ไม่สามารถเล่นวิดีโอนี้
ขออภัยในความไม่สะดวก
Atheist Debates - Debate Review: Is belief in the resurrection reasonable?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 29 เม.ย. 2021
- From a debate with Tren Horn on the Pints with Aquinas channel - we go through Trent's standads for finding something unreasonable and show that his belief fails his own criteria.
"Moses' snake was bigger" is a pretty good summary of the Old Testament.
"My god is better than yours and the walls of my house are so thick I hear nothing at all" - Rise Against
Copy, paste, paste share.
🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️
Matt's snake would be bigger couse he's a magician😉
Yeah but sometimes the thickness matters
One of the most valuable aspects of watching you, Matt, is that you expose these ‘tricks’ as you call them. They’re very difficult to spot while they’re occurring, or even after the fact, for me at least. But having you spell it out like this makes them easier to spot, again, for me at least. So thanks.
Recently I have been watching videos about historians work, their tools and their methodology. Saw even a clip of Bart Ehrman forcefully stating that historians cannot prove the resurrection, even if it was real. Historians take all the pieces of evidence they have: writings, archeology, geography etc. (which in the case of ancient events are usually very scarse) and build a tentative reconstruction of the events which is always naturalistic and based on parsimony (Occam’s razor). Basically they answer the question: given what we have what is most probable that happened? Having no actual evidence for it the supernatural is never an option. A historian was admitting that even perfectly possible but unlikely events get excluded unless there’s clear indication for it.
Therefore even if we had a series of written first hand accounts of people claiming that they saw the risen Jesus there’s a series of mundane explanations that would be preferred because they are more likely than an actual resurrection.
And the gospels are not treated any differently or with more “skepticism” than others sources. Plenty of supernatural claims attached to (especially) ancient historical figures but no historians take them as factual. History books don’t say that Alexander the Great was fathered by a god, they say that such a rumor was circulated. Same for the pharaohs and a multitude of others.
Point being that it’s not that historians don’t want to accept the resurrection, they can’t because there’s no way to prove it after 2000 years. God however could, if he existed and was so inclined.
Yup, most people have zero issue with Alexander the Great, or even some of the more extraordinary things about his conquests and stuff.
Because we know things like that are possible. But the claims that Alexander was also a god or son of a god, that tends to be thrown out. Because that's going a bit beyond just unlikely things extremely outlandish ones.
Proof of resurrection
Shroud of Turin .
The Shroud of Turin is a centuries old linen cloth that bears the image of a crucified man. A man that millions believe to be Jesus of Nazareth. Is it really the cloth that wrapped his crucified body, or is it simply a medieval forgery, a hoax perpetrated by some clever artist? Modern science has completed hundreds of thousands of hours of detailed study and intense research on the Shroud. It is, in fact, the single most studied artifact in human history, and we know more about it today than we ever have before. And yet, the controversy still rages. This web site will keep you abreast of current research, provide you with accurate data from the previous research and let you interact with the researchers themselves. We believe that if you have access to the facts, you can make up your own mind about the Shroud. Make sure you visit the page where you can Examine the Shroud of Turin for yourself. We hope you enjoy your visit. Barrie M. Schwortz, Editor.
shroud.com/
th-cam.com/video/w4RBXVs70_g/w-d-xo.html
m.th-cam.com/video/4G4sj8hUVaY/w-d-xo.html
@@mathew4181 it has been studied, and it appears to be a fake.
@@shanewilson7994 No I can prove it with scientific evidences
@@mathew4181 pretty sure you can't prove it with scientific evidence, but go for it.
But he Shroud, like I said, has been C14 tested and it was shown to not be old enough.
I guess you can look at the trolls as a sign that your arguments are actually affecting people and making some folks worried. Similar to you I was raised in Church, but could never get good answers to my questions. I became an atheist before finding you on TH-cam, but I enjoy watching your videos and debates. Thanks Matt!
Same here. Matt, Seth, and Aaron are my favorites. Lloyd Evans is pretty cool too
What arguments did Matt make? Matt is just a skeptic to be a skeptic. He’s a really poor debater.
@@TheOnlyStonemason point proven
@@TheOnlyStonemason You're being manifestly dishonest. Matt makes many good arguments in this and all of his debates, and he makes them extremely clearly. He is by any objective standard an excellent debater. You are more than welcome to disagree with him, or to conclude that his arguments do not convince you personally, but to assert that he doesn't make arguments and debates poorly just demonstrates that you are a dishonest troll.
@@1970Phoenix , given you didn’t state one counter example…LOL. You can keep your ad hominem attacks coming because they make your support of Matt’s arguments look weak.
The Internet has strengthened my faith that people are fallible and want to believe in the extraordinary. I can only imagine how fallible they were 2,000 year ago.
Exactly. The fact that some people can accept the shroud of Turin as evidence, yet at the same time deny evolution is a very good example of personal bias leading to 🍒 picking.
I don't think you need faith to believe that people are dumb. We have plenty of evidence. :)
It strengthens my faith in the fact that opposing views are deleted so only supporting views are allowed. You should be thankful that your wasn't tagged as a bad one for delete!!
@@dugdug768 Agreed!!
Magical thinking galore!
personally i believe that the fact there's a group that follows you around just to harass you shows the impact you have. It's not just that theyre afraid of your reasoning or intellect, but of your influence. Nice.
He's the End-Boss of atheism. They expect a rare achievement to share on social media.
Nah plenty of people that have influence doesn't get harassed. What's most likely the cause is that Mr Dillahunty was very upset about people trolling in chat previously. Thus making it more fun for them to try it again, follow him around and call him a nazi or whatnot, hoping he will freak out.
The best method for avoiding it is to just ignore it and not talk about it. Makes it less entertaining for them. Eventually if a person doesn't get any response they will give it up.
@@Ratatosk80 Don't not doesn't get harassed. Try editing again.
@@torstrasburg8289 Ok point taken I guess. I'm not from an English speaking country so my grammar isn't perfect.
@@Ratatosk80
You’re saying that Matt reacting to trolls causes the trolls to begin with?
Sounds like victim blaming.
It's so strong that both parties can go out and get stuck in to each other, but remain respectful after the fact
Great review of the debate, I really enjoy your videos, Matt!
Matt you are awesome! Keep doing your amazing work!
Loved the magician metaphor! That and the supernatural bucket will always be in my toolbox for resurrection discussions thanks to Matt
It helps magicians to have a supernatural bucket or two.
The big person-sized one is expensive.
Trent was a disaster in regards to understanding the reality of facts and evidence as he's desperately holding onto claims with faith which believeing in belief with the absolute nigation of empirical evidence....
Great job as always Matt.
Great job Matt. You are the champion of these blind atheists. If the blind lead the blind, both shall stumble and fall into the ditch.
Was really looking forward to this one. Thanks very much.
I watched the debate and though Trent´s opening statement my brain played Pailogia´s "for the bible tells me so" jingle all the time.
Yup. Blue Ox all the way...
It's the Darth Dawkins crew, you are their messiah and enemy all in one.they need you.
The joker to their Batman?
Darth Dawkins is crazy. The worst christian apologist I ever see.
@@marketingweb8772 his argument has been debunked 100’s of times. He insists on defining god into existence.
@@AMikeStein Matt is Batman in this one.
@@garygood6804 I think Matt, in general, is Batman to the apologists.
I'm so glad to see another upload.
Great job helping people think! 😊
For sure!!!
Yay, a new upload! I can't tell what mic that is but it looks like a quality one.
Matt you rock!!! Thank you for sharing your insight, logic and knowledge. 10/10!!!!!
Matt, I love your debates. I'm sorry a vocal minority of people are messing with you, it really is sad.
Proof of resurrection
Shroud of Turin .
The Shroud of Turin is a centuries old linen cloth that bears the image of a crucified man. A man that millions believe to be Jesus of Nazareth. Is it really the cloth that wrapped his crucified body, or is it simply a medieval forgery, a hoax perpetrated by some clever artist? Modern science has completed hundreds of thousands of hours of detailed study and intense research on the Shroud. It is, in fact, the single most studied artifact in human history, and we know more about it today than we ever have before. And yet, the controversy still rages. This web site will keep you abreast of current research, provide you with accurate data from the previous research and let you interact with the researchers themselves. We believe that if you have access to the facts, you can make up your own mind about the Shroud. Make sure you visit the page where you can Examine the Shroud of Turin for yourself. We hope you enjoy your visit. Barrie M. Schwortz, Editor.
shroud.com/
th-cam.com/video/w4RBXVs70_g/w-d-xo.html
m.th-cam.com/video/4G4sj8hUVaY/w-d-xo.html
@@mathew4181 shroud of turin proves only one thing. Christians don't think historical evidence of resurrection is strong enough, and that's why they desperately want something material, magical, miraculous
@@shreku123 Atheists prove only one thing- they don't think the evidence that God doesn't Exist is as strong as they claim- hence the pathological obsession and need to have Radio Call in shows... like..-' The Atheist Experience'(' I Don't Believe That Something Exists Experience').
The Dillahunty Dodge.
Matt is just a skeptic to be a skeptic. He isn’t good at debates at all. BTW, loved how he was triggered by the mere mention of Alex...completely understand why because his answer to Trent didn’t align with his discussion with Alex. I agree with Matt that Alex is crazy about veganism , but still weird to see how he was triggered. Matt is a poor debater, just an ultimate skeptic.
I learn a lot from how you explain the flaws in an argument.
I would really love to live in a world where apologists stopped being dishonest... with themselves.
I used to think there was something wrong with me for not believing their arguments, that there was something I missed, that they couldn't be that dishonest... I was wrong.
@@mism847 Yeah. That’s part of what makes you different from them. You readily admit you were wrong, but would they do the same?
Yeah, but then they wouldn't be apologists, except for those with significant psychological disorders.
@@mism847 And I used to think there was something seriously wrong with me because I couldn´t feel the Holy Spirit come over/in me. How hard I prayed. It just didn´t happen! Now my point of view is like your internet name ;-)
Well, if a person is deluded, then they are actually being honest with themselves. But if they actively takes steps to avoid having their misconceptions corrected, then you could argue that they are being dishonest.
10:10 “It’s just that Moses’ ‘snake’ was bigger.”
Anyone else wanting to know where this debate is / watch, since they kinda forgot to put it in the description:
th-cam.com/video/7V6UNSvHVDM/w-d-xo.html
You rock Matt, and thank you for all that you do!
I wasn't invited to this pint! How dare they Aquinas without me 🤣
Don't be such an Aquiner.
I tend to hide the chat these days. There's never anything worthwhile happening in there but babyshit.
I also hide chat. It's distracting and I'd rather focus on the debate.
same, chat's tend to be meaningless distractions.
Jesus would not be accepted as existing, if he wasn't connected to a major religion.
There are zero primary historical sources for the existence of Jesus, but it's ignored by historians and even secular Biblical historians.
Historical method does not specify that primary sources are needed to accept that someone existed. Secondary sources can suffice.
For example, no historian doubt that Paul of Tarse existed, even if we have no letter written from his hand, only copies.
Fortunately, otherwise there would be no historians or historical research on ancient times or even the middle ages, as primary sources are scarce.
@@chefchaudard3580
There are copies of the books he wrote, and a religion he made up.
Pretty difficult to do those things if you don't exist..........
Being a character in said book, is quite easy to do while not existing.
@@kevinshort3943 most scholars agree that an historical Jesus existed, nonetheless.
There is evidence for that, mainly things in the gospels that do not fit with a made up character. Things that forced the authors to do some tap dancing, like Crucifixion, birth in Bethlehem, and few more things. Paul mentions also 'James, the brother of jesus', who is also mentioned by Flavius Josephus, the Jewish historian.
@@chefchaudard3580
"most scholars agree that an historical Jesus existed, nonetheless."
They do, even the secular ones, and I don't understand why.
"There is evidence for that, mainly things in the gospels that do not fit with a made up character."
But they are all in the Gospels.
Harry Potter books contain things that aren't fictitious too, does that mean Harry Potter is real?
"who is also mentioned by Flavius Josephus, the Jewish historian."
So...................?
Yay!! One line written decades after the event, and on a different continent.
Well I'm convinced :(
Josephus is writing a "History" for his patron - better make it exciting, or he won't get paid.
He also includes in the "History" Adam and Eve - I'm convinced it real history and not a made up story for his patron.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiquities_of_the_Jews
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus
As I said, "Jesus would not be accepted as existing, if he wasn't connected to a major religion.".
@@kevinshort3943
"They do, even the secular ones, and I don't understand why."
there is enough evidence to convince secular scholars that an historical Jesus likely existed. I cannot go through all the evidence in a YT comment, but Bart Ehrman is a good source (he is not the only one, of course, Pr Dale Martin in Yale courses here on YT is another one).
I'll just give you two of them:
- Crucifixion. Why making up, if Jesus was a myth, that he was crucified? This was entirely counterproductive in converting people. Jews could not see the Messiah in some dude that was put to death, as the Messiah was supposed to free them, not die. And most of them remained unconvinced, btw. For the people of the Roman Empire, crucifixion was a shameful death. Imagine today a cult led by some guy freed from Guantanamo. He would have a hard time converting people in the USA.
The best explanation is that Jesus was actually crucified, and the authors of the Gospels could not go around that, and had to downplay it or find a convincing explanation.
- Born in Bethlehem. The Gospels have to find some explanation on why Jesus was born in Bethlehem. The authors have to have him born there, because it is where the Messaiah is supposed to be born in prophecies. But Jesus was evidently from Galilea. The authors have to go through uncinvincing explanations for that.
If Jesus was made up, it would have been simpler to call him 'Jesus the Judean", born in Bethlehem.
"But there are in the Gospels... Harry Potter books contain things that aren't fictitious too, does that mean Harry Potter is real?"
The Gospels are ancient religious texts, like many others. Some things are considered to be true, for reasons (see above), some are simply discarded by scholars, like the miracles and resurrection. To take your analogy: Egyptians texts mention that Pharaoh was a god. "they contains things that aren't fictious too, does it mean Pharaoh was real?" Yes, we think that Pharaoh existed, for reasons.
"Josephus is writing a "History" for his patron - better make it exciting, or he won't get paid."
Sorry, I don't understand what you try to say. Josephus "Antiquities of the Jews" consists of 20 books. Jesus is cited only twice: the controversial Testimonium Flavianum, and indirectly "James, the brother of Jesus, called the Christ". How is it exciting for his patrons? Flavius Josephus is the best source we have for the ancient Jewish world in the first century. As any writer, he is biased, and it is precisely the job of historians to critically analyse his writings. But no scholar would discard him entirely just because he believed that "Adam and Eve were history". That would make no sense at all.
"As I said, "Jesus would not be accepted as existing, if he wasn't connected to a major religion."."
I beg to differ: many people in history, starting with the numerous preachers cited by Josephus, are accepted as existing, simply because we have no reason to assume they were made up. Connection to a major religion is irrelevant.
Matt has always said religions have self protective measures. The grand daddy of them all is probably the ability of christian apologists to shield their own religious beliefs off from the skepticism and criticism they apply to every other belief they hold in every other facet of life.
Correct me if I'm wrong but don't Christian's believe that Jesus ascended to heaven with his physical body? Isn't that very Joseph Smith-esce? He needs a physical form in the spiritual realm?
Not quite. The resurrection body is different (theologically) from a birth body. Christians believe that one day they will be physically resurrected, but the bodies that they are resurrected with will have properties that their current earthly bodies lack. Hence Jesus ability post-resurrection to appear in a locked room having seemingly teleported in. The resurrection body is capable of things that the earthly body is not.
The spirit world is physical. Its a physical world. Our reality isnt reality. Its going to end.
The Christ/Messiah of 1Cor 15 is recorded as having "died for our sins ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES . . . buried and rose again the third day ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES" - decades before the author of Mark introduced his Jesus to the literary world claiming him to be the Christ/Messiah.foretold in the Hebrew Scriptures..
While the Messiah/Christ of the Epistles serves as lone salvific figure, the Jesus of the Gospels is presented as a teacher, one who takes on disciples and founds a school, addressing his followers in the language of the author's audience.
Jesus Christ fulfilled over 300 Old Testament prophecies, this is why he was aligned with the scriptures.
I enjoy the Atheist channel, Talk Heathen, and your debates, Matt. Aron Ra is a terrific science v. creation explainer. I am an Atheist and all these information sources plus many others are great resources for critical thinking. Thank you.
Hey Matt! Love most of what you say and I respect you as a thinker. I watched this debate and I love the way you pressed Trent. I really think that debate may have been your best ever, but I think the chat distracted you and then the moderator and Trent as well. Please leave those people to the chat moderators and focus on the content at hand whether it's a show of yours or a debate. I think it will help all around.
You really pissed me off when I was still a Christian. Then I opened my Bible, listened to other speakers, and did some research. I realized you hadn't lied to me. The anger you instilled in me helped provoke me to find the truth as best humans currently know it.
U dont get something from nothing also ur weird.
@@repent.sinner prove there was ever nothing to begin with. You can't so your point is irrelevant. Prove you can't make something from nothing..
Also if God can make something from nothing apparently you can make something from nothing. That's literally the worst theistic argument ever.
@@alexnunn1932 👎 next!
@@repent.sinner It is not simply something coming from nothing , but science is saying that the nothing is NO Thing yet known by scientific methods and know-how.
To say a super creator is the answer , is an argument based on wishful thinking building on ignorance , as evolution shows the world creating itself from DNA.
Ancient man believed in many gods and as many gods as there was tribes and nations to explain the unexplainable , because they could not rise up to the true scientific understanding of the universe .
great points and great review. the debate format was weird but more controlled then modern day
Keep up the good work.
Proof of resurrection
Shroud of Turin .
The Shroud of Turin is a centuries old linen cloth that bears the image of a crucified man. A man that millions believe to be Jesus of Nazareth. Is it really the cloth that wrapped his crucified body, or is it simply a medieval forgery, a hoax perpetrated by some clever artist? Modern science has completed hundreds of thousands of hours of detailed study and intense research on the Shroud. It is, in fact, the single most studied artifact in human history, and we know more about it today than we ever have before. And yet, the controversy still rages. This web site will keep you abreast of current research, provide you with accurate data from the previous research and let you interact with the researchers themselves. We believe that if you have access to the facts, you can make up your own mind about the Shroud. Make sure you visit the page where you can Examine the Shroud of Turin for yourself. We hope you enjoy your visit. Barrie M. Schwortz, Editor.
shroud.com/
th-cam.com/video/w4RBXVs70_g/w-d-xo.html
m.th-cam.com/video/4G4sj8hUVaY/w-d-xo.html
Matt won the debate.
Well, yeah, as soon as he said "I think its reasonable for resurrections to happen" Trent pretty much lost the debate. There just isn't any good evidence that that happens or can even happen.
@@shanewilson7994 So True , Shane , as he defeated his own argument there and then by admitting the obvious that no resurrections have been proved.
Why bother looking for evidence that we know is a fallacy !
A note about the Pints with Aquinas channel. It's creator Matt Fradd is an extremely conservative Catholic who has promoted anti-mask sentiment and skepticism towards public health officials and health recommendations as well as dubiousness about the results 2020 election. I don't know if this should disqualify his channel from your debate schedule, but I think it's something to consider before flooding his channel with a bunch of new viewers.
"Ironic" how the creator of a channel bearing the name of a supposedly accomplished logician and philosopher demonstrates such poor reasoning and chooses to follow base prejudices instead of conclusions from critical thinking.
"The Endboss of Atheism", that should be on a T-shirt, with your mug on it. :-D
Or on a mug with his...um...tshirt on it?
@@brucebaker810 Someone call Xibit. :-D
@@LasseHuhtala The reason atheists find it nearly impossible to believe god exists is because it creates more questions than answers.
If god always existed , why did he take so long to create a universe or what was keeping god entertained for a trillion years before He chose to create a Big Bang.
If nothing existed when god existed before he created anything and there was nothing for god to do , it was simply a meaningless existence.
Why it created a big bang ( an expanding Cosmos ) with nearly infinite space and another 13. 8 billions years to create a human being.
Why it took all those years to bring about a planet called earth with such inequality , where even today 3 million children die each year of starvation ?
And Lasse and you simply wonder why there are atheists , it is the fool who says in his heart there must be a god !
@@peterj6740 You think I'm a theist? 🤔
@@LasseHuhtala I think you are open to the possibility , because you have an open mind and a desire to know the truth with sound reasoning .
I would say you are more agnostic and will go where the evidence leads !
Can you please do a video on Trent's claims that all historical evidence is based on hearsay/narrative? I think that was a really questionable tactic that needs to be called out. I think we'll see this show up more in modern debates, because they don't have anywhere near the kinds of evidence we would want to see if such a claim arose in the news today (and there are such modern claims that I bet Trent would dismiss on the same grounds - I was also disappointed this wasn't examined further in the debate when he talked about other resurrection claims). I think some elaboration on what you meant by "physical evidence" would be good - probably worth its own video.
There's this view that because they weren't as scientific or technologically savvy 2000 years ago, that we should lower our standards of evidence and accept the weak evidence they did have. This is demonstrably problematic, and absurd. We don't do this for any other historical claims, including a bunch that include miracle stories.
Your point about the existence of God changing the argument is interesting. You could go further and ask: If there is a God who can work miracles, how could you rule out any event at all? How could you reject any miracle claim from any historical writing? How do you decide whether some event was a legitimate miracle vs a wild story? All such investigation just becomes baseless.
FWIW I did think the debate got quite heated at several points, and I thought you could have handled it better (but I recognize that it's humanly difficult to do in the moment - hindsight is 20/20 etc).
Oh and let’s Not leave Out the Zombies Coming to life and Walked on the Streets of Jerusalem
Strange, not a single mention about that in Roman records. One may think such an even would have come to the attention of their historians.
@@raistlin3462 EXACTLY‼️‼️‼️
🤜🏼💥🤛🏼
Matt is honestly a light in the darkness of knowledge. Too bad Christians think the "light bringer" is Satan...
Not true. God is light, as stated in John. But Satan is described as pretending or disguising himself as an angel of light
@@zacharybaker695 Strange a God who mouths Golden Rules and forgiveness, then invented hell; who mouths morals to other people and has none Himself; who frowns upon crimes yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, then tries to shuffle the responsibility for man's acts upon man, instead of honorably placing it where it belongs, upon Himself; and finally with altogether divine obtuseness, invites this poor, abused slave to worship Him
@@zacharybaker695 i said "light bringer" not "the light".
Either way this is the same type argument a fan of harry potter could have about he who shall not be named.
Hell is simply the absence of God and his presence completely. He no more created it than light creates darkness. Dark is just the absence of light. Hell is the natural consequence of living a life rejecting God. Similar to how in life if you live a life of crime you will go to jail. That is fair and just.
As our creator it is well within his absolute right to do with us as He wills. And as the creator of all laws, natural and moral He is not bound by them. Similar to how the government can use capital punishment on a murderer, and is just in doing so. In that instance the government is not evil or not following its own rules not to murder. On the contrary, it is fulfilling it's own rules.
I'm sorry you have such animosity. I understand. I'm aware that nothing I say can change your mind. So I'll simply bid you peace and pray for God's will to be done.
Farewell friend.
@@zacharybaker695 . . As it was, his aversion to religion, in the sense usually attached to the term, was of the same kind with that of Lucretius: he regarded it with the feelings due not to a mere mental delusion, but to a great moral evil. He looked upon it as the greatest enemy of morality: first, by setting up fictitious excellences-belief in creeds, devotional feelings, and ceremonies, not connected with the good of human-kind-and causing these to be accepted as substitutes for genuine virtues: but above all, by radically vitiating the standard of morals; making it consist in doing the will of a being, on whom it lavishes indeed all the phrases of adulation, but whom in sober truth it depicts as eminently hateful. (John Stuart Mill about his father.)
I was struck with a thought. The idea of "steel man-ing" one's opponents has become a powerful means of engaging in honest discussions. We should add another device and call it "transfer" (or some such name). The tact is where the opponent acknowledges the extremely powerful emotional connection He or She might have to the subject and so they agree to change the name of the subject to another name. For example, the name Jesus would become, "The Great and Glorious NooBoo". - All other features of the argument remain fully intact.
We then ask, would the quality of the evidence supplied in your arguments rise to a standard that warrants belief in the 'supposed, alleged" words and deeds of The Great and Glorious NooBoo?
I think it would be a simple but effective device (amongst honest, good faith truth seekers) as simply invoking the name, Jesus causes a hard short in the rational mind of an apologist.
What would be a good name for He or She defending the atheist position to agree to change the name of the subject to another name?
@@John_Fisher whereas atheism is just, 'non-belief' in any one of a number of different supernatural suppositions it doesn't suffer from the same emotional attachment or trigger. As it stands, for an atheist to move from a state of 'non-belief' to a state of 'belief' they need to become convinced of a particular theistic proposition. We know this happens, [just as we know many theists have moved from a state of belief to that of non-belief], however, I would say, 'most often' when a person moves in the direction of theism there exists a strong EMOTIONAL component that does not relate to clinical data or strong evidence. In other words, the theist is experiencing something supportive, uplifting and comforting in their belief position. Is the desire to experience support, comfort or hope wrong?... certainly not, I'm just asserting it's not evidence based.
In a debate scenario, however, where a believer does take an evidence based approach, I think removing the name of the specific God and replacing it with a generic Avatar (but keeping the argument identical essentially) exposes how weak the argument becomes.
Example: A friend shows you a book that's obviously ancient in which the claim is made that a man named Uboo was swallowed by a large fish It spends 5 days in the belly of this fish before Uboo agrees to obey the command of its Lord Orias. Would you believe the story? Of course not.
Change the name Uboo to Jonah and Lord Orias to Yahweh (and 5 days to 3) and suddenly it becomes a story you believe happened,... but why? Because it SAYS it, I BELIEVE it and that DOES IT! Period end of sentence.
Yasss I would love to hear more in depth conversations of both you guys
Sure it is, people are getting ressurected all the time. Oh wait.
Let's keep it short and sweet , there's no documentary evidence whatsoever that Christ ever existed , so how could he have arisen ?
Jesus called Christ is cited in several ancient texts, Paul of Tarsus, the gospels and twice in War of the Jews, Flavius Josephus's book (some historians think that the Testimonium Flavianum is only partially fake, with some true core. The second citation is widely accepted by scholars to be genuine).
This is documentary evidence, no?
I'm afraid no it's not , many mythical beings and creatures are written in ancient texts , this is not documentary evidence .
Now given that people give their lives to Christianity on something that is not proven in any way shape or form is quite disturbing .
But this is religion all you need ID faith not proof .
@@roddychristodoulou9111 History is not for you, if you want to be sure of everything. History, as a science, make hypothesis, based on sources, that are peer reviewed. Those hypothesis can be later reviewed and improved, or corrected. But you'll never be sure that there are 100% correct, not even 90%. And the farther you back in time, the worst it is.
Just 2 quick questions:
- if you dismiss Josephus about jesus, do you think that other Jewish preachers he talks about in his book are mythical too? Why?
- why would we assume that the existence of an apocalyptic Jewish rabbi, who preached in Galilea and was crucified by the Roman's for seditions, is impossible? This is very mundane, why can't we take josephus or Paul's word about that?
You see I have to tell you my position first for you to understand .
I was born and raised in a Christian household , we celebrated all the Christian festivals , it wasn't till I reached my thirties that I started to question the whole story of creation , and by the time I reached my forties I finally accepted that the story of religion and creation is total nonsense .
I then declared myself to be an atheist and a proud one to , I will never go back to religion .
So let's accept that what you say is true and that there are texts written that can make the case for christs existence , we then have the question of the miracles , were they true or were they invented to make Jesus look like a god of some kind .
I guess we will never find out the truth but I can tell you since I became an atheist I have never felt more free and satisfied , it is a truly wonderful feeling .
@@roddychristodoulou9111 I am an atheist too. So I don't try to convert you. I don't believe jesus performed miracles, or was resurrected, but that is not history, that's religion.
Most historians, Christians or not, think that some preacher called Jesus existed, as that's backup with some evidence. That does not mean you must accept that he was the Son of God.
My goal is to show that biblical history is very interesting, even for atheists, and you don't need to reject the historicity of jesus to be one.
Anyway, take care...
Never clicked on a video quicker
Trent was overmatched. He should have answers for the simple questions, and he doesn't. Theists always lose the substance of the debate on what they should be able to answer, but don't
The number of theistic _yes-man_ comments on that debate was depressing. I read hundreds of comments, and I had a difficult time not concluding that the theists simply asserted victory on sidetaking alone while many of the secularists actually tried making coherent arguments, myself being one of them.
After My Lord hitchins you are my redentor!!!
It’s because you are a massive threat to their idiotic beliefs Matt. You are destroying the foundation of their belief systems from the inside out... using reason alone. They are scared!!!
Massive threat... xD
I wonder what an atheist would tell a drug addict to stop taking their drugs. The fact those people change their whole life after hearing the gospel is a miracle on its own. But hey its idiotic right?
@@hilo9585 yes... idiotic!
@@hilo9585 believing something does not make it true or not idiotic.
@@hilo9585 If you sell someone on a story that changes behavior, the change in behavior says nothing about the truth of the story.
I thought that would have been obvious. Scheherazade didn’t have to recite historical events to achieve her goal, just an engaging tale.
@@hilo9585 so religion makes itself appealing to vulnerable people, so what doesn’t make it true.
But you’re certainly correct that telling drug addicts lies could have some placebo effect
respect from the Netherlands hope see you in the future.
Talking about the explanation absolutely matters. If the claim is mundane, it's reasonable to believe. Was Ehud left handed? It's certainly reasonable to believe he was. All we have is a claim that he was, but the claim isn't weird or crazy. If we know resurrection is possible, then testimony about it is more credible. This isn't an underhanded tactic, it is the necessary way of dealing with the primary objection to the resurrection--that people don't come back to life.
If someone can establish that resurrection is possible, it becomes fairly reasonable to believe resurrection claims concerning just about any historical figure. It's another step, then, to establish we should care.
The problem is that one basically uses the argument that resurrections do happen to "prove" Jesus resurrected and then uses the argument that they don't happen but it did happen for Jesus to "prove" that Jesus is divine. So which is it? Are resurrection stories credible or incredible?
Tim ; just read the gospel of Matthew chapter 27 ; 50 -53 and you will immediately know what is feasible or impossible .
A credulous person would swallow it all hook , line and sinker.
A sceptic would believe only in the fact that a man died !
Also remember the Gospel of Matthew was written 50 years after this man died and was not written by an eye witness !
Apologists like Trent play a rhetorical shell game to keep the faithful from escaping Christianity. No way he believes his own tortured reasoning.
Indeed. Im inclined to follow the money in cases such as his. Catholic institutions are typically well funded, and odin praise that tax exemption
I really don't understand all the gushing over Trent. He recycles all the old apologetic fallacies that only serve those already indoctrinated to believe them.
The endless struggling of willfully believing the unbelievable.
we don't have examples of people being resurrected but we also don't have examples of life creating itself but it still happened, so just because there are no examples of a recorded resurrection doesn't mean it didn't happen
About this small vocal group that berate you:
I think it's your badge of honour, it means that you're seen as the epitome of rationality, your have now become the standard they want to bring down
It can be difficult to do sometimes, but I would wear that badge with pride
My take kinda sides with Bart Ehrman on, first was there even a tomb? Pontius Pilate was conscious of the potential for local uprisings when messing with temple matters so it’s likely he would’ve given deference to Jesus of Nazareth being seen as a prominent local rabbi so caution is in order about the crucifixion so an exception made this man be cut down after death and allowed a normal burial....so the true ending of Mark is accurate in that the women had a tomb to go to to finalize the dead body....they experienced something that freaked them out and they scattered! That’s the true ending of Mark...now just think about that
Except he wasn’t a “prominent local rabbi.” He was an itinerant rabbi, claiming to be a messiah, butting heads with Jewish leaders, and there is no way to claim that he had a following that would have required appeasement. Every motivation you bestowed on Pilate is conjecture. The text doesn’t give any indication that Pilate did anything other than acquiesce on first request. Furthermore, every execution for treason is likely to cause an uprising, and Pilate didn’t seem too concerned when he KILLED him. The fact that the Bible just glosses over the release of a traitor’s body for burial is tremendously problematic.
@@briley2177 I’m guilty of conjecture? An event that shaped world destiny for the next 2000 years and is still going strong? Is it all just bullshit? I would approach that with caution but look at the Mormons and the reality of the 80% rule hits me square in the face! Antisemitism is a fact Christians need to defend! Christ was a Jew and you’ve anchored your faith in historic Judaism? Again how can this last indefinitely?
@@JG-bs5hh
Yes, you have no evidentiary warrant to believe that anything you postulated as motivation for Pilate ACTUALLY motivated Pilate. It’s all supposition. And it flies in the face of traditional Roman treatment of individuals crucified for any crime, let alone treason. But what’s worse, is it flies in the face of typical treatment of ANYONE put to death for treason throughout human history - leaders do not typically return the bodies of individuals executed for crimes against the state. So, if you wish to postulate an explanation that flies in the face of the norm, you’re going to need more evidence than your own personal musings and post hoc rationalizations... aka conjecture.
@@briley2177 I ask you then how does the Christian faith survive time when so many others have long since been forgotten? People tell stories. People always tell stories and they’re soon forgotten. This one lasted…why?
@@JG-bs5hh
And for all the discarded myths, many besides Christianity persist and continue to grow. Judaism, Buddhism, and Hinduism are all older. Islam, Sikhism, and Mormonism, are all younger. And there are many other belief systems all along that spectrum. There are dozens of reasons for the proliferation of religions - from sociological pressure, to economic benefit, to political conquest, to colonization and more... I assume you don’t believe that all the other religions have grown and lasted because they were true, so surely the growth and sustainability of Christianity can’t be a testament to its truth any more than the others. People perpetuate religions - it’s what people have always done in an attempt to explain the mysterious and quell fears of the unknown. As long as people lack knowledge and have fear, people will reach for panaceas to bring comfort.
But none of that has to do with the fact that your thoughts about Pilate were pure conjecture. In an honest conversation, people concede points when they are proven.
Aaaand... even MORE Matt. Yay! 😺
Trent's schtick is to blame the atheist for using logic to debunk his unfalsifiable claim and to then use the "logical failure" as proof of his God. What he seems to miss is how his multitude of words basically states that his claim is unfalsifiable. To borrow from Dan Barker in Life Driven Purpose, Trent is blaming the programmer for the reality that dividing by zero is undefined in mathematics. Some of the frustration and perceived success that Trent's tactics create is due to the "program crash" that dividing by zero creates. The solution, as Matt did so skillfully, is to remove the core line of code that allows for the division by zero.
Division by zero is impossible because it implies the existence of infinity. However you can divide by 0.000000000000000...001 and get an incredibly large real number.
You cannot compute and exact value of PI because it has been shown to be an irregular repeating decimal. A circle can be described as a regular polygon with an infinite number of sides. However a child can construct a circle with a cheap compass.
I personally have interacted with Trent, and have observed him on the internet for several hours with others. He has been corrected many times regarding using the God of the Gaps, syllogisms with faulty premises, and several non-evidenced presuppositions. I called him out aggressively with his philosophical obfuscations to the point where he will no longer interact with me. I am so tempted to label him as dishonest or clinically deluded. Sad.
Gee I can't imagine why he wouldn't want to interact with someone who frequently and aggressively "corrects" him and believes him to be "clinically deluded."
If he was honest, open-minded, and wanted to know as much truth as possible, he would gladly consider what I have to say. Instead, he has too much to lose by doing all of that.
@@86645ut Sounds like you have a very high opinion of what you have to say.
@@tylercurtis764, oh, I do have a high opinion of myself because I fight against delusion and will only accept claims that are supported by sufficient objective evidence. What about you? Do you accept dogma spewed out by the likes of Trent without asking for such? If you think that I am wrong, show me the counter-evidence. I want to understand as much truth that I can.
@@86645ut If this is the attitude you take toward everyone who disagrees with you, I'm not surprised that few people want to interact with you.
good afternoon Matt, love your debates, I learned a lot from them and your after debates, but be careful, in putting to much attention to the comments wild you debating, I think it takes from your concentration, example of this was this previous debate , i think the guy, got away with a few assumptions and poisoning the weld , I understand sometimes we let things pass for timing purposes, BUT other then that you're great and I've learned a great deal from you. keep the GOOD DEBATES COMING. 👍
Hell of a microphone
I thought it was an excellent and cordial debate. Too bad you couldn't address these in front of Horn. Are you going to schedule another debate?
There is nothing quite like the volume of horseshit that an apologist can squeeze through the most microscopic vagueness or uncertainty. "A tomb was empty, so it was clearly the work of an omniscient, omnipotent, superpowered eternal entity who sent himself to mankind as his son to die by us to save us from himself so we can spend eternity with him after we die"
But but, Elvis can walk through walls because he's special LOL
You meant David Copperfield? I saw a video of him walking through the great wall of China.
Yeah, it's out of sync. Almost like an over dubbed Karate film.
I did like the debate with matt and the Modified Skeptic on Pints with Aquinas, he seemed reasonable and knowledgeable and actually directed the discussion. so I watched some vids of him, a few days ago he uploaded a video 'What You Need To Know About Anti-Christ' that's some hardcore stuff... so I'd cross out the reasonable...
Also, divine power always needs help. Believers cannot/will not admit that things like medication, professional skill(again medicine) and science do not rely upon hokus pokus to work. Once asked a born again nurse(RN) if this god thing was true and so powerful, why dispense meds? She became indignant unable to respond without being very unreasonable. Claims made and not adhered to. Ask and you will receive....ah no. Trust in the big guy...really? Based on what? I could go on, but u get the idea.
Of course, Bigfoot could be real, just look at the Yeti, they're very similar.
5:11 ALL of Christian (and Islamic & Jewish) apologetics is special pleading.
Excellent! Thank you!!!
Proof of resurrection
Shroud of Turin .
The Shroud of Turin is a centuries old linen cloth that bears the image of a crucified man. A man that millions believe to be Jesus of Nazareth. Is it really the cloth that wrapped his crucified body, or is it simply a medieval forgery, a hoax perpetrated by some clever artist? Modern science has completed hundreds of thousands of hours of detailed study and intense research on the Shroud. It is, in fact, the single most studied artifact in human history, and we know more about it today than we ever have before. And yet, the controversy still rages. This web site will keep you abreast of current research, provide you with accurate data from the previous research and let you interact with the researchers themselves. We believe that if you have access to the facts, you can make up your own mind about the Shroud. Make sure you visit the page where you can Examine the Shroud of Turin for yourself. We hope you enjoy your visit. Barrie M. Schwortz, Editor.
shroud.com/
th-cam.com/video/w4RBXVs70_g/w-d-xo.html
m.th-cam.com/video/4G4sj8hUVaY/w-d-xo.html
@@mathew4181 it's been proven that it's counterfeit.
@@elohiymkingdom9453 no lol
If you have the proof give me. 😏😏😏
The Christian (Sc)Avangers is what I call that troll crew.
Interestingly most accounts of the ‘anastasia’ (‘resurrection’, ‘standing up again’) of R. Yehoshua bar Yosef the Galilean (BCE 12-36 CE) in the 4 Canonical Council approv’d Greek Gospels tend to use the word ‘opthe’ (he was manifested (unto xxx)’ using the passive voice which is NOT the same thing as the active voice e.g ‘they saw’ -so he ‘manifested himself’ only to Jews & to Messianist believers (the only exception would have been the personal (suspect ?) claims of Shaoul of Tarsus, who at the time of his own weird lightning bolt ‘experience’ was certainly NOT a believer)- cf. And Judas Thomas asked him ‘Rebbe, when will the BarEnasha (‘son of man’) manifest himself to qol Yisro’el (‘all Israel’) and not just to us his disciples ?’ For which in the 4th Gospel (according to ‘John’ whoever he was...) gives no coherent answer in the Greek words plac’d into the author’s own weird Greek-Speaking ‘Iesous’- so (long story short) there seems to be a kind of selective audience for these alleged manifestations -
Unfortunately the 2nd Canonical Greek Gospel (‘according to Mark’ whoever he was...) ends in the middle of a sentence (ephobounto gar = ‘the women were afraid because they-‘ as Codex Sinaiticus shews (ends Mark 16:8); the tacky non Markan Greek which follows 16:8 in no less than the (2) longer fak’d endings (from the 2nd & 3rd centuries CE) are spurious & the other 3 Canonical Greek Gospels all verge widely in their ‘resurrection appearances’ after the story breaks off at Mark 16:8 with ‘an empty tomb’ and ‘a young man dressed in a bright white clean linen lebush (tunic robe)-which itself is far remov’d from later Gospels where there are TWO ‘angels’ of ‘Luke’ & ‘John’ whoever they were...
I can accept an empty tomb as historically viable however it is explain’d including grave robbing etc. (the empty tomb parts of the story seems to have been part of a very early-primitive Christian tradition) but unless one posits the hypothesis that ‘Jesus’ was taken down from a Roman Cross WHILST STILL ALIVE (‘Mark’ uses ‘soma’ (live-Body) for the person brought down from the gibbet - not the Greek word ‘ptoma’ (corpse) - you will have a very hard time explaining how & in what exact form he ‘was rais’d (notice again the passive voice rather than ‘he rose’) cf. the zombie apocalypse scenario of the later Greek Canonical Gospels (‘Matthew’ included a whole set of resurrected zombie saints in 27:52-56 acting like the walking dead limping in their bandages around Jerusalem and ‘who manifested themselves to the Many’ (haRabbim) ...
Admittedly a mere 6 hours on a cross (as horrific an ordeal that it must have been in and of itself after a scourging) will not normally kill an otherwise healthy adult male-face it, folks-it normally it takes 90-100 hours to kill any adult male affix’d to a Roman Cross which typically came equip’d with an anal plug (‘sedilla’, little sear, hence the ancient Roman curse ‘Take Your Seat Upon The Cross
!’) which lessons the pressure on the wrists & chest area allowing breathing / gasping -
Moreover to quicken the death the Romans typically smash’d the shins of the crucified man to cause asphyxiation...and the gospels midrashically turn to their Old Testament ‘scriptures’ claiming the non-shin-bashing in the sole case of ‘Jesus’ was magically prophetic (‘And Let not a bone of the Paschal Lamb be Broken’) etc.
This ‘taken down whilst still heartbeating’ is known as the ‘swoon theory’ - and of course it is NOT proof of any ‘resurrection’ because in swoon-theory (after having injected gall/snake poison from a sponge handed to him by an accomplice) there would naturally have been no physical death on the cross ...and therefore no real miracle - I keep reading the verse over and over ‘But the praefect Pontius Pilatus did not believe a man could be dead so soon and sent officers to investigate’ - perhaps Pilate is the sole voice of reason in these messy Resurrection narratives, no two of which are alike (even Paul’s lust in 1 Corinthians 15 omits the female incense burners alleged ‘Testimony’ that ‘Jesus’ had ‘manifested himself alive to them...’
There is SOOOO much more to cover on this very involv’d subject ! I would love to sit through another resurrection debate and put my own $.02 into any valid & reasonable (read : level-headed) discussion of this weird zombie story which forms the basis of Pauline Christianity as it is practic’d to-day ...
It all comes down to belief! Belief based on irrational, illogical, and non-reasonable ideas! And it is driven by faith! but faith is not a reliable methodology to reality... as you have pointed out multiple times :)
THANKS TO MATT DILLAHUNTY.
I think anyone who thinks their opinion matters in a live chat is foolish. Definitely should be ignored
having your mind set on the matter allows you going over to speculate about how great it may be, was and will be.
You Rock Matt
Trent won that one man
Cool story
Could you just stop engaging the trolls? I really don’t understand why you continually spend so much time addressing them. Who cares? This is youtube.
Matt cares because the trolls are bruising his pride
Its no surprise that he thought the rules don't apply to his debating technique, given that they don't apply to his arguments.
Yeah, there is no stopping the trolls. You just have to ignore them. For whatever reason there is subset of people that are just flat out obnoxious. I have had some mini debates with theists in the comment section and have come across some very strange human beings.
Why would you think that the gospels indicate a real life Jesus when clearly established patterns of hellenized hybrid religions shows that these religions take celestial figures and place them in history as real people? Why is Christianity any different than worship of Mithra, the cult of Osiris, or any other culture that changed its religion after the conquests of Alexander?
I AM NOW L-ONE.
Watched an episode of atheist experience. Ivan a russian man called in and Sye. Shannon was polite but Dillahunty was a total a hole. He berated, interrupted and humiliated callers that give his show attention. Matthew is an ego monster. I was a fan but no longer. He should probably go to anger management. And don t call into his show unless you want to be berated for having your own opinion. He only want to yell his opinion into you. He want s every caller to bow down to Matt the furor. Rude man
Every autumn when I was a kid dust bin (trash can )lids flew about the street regularly. Bin lids were frizby shaped. They flew down the street on the gale level winds The only thing supernatural was the rows about whose bin lid had smashed up what. As for the trolls it is quite likely that if the were from the harsh fundamental religions they grew up being punished for thinking independently and are now passing the misery on.
The part that confused me about this debate is that you both agreed that miracles are things that by definition are not abiding by the laws of physics, and that test 1 for reasonableness is that the claim doesn't conflict with known facts (Like the laws of physics).
I don't know how you could ever have reason to believe in miracles when you hold to both of those positions :/
Yeah, about that physical body being resurrected, Lazarus is actually the only person to whom that happened. According to my favorite source, Jesus after his resurrection, was not in a material body, but rather a morontial body... which is why he said to his apostles "touch me not". He didn't want to freak them out any more than they already were.
Is it "reasonable" to believe in his resurrection? One of my Congregationalist ministers decades ago, would carry on about how the resurrection was kind of an embarrassment for Christians. Being a unique event, it was impossible to corroborate, compare or contrast. It does not pass the "reasonableness" test. Nor was it actually intended by Jesus to be a part of his religion, which was exclusively focused on the Fatherhood of a Loving God, and the resulting brother/sisterhood of all people. But as for evidence of God, being roughly the same as evidence for his resurrection, one can pretty easily understand how his followers could get mixed up.
Belief, obviously, is up to the individual.
I realize belief in the resurrection is fundamental to being a "Christian." But it is not a requirement in order to be able to commune with the indwelling spirit fragment of the Divine Father.
I really admire you Matt, you're very good person ang a genius. I really want to read your book if you have
A genius? XD
ONE THEOLOGIAN HANGING EXISTED.
The belief in the resurrection is reasonable if we being with a supernatural model of the world and assume the truth of Christian theology (e.g., Josh fulfilled OT prophecies). Outside of this two, I don't see how the resurrection can be reasonable. One cannot use the historical scholarship in order to conclude theological conclusions because historical scholarship beings with the worldview of methodological naturalism. Also, there are reasonable counters to the "Josh fulfilled OT prophecies" such as the Christians either invented this "OT prophecies" (e..g, the Jews would deny their Christ but not the non-Jews would accept him) or they made use of eisegesis (e.g., Isaiah 53 - Isaiah is predicting the life of Josh).
I want to apologise for previous rants. I have borderline personality disorder and belong to a schizotypal personality type that all began with the trauma experienced being born into the jehovahs witness religion which is another matter. I am also a fighting and screaming to become sober alcoholic and I have fallen off the wagon in the past....when I do I have been known to make some horrific comments. For this I sincerely apologise. I will try to do better.
5:39 I just eye rolled so hard right now
I would say his argument also heavily relies on begging the question.
Here's one gripe I can't seem to get away from with every argument Matt has: he says to the effect of (starting from 8:27) "If there is a God of the universe who is all-powerful and governing, he should be able to show me the proof of the ressurection." While this is a true statement, my problem with it is now he's telling us what the God of the universe should be doing based on _his_ terms. God doesn't work like that. Matt's argument is pretty much "God doesn't exists because he's not doing what I expect him to do."
1. This was about the resurrection, not the existence of a god.
2. If it were about the existence of God, my argument would not be "God does not exist because..." it would be; "I don't have good reason to believe God exists because..."
3. How the fuck do you know how God works? Stop giving excuses and claiming shit you don't know.
4. How God works isn't the criteria. The case was about how REASON works and what a REASONABLE being would do.
You don't understand my position, basic logic, reason or the subject of the debate... yet you want us to believe that YOU know how God doesn't work?
Maybe you should have asked him how to not look foolish before you posted.
@@SansDeity @SansDeity
1. Fair point
2. I think the whole point of your opponent's reasoning is: many (of course not all) credible/accredited historians and archeologists believe that the resurrection is reasonable to believe because of the verifiability of surrounding evidence. No one is saying "Of course you should believe in the resurrection because of course it happened" but rather "Because many other events recorded in the Bible are historically verifiable, I (the accredited historians) believe that believing in the resurrection *based on historical evidence and not blind faith* is reasonable. You can be unconvinced of that conclusion, but that is not the same as saying it's unreasonable. Plus, you said it yourself in the debate: "I'm not a historian and I don't care what methods historians use" so then please tell me why you're an expert in what is and is not reasonable if you are dismissing the findings of accredited historians.
3. When I said "God doesn't work like that", I made it clear that just because God does not work in the way you expect him to does not mean that God can't/doesn't exist, and that is a logically sound claim.
4. As I stated in #2, I believe you are conflating "believing to be reasonable" and "being convinced." You are clear that you are not convinced, but I do not see you providing sufficient evidence for how believing in a resurrection based solely on historically verifiable evidence can be considered unreasonable.
*Questioning a resurrection is reasonable.* No one calls you a fool for not instantly believing that a human came back from the dead. Criticism arises when you fail to provide evidence for what can be considered unreasonable outside of your unconvincedness.
Also, while I have you, let me ask you this:
In your debate, you ask Trent if he thinks it's reasonable to believe solely on eyewitness testimony. If 1 billion people could verify that they saw Jesus die, and 5 days later they saw him walking around and touched him and could verify that he was alive, would you believe those eyewitness testimonies? If not, 6 billion? Every sentient being alive? What will it take for you to believe any eyewitness testimony?
hi rad
If you can write "God doesn't work like that."
Doesn't that put you in the position of knowing what God can/can't do which is the same problem you have with Matt?
The idea of the Judaeo-Christian God is inherently totalitarian. God is incapable of doing or being wrong in any way, by definition because, his supposed nature, word and actions define what is good right and true.
sincerely
d
@@davidfenton3910 Both of you aren't reading what I wrote. What I said was that Matt's definition of God is not how God is supposed to work. Refer back to the exact words that he said. Just because God _can_ revel himself in the exact way that would convince a person doesn't mean that God _will_ reveal himself in that way. That's what I am talking about when I say "God doesn't work like that."
I might be bias because I am gay.but Trent never gives a clear answer he just talks around a the topic.
I almost gave up on modern day debates, all that if you need prayer stuff he says on the early debates turned me off, plus James ?the host is a hovind fanboy.i did like the bible and beer consortium debates are they still doing that?
Very clear.
The "three wise men" that supposedly traveled from the East to visit the baby Jesus are exactly the type of people that would have recorded their experiences. Yet we have no writing from any of them, no writings on their visit with the baby jesus, no writings at all. They're not even named in the bible and it's only presumed there were three of them because three different types of gifts were given.
Actually if you had read the account in the Two Gospels, Matthew and Luke you would find they show that only lowly shepherds from nearby fields visited Jesus at his birth. The so-called wise men, were astrologers, not royalty, and they are not numbered. Note worthy is that astrology is condemned in the bible which means God did not send them. The astrologers did not journey to the side of a newborn in a manger but arrived when Jesus was a child of 2 years old and was living in a house not a manger. King Herod sent the astrologers to find Jesus and report back to him. His purpose was to rid his kingdom of a rival king. Instead the astrologers were sent away from King Herod. When king Herod found out and not knowing where Jesus was he had all male children in his kingdom two years of age murdered.
I wrote a song specifically to you. I play my own Christian music and give it away. I buy it and send to jails and prisons. I understand you do not believe this is your choice and honor that. I am very sad for you but you have to make your own choices in this fleeting life. You inspired me as I say and listened to you debating Christians. You will never convince some one like myself because I know better. I know the prayers I have prayed and I know what happened. God is much bigger than the Bible just look outside. But anyways I was listening to you and it inspired me to write the tune called not in my head. God will give us the desires of our hearts and if yours is one of repeated denial that would scare me. People like you look for this or that to believe. I simply heard what Jesus did for me and that was all I needed to look into Him. I was forever touched. I never expected God to ever do the beautiful things He has in me. I never really thought like this. I simply would come home from partying with my friends and I would lay on my bed at 19 years and would read my Bible. I never could of ever known the love God has for me. God will give you the breath to curse Him and the whip to beat Him to death. I pity you with deep pity. I know just how real He is and I learned this well by coming to Him because I simply love Him. I wanted you to know that song called not in my head I wrote about people who say what you say. I love God dearly and can not say enough of His kindness to a sinner like me. Praise you Father you are so dear and kind. Thank you for all the times you have put up with me and my sins. You are so kind always coming to me somehow. I love you God and I will love you more than anyone. Thank you for being murdered for me. I am deeply humbled and will always have a place in my being for only you. God bless you Matt. God will forgive you He is that way. Don’t ever feel you can not turn to Him. He is nothing like all of us. I wish the best in Christ for you.
Hello there Matt, I am not registered with telegram and am not very good with computers but I would very much like to talk with you anytime really.... and would be very thankful for the time. I am self employed so I can arrange a time usually... Thankyou for writing me... :)
Hi there Matt, I very much am willing to share with you anytime I am not good with computers and do not have a telegram account or anything is there any other way? My schedule is flexible usually.... anyhoo thank you for writing me.. :)
Matt has no real position in this debate. He is not for or against just not convinced hahaha
Jesus rising from the dead doesn't contradict the story that Jesus rose from the dead.
Hey Matt just to let you know I disagree with the survey on the atheist experience I know you have come along way in maturity in regards to debate with Christians because it was that which helped me out of my Christian beliefs. Also Madalyn Murray Ohair and what a coincidence that even she felt like her atheist organization was against her which is why she stepped down and let her son John take the lead.