DEBATE: God's Existence - Trent Horn Vs. Alex O'Connor (@CosmicSkeptic)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 29 лип 2020
- In this LIVE debate Trent Horn debates Alex O'Connor (@CosmicSkeptic) on God's existence.
🔴 ABOUT TRENT AND ALEX
Alex's UA-cam Channel: / alexjoconnor
Trent's UA-cam Channel: / trhorn100
🔴 SPONSORS
Hallow: hallow.com/mattfradd
Catholic Woodworker: catholicwoodworker.com/ Use promo code mattfradd
🔴 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
Welcome! I'd like to start hosting monthly debates like this one. Please help by subscribing and sharing! 😃🙏
I think the topic should be more focussed next time, I felt they brushed over a lot, also it would be nice if you asked them some questions of your own or try and mediate more to prevent them talking past each other. Otherwise great debate and would love more👍🏻
Fair income Matt
Spanish speaking subtitles Gracias
Trent v Bart Ehrman
Bring an Orthodox to debate with Trent please, Matt. I'd suggest Jay Dyer, Ubis Petrus or Snek.
An intelligent Christian apologist who doesn't ride his moral high horse, and an intelligent atheist who doesn't resort to crude and sophomoric arguments to insult religion. This debate puts many religious apologists, and just as many atheist debaters, to absolute shame. Congrats to both of you.
Thanks to all involved.
Is Alex an Atheist or a skeptic...
@@supersmart671 A Christian in the making. There.
@@supersmart671 both.
Agreed!
@@algfayomega lol you can see it too or you joshin?
Man, I can't remember the last time I saw a comment section this civil for a debate between an atheist and theist. A win in itself - good job Matt!!
One of my favourite debates of all time. Please invite Alex and Trent on your show more often :)
I agree, mine too.
My brother Thomas! See you everywhere haha
I'm not impressed with cosmic "skeptic" or the undue attention given to him.
brooooooooooo ive been seeing you EVERYWHERE lol, youre the last person i ever thought would be watching something like this.
I initially shrugged this one off, even though I adore Trent's pro-life debates. I'm listening to the opening statements, and I gotta say, this is starting to get good.
Alex is by far the most respectful atheist on UA-cam. Didn't know about Trent Horn before this but that was a tour-de-force display
My friends: so what do you watch on youtube?
me: It's complicated...
Tutorials for vegan orbital nuking and lectures on Quantum Physics and ontological metaphysics
@@reggiestickleback7794 Pretty much
Yeah! I feel you! Lol.
I wish I can talk to my friends about this but most of my friends aren’t into philosophy and Christianity and one is an agnostic. 🤷♂️
@@nathenram4891 Literally same. My whole family are agnostic apart from my mum and all my friends are basically atheist as well, your not alone, you might feel alone at times, but there are so many who are in the same boat. 1 Peter 5:9
I'm here because of Alex but I must applaud Trent for how confident and prepared he was for this debate. Not saying anyone won or loss, but Trent is definitely a skilled debater.
@J w okay
Trent won
@Kade Daivis I respect that you acknowledge the depth of differences between Catholic/Orthodoxy and Protestantism. Having been an atheist previously, I noticed its very uncommon to see an Atheist make that distinction. I see many of them attack Protestant talking points and assume that Catholics/Orthodox believe the same erroneous ideas, when in fact we likely agree with the Atheists in asserting that their arguments are erroneous or fallacious!
Protestants believe in Objective Truths and Morality theoretically, but in practice they are very much subjective. Why? Because like you said, sola scriptura. They give themselves the authority to interpret scripture and give themselves the authority to believe certain doctrines of the traditional Catholic/Orthodoxy Christian faith, while rejecting others. A perfect example of this is the major disagreements in the Eucharist. (Martin Luther and Calvin were both in favor of the sacrament to a certain extent) This is why protestanism has fractured into thousands of different donimations and why they have no formal body of established theology.
The Catholic Church however, is rich in philosophical and theological knowledge. Their teachings are very clear on what a Catholic must follow in order to be in good standing. The magisterium of the Church is not subject to the individual conscience, so we have a very good reason to believe that what the church teaches now are essentially the same principles that the early Christians taught. The Catholic Church has the capability of forging civilizations (Constantine's Roman Empire, Carolingian Empire/Holy Roman Empire, France, UK, Spanish, Portugal, Etc). The Church also is the reason we have institutions of higher learning aka the University. Oxford, the very university that Alex studies at, was founded by the Catholic Church.
No protestant church has this kind of track record, which is why other Atheist should avoid blending Catholic/Orthodoxy and Protestanism together.
@@parapoliticos52 LOL
@@parapoliticos52 ah no, he didunt
This was an absolute delight to watch! Thanks so much to the both of you. Thank you Matt Fradd for hosting this as well!
As a Theist, I have to say Alex is my favorite person to watch debate. He’s very interested in truth and an incredible intellectually smart person. Alex is very pleasant to his opponents and respectful, that being said very good debate and both brought up very good points. I’m impressed by Alex’s point with determinism vs free will and also loved Trents Moral argument and reasoning.
In the early 1980's, Australian philosopher and atheist J.L. Mackie wrote, “we can concede that the problem of evil does not, after all, show that the central doctrines of theism are logically inconsistent with one another.”
@@andrewferg8737 "But," he should have continued to say, "internal logical consistency says nothing about truth."
@@rickwitten But, it’s still not an inconsistency whereas the atheist has an inconsistency in claiming that they have universal moral duties. What are they and where did they come from?
If they claim that they don’t, we would live in a free-for-all, do what you please society, but we don’t. Why? Is it that stable and prosperous societies are built upon the assumption that there are universal moral laws?
@@hugomunoz9039 The word Morality points to the concept of judging human actions as good or bad. Judgment is definitionally a subjective act. Universal or Objective Morality (you said “moral duty”, which is even less defensible) is self-contradictory. A married bachelor.
Even if one could point to a god (no one can) and demonstrate the unambiguous moral opinion of that god (no one can), that would still be the subjective morality of that god. We, as humans, would have the right and the responsibility (moral duty even?) to determine for ourselves if that god’s morality is appropriate for us as humans to accept.
No atheist that I agree with claims there is a universal morality.
If you assume a distribution of moral opinions across the human population, the median values at any given time will tend to win out. In the absence of an oppressive power, when most members of an evolved social species hold opinions that are conducive to (relative) stability and (relative) prosperity, that’s how societies will be built. Those humans outside of the median will engage in problematic (in the view of the majority) behavior, which necessitates laws, police, judges, social workers, etc., etc., none of which would be expected if a perfect and maximally powerful being wrote it’s moral code upon our hearts.
Your assumption of the type of world we would have given the atheistic understanding of the world we actually live in, is based upon the false teachings of religion. Namely, that humans are bad, born of sin, and in need of redemption/saving. Once you accept that humans exist across a wide range of possibilities due to the error-prone means of natural reproduction, this puzzle you perceive will vanish. Humans need not look for a perfect being as a source of goodness, but to each other.
Truth and theism don’t go together
Wow great polite debate. Im an atheist and i really enjoyed Trent
I'm a devout Christian and like Alex a lot, this may be the best debate between a Christian and an atheist that I've seen
What I enjoy about both of them is their ease of concession on certain points. Neither of them seem to hold on to their arguments for the mere sake of a perceived victory
As a nonbeliever myself, this is the kind of debates I enjoy 🤘🤓
Just because physics cant explain ramdomness in quantum mechanics doesnt mean principle of sufficient reason is false. It just mean physicists have reached their limit.
I noticed Alex is rejecting the PSR due to randomness found in quantum mechanics, but at the same time allowing future explanation for things science can't explain at the moment. This is self contradictory.
America would be better off if our politicians could behave this well.
Dana Harper strychnine
I wish they had this kind of honesty.
Then they’d just be politely corrupt...
@Enjoy and Travel The World! Definitely, and with a surfboard. I don’t disagree with you; however, maybe you could articulate yourself in a more scholarly and polite fashion. The two gentlemen in the discussion seemed capable of intense disagreement, yet maintained a respectful discourse. This is better as it allows the audience to fully appreciate and evaluate each interlocutor’s argument.
post presidential debate this comment is painful
As an atheist I actually really enjoyed Trent’s arguments.
They are the same old refuted arguments
@@LuciferAlmighty Refuted by whom?
@@ethanm.2411 Exactly, atheists always claim that they are refuted, but there is no proof of them being refuted anywhere, they just go silent.
@@davidus9702 Atheist here. I can refute them, and I won't go silent on you.
He says the universe has to be caused by something because the contents of the universe are always caused by something. That's a fallacy of composition. It's like claiming that if a building is made of bricks, the building has to have the same properties as a brick. In actuality, we don't know how the universe began. There are hypotheses, but it remains a mystery. God is merely inserted into the gaps of knowledge. This way of thinking has a poor track record, since the number of times where a mystery has turned out to be caused by God is 0. It always turns out to be something natural. And, Trent doesn't think God needs a cause: an argument from special pleading. In other words: "all things need a cause, except this one thing I call God". "God" has no explanatory power, and can't be used to solve a mystery. Happy with that refutation?
@@smaakjeks Yes, thanks, good day.
This is the best debate I've ever seen. Compelling, respectful and made for intelligent people but not in a pompous but in a simple honest build-up. Applause to all👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
Dude, I'm not Catholic but that woodworkers page is gorgeous. Makes me want a rosarie
Nomen est omen 😉 the name is a sign
Is that a way of spelling “rosary” that I’ve never seen?
Get one! It can’t hurt to learn a new prayer and meditate on the mysteries of Christ!
@@dinopad10 makes it clear I'm not Catholic clearly lol
Jake Pope
I honestly thought maybe it was a different spelling. Hope you didn’t think I was trying to correct you... I was thinking it was a cultural difference.
Boy, the side I agree with sure won this debate! :)
nice lol
Me too!
Woah, same
No way! Mine too!
Haha so true. Watch Christian vs Muslim debates and look at the comment sections. Tribalism at its best. I think its just part of being a human, although we should strive to reduce our biases as much as possible
Most engaging.Thank you both! Thanks for hosting this debate Matt 👍🏼
This debate was amazing! Thank you so much.
Keep up the good work!
I would LOVE monthly debates between Trent and Alex.
Yes! Both of them are brilliant!
I agree!! ❤️
E H well one of them yes
@@NobleVagabond2552 I agree.... Alex is brilliant.
Absolutely !!
This was a wonderful and friendly discussion. Thank you for hosting Matt.
Actually Matt hosted him
Vagaba Assassina Lol because he didn’t use a comma after “hosting.” He probably meant to be thanking Matt. It’s often used as an easy shortcut, I use as well, to quickly write what I want to say, without using punctuation. I also like using too much punctuation, to confuse what I’m saying, as well. ;)
@@junelledembroski9183 Ah okay
I speak from Brazil and it is amazing to see a debate with both respecting each other. Unfortunnately im Brazil, the public debates about politics and religion frenquently turns in a offensive activity, with the debaters curse each other. We have so much to learn with you. Thank you very much for the debate.
This was awesome, at some point during that cross-examination each new response put a new smile on my face.
Being a Christian, I think Alex is my favorite kind of skeptic: he's driven not by hatred for God or a disdain for religiosity, but out of compassion for living beings
That’s most of us 😁
i llike his genuity to seek truth with a seeminlgy open mind
Jesus From Hyrule he seems like a kind person but at the same time don’t forget, his channel is anti christ and his arguments are getting people out of their faith. I wouldn’t give him so much like because he is still a wolf with respectful argument convincing young people to become atheist
Yes. But his kind dangerous in a boat in covid times ;-).
David F I agree we should be weary. But remember, hate the sin but love the sinner. That’s kinda the approach I’m taking but I’m glad u pointed out that he does have a bad mission
I think both made some good arguments, and I enjoyed listening! It is nice to have a debate where both participants are respectful to each other.
Can you name a single sound argument that Trent presented?
This is an amazing debate. I’m on Trent horns side but Alex has definitely got my gears grinding. As a Theist I consider it a blessing to be able to watch debates like this.
Iron sharpens iron.
Hopefully Alex can become a Disciple of Jesus Christ.
@@danielsmithiv1279No he won't
@@someone-jl4sjNever undermine the power of God.
@@joeturner9219 I'm not because he doesn't exist. No rational will believe in any relegion.
@@someone-jl4sjWell it's your personal opinion that He doesn't exist. I don't believe in religion. I have a relationship with God. And it's absurd to say that someone isn't rational because of belief in God. Some of the most brilliant minds are Christians.
Thought provoking stuff. Absolutely loving this debate half way through.
While I may not agree with Alex as much as I may agree with Trent on a few of these topics, I can't help but be humbled by Alex's commitment to understand what the other person is "trying" to say, even going so far as to address a point in the context of "the benefit of the doubt".
We need more on all sides like Alex.
Seth Gustafson smells like bias to me. Thats ok to admit it too.
@@Leo-yn5fx agreed that it is ok to admit. Bias is good and bad. Without our biases we may not hold helpful nor unhelpful predispositions. Which is why the charge is bias is unhelpful.
Well most theists never seem to understand other perceptions. It’s always their way or the highway without good reason.
@@Jrod- I agree with that many theists fail to understand the perspectives of people holding apposing views, just as many people who hold any socially "charged" position. However I disagree that "most" is representative, in fact hasty sweeping generalization as such are not typically indicative of an intention that is looking to understand either.
@@Phill3v7 that’s the hard truth about most theist, it’s an a generalization. If you ask theists the hard questions, they don’t have a reasonable and sincere answer. They avoid it or lie in order to keep fooling themselves into their beliefs. Everyone knows that and if I don’t agree, then you’re denying it.
If you keep hosting alex, i will stay subscribed.
I'm not gonna lie Trent's arguments in the opening statement were really strong.
Really? It was basically 15 minutes claiming avoiding an infinite regress requires a sentient god who is supposedly self evidently the objective source of morality. Meh.
@@gilesbbb Let's be all serious here faith in creation and logic are two completely different things. Any assertion of faith will always lack rationality; however, people entertain creationism because of the fact we can think, feel, and experience. There is and we are. This whole perpetual nothingness, concrete laws of the universe around us, etc does require SOME explanation when you think through it. Why is energy concentrated in different parts, what is empty space, why are some things in the universe bound by laws. Why are there theoretical limits to things.
Now this type of thinking doesn't justify you having faith in things with obvious logical conclusions. There definitely are theologians and religions that create more god of the gaps arguments than not. However, we cannot follow that there is a logical reason for everything existing. Humans are bound by fundamental unchangeable aspects that is beyond our comprehension and always will be in my opinion.
@@Kyle-pj2vc the thing about the God Trent advocates is that, supposedly, belief in his existence is a necessary condition to avoid eternal damnation. Seems like he has some obligation to make his existence accessible to people don't you think? Unless (and seems far more likely to me) it's just some human created God myths that don't really hold together.
@@gilesbbb Except that's not the God Trent advocates for in this debate. It's also not the God Trent personally believes in. Lumen Gentium and the catechism make clear that it is possible for those who do not belive in the Christian God to be saved. Maybe I missed it, but where in the debate does Trent argue for what you say he's arguing for?
Probably the best debate I’ve seen. Seriously! Both sides had great arguments and communicated their points in a respectful way. Most Atheists that I hear in debates attack strawmen, but Alex was very impressive. I’d love to hear more discussions from these two. I have something in common with both of them: I’m also vegan...as well as a devout Catholic.
This debate really pushes a lot of buttons
Okay, joking aside, this was such a pleasant listen, regardless who you support. :-)
@Order Of The Black Cross Like Matt Fradd, and this debate was a joy to listen 😄
I love your channel so much!! My regards from a Roman Catholic brother in Christ from Brazil!!
Ah, this explains what had you so worked up on your illustration!
Hey bojan, you have catholic fans too
@@solberg7049 I know! Love you guys!
Wow, wow, wow. I'm just in Alex's cross examination and boy am I impressed with this debate. What a refreshing, challenging and highly informative debate between two intelligent and kind men. Not an insult to be heard, just solid arguments. On a side note: Matt, would you ever hold a "classical" debate on your channel? I mean a disputation like what people did in Aquinas' day? I would be FASCINATED to see these two debate under that format.
in Aquinas' day you would be hearing them in Latin, and then in the middle of the disputation the atheist would be burned in a festive auto-de-fe.
Absolutely loved this debate! I learned so much from Trent and Alex offered some of the best rebuttals I've seen thus far, thanks Matt!
As a theist this is one of my favorite theological debates, both of them are incredibly smart and brought up points I've never considered. Specifically from the angle of animal suffering as it relates to the existence of god, which is something you don't often hear talked about in these debates.
Well it is clearly displayed in the Bible when god decided to flood the earth but only saving two of the so called “unclean” animals and sevens of the so called “clean” animals. The fact that no explanation as to why the animals where murdered for the deeds of men proves the atheist points.
I watch ALOT of debates and I've never seen so much respect for one another while debating. Especially with all the chaos in the world today- it's nice to see a healthy disagreement like this
I haven't seen Trent before, but this is how Alex operates. He can get his dander up when disrespected, but he's otherwise always collegial, kind and brilliant.
I stumbled across this debate and site by accident, or was it? In either case so glad I did! Fantastic format and great topics of conversation! I feel so mentally buff after listening even though 3/4 of all the points made go over my head. Keep it coming!!
The 3/4 of the points went over your head because they were meant to. Theists love this philosophical gibberish because it means they stay well away from having to justify their childish make believe.
@@johnbull1986 there was absolutely nothing about this debate that was confusing to me or went over my head, so I think this is just you calling yourself out bud. If there are any particular points you didn’t understand I’d be happy to explain them in less jargon-filled terms. And I’m an agnostic, so you don’t have to worry too much about me being uncharitable to one side
@@lebeccthecomputer6158 you're fluent in dishonest bullshit apologetics masquerading as intelligent philosophy? Nice of you to admit it.
You believe in the supernatural.
Presumably in shite like transubstantiation and hide behind philosophy because you know how utterly stupid it is to think it's real.
Grow up.
Learnt alot. Very respectful, loved both speakers. I pray more debates are like this one.
I’ve watched some debates recently where the Theist does a truly horrible job defending our position, and spends the entire time defending the weakest parts of their argument and getting caught up in defending trivialities. Thank you Trent for being an excellent defender of the faith!
If it's 'faith" it needs no defense.
Check out William lane Craig. He does an excellent job. I found the exact opposite scenario where I was disappointed in the Craig-Hitchens debate because I felt like Hitchens didn't understand how to debate. This one was much more satisfying because both sides seemed to understand the rules.
Trent rehashes the same tired arguments.
@@darkdragonite1419 You'd think after Hume, after Nietzsche, after Freud, after Wittgenstein, that they would abandon trying to logically justify a belief in God. Why can't they just say "We believe because we believe" and leave it at that? They could then be left to their product of wish-fulfillment and whatever peace and serenity it gives them. But no, they demand others should take their belief seriously and so they try to produce evidence for their belief. True faith needs no external evidence, its effect is entirely internal.
@@ibanezdudeck you think that... Hitchens didn't know how to debate?? 🤨
I'm an atheist, but I'm super impressed by Trent.
He’s a Thomist like myself but I’m not catholic. That is he’s a follower of Thomas Aquanis and his 5 ways. You can look them up to familiarize your self with the 5 proofs of Gods existence. Edward Feser probably the best philosopher out there right now wrote a book on it called “the five proofs for Gods existence.” Feser once was an atheist teaching philosophy to his students he came across Aquinas again but this time instead of brushing it off as wrong like he did before he noticed it had merit.
@@TheLloyz Thomists are not christians?
Mister.P unKnow Probably he believes in and holds Thomistic thoughts and ideology, but he himself is not baptized and does not believe in LORD Jesus Christ. I’d say that’s just a fancier way of being a neo-Aristotelian deist.
@@mister.punknow6639 Not sure what you are asking, i myself am a reformed baptist bought by the precious blood of Christ.
@@TheLloyz You said you were a thomist but not a catjolic so I wondered if non christians could be thomists but yeah it turns out you are christian just not catholic
Loved the moderation in this debate. Good format.
And love how Alex brought in the animals in the problem of evil even if it may have not been his strongest point. Love the activism. Would love to see more talks between these two. Trent spoke very well
Alex's brain is my argument for the existence of God.
😂
Trent Horn is brilliant. I didn’t know Alex before, he seem really a smart and an honest person.
Really, Trent is one of the best Christian (Catholic) apologists out there. Period.
Yep, they are both great guys. I think Feser vs. Oppy made stronger arguments (of course, they are experienced philosophy professors) but I was impressed with Trent and Alex for arguing fairly and kindly.
@Catholic Crusader Deus vult yes, super intelligent.
If he is the best then the religion is in deep trouble.;)
The best? Just scrolled randomly through this video and both times this guy is into special pleading fallacies, like "our intelligent mind has to come from somewhere, and that must God". And of course this God doesn't have get his intelligence from anywhere.
Last time I heard someone correct someone committing this fallacy was by a six year old kid. When a six year old are able to understand logic better and/or being more honest than Horn that should tell you something.
@Max Payne You would be better off actually argueing my comment instead of saying Alex didn't argue this particulure point.
And who are you to say I'm a layman and Alex isn't? That's some claims I would love you to give some good arguments for :)
Well done format. Enjoyed the cross examination the most.
Dear Matt, can I have your permission to translate this video or some other videos on your channel to Indonesian language and upload it on my channel?
Sounds like a great idea. Try emailing him, if you haven't already. Hope all goes well, or maybe already has.
Thank you both for staying humble, respectful, and open. The arguments that were presented were sound and well thought out. Lots to think about
I’ve reeeeally enjoyed this debate and its participants! Even if I don’t have the same views as Alex, I really respect and thank him for thinking and giving serious arguments!! This has really made me think. And Trent thank you for defending our beliefs so well!! 😍😍😍👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻 Really happy for discovering this debate.
I'd absolutely be up for another Trent & Alex vid! Great discussion.
Congratulations gentlemen Trent and Alex. You are both very bright and eloquent speakers. I admire your being professionals without any insults on each other's person or even position. The respect of each other is very palpable. Hope the two of you can square off again in other topics. Very good moderator Matt.
-That must have been tiring for those two.
-This is definitely among the top three debates I've ever watched. Thanks Matt for hosting it.
-I am now convinced that Matt Fradd should not be a bedtime story reader.
What are the other top 2
@@npc9207 Jordan Peterson v Sam Harris,
Christopher Hitchens v William Lane Craig
@eeneemeenee6236 ok thanks I've seen the second one you mentioned, personally I would put the sean carroll debate with william lane craig as the best
Good to know, thanks
Hey, Matt. Thanks for setting this all up, love all three of you guys.
One request for future debates, please let the audience know that not all questions will go through, even if they were sent in as superchats. I understand you had a surplus here and a time constraint, but it was somewhat frustrating putting in a $20 superchat that never got read.
Looking forward to the next one!
Great debate. Look forward to more Matt.
I especially like the cross examine and q&a.
I really enjoy listening to Alex because he brings up the right questions, the truly intellectual difficult questions that help me learn and understand god/Christianity better
Totally, agree. I initially hated Alex on the way he questioned others in his other videos, but understood that it’s cruel of me that I did so. He helped me get the answer for those questions which I thought aren’t necessary. Well, sometimes it is. At least, I can explain other Atheists the essence they actually miss. It just deepens my relationship with loving God anyway.
Thanks!
More . . More debates like these pleaae! Amazing.
Matt, thank you so much for putting this together.
Hello
Take a look at this video. It explains what happened to the Catholic Church after Vatican II.
ua-cam.com/video/VB_hUdRKi4o/v-deo.html
Also, see vaticancatholic.com, it contains critical information on the Traditional Catholic Faith, which is necessary for salvation.
I've listen to about two thirds of this so far. How rare: to see two brilliant minds having a civil debate over a profound issue. I tend to side with Alex, but I'll quickly admit that I don't understand all that's being discussed here. I'll definitely have to listen to the whole thing again. Matt, thanks for hosting this and following the rules you've laid down.
Excellent debate! Enjoyed immensely
Great debate, I have never listened to video over two hours until now. Enjoyed listening to both Trent and Alex
I would like to see a debate where it was a little more focused on one of the subjects as opposed so many. It was very good but a little scattered brained. If it was more focused I think they would be able to dive deeper. Loved it! Thanks Matt and Trent and Alex!
You if I am hearing you right this does not prove a moral God or even any God at all thank you
I hope Fr. Ripperger gets featured on this channel.
Yes, please. YESSS
Ripperger rejects Evolution. It will be akin to featuring flat earthers
@@st.mephisto8564 He rejects evolution? Please tell me that's not true.
@@Catholic-Redpilled-Spaniard It is unfortunately!
He's atleast very critical of Evolution and doesn't understand it, imo.
@@st.mephisto8564 I'll look into it. I thought fr Chad was pretty red-pilled. I hope I wasn't wrong
Wonderful debate and very enlightening!
Better now than never, I guess 😅 Trent and Alex debating was an awesome thing to experience. You started debates in a top way Matt, thanks for that.
“Did I mention that I’m vegan?” 😂🌱✊🏼
The circlejerkers are gonna love this.
I’m vegan btw.
@@lllULTIMATEMASTERlll who are the Circle jerkers?
I'm vegan btw
That settles it.
When did he say that? Is he really vegan?
@@reggiestickleback7794 hE sAiD iT mAnY tImEs iN tHe vIdEo tHoUgH
Great debate, I hope there can be another discussion between Trent and Alex.
was not a debate more like a discussion too much topics to respond why does Alex has with hitler, quantum, and free will very safe points for discussion
This was an excellent debate.
This was thrilling! What a good debate!
This is just awesome. Absolutely amazing content, Matt. Subscribing.
This was a very lovely debate! While i tended to agree more with Alex, Trent also made a lot of great points and I really enjoyed listening to him. I would love to see more discussions between these two!
This was a beautiful and classy debate.
Love to all three of you.
Nice one Matt!!
You are really my favorite Catholic Apologist ..I am ur no 1 fan here in the Philipines Mr Trent Horn..Keep defending our faith..God bless you and your family🙏
And yet he didn't present a single sound argument that proves God. Also, no believer believes because of convoluted, fallacious, "sophisticated" philosohpical arguments. So it really is not a defense. It exposes the absurdity of apologetics.
@@xnoreq very well said indeed 👍 and for Mariefa - defending the catholic faith you should watch the debate with Christopher Hitchens on whether the Catholic Church is a force of good in the world, Hitch and Stephen Fry absolutely spell out the truth of the matter.
@@colinross3755 The truth according to a pair of posh English pansies.
LOL. The Counsel of Trent, might have to check it out!
Woohoo! 👏👏👏Amazing introduction Trent ..Amazing!
What a wonderful debate. Thank you Alex & Trent!
I am a Alex fan but I must say that this debate was not one of his best ones .Useally his opponents have sweat on the forehead from digging a hole for themselves from which they cant get out but Trent is a smart cookie .A lot of technical stuff but nothing that has convinced me that there is a god.
Yeah, he had Dr. William Lane Craig laughing.
You're probably not going to be convinced just watching debates, debates barely skim the surface on these issues. You're going to want to listen to a lecture, an interview or read the actual literature if you want some insight into what Christian scholars are really saying.
@@vincentiormetti3048 Thanks for your comment ..I dont need to be convinced .i am a 73 year old Atheist and it served me well .I am just impressed with the level of common sense from a young man like Alex and also the calibre of intelligence from the people he debates .kudos to both .
Hope you will find Christ in your heart and search Him for your salvation. God created us, He gave us life and He created earth and all things so thank we may have food to eat, etc. if a person chose not to believe in God he/she has a freewell, but there is hell.
Trent is one of those shotgun debaters. Just rattle off a bunch of nonsense with the goal of either confusing your opponent or over stimulating them. It's such a dishonest debate style. Typical theistic tactic.
I love how they made the exact same expression at the very end. 😂 I could listen to them for several hours (days).
Really nice debate really enjoyed it
Nice work
Debate suggestion: Trent Horn vs. William Lane Craig on the validity of the Catholic Church and/or the Protestant Reformation
That would be great
Oh, we don't want to start another Thirty Years War, and devastate Western Europe again, do we?
@@drawn2myattention641 How about Dr James White? He's an expert on Catholicism.
@Travis, that'd b awesome. Love Craig, but he can be very shallow when attempting to explain his Protestant interpretations of Biblical passage in support of anti-Catholic views of soteriology.
@@Justas399 Trent Horn already debated White, his Calvinist misreading of John 6:44 is amusing
I've realised that I need to catch up on quantum mechanics
I'm about to listen to this debate. I'm pretty excited
This has been the most pleasant debate I have seen. Thank y'all
Love the conversation, only one request for @Matt Fradd, next time put the timer up so that we know how much time each candidate has. Just an easier and more time constant way of having the debate. I know you could just keep listening, but sometimes one candidate picks up the pace because of the time crunch and you aren't sure how much more time the candidate actually has for trying to fit it into the time.
Get Ed Feser to debate David Bentley Hart on universalism... that’d be so epic
u just want to see the world burn u absolute mad man
Matt Fradd please make this happen!
I would really like to see this.
David Bently Hart would just start roasting everyone in the studio for no reason
I assent to this proposition and second it.
Really grateful for some civil, but also thoughtful and pointed disagreement. Thanks to all involved.
What a gem of a debate. Bravo to all involved
It’s refreshing to see this kind of dialogue
AMAZING debate!! Loved the part where Trent just said how much fun he was having!
Excellent job hosting as well Matt.
Trent put forth some really excellent arguments, and as always, Alex does a great job putting forth some unique challenges. Both men handled themselves very well, debate format was excellent, loved every minute of it. I’ve watched some of Alex’s material before and I really admire his intellect and ability to express himself. I do think Trent made a great point, however, that Alex never really challenged Trent’s arguments made in his opening statement, but just raised some logical difficulties, or puzzles, which if not fully solved, they still both engaged well on.
10/10! Way to go Trent and Alex!
One of my favorite debates of all time🤟
Very informative
Alex agrees that valid deductive arguments for God's existence can dissolve peripheral questions such as animal suffering and quantum randomness, but at the same time he says that peripheral issues are the main reason he isn't a theist. If the central arguments are more important then why does he concentrate on peripheral questions, and why doesn't he show how Trent's deductive arguments for God's existence are invalid ?
Exactly. Good Point.
Basically it makes the 2 hours a waste of time. It doesn't prove or disprove anything.
I think he heard Bart Ehrman making this Point and decided to use it for his case.
Because Alex cannot refute Trents points. God is a necessary Being. There is no way around it.
@@libertarian85 _"God is a necessary Being."_
Demonstrate your ridiculous claim.
@@libertarian85 Hahahahaha. That's hilarious. Well, I claim that God, but evil, is a necessary being. There is NO logical way out of this argument if we accept god as a necessary being. There is no modal function that entalis [~(possible) ~(moral being)]
@@libertarian85 then super god is a necessary being as well, I guess
Great show Matt! You’re a wonderful man with a glorious beard. You were an amazing moderator, as well. Brilliant.
Great job Alex, I finally listened and heard when you guys were saying lay people words, I’ll try to remember your name. I watch your channel sometimes. Cosmic Sceptic was a really good and memorable name to choose, you are so young to be so brilliant and respectful.
Great job Trent, love your podcasts and UA-cam content. I sometimes have to rewind so I can try to catch what you’re saying, because your thoughts come quickly and I haven’t seen the thing you point out so quickly. You’re amazing!
Love all you guys. You are a great team to debate. All of you are wildly brilliant and so respectful!
I just found this after Alex did a debate with Bishop Barron. Great conversation guys.
Any chance in Trent Horn debating with Jay Dyer or any other Orthodox Christian, like Craig Truglia, Ubi Petrus, Snek etc? Trent Horn is such an amazing person and a really good debater, I'd love to see him debating with an Orthodox.
Btw, Trent's books are incredible, everyone should read them, and for nowadays I'd recommend ''Counterfeit Christs''.
I doubt anybody wants to debate Dyer. Dyer would just start screaming at his opponents calling them retards etc. A debate with Craig seems infinitely more possible.
I believe in orthodox Christianity, but I find Jay to be obnoxious and disrespectful when debating. It's hard to listen to him without getting frustrated even if I agree with his point.
I'll have to look up the other names you mentioned though. I'm trying to find more good orthodox content
@@dylanfernandez3910 Yeah. Jay debating is pretty annoying to watch tho, but I don't think Craig would debate Catholicism vs Protestantism.
Maybe (on Protestantism) Trent should try debating with Jordan Cooper.
@@jacob5283 Indeed. I like watching Jay's videos, and I'm also considering to convert to Orthodoxy, but I don't like watching him debating as much as I enjoy his normal videos.
@@magnus8704 Yeah, some of his non-debate videos have some good info, and he seems well-read.
For an introduction into Orthodoxy and to see how it compares and contrasts to other churches, I'd recommend Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy by Fr. Andrew Stephen Damic. You can either read the book or listen to the podcast version.
Wow. This debate topped every single one I've watched in the last 3 years. I am finally persuaded that there are good arguments for God. Is there any way of getting a hold on Trent's apresentation (like power point or summary) so I can study the arguments?
@Matt Blaise thanks
Agreed! Alex is for sure a worthy opponent! They did a beautiful job! Trents YT page (as Matt referenced) is really insightful. You will find more of his debate dialoges with any and all religious/atheism etc on Catholic Answers YT channel. He holds open forums that share controversial topics. Hope it helps!❤
Check out Jimmy Akin
@@__Man_ Thanks for checking up! Still on going. I lean more towords a deist view (god of the philosophers), but in the sense that there are decent enough reasons to believe, but not to have a justified true belief (just too many good objections to the many views to make me comfortable to say "I Believe!".) So, right now, the best I can do is say there are good reasons to believe, but they have good objections against them. For the christian ver. of God, I'm now into the history arguments, but they seem to have similar results. The more I study, the more Jesus turns out not to be who I thought he was. Still trying though. This year I get my degree on Philosophy and will try to get a master's degree on justified belief\epistemology. Hopefully I can go as deep as a phd. Would've never happened if it weren't for content like this. So, long road ahead still. Wish me luck.
@Comboman70 Good luck. Funny how this video produced the most wholesome and respectful people.
Absolute Kudos to everyone involved in this. Great structure. Great arguments. Great discussion. Great respect.
Amazing debate, bravo!
As someone who studies physics, I want to comment on Alex's point on quantum physics. I'm not familiar with the principle of sufficient reason (PSR), which sounds like something from the realm of philosophy. It's not taught in physics classes for sure. But Alex seems to equate it to causality.
It is true that a phenomenon in quantum physics, called quantum entanglement, has been proven to be non-local, due to Bell's theorem and related experiments. In quantum mechanics, non-locality refers to "instantaneous propagation of correlations between entangled systems (can be atoms, electrons, particles, light, etc), regardless of how far apart they are separated." If I have two entangled particles and I measure the outcome of one particle, I'll instantaneously know the outcome of the other particle even if it may be located at the other end of the universe. But the outcome/result of measurement itself is random, so there's no way to know the outcome before the measurement.
physics.stackexchange.com/questions/200642/how-to-understand-locality-and-non-locality-in-quantum-mechanics
Also, Bell's theorem doesn't eliminate the hidden-variable theory entirely, only the local ones. There's also a class of non-local hidden-variable theory.
But non-locality doesn't imply causality violation. In relativity, causality simply means an effect occurs after a cause. If there are two events, A and B, and A causes B, all observers in the universe must observe that A occurs before B. They may not agree on the exact timing of, and between, these two events, but they all agree that A occurs before B. But if some observers report that B occurs before A, then causality is violated.
To cause B, A must send some information or signal to where B is located. This signal/information can't travel faster than light. It turns out that if the signal could travel faster than light, causality would be violated. Causality violation is prevented in quantum mechanics precisely because it is random. We can't send meaningful information if what comes out is random. And it can't be used to induce cause and effect relationship between two events.
I don't think an atheist physicist in a debate about theism would bring up quantum entanglement or randomness as a case against theism. Maybe they would, but not in the context of causality violation. Also, from what I understand, causality is different from PSR in that PSR presumes that every event must have a cause, while causality doesn't. Causality only dictates the rules which observation of events would follow, when the events do have causal relationship.
This is not a comment in support of any party in the debate. I just feel the need to clarify the matter.
Powerful debate! Also very charitable on both sides. I've watched a fair amount of debates from atheist and Christian apologists and it was pretty clear that both sides had to disdain for one another. Glad to see that was completely absent here.
Such a good debate. Mad props to everyone
One of the most rational debates I've heard on the topic. So refreshing to hear open dialogue and respect for conflicting views.
Great discussion. Wish Trent brought up the Aristotelian concept of habit and how it relates to free will both here on earth as well as heaven.