Debate: Does God Exist? - Fr Gregory Pine Vs. Ben Watkins
Вставка
- Опубліковано 31 сер 2020
- In this LIVE debate Fr. Gregory Pine and Ben Watkins debate the existence of God.
Debate format below.
🔴 LEARN MORE
🙏 Become a Patron of Pints With Aquinas: / mattfradd
💻 Learn more about Pints With Aquinas: pintswithaquinas.com/
🔴 APOLOGETICS CONFERENCE
www.virtualcatholicconference...
🔴 DEBATE FORMAT
Opening Statements
Affirmative Opening Statement (15 minutes)
Negative Opening Statement (15 minutes)
First Rebuttals
Affirmative First Rebuttal (7 minutes)
Negative First Rebuttal (7 minutes)
Second Rebuttals
Affirmative Second Rebuttal (4 minutes)
Negative Second Rebuttal (4 minutes)
Cross Examination
The cross examiner is allowed to interrupt and move the flow of the argument as he sees fit.
Affirmative cross examines negative (12 minutes)
Negative cross examines affirmative (12 minutes)
Audience Questions (30 minutes)
Each person gets 2 minutes to answer a question addressed to them and their opponent gets 1 minute to respond
Closing Statements
Affirmative Closing Statement (5 minutes)
Negative Closing Statement (5 minutes) - Розваги
Who won and why?
I won, God does not exist
Matt, did you read Isaiah 43:10, it clearly says that there was a before god and that there will be an after him, it means that God has a beginning, the bible says that he was formed.
@Classical Theist00 they never answered my question about god's free will, if god cannot do evil, is he really free? are we freer than him?
@@otropaisy Actually, he (anthropomorphically) does exist!
*The Meaning of the Names*
"YHWH is a proper noun referring to the God of Israel. It is often translated "LORD" (with either all caps or with small caps to keep it distinct from occurrences of "adonai"). Elohim is the generic term for god or gods that only later became a proper name.
As such, YHWH is used whenever the Bible stresses God's personal relationship with His people and the ethical nature of His character. Elohim refers to God's power, His creating all things, and how He is the ruler of all life and all things. Psalm 19 is one of the best examples of how these names are used. The first 6 verses speak of Elohim and His relation to the material world. However, beginning in verse 7, YHWH appears and the focus of the Psalm shifts to the law, precepts, and His relationship with humans who know Him.
The name YHWH is used to show the personal nature of God and how He relates to human beings. On the other hand, Elohim refers to the transcendent creator of the universe, who shaped it. YHWH is appropriate when emphasizing the relationship with Him in personal and ethical matters. Elohim connects deity with existence and humanity.
Accordingly, Genesis 1 uses Elohim to show God's power in creating all things. Genesis 2:4-3:23 uses YHWH-Elohim to show the very intimate and detailed relationship between God and Adam and Eve. Both names are used to show that the same Elohim who created all things maintains a personal relationship with those who walk in His ways. Note that in the very first "J passage," (who is supposed to know God as YHWH) the name is YHWH-Elohim."
Luke, Frank. Master of Arts in Theological Studies and Master of Divinity - Assemblies of God Theological Seminary. Springfield, Missouri.
hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/1461/why-does-god-say-he-only-revealed-his-name-yahweh-to-moses
Now… consider the following:
"Panentheism (from Greek πᾶν (pân) "all"; ἐν (en) "in"; and θεός (Theós) "God"; "all-in-God") is a belief system which posits that God exists and interpenetrates every part of nature, and timelessly extends beyond as well. Panentheism is distinguished from pantheism, which holds that God is synonymous with the material universe.
In panentheism, God is not exactly viewed as the creator or demiurge but the eternal animating force behind the universe, with the universe as nothing more than the manifest part of God. The cosmos exists within God, who in turn "pervades" or is "in" the cosmos. While pantheism asserts that God and the universe are coextensive, panentheism claims that God is greater than the universe and that the universe is contained within God. Panentheism holds that God is the "supreme affect and effect" of the universe."
www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Panentheism [This definition was removed by Reference dot com]
For further inquiry into the concept of panentheism and how it relates to Judeo-Christian theology visit the following web page:
plato.stanford.edu/entries/panentheism/
Furthermore, understanding the true nature of the "inner" personal YHWH that the Ancient Hebrews communicated with and that the biblical writers described visit the following web page:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_unconscious
@@arturobuco I beat god more than once. Why is he free if he cannot do evil? are we freer than him?
Fr Pine is definitely one to look up to.
No doubt!
He does seem quite tall ;)
Lol. I don't know if you meant this as a joke or not, but I took it as such and found it hilarious. He definitely looks way different from this angle.
@@MarkJBosse lol, my intention was both sincere regarding the respect Fr Pine is well due and very much light-hearted with respect to his chosen camera angle!
Here are some of my on-the-spot, post-debate thoughts:
- Seeing Fr. Pine debate and how he articulated his position (especially on how he "combined" the first 3 ways of Aquinas into a single "argument") is the final straw for me: I WILL enter the Dominican order. That's an irreversible decision now (at least it seems to me at this time)
- I appreciate the fact that Ben Watkins argued for the apparent incoherence of Classical Theism (i.e. how it poses problems with Divine Freedom/modal collapse and Divine Knowledge) against Fr. Pine's position. It's very rare for "UA-cam Atheists" to do that. Ben's argumentation is a breath of fresh air for the Atheist internet movement, after many years of New Atheist dominance.
- I just want to express a minor dissatisfaction I had with Fr. Pine's position: his failure to address Ben's objection that there is still a gap problem between an "unactualized actualizer" and a "purely actual actualizer". I would've loved to hear Fr. Pine's thoughts on that one. Which brings me to my next point...
- Gaven Kerr should debate (or at least have a dialogue with) Ben Watkins on the De Ente Argument. I think Ben's concern on the gap problem can be properly addressed once we focus on the Thomist conception of esse as an actualizing principle.
- I think Ben should've pressed upon his objection that neither a per se nor a per accidens series of causes imply a need for a first cause and that both causal series can be infinite (another point that, I think, Fr. Pine also failed to address properly/adequately). If this objection is correct, then it would bring Thomism (and even Theism in general) to its knees, because Thomism says that God is the first cause of created reality. If there need not be a first cause, then we need not posit an entity like God (Ben can then argue, like Graham Oppy would, that Naturalism/Atheism should be preferred to Theism given the former's simplicity as a theory over the former, but I don't know: probably Oppy's anti-Theism is different from Ben's)
- Fr. Pine is correct in reiterating that God cannot be a subject to anthropomorphizing, and that He transcends creaturely classification. If God cannot be a moral agent like us, then the apparent problem of evil and suffering that we have as creatures cannot be applied to things about God.
- Fr. Pine could've also phrased better his view on morality, I think: given his commitment to the natural law, he could've just said first that moral goodness is just a special case of what metaphysical/transcendental goodness is, in general. He touched upon this idea, of course (when he used the examlle of how we naturally would want to take care of our teeth) but he could've made it clearer still.
- Overall, I'd say this: the debate is a 9.8/10! It isn't a "super perfect" debate, of course, given the time constraints and all that, but the debaters have articulated their views in a very intellectually engaging fashion. I thank them both because of it. Also, Matt Fradd is right: this is a breath of fresh air after all the stress we received from political discussions and the like which tend to be toxic. I hope debates like this can be more regular in the future.
- I think that Ben Watkins won simply for 2 reasons: (1) the 2 objections that Fr. Pine failed to address (or at least address properly) that I noted above, and (2) because Thomism, the philosophical system that Fr. Pine adheres to, is such a huge system that it won't do justice for it to be simply represented in a limited/time-constrained debate. It is expected that, even if Fr. Pine answers many questions in this debate, his presentations will raise more questions that he unfortunately can never address in this debate. With regards to this, the fun will always be found in books and academic papers.
I pray that some day, Ben Watkins will finally come to acknowledge the existence of God who lovingly and mercifully sustains him in being and is absolutely worthy of his worship!!!
I appreciate all of your thoughts. I agree, Ben is a breath of fresh air (unlike the first reply to you) in the toxic system of internet atheism. If only more people could be like him.
@Nigel Butt "mustard seed's worth of empirical evidence that a multicellular eukaryote bodily came back to life after rotting for a couple days in the heat"
Provide a description of what would be acceptable
@@icanfartloud He seems to go around rewriting that phrase in all the comments, as though he invented empiricism and is letting the world know at long last. I sincerely hope he types it out each time and doesn't use copy and paste.
The infinitude of a per se causal series does not explain itself, given that none of the members contain their own causal power. The whole series requires a source of actuality, since it's always derived.
@Nigel Butt Seems like you have been brainwashed by Tom Jump's nonsense.
I enjoyed listening to Ben Watkins. Very intelligent and kind individual. There was no animosity on either side, just smart and charitable people having a real conversation. God bless him and guide him
Why does everyone say this. Is being vaguely nice not expected in every debate?
god needs to go bless those kids in hospital that he gave cancer as part of his divine plan. first.
@@countfoster8406 because often times these debates are not charitable.
@@Deathwish026
Someone has some pent up anger combined with bad theology also combined to an emotional appeal.
Fr. Gregory is one of the most amazing thinkers I’ve ever seen in my generation.
I still have a hard time listening to him without my brain having a burndown, Thomism is very dense and in this debate you could tell that the limited time made it difficult for him to get the points across. I still have to watch the entire series of Thomism 101
Amen for that. Jesus bless him, amen 🙏🙏🙏
It's so refreshing to see a respectful debate without strawmen and ad hominem attacks these days! I thank all three of you for that!
I almost think that Fr Gregory’s strategy here is not so much to win the debate. As in his focus here is not to debunk Ben but rather to to help the audience (us) understand Ben’s stand and his concepts so that we can derive the conclusion on our own. Strategic!
Also, Fr seems to in a boxing match. Lol. Downing tons of water at every down time.
I agree!
True.
He’s a big tall man. Probably takes a huge amount of water to keep him hydrated as he spits out all these words. He’s very long winded 😮💨 genius.
Ben Watkins... seems likeable, not ridiculously aggressive, not accusatory or cruel or uncharitable, this is just... the total opposite of the Atheists I've dealt with in my life, and he did a very good job. As a Theist, as strange as this may sound, I'm almost giddy with happiness, this might be the first time I've walked away from seeing an argument without feeling too sore at the Atheist.
#bowsrespectively
Fr Gregory won because he is based, redpilled, epic, and is an alpha male.
That is just a fallacy
@@otropaisy Ur existance is a fallacy.
This is basically a "New Atheist" level comment. Surely you can be better?
Could it be that this is in fact a joke that is not meant to be taken seriously🤔
@@throughaglassanalytically1679 difference is, this is clearly a joke and meant satirically. I'm sure all the theists here (me included) were delighted to see Ben invited on and we were certainly glad to see him distance himself from new Atheism.
The problem with new Atheism is often they think their satire is argument enough, often treating theism as a laughable position.
Great debate. Very respectful and both made great points. I would give the nod to Father Gregory but I'm biased. I appreciated how Mr. Watkins came across open-minded and also did his homework. More like this! Also, cheers to Mr. Watkins on his beer choice. Well done!
1:16:45 One of the best moments of the debate, lighthearted and mutually charitable. Thank you, Matt, for organizing this, and thank you to Ben and Fr. Gregory for such a good debate!
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
00:00 🍻 Introduction to the debate between Father Gregory Pine and Ben Watkins.
01:12 🙏 Format of the debate: opening statements, rebuttals, cross-examination, audience questions, closing statements.
01:54 🤝 Encouragement for charitable and respectful discourse between atheists and Christians.
03:05 🎙️ Introduction of the debaters: Father Gregory Pine and Ben Watkins.
04:41 🌌 Father Pine's approach: Presuming and proving God's existence, acknowledging challenges.
09:22 🤝 Recognizing varying levels of access to belief in God based on education, personal disposition, and circumstances.
11:14 💡 God's existence accessible to all thinking persons; obstacles due to human limitations, sin, personal and societal formations.
12:55 🌍 The metaphysics of creation and the act-potency distinction as a basis for reasoning.
15:13 🧠 The cosmological arguments: motion, efficient causality, contingency, and their connection to God as the ultimate cause.
18:36 🌟 Believing in God: Revelation and natural reason intertwine; existence of God as a necessary explanation for reality's coherence and intelligibility.
19:44 🙌 Ben Watkins expresses gratitude, acknowledges the importance of the discussion, and introduces his opening statement.
20:32 🤖 Atheism distinction: New atheism vs. contemporary philosophical atheism, aligning with analytic philosophy tradition.
21:00 🛡️ Goal: Present three arguments for philosophical atheism over Friar Gregory's Thomism.
21:28 💼 Distinction between classical theism and theistic personalism, affecting the perception of God.
23:34 🤨 Bayesian argument from evolutionary evil: Evolution's suffering challenges classical theism's goodness.
27:49 🤔 Argument from freedom: Classical theism's God lacks perfect freedom, contrasting traditional belief.
29:40 🧐 Argument from changing knowledge: Classical theism's unchanging God incompatible with changing knowledge.
33:38 🤨 Summing up arguments: Philosophical atheism more likely due to evolutionary evil, divine freedom, and changing knowledge.
43:44 🤔 In discussing the possibility of a beginningless causal series, each link in the series might have a concurrent cause, suggesting no unique initial cause.
45:10 🌐 An example of a conceivable beginningless causal series: a gunky physical object made up of smaller parts, creating a regress that may never terminate.
46:13 🧠 Consideration of a contested Aristotelian metaphysics at the core of arguments for the existence of an unactualized actualizer.
47:12 🛐 Arguments don't inherently lead to a being worthy of worship or perfectly good, necessitating further argumentation to fill this gap.
47:43 💡 Questioning the justification for existential inertia, the idea that something needs continuous actuation to sustain its existence.
49:23 📖 Engagement with the problem of evil, considering different perspectives and acknowledging human suffering.
50:05 🧐 Exploring the notion that God's nature surpasses human understanding and human-like criteria.
51:02 🧘♂️ Reflecting on the mystery of God in relation to human suffering, emphasizing a deeper understanding rather than definitive answers.
51:17 🤝 Seeking a perspective that avoids anthropomorphizing God and acknowledges human limitations in understanding divine nature.
52:00 📚 Exploring the interplay of moral principles derived from reason (ethical non-naturalism), including Kantian, consequentialist, and contractualist perspectives.
55:17 ⚖️ Contemplating the criteria for determining types of consequences and discussing various moral principles that guide human actions.
57:08 🌐 Analyzing the implications of different moral principles, including the potential convergence of deontological and consequentialist perspectives.
57:25 🤝 Cross-examination focused on understanding moral principles, the nature of reason, and the potential compatibility of different ethical theories.
01:07:50 🤖 Heaven as a possible world with no animal suffering is discussed.
01:08:15 🌎 The nature of non-physical souls in relation to heaven is explored.
01:08:56 💡 Different possible worlds, including a world of disembodied minds, are considered.
01:09:12 💕 The potential for loving relationships and an infinite loving relationship with God in heaven is discussed.
01:09:54 🌌 The possibility of matter's presence in heaven and the nature of goodness are explored.
01:14:18 🎭 Discussion on God's goodness, metaphysics of evil, and theological perspective on evil's nature.
01:18:06 🕰️ Ben's argument about changing knowledge and determinism, and reconciling the implication for divine attributes.
01:24:58 ⏳ The nature of time and changing knowledge's relation to time in Ben's argument is clarified.
01:28:40 🛠️ Creation and sustenance: When discussing God's creation, it's not about making something from existing materials, but about making something out of nothing (ex nihilo). The creative act imparts the very act of "to be" without relying on intrinsic properties.
01:30:08 🧠 Existential inertia: The debate explores whether God sustains everything in existence constantly or if things have inherent existence (existential inertia). The idea of existential inertia challenges the need for continuous divine sustenance.
01:31:47 🤝 Objective moral values: Cosmic Skeptic argues that morality is objective but not grounded in God, comparing moral truths to mathematical truths. Moral principles are seen as necessary truths, independent of a divine source.
01:34:06 💔 Purpose of suffering: Suffering can reveal depths of love, call forth moral integrity, and lead to greater meaning. Ben questions the compatibility of a loving God with the existence of gratuitous suffering and languishing.
01:37:18 💡 Evaluating suffering: Distinguishing between pointless and non-pointless suffering is complex. Ben discusses using moral principles (Kantian, contractualist, consequentialist) to systematically evaluate suffering's justifiability.
01:43:11 🕊️ Epistemic and metaphysical: Ben justifies inferring that suffering is gratuitous based on phenomenological impressions and moral principles. The question of God's moral standards and the objectivity of moral judgments arises.
01:47:12 🌟 God and morality: Cosmic Skeptic argues that God should be subject to moral standards. He leans toward theistic personalism, emphasizing that God's goodness must align with human moral intuitions.
01:49:35 ☀️ Parallels in religion: Father Pine acknowledges parallels between Christianity and pagan religions and suggests that Christianity often adopts similar themes for evangelistic purposes, recognizing shared human inclinations toward certain beliefs and values.
01:50:59 📚 Father Gregory Pine highlights how God's revelation is communicated through scripture, transcending human experiences.
01:51:13 🌍 Creation accounts reveal God as one, good, and able to use human choices to bring about beauty despite evil.
01:51:42 🌞 Interpersonal relationships reflect the triune God's nature, and the concept of love aligns with familial terms in various cultures.
01:52:21 💔 Ben Watkins argues religious disagreement is a significant challenge to the existence of a perfectly loving God.
01:52:49 🌅 Sun god parallels aren't the main focus; the debate centers on the question of God's existence.
01:53:30 💬 Both debaters discuss the best argument from the opposing side and why they think it fails.
01:58:25 📜 Father Pine explains the argument of divine hiddenness, discussing God's subtle revelation through history.
02:03:38 🧠 Ben Watkins reviews his three arguments: evil, freedom, and changing knowledge, challenging traditional theistic concepts.
02:07:10 🤝 The debaters emphasize the value of genuine philosophical discourse for personal growth and understanding.
Made with HARPA AI
Matt - I love the fact you have the two participants try to frame their counterpart's best argument for their position. It brings civility to a potentially contentious conversation. Keep this is all of your debates. Thanks for putting this together!
you should link their info in the description! Great debate Matt, good job hosting!
Check this out pls: ua-cam.com/video/dC7UAMwLfqE/v-deo.html
In the argument about evil, it was begging the answer of The Brothers Karamasoff, where Aloysius the younger brother stated all the moral evils in the world to say there can be no God, when the example of the saintly Fr. Zosimo, who selflessly ministers to all, w/o cost is the moral equivalence of God in the world. ( Fedor Dostoyevsky)
This shouldn’t be one and done here. There is more than enough for both Ben and Fr Pine to review the debate and their notes, mutually agree on points for further discussion, and drill down into those in another debate sooner rather than later. I don’t like that these debates seem to end right when they get interesting. This happened on a daily basis with the philosophers of the recent past, let alone the ancients. Do another one with these two ASAP, Matt!
It was a very pleasant debate to listen to . I have a lot of respect and admiration to both debaters who engaged in such a a civil way with each other . Fr Gregory was a surprise for me tbh .. .. Matt Fradd , you have definitely set up a great civil debating platform that is often missing in other platforms .. Good job my fellow Aussie
Such a satisfying discussion, one of real substance, where interlocutors carefully listen and concisely speak.
Wow. Fr Gregory's closing statement was awesome! O.P. charism shining through
Fr. Gregory "As it were" Pine
This is an underrated comment 😂 “Cheers.”
*Fr. Gregory "Swaggering Punk Kid Thomist" Pine 😂
@@melaniesweeney4665 😂😂😂
(in an Australian accent)
Because it, in fact, was.
Awesome, thank you so much for hosting these debates.
Great debate guys!
Amazing debate! Great job, Matt!
Both debaters were quite well reasoned and nicely charitable and seem like genuine nice and decent people. A nice and welcome change for internet debate.
That in itself is a victory!
This was probably the first UA-cam debate that I've seen where the Atheist actually presented arguments for his position.
@Nigel Butt shroud of Turin?
Not very logical ones. Saying "people once did not exist, therefore God didn't have knowledge of their existence. Upon existing, God then "obtained knowledge not previously known" is a laughable chain of reasoning. It was pointed out this contradicts how God is defined, an obvious straw man.
@Nigel Butt
It beats the panspermian theory.
@@icanfartloud Yeah, but that's a lot better than the typical response in these debates of "Where's the evidence bro?"
@Nigel Butt
Of course no one bothers to ask who made the spaceship.
Ben Watkins' demeanor in this debate is to be praised...much better than the late Hitchen's approach and I actually like the late Christopher Hitchens. Much more is accomplished with less personal animus and vitriol.Cheers from Canada!!!
Thanks for the good debate to both. We won. The best part of the debate is that everyone was respectful and polite and thoughtful.
Fr. Gregory Pine, you are a saint. Miss you man. Fr. Gregory needs no notes. Ben seemed to stumble and rely only on his notes during the rebuttals and opening statements, and yielded his time because he had nothing to say a few times .
Is the objection that I prepared my opening and rebuttals and said what I needed to say in less time than allotted? Lol
Fr. Gregory will be a saint, one day...
as an agnostic I have to say I like these talks with this Pine dude a lot
Ben Watkins is very respectful, well spoken, articulate, reasonable, and, I think, had a great Southern Accent. If more Atheists were like this in the Internet the world would be a better place. Lol
1st watch: Wow this is great they are so nice
2nd watch: Wow Fr Pine is very kind and eloquent
3rd watch: Fr Pine has some pretty cool looking eyebrows
4th watch: I think I have a bro crush on Fr Pine...
Fr. Pine is becoming one of my favorite Catholics to listen to!!
Try Fr. Chad Ripperger ! . . . God bless.
@@comedy-dolman3753 Check this out pls: ua-cam.com/video/dC7UAMwLfqE/v-deo.html
Thoroughly enjoyed this. Win-win. Thanks. Praise God.
This was a very pleasant debate. It was so refreshing to see two men so diametrically opposed engage each other intelligently and respectfully.
The avoidance of polemics and presence of charity was a breath of fresh air.
One critique that stands out to me of Mr. Watkins’ presentation of the problem of evil is that he relies heavily on the theory of evolution which many contest as highly problematic.
I’m not sure why Fr. Pine did not address this.
@@Jesserocks1975 The theory of evolution is accepted by all biologists, all over the world. To suggest that this theory is unscientific is ludicrous !
Why can’t atheist be like Ben Watkins or Alex (CosmicSkeptic), which is not rude and militant to argue their skepticism of God’s existence?
Comments below are evident that many atheists are not eager but angry to want to take down God’s existence.
I’m glad, Ben Watkins is a figure in the atheist group. I sure hope the field of atheist learn from him.
Check this out pls: ua-cam.com/video/dC7UAMwLfqE/v-deo.html
Why cant theists be like Father Pine and not rude and militant arguing that were all lying and really believe but we just want to sin? Or that we have to be necessarily depressed without a god?
Atheism always false
@@borneandayak6725 How can it be false? Youre saying i actually believe in a god? thats the only way it can be false, if you claim Im lying.
I think you just like them because they both have bad arguments that are easy to take down so it makes your position look good.
As a former atheist, I must say I liked this a lot.
Based
@@stuckmannen3876 me too, ex-atheist now Catholic.
full disclosure: I'm not convinced there is a god, but what changed for you?
holy based
I mean technically every theist was once an atheist, coz nobody is born a theist.. The only question is, what were the reasons that made you an atheist?
Was blown away at the quality of the argumentation here. Loved the debate. A suggestion for Fr. Gregory that he work on finding a way to expound the monolith of thomism more concisely (I'm not even sure how it can be done, but it seems possible prima facie). I believe it's healthy for beginners to see good philosophy fly above their heads, but even for the sake of interested intermediates, it would be beneficial if Fr. Gregory could cover more content of the objections.
Welcome back Matt!
Fantastic debate! @MattFradd, could there be a future debate on Mary and the Immaculate Conception?
I wish I had the intelligence level to understand what either of these guys were talking about 😂 😂
That’s why you need to read more my dear
It's not that hard. For any terms you don't know, or don't know in this context just search google for those terms. Then read what comes up. If you're worried about getting bad info just choose academic sources like university websites, or philosophy encyclopedias from the links in the search results. You may also have to search terms on the pages you find, and then you're down the rabbit hole.
@@ImTiredOfThisChurch I agree.
@backwoodsman I agree. Very hard to even understand what they were talking about because of all the things they referenced and how fast they said them
honestly thats kind of how i felt too
Ben Watkins was a great oponent. It was really cordial and respectful debate.
Great debate, both sides were very respectful! I would say that Fr. Gregory Pine won (no doubt, really). Good night and God bless You all! ✝️ 💜
Could you elaborate on why you thought Fr. Pine won?
For. Gregory just so quick but so in depth. 🙏 ✝️
Agree. Fr. Gregory WON ❤❤❤
Fr. Gregory was more versed in my opinion. Ben did a great job though. Both were civil. But to be truly sincere, I see Ben’s misconceiving about God’s knowledge and many more topics (ex: the metaphysics of time) more demanding of explanation (and not so basic ones) so that hardly could be posed as a benefit to his side as far as a “debate” goes, due to the fact that Fr Gregory Pine had to deal and maybe correct those misconceptions.
I sincerely think Fr. Gregory won it overall (and won it clearly: both in possessing more profound knowledge on the matters discussed and in its transmission, all difficulties already taken into account), even though he probably would have needed much more time to this than what he specifically had in this kind of format. He probably is a greater lecturer than a debater, but from that in NO WAY it follows that he has lost it or his opponent fared better.
Thank you for the comment.
_"I see Ben’s misconceiving about God’s knowledge and many more topics (ex: the metaphysics of time) more demanding of explanation (and not so basic ones"_
Could you clarify on this point? What misconceptions did Ben make on this issue? He was literally making the arguments linked in the videos below:
ua-cam.com/video/MK46WgOxF1k/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/3hCRGwNtW80/v-deo.html
Which are standard arguments in the literature. Fr. Pine may have been the better speaker, but in terms of substance Ben definitely had the edge.
Through a Glass, Analytically He seemed to not understand that prescience of events differs from what theologians call “double predestination” (what Calvinism teaches) consequences so as to recognize where human free will (or even secondary causation) fits in the equation. Calvinism, no need to say, is metaphysically absurd, but that’s not what Catholics think and teach about God’s planning, let me put this way.
Besides, there is always the need to clarify eternity ‘stricto sensu’ and what the temporal expression of eternity means (due to the necessity we have to make infinite intelligible). The first one is much better described as timelessness rather than an infinite expression of temporal dimension and an undefeated quantity of time, so the eternity of God means the uncaused necessary cause is out of time, so it rather should be expressed that all recognition of time (and it also applies to foreknowledge of events) when related to God is only analogically expressed as an infinite sequence of past, present and future, but ontologically it needs to be expressed in terms of actualization or making “present” any event taken into consideration because the constraint of time isn’t able to apply to what is not contingent by definition (being time contingent itself). So the way Ben represented “future” in his intervention when it concerns to theist arguments was roughly inaccurate: it would be better to call it a wrong depiction of the theistic (Catholic at least) position.
And more, of course, with all due respect to Ben.
YES!!! this is exactly how I felt! Ben had a lot of misconceptions, he should study a bit more about Traditional Catholic Theology and Thomism in order to debate without falling into the mistakes he fell thus making Fr. Gregory have to use his time to constantly correct him instead of focusing on the important topics.
I pray for Ben so he gets to know and love God.
God bless Fr. Gregory ❤❤❤
Awesome Debate...Well Done!
Looking fresh Matt!
Very enjoyable debate from both men. Thanks to Matt for hosting. I left with plenty of notes!
(I just wish both participants had double time - though I'm sure that would have made a marginal difference)
Fr. Pine partially reminded me of Marc Greisbach, my former professor at Marquette University, and past president of the American Catholic Philosophical Association. I wonder if he knows of, or remembers him?
"..God is immutable [and can't change]. ..but God *can* acquire something new and change: namely knowledge."
But if God exists outside of time, he doesn't need to acquire anything, because he already possesses that knowledge, no?
I may have missed something here though. His opening statement was very packed and I'll therefore probably listen to this discussion more than once.
Thanks for hosting this high quality types of discussions. I'm especially happy that a priest stepped forward. I'm imagining they have a lot on their plate already and fear misrepresenting the Church. If a priest is explaining his honest fire for God, raising the Eucharist like this might be the last time, I'm always touched in a special way. Can't tell exactly how, but it can't be denied.
Thanks for continually offering prayer for all of us father Pine.
Beautiful and effectively moderated debate! Both participants were respectful and well-spoken, making clear and pertinent arguments.
I would however say, probably because I myself am Christian, that the case for God's existence was more convincing.
Of course I am biased towards the belief in God because I am a Christian. Hands down for the argument\ explanations for God.However both sides were over my head for sure. Well done to both Father and Ben. And of course Matt. I appreciate the desire for dialogue .
Hearing Father Pine speak is always spiritually uplifting!
This very interesting debate for our time.
Probably the most philosophically competent atheist, and the most respectful one I've ever seen too! Good on Ben
Fr Pine won, but only if you understand the premises that his arguments are based on. To the average viewer, the other guy seemed to address logical human complaints based in a worldly view of existence. Fr Pine addressed these concerns with a presumptive understanding of transcendent realities. This was less a debate as it was two guys, who aren’t on the same page at all, taking turns talking.
First: the tired and boring argument from evil. The materialist will never relinquish this argument and those who understand the truth can nary put into words the complexities of Gods allowance for suffering. Furthermore, an atheist has no belief in the truth of creation (in this case the atheist wouldn’t stop referencing Darwinian evolution which, itself, has very valid skeptics despite holding a nearly cultish following within “scientism”). An understanding of creation begets one an understanding of the fall- which accounts for nature’s brokenness. Secondly: his argument from freedom lacks an understanding of the nature of God. We say God “could have done otherwise” simply because we draw from human experience where we have either/or choices. Gods nature as pure act speaks to a perfection of decisiveness that makes it neither necessary or proper to even contemplate him “changing his mind” or “deciding this or that.” Third: the argument from changing knowledge completely disregards an appropriate understanding of Gods existence outside of time.
@@vinniecox874 Exactly! I wish they would drop the PoE argument or keep it for a separate debate because it requires soo much exposition from the thomistic side and it distracts from the rest of the debate (and anyway it can at best argue against a certain kind of "god"). I also agree that once you understand what evil is and why God permits it it is such a profound insight! The existence of evil could probably be made into a powerful agrument for God, but not one that could be used in a debate such as this.
@@IvanLovroTomac Hmm, turning the existence of evil into an argument for God kind of sounds like the moral argument
Hearing Fr. Pine was like drinking from a fire hydrant. I should stick to pop-apologetics.
hahaha couldnt have said it better. listening to him is a good exercise in humility :D
Laughed out loud at this... describes the experience perfectly. I'd say I was impressed with the debate but that would imply that I could actually comprehend the torrent.
he has a torrent of sophistry, but all of his sophistry is circular reasoning since it assumes not only the existence of a god, but the existence of the specific god he defines. In history there are many gods - why does he only cover information about one of them?
@@eniszita7353 that there are “many gods” is an assertion. Fr defends the one he believes exists. What’s the problem?
@@defeatingdefeaters The logical issue is that his arguments include assumptions about the subject of the argument so are just in essence restating the assumptions.
Before one ask what is the purpose of life, one must ask what is Life? To that I say that it is not what life is, but what life does, that give us its meaning and purpose.
Hi Matt,
For your podcast, how do you do it? I want to start a podcast, but I don’t know how to make one! If you could help out, I’d appreciate it!
Most atheists I've met seem to have a chip on their shoulder, but Ben seems like a super chill dude. Definitely a guy I'd have a beer with (and I don't even like beer!). Always a fan of Fr. Gregory. Great debate!
Maybe you are confusing "a chip on their shoulder" with confidence in their position and belief in their ability to defend it.
Many atheists love that they don't have to contort a holy book to see that science works and that evolution is real. Many of them now see a contradiction between faith and science.
Just ask yourself: "Do I believe that Noah and the Ark story is literally true and if it was does it make any sense?" Many Christians now realize that a literal belief in Noah's flood, the ark story is fiction according to science and even say it's a metaphor to tell a story.
BTW believing in literal Noah's ark story and Young Earth Creationism go hand and hand.
@@andrewjohn2124 eh. I'm in a doctoral program for chemical engineering. I know plenty of atheists who are extremely confident but don't even have the basic philosophical lingo. I've had good conversations with two of them and they would say everything but the words "I'm angry at God." grew up Catholic, family member had something happen, now are on meds for anxiety/depression, and every time the topic comes up outside of our good convos, it's very clear they are throwing bombs with no real substance. The others, it looks the exact same from the outside, but yes, technically I can't say with 100% certainty that their mentality is the same. But they act the same.
And yea the flood I'm not sure about. My dad is an ancient semitics expert and I know he's said that given that most mesopotamian cultures seem to have a flood narrative in their mythology. That combined with some sparse evidence for a flood in that region at some time, I'm cool with some local flood. But no. I think 1) a global flood and 2) Noah himself may be from middle Eastern epic narrative genre and exaggerated. That is one theory as to why methusela was 900+ years old: ancient myths of kings denoted the greater kings with a longer reign. You'd see some 50,000 year reigns. It wasn't a historical description as much as a description of greatness. All that to say, yes I'm aware of ancient mesopotamian genre, I'm a professional scientist, and I'm capable of reading between the lines on stuff.
I can usually follow most Christian/Atheist debates but what Fr Gregory Pine is saying is mostly flying over my head, and I'm Catholic. Where do I get a start on Thomism without prior philosophical training?
ua-cam.com/users/TheThomisticInstitute
I would recommend Ed feser. At least for me he has served as good door to this area of philosophy.
You should watch the Aquinas 101 series of the Thomistic Institute. Ed Feser has an excellent introductory work on this issue called "Aquinas: A Beginners Guide"
If you have no philosophical training then Matt Fradd's book on the five ways is a great place to start. www.amazon.com/Does-God-Exist-Socratic-Dialogue/dp/0999667076
After that you should read Edward feser's books, either "the last superstition" which is partially a history of philosophical development and a refutation of atheism against Thomism, or "Five proofs for the existence of God" which in my opinion is his magnum opus.
www.amazon.com/Last-Superstition-Refutation-New-Atheism/dp/1587314525
www.amazon.com/Five-Proofs-Existence-Edward-Feser/dp/1621641333
Just to be clear of the reading level
First you should read Matt Fradd's book since it is the easiest introduction
Then you should read the Last Superstition which compares this view with others.
Next Read the Five Proofs since it is in my opinion one of the best books arguing that God is logically necessary.
If you want free resources then I recommend a UA-camr named Mathoma who made several videos explainthing this stuff in detail.
ua-cam.com/play/PLpzmRsG7u_gpMogZpIcZnS0BsD3z8_x3n.html
This is a video which is basically a dumbed down or simplified version of one of Mathoma's video's explaining the Argument from Change to prove God. ua-cam.com/video/xUXlx0jHTrU/v-deo.html
If you want something super light to read you can read "Aquinas in 50 pages" which is a extremely BASIC introduction to how Aquinas thinks. newsaintthomas.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Thomas-Aquinas-in-50-Pages-Final.pdf
You can also Read Aquinas yourself.
www3.nd.edu/~afreddos/summa-translation/TOC-part1.htm
Please let me know if I was of any help.
I got started with Aquinas by Ed Feser (it’s like an introduction series, very basic)
A more fun intro to Thomism and why it is so important (with basic jargon stuff) is the Last Superstition
Great job guys!
I never noticed your tattoo before, I like it. The miraculous medal M cross
19:10 Matt asking Ben what beer he’s drinking and Fr Gregory is seriously drinking his water
We all make mistakes in life in which some are simple financial mistakes, some are tragic outcomes such as war injuries and other physical injuries due to our decisions. However, if you are wrong about the existence of God , you have made the ultimate mistake in that you could suffer for eternity. Wow, I'm not willing to make such an eternal mistake. Give up your sinful behaviour which will ultimately get you nowhere.
This debate has been going on for years and years
Well done fellows! I am so impressed at how this remained a true debate, rather than argumentative. A lot of this went way over my head, however, based on what I did understand I believe Fr. Gregory won.
Matt, I'm curious...your guests appear to be recording with higher quality mics, but you are only using the audio from their headphones or computer speaker on the stream..it appears. Why is that? Are you using their HQ audio later on for a podcast release because it's too hard to use their HQ audio live (assuming you are using ecamm)? or some other reason? thanx
A swaggering, punk-kid Thomist? Now I've heard everything
Digging that intro song
hi Matt, would you have a link to Fr. Pine's podcast?
Odd that many here in the comments are saying that Fr. Gregory is more well-versed and responded well to the objections he was able to respond to, but lost because he was not able to respond to all of the objections. How does that make any sense? No you cannot assume he would have refuted the other objections as well as the ones he was able to get to, but to judge the winner of a debate based on what was left unsaid does not make much sense.
I would say Fr. Gregory very clearly won - Ben certainly knows his stuff better than the average "atheist" you may encounter on the street, but he has critical misunderstandings of God's knowledge, which Fr. explained and Ben still seemed to not comprehend, and God's relation to time. God, as Being itself, is not bound by time, and you could say all of time is present to Him always (in that, He knows time as time only has existence because of Him... additionally, as Fr. mentioned, time is simply how we measure change in this world). This also provides answer to how God could hear and answer millions of prayers being offer simultaneously. As He is not a secretary sitting at a desk receiving emails containing prayer requests which He must then sort through and deal with accordingly, His answering of prayer does not work this way. This assumption would be anthropomorphic as other assumptions in this debate were, which Fr. also pointed out.
Yea I don't understand that. Also I don't like, "Does God exist?" debates for that very reason. The focus should be on one argument.
totally agree!
I was thinking this as well
@@Anyone690 and all I believe the technique is called a Gish Gallop, named after a debater named Gish in which he would present so many objections to his opponents position that there would be no way his opponent could respond to them all in the time frame.
As Ed Feser notes one of the many mistakes critics of Classic Theism (this goes for both Atheist Critics like Ben & even Theistic Personalist critics like William Lane Craig) is treating timeless as if it was a point in time just outside the graph. Time is the measure of change and timelessness for God is simply the absence of essential and substantive change. Also God Knows things because the is the source and cause of them and He knows them by knowing himself. He doesn't observe anything and He doesn't acquire knowledge. He is the source & cause of things known and only knows them by knowing Himself as the cause of said things.
GOD BLESS HIS ONE AND ONLY CATHOLIC CHURCH! :)
Fr. Pine for the win. He knows his stuff. I was not impressed with Ben Watkins. But both were very respectful. Thanks to all involved.
Could you elaborate a bit on your comment?
As a theist I have to disagree. Fr seems to come off better because of his responses and I definitely think he corrected Ben in a few key areas. However you need to take a step back and analyze the whole debate. Fr spend very little time on his own case and spent the rest attacking Ben's arguments which he did not have enough time to get through. Had this just been a discussion I might have said pine seemed more convincing but debate format wise, judging by the topic "does God exist" he definitely did not win.
Fr. Pine clearly won ❤❤❤🙏🙏🙏
1:18 "I went from an IS to an OUGHT". It is true that we use hypothetical Imperatives (as in your example) routinely, but, by themselves, they don't solve the Is/Ought problem in the sense of providing an objective basis for morality. Father Pine cares about the condition of his teeth, but someone else who did not care about them is not bound by the 'moral' obligation to take care of them.
In case of modern Christian Apologetics I really recommend G.K. Chesterton, Feliks Koneczny, C.S. Lewis, Edward Faser, Thomas E. Woods, Fr. Thomas Joseph White OP. and Wolfgang Smith among others. :-) ✝️ 💜
Please tell each magnum opus/must read for each author. It would be a great help.
@@aldrichemrys Speaking only apologetic works. C.K Chesterton: Orthodoxy. Lewis: Mere Christianity. Feser: The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism. Woods: How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization. Smith: Theistic Evolution: The Teilhardian Heresy.
Tony Kleem Thank you so much, man. Such a great help.
@@aldrichemrys You are very welcome.
@@aldrichemrys 5 proofs for God by feser is also really good
It's a trap: both are theists, but only one of them knows it.
Good one
Exactly!
Best comments on this video are the ones arrogantly dismissing the debate topic and the intellect of the debaters
I really wanted to enjoy the debate but I literally had no idea what they were saying like 80% of the time. I feel like this knowledge that both of these guys have isn’t accessible to like 99% of ppl just because of their vocabulary.
Proposition for next debate topic: Sedevacantism
Animal pain is a cop out. We can’t even know how animals experience “suffering.” Suffering includes experience of time, fear of death, etc, etc. Animals certainly don’t experience pain in this way, to the degree of human beings. I wish more time was focused on the cosmology and metaphysics.
"Cop out" is probably too strong. I would concede animals probably do not experience pain is the same way we experience pain, but I would also insist they experience pain in ways that matter. That is what is relevant to the problem of evil.
true. You should check out Roy Schoeman series on Faith and Science here on YT. He touches on the relationship of evolution and faith. Its supper well done!
shadowlink26 yeah my reaction was probably a little too, well, reactive. About the third time I heard animal pain I sighed and commented. I agree it poses a mystery, since animal suffering does not seemingly contribute to their “happiness” as it does for us. Yet the problem of animal pain assumes much.
We anthropomorphise the animal suffering. They feel pain, but they don’t suffer
Yes, I was hoping atheists would talk more about ontological arguments but then they sway into the problem of evil! Catholicism is the best system which most well explains the problem of evil. Animals suffering just doesn’t convince me that God doesn’t exist, and the “If God real why bad happen” argument is really too simplistic.
Praying for Mr. Watkins...God will get him...Just wonder if God does not exist why does it matter to Mr. Watkins....How am I hurting him....I would rather be wrong with my belief than to not believe at all...
He seems like someone genuinely seeking Truth and working out his arguments to me. I don't think he's trying to change our beliefs. I think explicitly distancing himself and his group from the New Atheists also speaks to that. That strikes me more as an anti-thiest anti-religous movement compared to many Atheists I know. I always felt like they were largely responding to fundamentalist Evangelicals that were out "witnessing" and very aggressively and awkwardly trying to convert peope in the 90s and spawned a bunch of followers who could often be equally fundamentalist and trying to force their beliefs on others. I don't get that from Ben at all! I've known a lot of both these camps growing up and heard debates between those 2 groups a lot.and both sides would often accuse the other of forcing their beliefs down the others throat and then immediatelyforce theirs instead! 😂
I'm so delighted this debate was not like that. It gets boring and tiresome very quickly.
Great job Father Pine ! Nice to see you ! We miss you in Louisville at St Louis Bertrand. We are the Tricia Crosswait family and Susan and Pat kenny family. We pray for you and all priests and religious🙏✌️✝️🇺🇲
Check this out pls: ua-cam.com/video/dC7UAMwLfqE/v-deo.html
Should have been Ed Feser
The irony of exalting “Reason” that somehow is not based in rationality itself-but mindless processes that just happened to produce organisms with the ability to reason. Absurd!
The opposite of reason
Hey Matt, you should host a debate on Divine simplicity vs the Essence and Energies distinction!
Whatever they are drinking, I want those. Hopefully, it would make me keep up with their thoughts.
I am an atheist but I must admit that people with a religious faith seem a lot more content than the ardent atheist.
So if the metaphysical ideas caught your interest but went over your head, a fellow priest and I are working through Daniel J. Sullivan's introduction to Classical Realism on the Amateur Philosophers' Club podcast www.buzzsprout.com/883282
Everyone thinks way too hard about free will, your free to love God above all else or not. One decision brings heaven on earth, the other peril to society.
I did thoroughly enjoy this. Hearing the perspective from Ben’s position (and those that are less aggressive towards faith) was encouraging and a conversation I believe to be more fruitful than what is possible with the “new atheists.”
I am biased...but Fr. Gregory Pine is a beast!
@Nick Jones Hi Nick. "Tinniest scrap of credible evidence"? Let's not be more honest in an assessment of the debate. It would be a reasonable position to state that both Fr. Pine & Ben presented well-stated positions - both of which had philosophical "evidence." And each of those positions had areas the other effectively challenged. I can respect one honestly walking away scratching their head or concluding one person won over the other. But to state Fr. Pine "couldn't provide EVEN the tinniest scrap of credible evidence" indicates you either didn't actually watch the debate (at least with an open mind considering both positions) or you're simply choosing to speak with hyperbolic language which helps neither yourself nor anyone with whom you attempt to engage in dialogue.
@Nick Jones Oh I see. So you're real question is why won't God sit still under a microscope like the rest of the specimens we learn about in the material universe? Your very question screams your misunderstanding of what a Christian claims God to be. It also happens to again affirm that you either didn't listen to the entire debate we're commenting on or weren't open-minded enough to consider various perspectives. The God we profess to exist is something different entirely from the world we encounter by empirical evidence. So your claim that there's no physical (you're not using this word, but you might as well because it is all you would accept) falls dramatically short of even understanding what we mean ontologically when we say God. I'm not asking you to believe - but your dismissiveness is not helping anyone, especially yourself. Arrogantly claiming that philosophy cannot aid in arriving at truth is both arrogant & ignorant.
@Nick Jones Nick, a few last comments.
First, yes "my" God (foolish to assign pronouns in this way, but whatever) has a physical effect on the universe. It is the universe's very existence - the most fundamental effect. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, this was clearly articulated in the debate. The fact that there is something rather than nothing requires an explanation. And I'm open to what that explanation may be - but I have not heard an explanation I personally find compelling other than something called God.
Second, we're now debating the existence of God - which was not my intention in responding to your initial comment of Fr. Pine's inability to provide "EVEN the tinniest scrap of credible evidence of your God." If you want to truly be intellectually honest - even while remaining an atheist - it's necessary to listen to both sides & recognize valid points. Recognizing valid points does not equate with agreeing. But to state that Aquinas' positions (and by extension Fr. Pine's) is not compelling or at least something that demands attention highlights your inability to listen to alternative perspectives or your insistence to speak in hyperbole about a side with which you disagree. Philosophy may not be a physical science, but it would be arrogant & ridiculous to dismiss it as not having the ability to lead to truth.
@Nick Jones Here's the test: Is there something and not nothing? You have yet to offer an explanation for why there is something and not nothing.
@Nick Jones This conversation is over. It was a polite discourse until you became threatened, combative & angry. Nothing further to discuss.
Get Dr Nigel Cundy (Oxford Quantum Physicist and Thomist) on!
How can you have necessary abstract realities unless something could eternally and necessarily ground them? It couldn’t itself be abstract!
I found Ben Watkins only recently and now am a big fan!
1:42:23 what's the problem? For instance when one considers their past it is "pre determined" in so far as that it already happened and you don't have the free will to change it. The only domain where freewill exists within the infinity of time is this thin slice less than a nanosecond called now.
Great debate!
Also why do all athiests have a world map in the background?
Right of passage, I guess. Lol
Because atheist need guide to the truth 😂😂😂
Honest atheists (like this one and the one in the former debate) seem largely to either not understand the theistic arguments well enough or they have questions about theism which they do not (yet) know the answer to. Seldomly do they really have an argument for which there is no theistic answer, whether they 'like' that answer or not.
I barely understood anything but enjoyed
Yeah right on Matt stouts for life!
Father Pine is SO handsome!
First you're deriding Matt for not speaking prudently, then you comment - as a married woman - with capitals on the handsomeness of a Dominican priest?
Admiring beauty is imprudent?
Your earlier comment seems a bit hypocritical in this context, 's all.
I was referring more to the beauty which seems to emanate from him overall... the robust voice, the white robe, and halo-like lighting... but I also just came from his other video on the Matt Fradd show (not PWA) from a few years ago in which Fr. Pine so beautifully described Heaven. And in that interview, he briefly puts his hood on his head at which instant I was forcibly reminded of depictions of angelic creatures I’ve seen previously in works of art. That, plus the fact that he’s is actually a being dedicated in his entirety to God, as a Dominican priest.. for all his Earthly life... how beautiful is that? Seriously? Fr Pine makes me yearn for the source, for Beauty itself (God, or an attribute of God) as it exists objectively. Having said that... taken at face-value I can see how my comment may be imprudent, and I think your point may be fair in that respect.
@@crystald3346 Thank you for the explanation, sister. You are humble as well; I can learn from you. I also think Fr Pine has much beauty. Love!
Tbh, I don't understand what keeping Ben from embracing Theism.
Check this out pls: ua-cam.com/video/dC7UAMwLfqE/v-deo.html
Because : *"Without God Everything is Permitted"* (The Brothers Karamazov). They love sin than God.
this is like debate club where both are religious and one is chosen to represent the other point of view. a real debater would be challenging the underlying assumptions; he doesn't do that.