My favorite part: The friendliest philosophical 'trash talk' ever: Ben [on his concluding his statement right on time]: "THAT'S what a perfect world looks like." Audience: [Applause] Trent: "How could it be perfect when more goods are about to be added to it?" Audience: "Ooooooh!"
Faith is the leap from what can be known to what cannot be definitively known without trust. Science and philosophy get us to a point, from there it requires faith. Therefore it operates in conjunction with reason not opposed.
Faith only means trust. Forensic faith (evidential faith) means trust with evidence. You can get to god and christianity through reason alone, but you still have to choose to trust God and Jesus.
@@hhstark8663 Calm yourself, Harry. No, we cannot know the Christian God through reason alone. That required the Christ in CHRISTian to choose to reveal Himself to us. We only know of the trinity because it’s a revealed truth. You are conflating two different kinds of faith. There is faith in the secular sense: trust in one’s intuition and faith in the Catholic sense: the human intellect that cooperates with divine grace in “an act of the *intellect assenting* to the *divine truth* by command of the will moved by God through grace” (Aquinas). The reason Trent said his least favorite argument is ontological is because it is a tautology. God is true because He’s true and you should have faith because He’s God. The best way to articulate the reason to believe in A God is to show that this belief is founded in evidence, both material and philosophical. That is, it is important to distinguish to such a secular, materialist, that a “leap of faith” is not actually based simply upon a tautological presupposition, because true reason does exist for belief in A God, similar to their belief in many other aspects of their life (as CS Lewis espouses in Mere Christianity). It is only AFTER one believes in the Catholic God that one must practice faith (aka trust), in the Catholic sense, to assent to the divine truths, which cannot otherwise be known by one’s intellect, but we must nonetheless believe for salvation. Then we can get to: “to obey in faith is to submit freely to the word that has been heard, because its truth is guaranteed by God, who is Truth itself.”
While I had a hard time hearing Ben (I’m assuming mic troubles?), I could gleam that you two are good friends based on what I could hear and body language. Glad to see people with opposing can find common ground with each other! I listen to quite a few different people and some openly atheistic, but their discussions on philosophy and natural rights helps me find a lot of common ground with them. They always mention they can’t quite pinpoint why they think a certain way and I want so badly to throw some Catholic theology books at them, but I feel it is better for them to reach their own conclusions. Can’t wait to heat Trent’s debates!
Fantastic interview. Fun, engaging, and informative! You are so well-spoken Trent, I hope to one day be able to express myself verbally as clear as you do.
See a few comments on this being in stereo. It is panned very hard right and left for each speaker. However, as I listen the left speaker is coming through my right ear bud and the right speaker is coming through my left earbud. Very strange.
While I slightly agree that dialogue such as this and Trent and Bens recent debate elevate the discourse (and Ben embodies a fresh atheism that isn’t infused with smugness). I disagree in that the cultural aspect we currently are faced with. We are a far cry from living in the high middle age university debate society. We currently live in a society that is Christian Vs. Demonic Liberal secularists who want to destroy you and your children. You may dispute this but I think it is a pretty fair estimate of our current times. Therefore if everybody is serving somebody, who do these (albeit cordial) secular atheists serve ultimately?
I think something that the average atheist doesn't understand or probably doesn't consider is that Watkins doesn't represent _them._ The contemporary atheist comes to his conclusion by lack of understanding, yet he has been conditioned to believe the opposite
@@hhstark8663 I think it is particularly more heightened these days. Practiced Marxism does not have a history of bloodless conflict or kindness to Christianity.
"Christian Vs. Demonic Liberal secularists" This is too simplistic. Very many Christians are liberal and have much in common with secularists in terms of values.
@@demergent_deist lol, the Christianity Expert has logged on. You cannot be Liberal and Christian. It’s why mainline Protestantism has collapsed and why the left sees the Church as its greatest enemy. It’s time to return the favour.
My favorite part: The friendliest philosophical 'trash talk' ever:
Ben [on his concluding his statement right on time]: "THAT'S what a perfect world looks like."
Audience: [Applause]
Trent: "How could it be perfect when more goods are about to be added to it?"
Audience: "Ooooooh!"
I would love to see a devil's advocate debate between you two...
Please please please make that happen Trent 😁
My left and right ears enjoyed listening to these monologues
Faith is the leap from what can be known to what cannot be definitively known without trust. Science and philosophy get us to a point, from there it requires faith. Therefore it operates in conjunction with reason not opposed.
Faith only means trust. Forensic faith (evidential faith) means trust with evidence. You can get to god and christianity through reason alone, but you still have to choose to trust God and Jesus.
@@hhstark8663 Calm yourself, Harry. No, we cannot know the Christian God through reason alone. That required the Christ in CHRISTian to choose to reveal Himself to us. We only know of the trinity because it’s a revealed truth.
You are conflating two different kinds of faith. There is faith in the secular sense: trust in one’s intuition and faith in the Catholic sense: the human intellect that cooperates with divine grace in “an act of the *intellect assenting* to the *divine truth* by command of the will moved by God through grace” (Aquinas).
The reason Trent said his least favorite argument is ontological is because it is a tautology. God is true because He’s true and you should have faith because He’s God. The best way to articulate the reason to believe in A God is to show that this belief is founded in evidence, both material and philosophical. That is, it is important to distinguish to such a secular, materialist, that a “leap of faith” is not actually based simply upon a tautological presupposition, because true reason does exist for belief in A God, similar to their belief in many other aspects of their life (as CS Lewis espouses in Mere Christianity).
It is only AFTER one believes in the Catholic God that one must practice faith (aka trust), in the Catholic sense, to assent to the divine truths, which cannot otherwise be known by one’s intellect, but we must nonetheless believe for salvation. Then we can get to: “to obey in faith is to submit freely to the word that has been heard, because its truth is guaranteed by God, who is Truth itself.”
My worldview has changed from "listening to people on my side" to "listening to people who are quality regardless of side"
Two good dudes
Great job Trent. thank you for defending our faith our Catholic church 🙏🙏
While I had a hard time hearing Ben (I’m assuming mic troubles?), I could gleam that you two are good friends based on what I could hear and body language. Glad to see people with opposing can find common ground with each other!
I listen to quite a few different people and some openly atheistic, but their discussions on philosophy and natural rights helps me find a lot of common ground with them. They always mention they can’t quite pinpoint why they think a certain way and I want so badly to throw some Catholic theology books at them, but I feel it is better for them to reach their own conclusions.
Can’t wait to heat Trent’s debates!
Trent is one of my favorite Christian apologists and I'm a protestant.
Fantastic interview. Fun, engaging, and informative! You are so well-spoken Trent, I hope to one day be able to express myself verbally as clear as you do.
One of the best debates ever. You guys did a great job!
I think Trent is my fav Christian apologist and Ben is my fav atheist evangelist. Love these two thinkers.
Trent's content gets better and better.
Thanks for your work Mr. Horn
Come for the Theology. Stay for Trent singing George Michaels.
See a few comments on this being in stereo. It is panned very hard right and left for each speaker. However, as I listen the left speaker is coming through my right ear bud and the right speaker is coming through my left earbud. Very strange.
I was going to jokingly ask if you got a chance to convert Cam to Catholicism. I didn't realize you actually recorded a video talking to him about it.
George Michael lyrics are an essential component of an apologist’s tool belt.
Yes, Alexander Pruss has PhDs in both philosophy and mathematics. Yes, Robin Collins has PhDs in both physics and philosophy.
I think Collins was a physics PhD student, but then switched to philosophy. Regardless, still qualified to discuss both.
I want to be an apologist and theologian*
Keep eating your greens
@Belén Ayelén Marlén Maulén For a second I thought you said Ornathology lol
You better start by reading up on Feser, Heiser, Licona, and them
You can start with reading all books written by Trent Horn. :)
Workout, plenty of rest, you know... Eat your green vegetables
Truly Stero audio experience !
Hey Trent. Is there anyway to contact you privately?
www.trenthorn.com/contact/
everyone pray one decade for trent's eye hahaha
😇
Trent and Ed Feser just make atheists look silly lol. I would like to see them together for some content.
Don´t forget William Lane Craig. That guy is awesome!
180 likes and no dislikes? Beautiful.
Ben reminds me of Madison, Wisconsin
While I slightly agree that dialogue such as this and Trent and Bens recent debate elevate the discourse (and Ben embodies a fresh atheism that isn’t infused with smugness). I disagree in that the cultural aspect we currently are faced with. We are a far cry from living in the high middle age university debate society. We currently live in a society that is Christian Vs. Demonic Liberal secularists who want to destroy you and your children. You may dispute this but I think it is a pretty fair estimate of our current times. Therefore if everybody is serving somebody, who do these (albeit cordial) secular atheists serve ultimately?
It has been that way ever since the 19th century and/or 18th century, with things getting a boost in the 20th century by marxist Sovjet.
I think something that the average atheist doesn't understand or probably doesn't consider is that Watkins doesn't represent _them._ The contemporary atheist comes to his conclusion by lack of understanding, yet he has been conditioned to believe the opposite
@@hhstark8663 I think it is particularly more heightened these days. Practiced Marxism does not have a history of bloodless conflict or kindness to Christianity.
"Christian Vs. Demonic Liberal secularists"
This is too simplistic. Very many Christians are liberal and have much in common with secularists in terms of values.
@@demergent_deist lol, the Christianity Expert has logged on. You cannot be Liberal and Christian. It’s why mainline Protestantism has collapsed and why the left sees the Church as its greatest enemy. It’s time to return the favour.
Trent still WON the debate by a landslide though. :)