alexander the Great. We also have the book of acts not just the gospel of Luke.
1.we actually don't know that.2. Luke never met Jesus or saw the body.3. what it meant to be a doctor back then is not the same.4. We actually have no idea who Luke was.
Trent is actually a really good debater, hard working and well prepared, you should definitely do more
Imagine him with Dr. James White. They’d be unstoppable
@@billgoldberg5459White is a heretic
“Are you willing to accept the resurrection based only on testimonial evidence?”
Yes, and you are too, Matt! Very frustrating.
Dillahunty's whole argument is a personal incredulity fallacy.
Is it really though? The only evidence Trent has that a ressurection took place is that a book said it happened. That's not good enough.
@@shaqyardie8105 It's many books, not "a book". What evidence is there that any historical events happened other than "a book said it happened"? By MD's standard we should deny all things that are outside immediate sensory perception.
@@realmichaelteo It's many books, not "a book".- Wow, really? It's constructed into 1 book, so it's 1 book, not that it's even relevant to whether it's true or not.
"What evidence is there that any historical events happened other than "a book said it happened"? " - The problem is that the bible is filled with supernatural claims that have yet to be proven. A virgin giving birth, man moonwalking on water, raising the dead, feeding 5000 people with 7 food items, dying and coming back to life, you just believe all this stuff because a book said it happened? The koran says that the moon split in 2 and mohammad ascended to heaven on a winged horse. Why don't you believe that. Supernatural claims require supernatural evidence. By your logic, the dementors in Harry Potter are real too.
@@realmichaelteo the real life effects. King Edward abdicated and his brother wouldn't have been king otherwise. QEII wouldn't have been queen. Everyone agrees she was, not just her cult followers.
@@Preservestlandry "the real life effects" is not an argument... but let's go with your logic. If Jesus did not exist we could not date his birth. Everyone agrees it's 2023 AD, not just his "cult followers".
To be clear... I'm *not* saying that's a good argument. I'm just demonstrating with a parallel example that your argument is fallacious. The fact that QEII was queen does not prove events in the past. It only shows that the received story may possibly explain common perceived reality.
In asking Trent the ressurection claim questions, Matt demonstrates that he missed the point. He was so caught up in "getting back" at him that he didn't understand why that question applied to his position and not to his opponents. This is a typical atheist mistake. They sometimes forget the debate and get emotionally caught up in trying to make the highlight reel.
Matt: "I can't believe something on testimonial evidence alone."
Sure you can, Matt. Just ask your "wife" if "she" is a "her"
This isn't helping your case. You're basically conceding that resurrection claims are as ludicrous and equally lacking in evidence as a man claiming to be a woman.
Resurrections have never been confirmed.
This is simply a fact. Does Trent provide any support for his claim that at least one resurrection has occurred? No, of course not, and that is his burden of proof.
How sad that you teach debate, but understand nothing about critical thinking or epistemology.
FR. Hinging your credibility on resurrection claims is not only dishonest, it's idiotic.
Thoughts cant be confirmed either just mental activity. But here yo u are writing your thoughts.
@@juanisaac5172
If I am writing them, that confirms they are my thoughts.
Do you have any serious rebuttals?
@@cygnusustus Where is the science behind that? Chemical reactions exist in your brain. One can see those but can one see the words you are about to write. I mean, if you are married can you see your wife's love? I mean love is said to exist but I have never seen a picture of love. The whole point of Trent is that events occurs that defy science and logic. How many stories have you seen of people dying of terminal cancer only to not have it one day to the next? Same thing with death. Most people who die are gone and never return. But once in a while a person comes back and science can't explain it.
@@juanisaac5172
"One can see those but can one see the words you are about to write."
In fact, yes. Neuroscience has gotten to the point where it can predict the decisions people are going to make before they make them.
"I mean, if you are married can you see your wife's love?"
I can see expressions of love, and we would also be able to detect increased endorphins or activity in specific areas of her brain. So....yes.
"The whole point of Trent is that events occurs that defy science and logic."
A. Show me some.
B. How would this justify belief in God?
In the end, it is a fact that resurrections have never been confirmed. Trent claimed that at least one has occurred.
Either provide evidence for that claim in your next reply, or your objections are dismissed.
I think a big problem with Matt as a debater is he often isn’t taking a hard stance as the majority of his positions in debate are the other side hasn’t provided reasonable evidence to make their claims. And appealing to a historical account to prove non-natural claims isn’t sufficient, unless I’m to accept all of the historical accounts of sea monsters, Norse, Roman, Egyptian, Greek…, gods that also interfered and or resurrected. Which them makes resurrections a fairly common experience and not something that would help to demonstrate a god.
That's only a problem if you view debates as yes vs no battles. There's another way to view these types of interactions: as honest conversations where 2 honest people try to converge on what's actually going on in reality. Viewed through this lens, Matt is just honestly conveying his position. Matt is living his life, and people are going around making tons of assertions about the universe that can't be tested or verified, and Matt is genuinely asking from the bottom of his heart "what reason/evidence is there to believe this is the case?" That is an honest position; he's not arbitrarily defending a "side," he's giving his true thoughts on the matter. It's not a problem in any sense for him to ask this, and the fact that the reasons given don't rise to the level of scientific skepticism isn't a problem with Matt either, it's a problem with the claims people are making and the poor evidence for them.
That's kind of the point, isn't it?
@@zacharyberridge7239 What is the point?
@@AbleAnderson that wasn't in reply to you, but the original commenter. Just saying the whole, "I'm not taking a hard stance, I just don't think you've got sufficient evidence to justify your beliefs".
Which is true, and accurate, and keeps the burden of proof where it needs to be.
That's not a problem, that's just the position he happens to find himself in. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and the burden of proof is on the claimant, not the refuter. It's not Matt's job to convince everyone why it isn't reasonable, because that isn't the extraordinary claim. It's Trent's job to convince people that it is reasonable, and the only question that matters is did he do that?
Matt Dillahunty ( opening speech):' If you are here to hear Trent say' Jesus rose from the dead'... And for me to say-' No...he didn't!!'...
Well.. then.. you're at the wrong debate. I am here, to try and explain to you how I went from 25 years a Southern Baptist, to now being pathologically angry, and fixated at something that I don't believe exists.
I have been hosting, for years now..a radio call in show-' The I don't believe that something exists Experience'. Sometimes,as part of my pathological anger at something that I don't believe exists, I will insult this non existent being. Indeed I have called something that doesn't exist according to me....I have called it a" thug'. I take great issue, with something that doesn't exist according to me. I am,as well, a member of the " People who don't believe that something exists community', of Austin, Texas. I believe that it is far more rational to spend years, ranting against a non existent entity, than to hold Trent"s position. I mean.. that's it! That right there is the fundamental difference between our epistomologies!! Trent is willing to say that he doesn't believe that something exists and simply walk away... I'M NOT!!! I will pathologically rant, insult, become angry at, host podcasts for years... against a non existent entity. And that... ladies and gentlemen..is why I am here today. Thank you'
I think Trent did a really good job. I do, however, think his first statements were problematic when he threw folks under the bus in order to find some common ground with Matt by asserting as absolute fact things that are not necessarily so, such as the age of the universe and a blanket statement regarding vaccines and other "science." Consensus/majority does not equal fact.
Otherwise though, very good job.
I agree totally.... that being said perhaps Trent was aware of Matt's tendencies to bring such things up as passing statements to bolster his position, and Trent wanted to stop him from the start (although he probably does in fact believe the things he said, whuch is problematic).
Classic Dillahunty deflects. He's always frustrating to listen to. Thanks for making this video.
He’s OK and just regular discussions, but my god is he awful and debates, The only way he gets the upper hand is rhetoric,And really the only debates he wins is his opponents are supremely weak like Ray comfort, but in my opinion Dillahunty is just the Ray comfort of atheism.
Your Bias blinds your views on this. I feel it would be more entertaining if it was from a neutral standpoint. But it's clear you are pushing an agenda rather than being fair and reporting on debate tactics.
THANK YOU
Midwit Alert!!!
Very surprised Matt now seems to question Jesus’ death. It’s very reasonable to think from the historical records that this happened.
Maybe Trent’s only mistake maybe was bringing up the Craig keener resurrection accounts and not knowing the end results of them.
Yeah, has anyone read Keener's book? I skimmed it but didn't read the whole thing. Maybe there were no conclusions that Keener drew in the book?
There’s actually no contemporary historical accounts for Jesus, the fact that it’s treated as historical fact that a Jesus existed is because for history it is assumed someone did exist if they’re written about as a historical figure. But the accounts written in the Bible are uncorroborated and hearsay at best as to the actions of the historical Jesus.
Essentially Jesus being a historical person doesn’t mean he did anything accounted in the Bible.
@@stephenwilson2292 no I would disagree here. There are accounts written by people contemporary to Jesus.
Paul, John Mark, Matthew, Luke, John, James, Jude.
There’s your contemporary sources and multiple attested to sources. Luke in his intro says of the eyewitness accounts before him, and he uses both Matthew and Mark in his work.
The New Testament is a contemporary, multiple attested to historical source.
It’s got the whole package.
@@farmercraig6080
The Pauline epistles we’re written the earliest still about 1-2 decades after the events, he also never once mentions a physical Jesus.
The other books we don’t know the authors, those are who the early church fathers attributed them to, if you read the notes on the first page of the gospels in a NIV Bible they say we don’t actually know who wrote those, but regardless the earliest anyone dates Mark, the earliest gospel, is about 70AD, 40 years after the events would have taken place.
The gospel of Jude is roughly 70-90AD by the most generous estimates,
And the gospel of James is estimated around 145AD.
So by the best estimates we’re looking at 10-20 years after the events when the first written accounts are coming out, and even then the first ones being written don’t mention Jesus as a actual person.
I’m not saying there wasn’t an actual person named Jesus at the time who was preaching things and seditiously got himself executed for inciting a rebellion, but we don’t actually have evidence for that, we have story’s from people decades and even lifetimes after the supposed events, those are what you’re pointing to, not actual historical accounts.
So Luke claims Mark and Matthew are eye witnesses but doesn’t identify them, but neither of them claim to be eye witnesses. Luke was written well after Mark and Matthew would likely have died unless they died at age 80+ if that’s the case when did they get martyred?
The New Testament isn’t contemporary, it was written decades later, and none of its events are supported by a single historical document. We don’t have a record from anyone in Rome talking about the execution of someone claiming to be god, there wasn’t a custom anywhere on the books about the release of a prisoner at Passover, the gospels don’t read like history and only Luke claims to be trying to write a history but he borrows from two books that don’t claim to be history or from eye witnesses.
@@stephenwilson2292 Hey Stephen
Yes so Paul did write a few decades after Jesus’ death. He was executed in the 60’s.
But does he mention a physical Jesus? The answer is yes. Just in Romans alone he makes reference to a physical Jesus Romans 5:15 15But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!
Romans 5:17 For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!
Romans 5:19 19For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.
Romans 1:1-3 1 Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God - 2 the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures 3 regarding his Son, who as to his earthly life [ a ] was a descendant of David,
Romans 8:3 3For what the law was powerless to do because it was weakened by the flesh, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man,
Romans 9:5 5Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of the Messiah, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.
He makes reference to the man Jesus quite a few times, his death by crucifixion etc. Plus he makes note that he meet Jesus’ brother James.
My NIV doesn’t say that, it gives the authors. But we have good evidence for the authors, people such as Polycarp and Papias who are contemporaries of the apostles (Polycarp was a disciple of John, who wrote the Gospel of John). There isn’t any disagreement for the authors for the Gospels among the church fathers. In fact there isn’t any anonymous copies of Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John have ever been found. They do not exist. The letter of Hebrews is a good example of what happens when they didn’t know, the early church fathers put out four names for the author of the letter. Paul (Pantaenus), Barnabas (Tertullian) Clement of Rome, Luke (Origen). This sort diversity is exactly what we do not find in references to the authorship of the Gospels.
With James and Jude, they were brother of Jesus. James death was in 62 A.D as its recorded in Josephus. Also James is quoted by Clement of Rome in 95 A.D or earlier and Ignatius in about 107 A.D. James is sometimes dated in the 40’s.
So we have eye witness reports to Jesus. Mark is earlier than 70 A.D, because Luke in his intro talks of the eye witness sources before him, and he quotes from Mark. Really the only reason people date it to 70 A.D is because Jesus’ correct prediction of the fall of Jerusalem and the temple. But since Luke doesn’t make any mention of this, in his second book Acts, this isn’t possible. Matthew (who he quotes also) and Mark are all before 70 A.D. Luke doesn’t say who the eye witnesses are, but since he uses Matthew and Mark in his work. They are eye witness sources.
I don’t know when Matthew and Mark died.
It doesn’t matter than the NT isn’t comtempory, only that it uses eye witness accounts, which it does. There are plenty of events in the NT that are mentioned in outside sources, such as in Josephus, Tacitus, Thallus, Phlegon, and more. Even archaeology backs up the history contained in it.
We have a record of Rome talking about Jesus as a God, the emperor Tiberius wanted to make Jesus a roman god, but the senate turned down the proposal. Quite interesting.
19:46 but how can you "be convinced" if there is a claim that goes against ALL human knowledge to date and nothing that can attest to the claim as being real?? feels to me that the claim that a supernatural event happened (without any proof) is Gobbledygook itself, right?
Completely misses the point, the debate isn’t about a “supernatural” event, but an unlikely event. Your clear fedora bias is showing and it’s embarrassing
@@stcolreplover what is really embarrassing is to believe in unreasonable stuff, like you do! Don’t mind replying I don’t want to hear stupid arguments!
@@malako777A seethe harder Midwit
@stcolreplover okay, would you say that a baby being born and then put back in the womb would be a "supernatural" occurrence or an "unlikely" occurrence?
Bart: There is no evidence for the resurrection of Jesus.
Homer: No evidence you’ll believe.
I'd love to hear you analyse my reincarnation debate.
Trent won. Really like him. Just don’t agree with his Catholicism at all. But he is an excellent debater!
I would love to see a debate between you(Wise Disciple) and Matt Dillahunty.
It would be the same as every Dillahunty debate, the guy is just a one trick pony, and a total weasel.
Matt is a pure skeptic. He almost never gives his opinion and and never says you have proven yours. He never has to debate his side. He only gets to tear down the other. In the end there is not much reason to speak to skeptics such as Matt. There is not upside for anyone else.
Christians are making the claim that the Bible is true… Matt is not making any claim beyond “I don’t believe in the Bible because is hasn’t been proven,” that is his opinion that he has given plenty of times, and this is how any conversation works when somebody makes a claim, you have to prove your claim and Matt explains why it’s wrong because, at the end of the day, there is no proof of the Bible being true
You need to watch Trent's debate with Alex and Watkins
Thanks, I'll check it out!
Trent vs Watkins is awesome!
Excellent analysis sir... great... great that I found ur channel randomly
No, my dude, Matt wasn't saying "I don't accept it" just as an audience member was. Matt was expressing that it is not reasonable to believe that, as he said, "all of physical reality and every law we know about the universe suddenly got suspended for this one person to rise back from the dead" (paraphrasing). This is not "Matt acting as an audience member", this is Matt defining what he considers "reasonable belief" to entail (or not entail, in this case). The fact that such a definition applies to him isn't the point, the point is that Trent has to then argue that "actually, believing that all of physical reality and every law we know about the universe suddenly being suspended IS reasonable".
Which... I mean... Good luck with that...? I feel like you're not listening to what Matt is pointing out. His personal opinion is irrelevant to his argument, he's just defining what is or is not reasonable to believe, and that Trent clearly has other standards, so he's trying to make him SAY IT IN THAT WAY in order to point out the absurdity of his standard. That's the point.
If that is the case, then maybe Matt needs to debate someone like Alvin Plantinga, Michael Rea or some other reformed epistemologist. We are talking about epistemology, not theological or archeo-medical claims, or anything other than what warrants true beliefs.
@@mountbrocken Yes... Which "all of physical reality and every law we know about the universe suddenly getting suspended for this one person to rise back from the dead" is not.
That's the point Matt is making... If Trent wants to argue for the opposite, he's welcomed to. If not, the point is conceded.
@@andresreal8261 but what is the basis of suspending laws? Where do laws cone from? Matt just assumes regularities pop out of nothing.
@@mountbrocken "Laws" are human-made, my dude. They're just concepts WE make to describe how reality seems to operate. There's reality, which is "what is", and then there's laws, which is "HOW WE DESCRIBE what is". Matt just assumes that resurrection is not "a thing that reality allows" (at least as how Trent seems to understand the word) through inductive reasoning (we don't seem to have any scientifically confirmed cases of resurrection, ergo, it has not been proven to be possible yet (in the way the bible describes it, at least).)... TRENT is the one arguing against the point, ergo, TRENT is the one who has to explain WHY "all of physical reality and every law we know about the universe suddenly would or could get suspended for this one person to rise back from the dead".
You're running away from the point. Argue against it or don't. If you don't, it's conceded by default. This is how argumentation works.
@@andresreal8261 that is the point 'just assumes that resurrection is something that reality would not allow.' The question is, why not?
Matt took him apart with ease. Funny to see people trying desperately to look for winnings on the other side here.
Desperately look for winnings?
Can you name specifically how Matt won? :/
@@FuddlyDudI wouldn't expect a response from him. This is just one of those atheist who does what's called a hit-and-run comment. They post a comment and then ignore everyone who responds to them who challenges what they say. Why? Because they lack belief in God so therefore they apparently don't have to meet a burden of proof whenever they make claims.
@@josephthomasmusic
True, although I think it's more just its easier to be content in his comfortable worldview than to push himself into being genuinely uncomfortable. :/
I also say this not as an insult, but as genuine sadness since I had to do the same thing to fully have faith in God. My hardened heart made (and still makes) it hard to even accept the clear wisdom God offers in the Bible. :/
@@josephthomasmusic yeah pretty much. If an anti-theist asked me to prove God exists, I usually just tell them I don’t have to because I just have a lack of belief in their atheism I don’t actually believe in God I just like the belief that there is no God 🤣. Also I’ve came across this guy in other comment sections before if I remember correctly and he leaves the same typical trollish comments you would expect from atheists to just just a waste of time.
W.D.- Whenever your guy uses a shady debate tactic, you say he did a good move. And when the other guy does the same thing, you say, he's not allowed to do that. This is such a joke.
Can you give an example please.
@@who-lo-lolee-oh1079 Sure, but that was 8 months ago, so I'll have to go back and re-watch it.
@@who-lo-lolee-oh1079 Trent "changes the framework" of the debate by shifting the onus onto whether Matt can personally prove that resurrections don't happen. W.D. calls this a great move. When an extraordinary claim is made that violates everything we empirically know about the natural world, the evidentiary standard is necessarily extremely high in order for a reasonable person to believe that it is true. The burden of proof in this case isn't on Matt to prove that resurrections don't happen. But Trent's tactic of reframing the question to require equal burdens of proof to establish the likelihood of truth or falsity of resurrections is sidestepping the debate question, which is, "is it reasonable to believe in the resurrection of Christ." In W.D.'s opinion, reframing the debate around a false premise is brilliant. But when Matt says that he doesn't find resurrections plausible due to a deep lack of evidence surrounding that extraordinary claim, WD says, "he's talking like an audience member and he isn't allowed to do that. It's not his job, etc." Matt's "I don't find that compelling" distinction is inconsequential, because he could have just as easily said "no, its not reasonable to accept extraordinary claims on insufficient evidence." Matt essentially made that correction when he was asked to clarify if he thinks other people can have reasonable beliefs that he doesn't share. And he said no.
Trent does all kinds of work to try to shift the burden, and indeed the question of the debate. If the question was "is it reasonable to believe that an elephant walked on water 2000 years ago?", setting up the premise that your opponent can't go back in time and prove that an elephant didn't walked on water, doesn't justify the belief that it did. And for WD to claim that he's winning debate points by doing that is a biased assessment.
@@who-lo-lolee-oh1079 Around -19:30, there is the exchange that WD criticizes where Matt says "I am not convinced...", but quickly afterwards Matt clarifies that he equates what he believes to what is reasonable for others to believe. WD calls the entire exchange a "sneaky tactic that has no place in debates." It was a mere inconsequential slip of the tongue at most. Meanwhile, WD applauds Trent's tactic of shifting the entire premise of the debate around Matt's burden to disprove, instead of around likelihood or reasonableness. WD goes on to include his own commentary around the idea that Matt hasn't personally investigated all sorts of resurrections and therefore can't "claim" they don't happen. This is a false framework that WD is championing both as a tactic and as his own position. Here's why this is false. If I say, "5 cats throughout history have been able to shoot lasers out of their eyes," you don't have the burden of proving that didn't happen. You're not making a claim. It is my job to provide evidence that would be enough to justify a reasonable belief that it is true.
@@who-lo-lolee-oh1079 around 17:46, WD criticizes Matt for saying something is unreasonable to believe without evidence if it violates what we know to be true about the natural world. WD says "who is Matt to say what we know to be true." Well, again, if WD is claiming that cats with laser eyes could be well within what science says is possible, then how do I debate anything with a person that doesn't agree about reality as we collectively see it?
Shortly after this, Matt re-frames the topic to say that "it's not my job to disprove magical events. It's your job to convince me of the reasonableness of your extraordinary claim." This is the correct framework of the debate, yet WD criticizes this as a shady tactic that is "gobbledygook." When Trent framed it the other way, it was brilliant according to WD.
If we are debating whether it is reasonable to believe that leprechauns live in your garden, its your burden to provide evidence that would justify the belief. I don't have to provide "proof" that such a thing is impossible. I am allowed to say that such a claim isn't reasonable on its face, because there is no evidence that such a being exists, until you can provide such evidence.
Atheist here:
So yeah I'm going to have to agree with this debate that Matt was having trouble sticking with the points that are being made.
I like that you pulled apart what he said and showed that this is not a proper defense when in a real debate.
Not making excuses for the guy but this is the reason why I think he's having this issue. He's having trouble dividing real debates with his talk show. And I personally think that this has tainted his ability to follow up.
And to be clear when it comes to atheist debaters and or "celebrities" it would be a huge mistake to defend them if they were wrong cuz the only thing that actually matters is the truth not someone's opinion on the matter
I am going to listen to the full debate soon and maybe reply again.
Thanks for your comment.
Why would you comment this if you havent listened to the full debate?
@@dannyberinger4634 cause I haven't seen this debate yet ?
I'm going to make an assumption that you think I was talking about this video . I'm talking about the full debate cause the only part of the debate that was shown here was the cross examination
Thanks for your thoughts, Daniel! Appreciate it :)
Thanks Daniel for your perspective. This is one of those debates where Matt really flunked on. Not one of his best moments.
That said something really interesting. He said, do we have a Doctor of testing to death and resurrection? In the Bible, yes, we do. Luke was a physician.
Yeah, the upper cut of "How many resurrection claims have you investigate?" sounds like, "How many witches or unicorns have you investigated"? Of course, Matt did a poor job answering, but the question just tries to flip the burden of proof for lack of proof, and Wise Disciple’s "joke" about a science fiction show reveals that it is ok to make fun of unreasonable beliefs, like resurrection.
@Boko Cycle So, do you think believing in resurrections, as a matter of verifiable fact, is reasonable? If that is the case, could you explain what good reasons you have to believe so?
@Boko Cycle BTW, you say that I am “Criticizing a debate tactic base on the fact that you’ve already decided the position itself is unreasonable…” that might be narrowly right, but my main point is that the example/joke of a science fiction show puts resurrection on the same reality level as fictional beings.
@Boko Cycle Oh, see, your comment was not about an open discussion, but about "winning". Well, congratulations, you've won an argument on the internet! Great job, son.
@Boko Cycle Is this the only video of Wise Disciple you’ve seen? He doesn’t agree with Matt, his joke was clumsy at best, and if you are correct, he contradicted his own beliefs and intentions. You say I change the subject, but the subject of my comment and of Matts intervention is the irrationally of resurrection, it is not that my writing is unclear, confusing or mistaken. I never wrote that the existence of a joke makes anything fictional, I don’t how you get to that, it is content and nature of the joke that does support Matt’s view on resurrection being similar to fictional beings.
@Boko Cycle Sure.
I find it so weird that skeptics use this line of reasoning ; "If X were true, we necessarily would see awards"
As if people who profess the truth are always rewarded. Instead, history shows that those who profess the truth are persecuted.
If this is one of the top notch atheists out there, then its a shame on the atheists.
Missed opportunity for Trent during Matt’s cross. When Trent asked what evidence is needed for a resurrection, Matt said a doctor’s note. What Trent could’ve mentioned is that we have a doctor who wrote a note about Jesus’s resurrection. Luke’s account
True, Luke was a physician. However, Scholars overall consider Luke's works (Luke-Acts) to be closer in genre to "*pure"* history. That said they also note that *"This is not to say that he [Luke] was always reliably informed, or that - any more than modern historians - he always presented a severely factual account of events." Therefore, Luke's testimony could be deemed sketchy at best.
James White vs Jake the metaphysician
Unless you have already reviewed it?
No, I haven't! Got it on the list, thanks very much!
If Matt would have just admitted in the opening statement that he would not argue the topic, but rather change it to "Do you believe in the resurrection?", than we could have all been spared a lot of time by a simple "yes" and "no" from the interlocutors.
On topic however; Matt's claims about needing physical evidence for things that have happened in the past, should be annoying all historians in the world. If that would be the an answer to whether it is reasonable to believe in something, all historians are unreasonable in Matt's mind.
Provided of course that we no more believe the founding of the city of Alexandria is physical evidence to the testimonies of Alexander the Great, than that the founding of St. Peter's basilica is physical evidence to the testimonies of Jesus.
Horn clearly won this one. Unless you think changing Dilihunty's mind and immediate conversion is the point of debate.
Lol. Changing a debater's mind is not the point of a debate. I think @WiseDisciple would agree with this. It's who has the strongest arguments.
@@tugboat2030 you are correct.
@@malvokaquila6768 Oh, I get your point here.
I came here expecting some interesting discourse from a "debate expert" and instead got a biased christian complaining that Matt was asking for evidence and then lampooning him. He gave clear preferential treatment to the christian and clearly only cares about "debate" as a format, and not the actual truth of the proposition. I then looked at the name of the channel and realized the problem... this is a christian channel that obviously already assumes the resurrection is true. I don't care about "good" christian debaters. I care about truth and evidence.
Exactly. Thank you
THANK YOU!
@@user-wg5dm6oc3t Matt Dilahunty asked several times during the debate for evidence for the claims made. None were provided. All the the so called debate teacher could say was that MD was not following the debate structure. The problem with thiest v atheist debates is this. A thiest makes the claim, an athiest asks for good evidence for the claim made. If no good evidence can be presented, then the thiest has lost by principle but not according the structural debate rules. Most athiests do not care for the rules because atheists transcend time, space and matter and exist outside the rules of logic.
@@user-wg5dm6oc3t the fact you don't realize how biased it is screams your bias lol
Dillahunty is a totally unserious boy. It's ironic how similar his last name is to "dilettante" which is exactly what he is.
Trent is a machine. I thoroughly enjoy his books, debates, and dialogues.
I enjoy your debate breakdowns a lot too.
God bless ✝️
Well done Nate! One if the best so far.
Thank you sir! Appreciate you 👊🏼👊🏼👊🏼
How many big foot claims should one have to investigate in order to conclude that the current claims made are without evidence? Do we have to rule out fairies, unicorns and elves to rule out magic performed by a god(s). Or can we rule out magic based on scientific evidence of it?
@wisedisciple I didn’t know you were religious when I clicked on this page, thinking it would be a little more unbiased, but once you said William Lane Craig is a good debater that was the final confirmation you’re fully biased, mainly because his technique to win debates is to spout off as many arguments that require a lot of specific unpacking and definitions like “begins to exist” could be an entire debate in and of itself, it’s like if an atheist just spouted every single bad thing in the Bible and in order for a Christian to win the debate they would have to address all of them. It’s a slippery tactic to win points and most atheist debaters aren’t there to win points but to educate and express views.
I hear what you're saying. This is typically what atheists tell me when I determine that "their guy" lost: they tell me, "You're biased." I never hear from the same folks when I've determined that William Lane Craig lost to Shelly Kagan, or John Lennox lost to Richard Dawkins, or Ken Ham (very badly) lost to Bill Nye. Maybe I'm biased, but not in the way you're thinking. Maybe I'm just biased towards strong arguments and good debaters.
@@WiseDisciple No, you are actually not that biased at all. I think it is silly to even make that point - of course you are, who cares, so what? Talk about the actual arguments, and that goes for you all.
It is much more interesting to highlight the framing that you are "biased" towards with these debates, which is an attempt to strengthen your world view and give your audience of believers something to make them feel good.
@@WiseDisciple I agree Matt lost the debate by rules of debate, but it’s the same way WLC “wins” debates by employing a Gish Gallop tactic, it’s a loss in terms of debate, but Matt has always stated formal debates are meaningless when looking for answers so obviously he isn’t going to be looking to score points in a structured debate that’s why he rushes to the discussion portion whenever possible that’s where the interesting information comes out, like how Trent can accept that, every understood fact about how death works was suspended based on the writings from anonymous sources decades after the supposed events, and that he believes that is a reasonable position.
About halfway through the video Matt apparent like Trent bringing up O’Connor and Matt says, “oh my god”. So in other words he said “oh my that thing I don’t believe in”. Weird. 🤣
Keep up the good work!
Thank you Derek!
I also notice that Matt never gave a simple Yes to a question even when Trents questions were also yes/no questions. Such as "do you think it is unreasonable for historians to believe Christ was crucified under Pontius Pilate?"
15:40 Yeah! How dare Matt give his honest opinion about his position of not being convinced. His position IS NOT A "NO", it's a "not Yes". You should be embarrassed to call yourself a debate teacher to not understand the difference between "I affirm no", and "I do not affirm yes".
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 you mean weasel out of the debate like a foolish coward. 🤣🤣🤣🤣 same I’m not convinced every single argument and point somebody gives, with no justification is not honest. 🤣🤣🤣🤣 Who should be embarrassed.
Matt routinely expresses that he is not a typical “debater”. He usually prefers a “conversation” style debate. I agree with this. Conversations are almost always more productive.
Matt is not a typical “debater”. He prefers to “shout” and “scream” at opponents and “belittle” them without substance.
@@stcolreplover Only the trolls who refuse to answer a direct question or try to lie about what he's said.
Maybe so, but then he shouldn’t agree to a debate form. The reason the guy steers from debates is because he has no arguments. He never has. And that’s coming from an atheist.
@@sweetcell8767 That's because, as an atheist, he isn't trying to convince anyone. The burden of proof is on those who say there is a god.
@@sweetcell8767 true. It usually amounts to “i don’t know”
Arguments are not evidence
Our ministry is glad to hear you say you're done with Dillahunty. He comes in hoping to win with an authoritarian non-verbal style and a verificationist worldview. When he puts all his eggs in those baskets and assumes all of human reality will simply line up under those categories for himself, it makes for a terrible debate strategy. As you said, it doesn't make for profitable instruction. Sadly, many other atheists have relied on the same methods, so Dillahunty didn't even come up with it. If I had to guess, I would say Dillahunty tried his best to be a Christopher Hitchens-styled debater, but because he doesn't have the worldly experience of the late Hitchens, he lacks the depth behind his comments so his attitude just comes off as mere shallow condescension. Trent was excellent in his ability to shrug off distractions, focus on the arguments, and not lose himself in the senseless condescension thrown at him. Well done, Trent!
Matt Dillahunty A.K.A. King of the presuppositional bias of the supernatural. "Doubt asks sincere questions, but unbelief refuses to hear the answers." Dr. David Jeremiah
Christian debate teacher debates with Matt Dillahunty instead of actually trying to be unbiased. Here, I fixed the title for you.
It's like you're putting yourself in the christian debater's shoes and thinking of what you would have said to Matt. You're so biased that it's not even worth watching your video.
That’s not an argument.
matt is just lite version of ehrman in opposition of resurrection of Christ,better watch ehrman debate
I've got a question about debate. Would it be appropriate to point out in a debate like this as Matt is claiming that he is not convinced something along the lines of, "Well, that's great, however you are not the audience or the standard of reason, so I don't have to convince you."
I mean all topics with Matt are secretly named, change my mind, but I don't accept your evidence because I've judged it as faulty.
I like Trent Horn; my only real issue with him is the same issue I have with William Lane Craig; they criticize fellow Christians who believe in young-Earth Creation too harshly. For the first 1500 years of Church history, all the Early Church Fathers held to either a six-day Young-Earth Creation view or a hyper young-earth view. The hyper-young earth creationist believed that God created the universe in full maturity instantly; Origin and I think Augustine fell into this camp. Yes, Agustine and Origin believed in a young earth; I have noticed that few people know this, especially scholars.
Also, and more importantly, for many modern Christians, this still seems to be the plain reading of Scripture. So, while Young Earth Creationists may be wrong, they seem to line up with not only the Church taught for the first 1500 years of Chruch history, they also line up with the thoughts of the second temple Jews and all the Jewish theologians before them and the majority of them after. The YEC position may be wrong, but if so, we are honestly mistaken.
This post was not posted to argue the OEC or YEC positions, only to say that Christians need to show love or at least kindness to one another, not to attack or speak down to fellow Christians we may disagree with on secondary issues.
I hear you! Thanks so much for the comment (and for watching) :)
Fair points and a great review of this one sided debate!! Totally agree with you that it’s important that we respect where people have arrived in life at that particular point on their journey to faith whether they are a theist, deist, panentheist, agnostic or even an atheist. For Emanuel Kant, God's existence is utterly unknowable from the theoretical standpoint. It is for this reason, no doubt, that most theologians, particularly those who favour the use of such arguments, label Kant as a "deist." But Kant himself would have protested loudly, for he always regarded himself as a theist, i.e., as one who believes not just in "a God ," but "in a living God." His reason for denying the possibility of theoretical knowledge of God's existence is to insure that man stays in his proper place, as a believer, not as a knower. For "in order to believe in God," he maintains, "it is not necessary to know for certain that God exists." And by this he does not mean to deny the importance of upholding a finn conviction of God's existence, but only to point out that, however certain we are of God's reality in our lives. our certainty will be of a different sort than our empirical certainty that this chair exists, or than our transcendental certainty that all objects of our perception appear to us in space and time, or than our logical certainty that A=I=-A. Our certainty is different because all questions about belief in God belong to the practical perspective. To fail to recognize this difference is to open oneself up to a number of dangerously misleading illusions about the extent to which man can establish conclusions about a supremely perfect ontological ground of reality and existence. For any attempt to know God's existence theoretically implicitly requires "attributing omniscience to yourself."
Nevertheless, modern scholars have critiqued Immanuel Kant including David Hume showing the Hume and Kant's famous critiques are not nearly as strong as has been assumed. That’s just the nature of science, philosophy and modal logic. It’s a constantly changing landscape. Equally the natural “sciences” can’t prove anything as they are provisional and can only infer. However, paradigmatic truth and values, that is the metaphysical presupposition that there is “truth” teleology, epistemology out there and that we “ought” to protect human rights, freedom, the right to life, that is the idea that value exists remains basically the same.
Also I could be wrong but I thought it was Aquinas who suggested that creation didn’t have to occur literally 6000 years ago and he suggested the possibility of a sequence of events (potencies) or stages in nature that have similarities with evolution.
No offence intended all the best to you and your family and keep safe ❤️
This is going to be a shock to you because you probably arent aware. Christians have fought wars with each other because of the old Christian tradition that heretics must be killed. Of course I realize that killing on behalf of Jesus is all part of a long tradition that you would support if ordered to do so. .
I missed the part where Trent proved his claims. Two wrongs don't nake a right. But I suppose you have to cling to any straw you can when your position is faith based.
Matt’s entire debate style is “I don’t know and that’s ok to say that”. And “no I don’t accept that as truth unless it’s been done in an experiment”
Yes. That's all he has to say. He's not making the claim, Trent is. If you told me you had breakfast with a Leprechaun I would just say "You might have. But I won't believe it until I have proof."
@@SimpleCivil the topic of the debate was “is the resurrection reasonable?”
@@sly8926 True. And considering that there has never been a proven documented case since the beginning of time of someone dying and three days later coming back to life then I would have to say it is unreasonable
@@SimpleCivil But that’s just your belief, it’s not actually known to be true. You can’t assume that there’s never been such an event. How many of these claims of it have you investigated?
Nor can you assume that the absence of a previous occurrence makes it less likely to ever occur…
You’ve never died before. Does that mean it’s unreasonable to hold the belief that you will die?
There has been a documented case of a resurrection. In fact, we have testimonies from 5 different people attesting to it.
Simply dismissing arguments with "I'm not convinced" isn't real debate-it's avoiding engagement. To participate meaningfully, one must offer actual counterarguments, not just passive skepticism.
No, belief in the resurrection isn’t reasonable, because we have no evidence that resurrection is even possible, and every reason to think that it isn’t. End of debate. In no world is the resurrection actually happening the best explanation for stories about it. Clearly the best explanation is it’s simply a story.
The Iron Man analogy was basically a sketch from Kids in the Hall back in the day. Not sure if you were familiar with it but it's that exact scenario.
th-cam.com/video/5PyAO91qArI/w-d-xo.htmlsi=2hWWx_QDnKAbWJ4y
Watching matt get mad is hilarious.
He can't or wont answer the harder questions he's asked.
But you damn well better answer his questions or his temper will rise.
I have to say; The moment when Trent said "I'm not interested in what convinces you" was the most satisfying blow ever dealt to Matt Dillahunty
I am not interested in what you believe, but in what you can prove.
Seems like an equally satisfying blow, but let me guess, you don't think so, right?
@@ztrinx1 It not because "I'm not convinced" is like, Dillahaunty's most obnoxious phrase. Thus, saying "'I'm not convinced' is not an argument" is far more satisfying than saying "'I believe X' is not an argument".
That's idiotic.
Matt asking for a doctors note as evidence then saying i wouldnt except testimonial evidence was stupid.
What testimonial evidence? A claim that there is testimonial evidence, isn’t testimonial evidence.
This was weird. I've never seen someone interpret an encounter so completely opposite of me. You claim him saying I'm not convinced is a sneaky tactic but that's his position in the debate. Trent never proved anything and tried to play word games and matt didn't bite. I'm glad you liked the other side because I don't at all and I hate for Trent to go unappreciated.
You don't understand the structure of the debate. The debate is not an intervention to convince the opposing side of anything, but rather to convince other parties. Trent laid put arguments, and Matt ignored them. As someone who has debated this is a big no, no.
Think of it on some other topic. Like, we should paint all cars blue or whatever. Trent lays out arguments. Matt doesn't say he's convinced. Trent WINS.
There is no presumed correct position (thats what the debate is to determine). And each side is SUPPOSED to not be convinced, so Matt unwavering on his position is irrelevant.
And judge (i.e. the audience) you are to judge based on the merits of the debates, not on your own opinions. So if Trent offers reasons, and Matt does not, there is no other foundation to determine Matt as the winner.
@@zeroisnine hhahahahahaha Trent wins because matt still isn't convinced. Very dishonest tactic. You don't understand how skepticism works
Have a debate with Matt Dillahunty
I really find it rather silly that one could claim that Trent Horn "won" the debate purely on following the technical aspect of it, or Matt Dillahuntu's inability to support whatever claims you think he was making. The topic of the debate was "is belief in the resurrection reasonable" and considering what science has show us about medicine, biology, and just how the human body works, I don't feel like we need to go any further than to answer "suggesting that it might be reasonable to believe in any resurrection is flagrantly anti-scientific". How you could possibly "win" a debate on this topic if you take the affirmative position is just beyond my understanding. Focusing only on the technical aspect of the debate format and declaring that Trent Horn "won" this debate doesn't at all accurately portray the strength of the two positions being argued.
The only real question that I found worthy of pause is "what resurrection claims have you investigated?". That's an interesting question, but I'd like to know what resurrection claims have been published in peer reviewed scientific journals for me, or others, to investigate? What resurrection claims are taken seriously by any reputable scientific organization or by the scientific community as a whole? I think the answer is clear: None! Actual resurrection just isn't something we take seriously as something that really happens or has happened. This debate was over before it started.
The question is gibberish. A claim is an unsupported assertion by definition. Why on earth would you ask someone if they have investigated something that has already been assigned the property of unsupported?
@@Lucky7Wolfin A claim is an assertion, that is true, but not necessarily unsupported. You can make a claim and provide support for that claim. Whether a claim is supported or not is separate from the assertion of the claim itself. You can investigate a claim, supported or not, to determine its veracity. My point is that resurrection claims and the mechanics of life and death have been investigated, thoughouly, and are no longer taken seriously by the scientific community. That's why you won't find any published work on it worth examining.
@@axemel Ehhh no.
@@Lucky7Wolfin what are you saying no to?
The problem, of course, is that he assumes that his position is the default position, and that anyone who disagrees with him has either rejected the default position, or added something irrational on top of it. I may take slightly a different approach, I actually kind of agree with Matt Dillahunty on this issue (and I am indeed a Christian). I don’t personally think that the eyewitness testimony of the writers of the gospels and the sincere belief that Jesus had risen from the dead, necessarily proves anything in the ordinary sense that we normally think. I trust their testimony, that they believed it sincerely, but it’s also my personal experience of following Christ that confirms in my mind, my belief that Jesus rose from the dead. I wouldn’t match that up with historical verification necessarily in the same way that we might verify outcome of some war in the 1200s or who the 14th president was. It may be a bit softer of a version of what William lane Craig calls reasonable faith. I think it’s reasonable to believe that Jesus rose from the dead, but I don’t think that we can prove that it happened by ordinary means, and I’m not certain God expects us to. We are to always have a reason for the hope we have within us, but that reason is Christ himself, not proof of his resurrection. But overall, horn did do a phenomenal job of calling out dillahuntys absolute arrogance in establishing himself as the arbiter of truth, and I appreciate how you have distilled out his role shifting, his use of rhetoric in place of logic, and avoidance of actually answering questions.
Every vid: “ … the lock-heater does .. “
What the heck is a Lock-heater?!?
Should have title this video ”debate teacher engages in confirmation bias"
1 falsifiable claim Is still better than 600 unfalsifiable claims.
THANK YOU
Hovind vs Ra NEEDS to be next.
Got it! 👊🏼👊🏼👊🏼
@@WiseDisciple I want that one so bad. I have Aron Ra’s book with his autograph. An episode on that would be amazing.
You seem mostly interested in winning the debate, Matt is only interested in getting at the truth.
Love these videos, you catch things that I don't! I liked this one especially, because I can't stand Matt dillahunty! He's a guy that's always kind of snarky, and looks like he's on top. Now I can listen to his debates and others with a better understanding, thank you!
You're welcome Dwayne! Thanks for watching 😊
Make yourself happy!
This is why Andrew ate Matt's lunch in another debate.
I don’t understand why Matt Dillahunty gets the following he does. Yeah, he’s funny and charismatic, and he’s quick on his feet but some of the methods he uses are just stupid, apart from a few exceptions.
This is a random note: Matt identifies as an atheist, but at times he sounds like an agnostic. That’s to me at least.
I hear ya! Matt really is a smart guy, which is really weird why he does what he does in debates.
Ah yes, this one again. Christians having no idea about what Atheists have said for decades. Unbelievable ignorance. Once and for all - the vast majority of atheists are agnostic atheists.
@@WiseDisciple Thank you for demonstrating that you don't even understand the subject matter.
Because Matt started a cult. As these 2 extra commentators have further demonstrated.
@@plzenjoygameosu2349 So you have no idea what a cult is. Please, explain exactly how either of our comments even remotely suggested that we are part of a "cult". Come on, explain. I'm sure you can back up what you said, right? It wasn't just more unjustified nonsense from a theist, was it? What am I saying--that's all you people have. (By the way, nice projection. A zombie Jesus believer screaming "cult". Pathetic.)
Trent Horn vs Humpty Dumpty
Trent Horn the Winner of this debate - Matt Dillahunty Lost Bigtime!
I don't think that "Set the timer, Baby!", "That's right", "Kudos", "Mmh", "Yeah", "Right" add anything to the debate at all.
hmm, both men were, in hindsight, incorrect about vaccines, and the professional in that field who spoke the truthful facts were right. note the 'professionals' who held both these men's views were wrong. right was to speak and not be shut down.
Or don’t watch a compressed version of the debate explained by a bias source and watch the entire debate on your own.
Argh! Thought this was an objective reaction frim a debate expert. You should tell people you're a one-sided Christian before they waste time on your videos
Feels like Matt’s only debate tactic is to keep moving the goalposts
Trent never answered no Trent was
just because you want there to be a resurrection doesnt justify you claiming there was one...prove it prove that its medically / scientifically possible and I would think using bronzed aged " ignorant of moderan science" story's " which they are " story's"wouldn't be honest
Weather you wanna believe in the bible or not, its definitely not unreasonable when you honestly look into it, Matt basically claims all historical evidence is nonsense while at the same time not knowing how they get historical knowledge. Matt changed the subject mid debate claiming you cannot convince him when that was never what the debate was about. Im not religious and dont claim one but I understand how people believe it and respect all opinions. The more I listened to Matt the more I saw his bullshit.
Tent Horn definitely won the problem is a lot of people reason the Matt does and then take offense when someone tells them no amount of evidence would convince them. It’s getting harder and harder to speak with people who presuppose their own views without being willing to listen to contrary evidence.
Matt Dillahunty has a large, sycophantic following. Many are impressed by the" Dillahunty Dodge'. A time honored tactic of Matt Dillahunty-' ' Well it depends on what you mean by............!'( insert word here).
-' Not necessarily!!! There could be a third option!!! One which I am not going to provide!!! I'm only going to mention it!!'..
Etc
You mean specificity for the sake of clarity? He asks for a specific definition so the other side doesnt try to play the definition game and trick him into saying something he doesn't agree with. For your second point, he usually does provide a third option if there is an obvious one, but oftentimes the point is that the opposite side is using a black and white fallacy in those cases.
@@shantheman9922 No. I mean obfuscation and bs. That's exactly what I mean. Nice try defending the Dillahunty Dodge.
@@shantheman9922 Well it depends on what you mean by' clarity'!!!!!!!( See how quickly Matt Dillahunty's bs can be played right back???!!)
@@shantheman9922 Well it depends on what you mean by' definition'!!!!!
@@shantheman9922 Well it depends on what you mean by' specificity'!!!!!
You are correct Nate. That is exactly what Matt is doing, on purpose, and he does it a lot. He thinks sying im just not convinced is an argument. Im so glad someone is calling out his bs.
I mean… all that the apologists are saying is that they find the evidence convincing.
Obviously they wouldn’t accept the same evidence in any other situation or for other religions.
I think your the expression "pints with Aquinas" has less to do with blood and vampires and more to do with having an intelligent discussion over a beer. Although it's a very British expression, 'to have a pint.' meaning to go to the pub. And having, as your drinking companion, the great medieval philosopher and priest, Thomas Aquinas.
Matt's technique is... "Nuhuh"
Have you analyzed Peter Williams' debates -- particularly with James White? You should. Williams tackles tougher tthings in catholicism (marian dictrines, purgatory) and is very good.
excellent!
Thanks for watching, Kevin! 😊
It is true that matt claimed ressurections do not happen as a positive claim and that gives him the burden of proof which he can't do , and you and trench call him out on it and you're correct , but you didn't provide the correction or the better rephrasing for this argument against the ressurection which is ( I'm not aware of any ressurection that has been objectively demonstrated ) and you kept reacting as if ressurection are something normal and matt is just an idiot to deny, he is wrong about his argument but his position of not taking for granted a claim still stands and you ignored that but, which shows that the very least your reaction was not fair to both debaters and it was idealogically biases against a certain position.
I have listened to hours of him on the atheist experience and “I’m not convinced” along with a barrage of insults and then hanging up on callers was his tactic the vast majority of the time.
The goal should be to convince us, not to spout the bible and not listen to why we say that is not convincing.
Sure, but was *reasonable evidence of a resurrection presented?* Should we be convinced? Because I'm not really seeing theist commenters on this video presenting evidence, and all we seem to have is *one book's claims,* and I feel like you wouldn't believe if 4-6 commenters showed up in this thread telling you I resurrected, right?
@@tonygoodkind7858
If you are saying that all there is for the Resurrection is some TH-cam comments then you are either absolutely illiterate on the topic you want to speak so confidently to, or you are under the influence of some semi legal or directly illegal substance....
@@luboshcamber1992 Well we have 4-6 anonymous authors in the Bible saying it happened (equivalent to anonymous youtube commenters). *Now: provide all the extrabiblical evidence of a resurrection you can find.* (Please do try. It's important you go through the process of realizing how non-existent it is.)
@@luboshcamber1992 Did you try? So now do you see why it isn't reasonable to believe in a resurrection?
If anyone ever needs Trent Horn to be a character in film or television, Miles Teller should play him
I thought I was the only one who saw the miles teller resemblance 😂
Matt Dillahunty has been doing this for a long time. I’m so glad someone is finally calling him out on his BS. He never deals with the real questions. He is a master rhetorician!
He is not! He is an angry bully and he got his bout whipped!!!
@@wessbess He is not what?
@@MarkMetternichPhotographyLLC i think the other dude is saying that Dillahunty is not a master rhetorician
@@wessbess Bingo he is a pseudo intellectual, and an intellectual bully.
As Nate said on another debate review, no one should ever debate Dillahunty. Nate was more polite about it but I'll just say it bluntly. Dillahunty is a clown.
I’m Agnostic but that last exchange was incredibly frustrating. Matt literally says that what he would need to accept a resurrection is testimonial evidence, but then disguises it as something else. Then he tries to pin Trent by making him admit that he would accept something on testimonial evidence alone, while saying that that is not sufficient, even though that’s literally what Matt just said he would need. That makes absolutely no sense yet he continues to try and just bully Trent into it and take it as a big win. Incredibly confusing and dishonest take by Matt. Honestly pretty embarrassing and incredibly unreasonable on his part there.
Thank you for sharing! I’m glad it’s not just Christian who think Matt was frustrating. 😃
Matt isnt concerned with the truth only winning the debate. This is why he has it set up to his advantage. im glad people are finally calling him out on it.
And the thing I dislike about him in particular and his brand is his audience, I can’t stand 90% of his audience. And also what annoyed me was in his debate with Tyler Vela,people in the comments were complaining, that Tyler didn’t present evidence for God, he kept asking Matt throughout the entire debate what evidence would convince him, and he couldn’t even make up his mind. And Tyler ask him if God rearranged the stars to spell his name, would he accept that as evidence and he said yes and then literally immediately after he said he would accept that he immediately undermines that, by saying that’s ridiculous and he could never accept that.
The biggest issue is just Matt he doesn’t care about the topic he just doesn’t care, I think that is the biggest insult.
I don’t think Matt is intellectually capable for a debate, he’s just a bully pretty pathetic.
Matt's been doing this for a loooong time. He has a loyal following so he won't change his methods. David Robertson also showed how to handle Matt in a 1 on 1 discussion/debate.
Absolutely. Spot on. Robertson handed Matt Dillahunty his a**. Both debates they engaged in.
As did Andrew Wilson, since he made Matt ragequit a few months ago lol
I'm not even a Christian, and yet I find that the comments on the original video being laudatory of Dillahunty shows how people simply do not know what a debate is...
Out of curiosity, why not a Christian? :)
@@FuddlyDud Well, obviously I am culturally a Christian, like everyone in the West, but I can't say that I'm a believer.
I'm very sympathetic toward a theistic worldview because of the various philosophical and scientific arguments derived, notably, from the Big Bang and the fine-tuning of the universe, as well as the possible implications of quantum physics.
Nevertheless, I find myself unconvinced by the evidence regarding the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. Some of it is fascinating but not quite enough for me, as I find myself rather violently struggling with it.
I just can't make the leap of faith despite being thoroughly unimpressed with the debating skills and intellectual prowess of so-called atheist thinkers.
@@j-psavoie8173
Well, it sounds like you've really wrestled with all the best arguments so far! Good on you man! :)
On the evidence for the ressurection of Jesus, how do you approach the evidence that we do have?
I am curious since I have changed how I measure the evidence and would love to chat about it and (hopefully) we can trade perspectives on it! :)
@@FuddlyDud How would you like to chat about it? I agree that it would probably be an interesting conversation.
@@j-psavoie8173
I am available via phone, email, or we can just go back and forth here. What works for you? :)
I like how Matt asks a loaded question at the end. He can't answer yes or no without appearing guilty of something. If he says no, then that proves Matts point that you shouldn't believe solely on testimony. If he says yes, he's going to be saying that yes this is the only thing that will make him believe. When It's not that Trent is saying either of these, he's saying he's going to have a confidence level by accepting these testimonials as a piece of evidence not that this is the ONLY WAY he's going to accept the resurrection. Which is leading into a strawman fallacy. Matt just likes to get hot headed when ever he's against the ropes and always resorts to some type of fallacy. This is the problem when the time belongs to only one person asking questions. Matt however loves to not answer questions when ever he thinks someone is misinterpreting what he's saying but demands the other person to answer the question regardless of what he has to say. This just makes Matt a hypocrite with anger issues.
That’s why they call him a Dillahunty dodge he doesn’t even attempt to give a justification for his stance in this debate, and really he doesn’t ever take a position in any debate most of the time, because he says that he doesn’t need to take any position he lacks any and all the burden of proof because atheism is nothing more than a lack of belief and requires no justification and carries no proof proof, I find it hilarious that people say Christian take the burden of proof and there definitely are questions I do shift bonus proof, but a prime example of an atheist who does this especially debate is Dillahunty he will change the subject or he will move the goal post or he will just completely dodge the question altogether just so he doesn’t ever have to defend his own claims and presuppositions, I don’t get why he has such a big fan base I mean I’m sure that he’s a nice guy if I met him in person, but he doesn’t seem to be able to actually engage in any topic dealing with philosophy or Christianity be on the most superficial level possible.
It’s not a loaded question because every piece of evidence Trent has is testimonial. He doesn’t have physical evidence and probability isn’t on his side. Other than hearsay Trent has no way to link his claim to being a real world event.
@@pleaseenteraname1103 The reason why Dillahunty has a large fan base is because Atheism is a cult religion, so his fellow cult members feel they must follow him.
@@CelticSpiritsCoven I feel like the appeal also comes with the fact that Dillahunty used to be a Christian fundamentalist, so he speaks to people who also had fundamentalist upbringing who have a resentment towards the Christian faith now. So they cling to people like Dillahunty and etc.
49.00 trent says he believes people come back from the dead as someone says so mate...
@ Wise Disciple: It would be cool to see you review James White vs Trent Horn. They have only had one debate and it’s on TH-cam. I believe it is on can a Christian lose their salvation. It seems like it would be edifying to see a review of a well-handled debate from both sides. Love the reviews. They are helpful.
Got it on the list, thank you Chris!
18:40 Dillahunty believes in "Only the things that can be empirically verified are the things that we should hold onto." This is somewhat ironic and hypocritical considering that he believes that trans-women are real women.
That's because trans people have been verified by science. Lol how embarrassing for you.
That has what to do with the topic of this debate? Nothing, is your brain too small to stay on topic?
It’s kind of the ultimate counter to any of his arguments.
That is a bad argument because Matt is using a different definition of woman than you are, one that can be empirically verified by merely asking a person what gender they are, and receiving a sincere answer.
@@shreddedhominid1629 Man, woman. You’re the one you were born as. Regardless of whatever language you use.
Im very happy Horn us getting praise, he is one of the best in my opinion!
Agreed.
Three questions for Matt:
1. Matt wants physical evidence for Jesus since (according to him) historical records are just claims, and (again according to him) claims are not evidence. In that case how would he know that the physical evidence that he so desperately wants, belonged to Jesus? There would be only historical claims that those physical evidence belonged to Jesus. But (according to Matt) he shouldn't trust claims, which means he shouldn't trust the physical evidence neither. Which means he shouldn't trust anything from history.
2. If Matt is not a historian and he doesn't care what methods historians use, does that mean that because historians agree that Jesus was real, means that there is proof of Jesus, but since he's not a historian, he doesn't know that there is proof of Jesus cause he doesn't recognize it as proof since, again he's not a historian.
3. Yes, the covid vaccine is science, but did he test the vaccine in the lab to see if it works, or does he just trusts the doctors' claims that the vaccine works, and that he should take it?
3. is fairly obvious, we have peer reviewed research for vaccine efficacy - there is no peer reviewed evidence for any supernatural. Ever.