Is belief in the Resurrection reasonable? Trent Horn Vs Matt Dillahunty Debate
Вставка
- Опубліковано 7 кві 2021
- Trent Horn will debate Matt Dillahunty on whether It is reasonable to believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. Then we'll be taking questions from patrons and super chatters.
Learn more about Matt Dillahunty here: www.axp.show/
Learn more about Trent Horn here: www.trenthorn.com/
🔴 FREE E-book "You Can Understand Aquinas": pintswithaquinas.com/understa...
🔴 SPONSORS
Hallow: hallow.com/mattfradd
STRIVE: www.strive21.com/
Catholic Chemistry: www.catholicchemistry.com/?ut...
🔴 GIVING
Patreon or Directly: pintswithaquinas.com/support/
This show (and all the plans we have in store) wouldn't be possible without you. I can't thank those of you who support me enough. Seriously! Thanks for essentially being a co-producer co-producer of the show.
🔴 LINKS
Website: pintswithaquinas.com/
Merch: teespring.com/stores/matt-fradd
FREE 21 Day Detox From Porn Course: www.strive21.com/
🔴 SOCIAL
Facebook: / mattfradd
Twitter: / mattfradd
Instagram: / mattfradd
Gab: gab.com/mattfradd
Trents opening statement: 3:40
Matts opening statement: 18:30
Trents cross exam: 36:56
Matts cross exam: 45:50
Open discussion: 58:10
Q&A 1:20:36
Trents closing statement: 1:59:42
Matts closing statement: 2:04:49
All superheroes don't wear capes lol
Connor Harris is a superhero.
thanks for the timestamps
Thanks for doing this!
Thanks :)
At one point I thought Matt was going to hang up on him 😁😁😁
@Roberto Cartwrighto yeah I would too if my performance was embarrassing as matts 😅
he did it ....when it was over :P
@@catearth8864 0/10 troll attempt. That was so bad that you should feel bad.
@@BenJover right! Lol 😂
That actually is funny
Every time I watch any clip with Matt, UA-cam’s broken algorithm auto plays this video.
An Aron Ra video sent me here
Excellent debate format; very informative
liked the debate format
I am so excited to watch the replay of this debate!
Proof of resurrection
Shroud of Turin .
The Shroud of Turin is a centuries old linen cloth that bears the image of a crucified man. A man that millions believe to be Jesus of Nazareth. Is it really the cloth that wrapped his crucified body, or is it simply a medieval forgery, a hoax perpetrated by some clever artist? Modern science has completed hundreds of thousands of hours of detailed study and intense research on the Shroud. It is, in fact, the single most studied artifact in human history, and we know more about it today than we ever have before. And yet, the controversy still rages. This web site will keep you abreast of current research, provide you with accurate data from the previous research and let you interact with the researchers themselves. We believe that if you have access to the facts, you can make up your own mind about the Shroud. Make sure you visit the page where you can Examine the Shroud of Turin for yourself. We hope you enjoy your visit. Barrie M. Schwortz, Editor.
shroud.com/
ua-cam.com/video/w4RBXVs70_g/v-deo.html
m.ua-cam.com/video/4G4sj8hUVaY/v-deo.html
Weirdo
What a great show! I enjoy these two actually talking about everything civilly. Great debate!
I love how Matt was looking for the button to hang up @49:15.
lol he couldn't help himself
HAHAHAHHAA
And I kept waiting for Trent to change his drawers when cornered on the fact that he has yet to see a resurrection claim he didn’t buy into.
Yes to the cross exam. No one wants to just hear you talk for 30 mins and not be questioned about what your saying.
When Matt said "my mom is a fundamentalist southern Baptist" I understood many things...
He’s an atheist now 🤔
😂
Ex fundie lol
So did I.
@@paul_321 but he is still arguing always against fundamentalism which no Catholic believes either.
this was great
Very interesting debate.
First time on the channel .. VERY well organized debate! Really enjoyed both speakers...
No
@@scottblack7182yes
That was really interesting.
that was awesome
This was structured well 👍
No
What a great debate. Very interesting and respectful. Also a big shout to the moderator who did a great job. 👍🏻
When it comes to debates, Matt is very tolerant and respectful.
@XICODECOPA Well you don`t have to believe, or obey, just don`t complain about the consequences when they catch up with you
This isn't even remotely a debate 😂. Trent was obliterated.
@@johndoney2665 There's no hate quite like Christian "love."
@@johndoney2665 That sounds a lot like a threat to me, do you have any proof something is going to catch up with you?
That sponsorship made me almost spit out my coffee lmao
i spat out mine, then proceeded to sign up.
🤣🤣🤣🤣
It almost seemed like a parody
ME TOO LMAO
They making it too easy for priests now.
This was the best debate of its kind I've watched. Both interlocutors were engaging to listen to and actually responded thoughtfully to each other instead of what you typically see in this kind of discussion, where the speakers go back to delivering their monologue when they have the floor. Absolutely fantastic job by both speakers and the moderator, who did an excellent job of keeping things on track and was obviously closely following the discussion. I'm just sad I found this so long after it was broadcast.
No
This shows that Trent is a good conversor, a lot of people Matt debates just are in such denial and so ready to rumble at every moment that it ends in a shouting party between both, so this was a nice contrast
Apart from the word salad
@@backinblack03"youre just playing word games!🤓"
Maybe if being a "good conversor" was to grasp at "gotchas" and creating strawmans. You should really look up what these words mean if you are having trouble understanding what a "good conversor" would be...
@@ThichabodCraneyou are good commentor
@ThichabodCrane Do you have any examples of those strawmans and "gotchas".
That was an interesting discussion, thanks to all. I would be interested in a follow up conversation between Matt D. and Trent, it did sound like they have additional ground to cover.
they really dont
It wasnt interesting at all. Trent spent the entire time deflecting and dissembling. He's a grifter. And not a very good one.
@@pastormikewinger7212 fart noises
@@pastormikewinger7212 This sounds like the ramblings of a mental patient, or a poor attempt at deception.
@@zapkvr that’s not an argument actually he gave a criterium, and actually gave arguments to support his position, unlike Matt Dillahunty, Who didn’t even attempt to substantively counts or any of his points or any of his standards, his only argument is he’s not convinced I don’t know and you don’t know, and then when I asked how he knows that Thent doesn’t know, he replies with I don’t know 😂😂😂.
As an atheist, props for the civilized format and debate!
Yh great debate but matt needs to relise God gives us free will so it's up to you to believe or not. God proves himself by miracles and witnesses which is good evidence.
@@Omar.313 I am infallible and all-knowing, and I say you have no idea how epistemology works or what qualifies as evidence.
@@chrisdistant9040 fair point but there are many Christians who lived and died. Scientists and philosopher's who had more knowledge then you? and understood epistemology and believed in God. Or are you saying you're smarter then every Christian who's ever existed??
Try having a debate with a muslim lol. Very rare to see a civilized and format debate. It happens, but it's rare.
@@Omar.313 fool!
Need to get Gary Habermas on a debate with dillahunty for this topic
One of the better discussions I've heard on this subject.
No
@@scottblack7182 yes
@@2ndPigeoncan you say why it’s yes?
@@andrewfairborn6762 Because they both offer eachother beer
@@2ndPigeon that in no way makes sense
At some point Matt asked Trent why he thinks it is reasonable to believe Jesus was resurrected, and he answered with "because it is possible" and when Matt asked how he knows it is possible, Trent said "Because Jesus was resurrected". That's literally a circular argument.
Welp
christianity in a nutshell.
Are you referring to the moment around 45:30? If so, that's not what happened. At this point in the video, the audio cuts out a bit, but I think the question that Matt is asking Trent is: "Do you think it is reasonable/possible that resurrections (other than Jesus') are likely happening now?" Trent replies that it is possible, but he thinks it would be infrequent. Matt asks how he knows its possible. Trent replies that it is because Jesus rose from the dead.
So, in Trent's view, it is possible that resurrections could being occurring now because Jesus, being God, was resurrected and has the power to resurrect. So from Trent, this is not a circular argument but rather a reasonable conclusion to hold IF the claim that Jesus was resurrected is reasonable. Which is the focus of the debate, and what this line of questioning from Matt fails to address. So it just pushes the question back: is it then reasonable to believe that Jesus was resurrected from the dead? Which, I believe, Trent managed to argue that yes, it is indeed reasonable. Cheers.
@@jebellion4833 Wow! A whole lotta nothing to come to the same conclusion. The only evidence Trent and all christians have that a man died and came back to life is that a book said it happened. Outside of that, nada.
@@shaqyardie8105 So the same exact evidence that we have for every other historical claim/"fact"? Gotcha lol
Matt- "If my position is I don't have an explanation for how this happened I don't get to invent one and I don't get to claim it was aliens or gods or demons or anything. If I don't have an explanation I don't have an explanation. As much as that sucks that's the truth." Truth.
Not having an explanation is his truth, not truth in itself, that’s when our reason and faith are combined, that’s when we understand Truth himself, God.
@@Deto4508 faith is simply choosing to believe something without good evidence. I’d rather just say “I don’t have the answer and when there is sufficient evidence, I will believe the claim”
@@MrTheclevercat When you say “evidence against them”, what do you mean? That I don’t have good enough evidence to believe in the particular thing I believe in, or that I’m believing in something that’s in contradiction with logic or science?
@@MrTheclevercat What evidence exactly is that because scientific methods of evaluation aren’t really in place to assess whether the supernatural and God is real or not. I don’t exactly know what you mean by supernatural claims conflicting with each other as well, I apologize, but if you don’t mind can you clarify it a bit more. And I’m not necessarily here to make the case for Religion as a whole but Christianity instead and so that’s mainly where if you have any objections, which you seem to do, I would like for you to hit at, because I do fall the contrary and feel there is good evidence and ultimately reason, to assent in belief in Christianity.
@@MrTheclevercat What kind of proof would be sufficient for you to come to reason that’s Christianity, at the least, is reasonable?
I have yet to engage in a debate that proceeds and ends with such professionalism.
33:33 Did that guy get hit by the Flying Spaghetti Monster? 😂
As an atheist I was struck by Trent’s closing comments, where he listed text for and against the resurrection, ranked easy (pop) to serious (academic). Encouraging people to read such texts for themselves and draw their own conclusion was brave of him to say the least. This points to an admirable level of intellectual honesty that is, I have to say, unusual for protagonists on either side of the divide.
Kudos to both debaters and the moderator for the civility and respect shown.
To be an atheist is to not show much reasoning. Think. Do it for you, not for me or anyone else, but YOU. It is ABSURD to conclude we got all this on its own naturally. Matt is just some clueless being followed by other clueless beings. I can badmouth religions till the cows come home and for good reason, but God is not a religion. Man made religions. What God made, man can't make.
The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
Well it’s not exactly the 1st law of thermodynamics but the law of conservation of energy and both apply to a closed system.
Neither even suggest a god or if or how the cosmos came into being.
As soon as Trent started with the apostles suffered and said they saw a risen Jesus stuff I was tempted to give up as we only have anonymous authors and Paul’s word on who saw what.
Paul spoke to Peter and Jesus’s brother James but none of the other people who supposedly saw a risen Jesus. At least that’s what Paul says but that isn’t exactly much in the way of evidence. Especially given it seems Paul didn’t exactly agree with James and Peter. It’s also strange how James didn’t believe in his own brother when he was alive. Didn’t he see the miracles?
Didn’t Jesus’s mother also turn up with his brothers to take him in hand at one point when he was alive? Wouldn’t his mother support him and tell his brothers about Gabriel visiting her and what she was told?
@@2fast2block Personal incredulity and arguing from ignorance are themselves logical fallacies. It is deeply ironic that you are pleading with me and other atheist to think critically when you show in your very comment that critical thinking is the last thing you’ve applied and are capable of exercising. Pitiful.
@@2fast2block You poor lost soul. You are in way over yer noggin.
@@murph8411 "but the law of conservation of energy and both apply to a closed system."
Clueless you, the universe is an isolated system. If it wasn't, well, the laws would not be laws. Do show though how the universe can be anything but isolated. You skipped that key point. About the 2nd law, it works in all three systems. The definition does not exclude the other two systems. To think that the 2nd law does not apply to the universe and to the earth also, shows how tiny your brain is.
That was as good as I had hoped it would be
@@pastormikewinger7212 get out of here scammer
Catholic Chemistry... I almost spill my coffee at my work desk, lmfao 😂
21:41 immediately draws up Time without Becoming by Meillassoux. This succession of sensations presupposes a principle of continuity when something like the necessity of absolute contingency can be slotted into that space s as well
Great conversation here, these two bounce off each other very well.
Hi Matt here are some future debate suggestions.
Shannon Q vs Mari Pablo ( Athiest psychologist vs Catholic psychologist) on Is belief in God healthy?
Jason Evert vs A s*x worker on Should you have s*x before marriage?
Matt Dillahunty vs Ben Watkins on Do atheists have a burden of proof? (The new atheism vs Philosophical atheism)
Paulogia vs Trent Horn on Are the martyrs good evidence for the resurrection?
Oh Yes, please. Add Molinism vs Thomism
@@YovanypadillaJr I feel that the Gramh Oppy-Alexander Pruss debate is the debate I want most
@@alpacamaster5992 It would be the endgame of debates
@@alpacamaster5992 Final boss of theism vs final boss of atheism
Oooooo I would love Shannon q and Mari pablo!!!!
This is just very enjoyable to watch to see two intelligent men discussing the topic with such vigor but still being respectful to each other while they are in disagreement, its quite fun to see there was much good-natured banter once in while between Matt, Trent and the moderator, throughout the debate, and the moderator did a very good job. I have watched other Matt's debate vs other religuous people and most of the time it went sideways while Matt's opponents werejust being ridiculous and apathetic, because they just simply lost argument debating Matt. Total respect for both speakers.
One believes Superman is real based on the comics of Superman.
The two debaters showing respect to each other. Awesome.
No 🤣
Um are we watching the same debate? 48:50 😂
@@MrWinMrWin-qr2bn That is considered and so does the whole debate.okay. You have not watched the others debates os Matt till he was pissed and one debate he even left the debates.
@@MusikSarawak-zu3ic I think it's okay to disagree but when one side starts getting angry and rude it really never looks good.
@@MrWinMrWin-qr2bn Actually every atheist hates one thing which is Christians not answering their simple questions directly instead they talk about something else which does not answer the question.
1:19:52 - Trent “we have good evidence of where the tomb is”
1:22:09 - Trent - “we would have a very difficult time determining this was actually his tomb”
Uh.. what?
First bit, he's speaking of the general area.
Second bit, he means we don't know which one exactly, out of many tombs.
@@ericb.1384 LOL!!!! Really? Then he has nothing. But, what can one expect from faith? My Dad had faith he'd win the lottery. LOL! Same thing.
@@ericb.1384 Chuck is right, then he has nothing. Putting a building where believers gathered because they believed something happened there to deter them doesn't make their beliefs true.
The ideas about Jesus' grave as described in the Bible are completely ridiculous anyway. That's not how executed criminals were interred.
It's a mythological story and believers picking some random grave doesn't magically make the story reality.
@@chuckhaugan4970 False analogy.
@@xnoreq Why?
In his opening Trent said it was important that resurrections weren't a common occurrence so that it can clearly be seen as a miracle and a sign from God. Then during cross-exams he turns around and tries to attack Matt's position by saying Matt doesn't have proof that resurrections don't happen commonly, while not acknowledging it would also undermine his own world view. A bit later he goes on to say that he doesn't particularly care about other cases of resurrection because it wouldn't change his view of Jesus' resurrection. What ?
I wonder whether he would accept a miracle from another religion if it had the same type of evidence. Many people claiming that they saw it, people allegedly dying for the belief, women instead of men making the report of something relevant to the miracle (for example an empty tomb if we are talking about a resurrection miracle) etc. At some point they would have to accept it in order to be consistent.
@@Chris-cs7nv Do you watch PineCreek ? This seems a lot like his "flying man"
@@john_reese that's exactly it. His idea.
During cross exam, he attacked Matt's standard for resurrection claims generally. The fact that Matt doesn't really have any objective standard. Trent's position is consistent throughout:
1) Trent has a 3 prong approach for establishing the reasonability of unique historical claims. (Detailed in his opening)
2) Matt does not have an objective approach for establishing reasonability of unique historical claims.
3) Jesus Resurrection is the most unique claim that satisfies the objective three prong criteria for establishing reasonability.
Therefore, since Trent gave a standard that Jesus satisfies and Matt failed to provide a standard at all, Trent wins.
Just cause someone is using a form of argumentation to explore an opponents views doesnt mean they need to subscribe to it personally
Every time someone mentions group hallucinations I just think about the Dancing Plague video on Puppet History. lmao
Nice debate.
Very disappointing that Trent did not seriously take up Matt's challenge to provide hostile witnesses that affirm Christian claims. Gary Michuta wrote the book _Hostile Witnesses_ taking up this challenge. One mention of Tacitus was not sufficient or satisfactory.
Here you go, Josephus, Pliny the Younger, Lucian of Samosata, Celsus, Porphyry etc.. how many do you need ? While some of them and their writings are critical of Christians, they still confirm the existence of Christian communities during his time.
@@GodsDefender- I'm not saying there are no hostile witnesses. I'm saying Trent could have done a better job providing them and explaining their significance for the debate. I'm referring viewers to a book that does a better job meeting that challenge.
@@GodsDefender-
It’s still strange that none of those sources mention a resurrection or any of the supposed miracles of Jesus… almost as if no non-Christian source who wrote about Christians knew anything about their most basic beliefs.
Also… those would be great sources in debates like "Is it reasonable to think that Jesus existed?“ or "Is it reasonable to think that some Christian sects already existed in the 1st century?“… but in this debate those sources are irrelevant.
@@GodsDefender-josephus is a heavily interpolatated section of antiquities it's problematic, we don't have what celsus wrote, that's also much later. Porphyry is also much later. The others just mention Christians or the cult of Christianity that claims Jesus rose from the dead. None of these are contemporary hostile accounts.
@@ramigilneas9274 Agree, surely there were people who would have know about Lazarus being raised from the dead and at least one person seeing him.
I must say that this was one of my favorite debates I have ever seen. The differences seem to stem from evidence versus testimony, which was a refreshing change from what I usually see in this sort of debate.
Honestly why not accept testimony that is kinda stupid. Based on this period of time what would have been the best evidence. A news article? Video footage? Blogs? Audio recordings?
Idk what he wants but if there is sufficient evidence. We can look at testimony in this case as well as the impact of jesus till this day. He either duped people for 2000 years or he is telling the truth.
@@Jonathan-tw4xm Either somebody violated the laws of physics and reality as we know it, or somebody didn't and it was just a myth, like Zeus?
Arguing from longevity isn't a good argument either. Christianity has primarily been around for as long as it has because of how brutally it has forced itself upon others.
Plus, there are older religions. Wouldn't that make them more plausible, since they have been around even longer?
@@Jonathan-tw4xm Do you accept testimony from all the *OTHER* religious books, too? Have you ever read about Romulus or other gods? We'd expect an all-powerful god to do better than write a book in a dead language with no surviving copies. Honestly putting a message presumed to be this important, all in a book, when you know languages die out and change over time, is absurd. Goes along with the rest of the absurdity, frankly. talking donkeys, virgin births, fish swallowing men, resurrection. Seems to be obviously the stuff of fairy tales and legend... but if you grow up with it and your parents and community tell you it's true then you create a special, lower-threshold of evidence in our minds.
@@Jonathan-tw4xmsince he’s god, how about just a tiny bit more than stories from anonymous authors?
@@Nick-Nasti well we have Pual's letters so that's something
How rare and how thrilling, two intelligent and passionate men having a respectful discussion. Well done!
Who else was there other than Matt?
Being respectful is totally irrelevant.
@@steveanton763Definitely not Matt. Typical atheist comment
48:07 There is absolutely nothing intelligent about what Trent is doing there.
@@joerdim
I totally agree.
Kudos to Trent for not being dishonest, like most religious people will be during a debate. But his language throughout this debate shows that Trent never has been really challenged on his religious beliefs. Talking for example "plausible" vs "unplausible" when talking about things that has never been proven to have happen shows a troublesome knowledge with probability and rationality.
Knowledgeable, honest and sincere about his beliefs? Yes.
Intellectual? No.
Trent is showing that most honest, decent people are fully capable of being tricked into believing almost anyhing because they haven't ever learned basic critical thinking.
Who are the authors?
Thank you gentlemen, I spent 2 hrs watching YT clips of Ibex this morning and now this debate. Is YT debate content getting better or is it just me?
It’s just you. Matt has been doing this a long time on UA-cam and he’s always been awesome.
@@nmn3541 Ive never seen a debate on his channel before. Which debates are you referring to?
@@SaintCharbelMiracleworker a simple search on UA-cam or google will provide you with numerous examples of Matt debating theists. He always brings his A game. Watch some atheist experience episodes on here with him hosting if you want to see him discuss theism with average theists or he has many debates with religious scholars posted as well.
@@nmn3541 I wasn't taking about Matt the debater. I was talking about Matt Fradd, this is his channel. We got our wires crossed. 😂
@@SaintCharbelMiracleworker lol that’s funny. sorry about that! Still hoping that you check out Matt Dillahunty’s videos though haha
I very much enjoy this civil debate!
Respect to both the debaters.
Thank you for hosting this 👍
I was gonna type the same thing. Finally a debate not filled with shouting and nonsense... but instead, we had a proper discussion. Well done by both guys!
no. its soo boring like this. i want blood.
Not really for Dillahunty I mean I appreciate that he came on, only to get decimated by Trent, because he treats these debates as if they’re just discussions and not actual debates, he’s asking questions as if he’s in the audience and not actually debating. His only argument is basically I’m not convinced and you didn’t provide evidence, when Trent literally asked him what evidence would satisfy him and he said testimonial evidence and then when he gave examples of testimonial evidence, he just said that’s not sufficient.
@@pleaseenteraname1103 Matt didn't say that just any old testimony would convince him. In a court of law, for example, evidence may be completely dismissed in certain cases, such as if it's unreasonable/impossible ("Matt killed that guy using black magic"); if it contradicts previous testimony; if the info is too vague to be useful ("I only saw his shadow, but it looked like a tall guy, and Matt's tall, so it must have been Matt"); if the witness falsely claims expertise in some area ("I knew Matt was having a heart attack rather than a seizure", when s/he has no medical training). There are many examples of statements which negate or diminish the veracity of testimony, so all evidence is NOT created equal.
@@judyfrancis4515 yes and that was also the point Trent was making sometimes we have to trust testimonial evidence, and sometimes that’s all we have. And Matt literally said that’s what would convince him but then he backtracked once Trent explained to him that we have examples of that in the Bible, but then he tried to bully him into saying that he would except nothing but testimonial evidence alone when he literally said that’s what he would accept. Yes but you have to prove this is actually what is said in the gospels. Yes I agree yes I definitely agree.
1:08:40 wanting to acquit as many guilty people as possible and spare as many innocent are actually directly correlated. This is a concept in statistics called type 1 and type 2 errors. They are inversely related, meaning they are dependent on each other. It would be entirely unreasonable to believe what he was saying, which is funny given he believes anything he is convinced of is reasonable
1:15:32 the debate:
Trent: here's some evidence
Matt: i dont like that evidence. Im not convinced even though i dont engage with it.
Wouah, surprised! Simon Kimbangu that Trent mentioned was a Congolese preacher who preached Jesus and Congo DR liberation from colonialist Belgium. My sister in law and her family are kimbanguists , they literally believe that Simon Kimbangu is 'God' because among other many reasons he raised people from the deads just like Jesus . They call him, God the Holy Spirit, Tata Kimbangu. I ve had some heated debates with them, trying to 'make them catholic', LOL!
Same 😅 but you know they have a kinda huge adherents as well . I’m from Congo too and It was just fun hearing his name mentioned 😅
@@ImTiredOfThisChurch which Church are you tired of by the way?
Keep praying for your families conversion and fast for them. God bless you and I pray your family come home to the Catholic Church to be part of the true Church and fullness of faith.
Hey brother I think it’s a kind of joke when you say you want to convert them ( your sister in law and her family) to Catholicism... if not why don’t you accept their claim that Simon Kimbangu is God and rose from the dead? By the way Kimbangu is still dead according to the latest informations so is Jesus if he ever existed because dead people stay dead
I was surprised too! I'm from Benin and I discussed some kimbanguists before.
He turns his camera on at one minute remaining? So subtle, yet such a perfect indicator. The simplest things can win you a sub ❤️
this was a satisfyingly funny comment
22:58 - favorite quote
This was a good discussion by two calm human beings. I may not agree with everything said (by both sides) but it was well done. I wish more debates 9n these topics were like this.
What do you disagree with, please?
trent should be debating goldfish.
@@O_CanadaI have seen worse theist arguments. Trent should have been more direct with a few of his answers.
@@O_CanadaThe resurrection claims part was silly. Of course they do not happen.
Not one verified resurrection claim, on the planet by professional scientists using modern techniques ever.
Calm? Perhaps not 100% of the time - 8mins to drill… be rude…
Pints with Aquianas is the Catholic version of Capturing Christianity
Is there a point or are you just sharing an obvious observation? lol
@zacharyshort384 hello there two years later. Just was sharing an obvious observation.
one of the best debates I've heard so far.
As a Christian, I like watching Matt throw down in a debate; it's good. He knows how to think at a level that takes, experience, and mental horsepower. I appreciate him holding Trents feet to the fire on the Yes, or No question because what came out was, essentially, faith is the underline difference. Also, if he didn't press Trent we may not have got the response; that a miracle is unique to the general expectation, which, though obvious, is a fair point in this context. Really good conversation in my opinion.
I love the part where matt uses so much of his brainpower he repeatedly claims incredulity as an argument.😂
Hey man. Check me out and spread the word.
1:35:51 As Asimov said either way if life exists elsewhere in the universe or not amazing
The Laserous (sp) effect is a technique (still not proven conclusively ) whereby the brain is super cooled (by various means) to such an extent that metabolically it can survive relatively intact so that when the body is repaired (ie heart attack) or restored to basic life functions one can be wholly restored.
Great,good clean debate,it’s nice to see mutual agreements concerning different worldviews,they both treated each other with respect,I’m an atheist but enjoyed listening and watching Trent’s arguments and debate methods,great watch.
As a Christian I fully agree with you about the tenor of this debate.
youre an atheist? im not sure so i am asking. every atheist has their own worldview....atheism is just about one question....thats it. you werent implying that atheists have some collective world view were you? you meant matt and trents personal worldviews? which
At least one of the views is erroneous.
Except for 48:47 Matt was quite condescending.
@@pleaseenteraname1103 : I didn't get that at all. He's just expressing his reasoning and that will by it's nature conflict with a different view. The questioner dismissing what Matt claimed to be his view was condescending as if Matt didn't know or explain what that belief was already.
I just appreciate how Matt cuts through here. Sharp as a tack.
Who do you think won?
@@amare.adonai5464 I think both sides won for arguing honestly. I think Matt won on established facts. We all won as an audience because we got to watch an honest debate rather than a Ken Ham crazy fest
@Jim Merrilees well how do you think this whole resurrection theory started? You don't believe they found an empty tomb,? Christianity was up and running when Paul came into the picture. His letters can be dated 10 years after the death of Jesus.
It's not the time from then to now that matters. What matters is the time the claims originated. For some reason the followers of Jesus thought he rose from the dead.
As a Christian we can't necessarily prove Jesus rose from the dead, but we can prove that his followers claimed he did. So where did this idea come from?
@Jim Merrilees testimony is a form of evidence. We have multiple sources Paul's letters, James, Peter , Luke, Matthew..... we also have the talmudic writings, these were all separate books at one point. These are all different individuals claiming the same thing. If you were a juror and had to judge whether a man was guilty of stealing with no physical evidence only eyewitnesses testimony you could still make that judgment. It also helps when there's more than one witness, just as the resurrection of Jesus was.
Yes anybody can claim anything but I don't think Christianity wouldn't have gone far if something didn't happen.
I just appreciate how Trent cuts through here. Sharp as a tack.
Trent at 3:00 has a good point for a flaw in our attempt at being non biased but obviously showing selective skepticism. I personally believe every action has a cause but that it does not have to be intelligent to act and effect another entity or chain of events.
Trent is on point when he asked Matt what if he’s already seen the evidence but failed to accept it as such. That’s hyper skepticism for you, so sad..
Matt just said history isn't science then said science is simply knowledge.
Think I've already tried to explain this to you but maybe not. Two things called google and definitions will help with that. Can't help you anymore than that.
@@Frostyd241 I have never interacted with or heard of you. Stop lying.
@@jamalchristian wow. Go right to lying? Couldn't be that maybe I'm having several discussiona at once and couldn't remember if I had said that to you or someone else. Do you always automatically jump off the handle like that? I'm totally fine with having a discussion with you but please grow up a bit if you so wish.
@@Frostyd241 I apologize.
I got a headache from that hahahahah. Science has to use history within their theories which was developed using the scientific method hahaha. But science translated literally means knowledge. Idk if he's taking about social sciences or natural sciences (although I presume 100% that he's talking about natural sciences- like physics bio and chem). Also, when he mentions that miracles are supernatural that doesn't obey the laws of nature, he's right to an extent, but miracles can still happen obeying the laws of nature, except the the work being done (in joules) is done by a supernatural entity.
Trent having to keep switching to last names to distinguish between Matts brought a little bit of levity to the conversation.
While the debate was good, it was a mistake to give this a thumbs-up for I really did need an invite for a journey to Mecca.
The unanswered question is, what is truth? The truth is what is universally non-contradictory. We can follow truth or lies!
Mat missed a trick when Trent confirmed that he believes resurrections on purely testimonials. The immediate response should have been to revisit all those testimonial resurrections in Keners book previously mentioned and again ask if he also believed in those just on those testimonials provided as well
There're several events that has to be explained in that context, the atheist/agnostic/whatever mistake about this subject is thinking that discussion is only about the resurrection, ignoring that it's about a whole set of events wich, in the christian view, it's better explained with Christ resurrection. Either you disprove these set of events or come up with a better explanation for those.
@@ghostapostle7225 You're shifting the burden of proof there.
@@ghostapostle7225 I notice you didn't address my point at all. Strange that
@@ghostapostle7225 Nope, that's not how the world works.
@@urbandesitv3529 uh, no, in cases like this, you have to adequately demonstrate that something has happened before you can expect another to believe it.
In this case, you’d have to demonstrate that a resurrection had occurred, you wouldn’t be able to say “a resurrection occurred” and tell us we now have to show that it didn’t occur.
Thanks Trent, from a Dillahunty fan. A Christian apologist with an intellectual view is refreshing.
If by refreshing you mean rare, there are numerous intelligent Christian scholars, and ID theorists.
That because it isn’t Protestantism. I was an atheist for a long time. I followed Matt for years as well, I learned much from him and others.
I found now that I am a Catholic my problems were with protestants. I don’t ever hear Catholics debate.
There are so many problem with protestanism and their beliefs I can’t list them all.
When it comes to Catholics and Orthodox you’ll get consistent answers. You will get reason, and not some fallacy filled protestant making stuff up.
@@fletcher373
If by numerous intelligent ID theorists you mean 5… then sure.
And none of them are taken seriously by actual scientists.
@@11bsavage64it's is been my experience that most Catholics consistently fall back on god of the gaps, argument from ignorance, and argument from authority.
If you disagree, how do you logically explain the Trinity?
Are you being sarcastic? PLEASE say yes, because if not, we didn't watch the same "debate."
No way he would have been able to move the stone considering he was dead an hour or two before
Yeah, because this whole story is fiction. You're welcome.
Well done to both
Well done both where I'm getting tired of the middle of road bs matt logic is vastly more superior then trends flawed logic to say both have equal footing is ridiculous call it terrible logic for what it is TERRIBLE
@@sandersGGmatt got curb stomped.
I’m not convinced Richard Carrier exists.
I’m an aCarrierist. The “evidence” we have for Richard Carrier is allegorical space spiritual alien none sense. Richard Carrier is just a copy of older pagan gods. I always tell people that believe that Richard Carrier exists “you don’t believe in multiple Richard Carriers, right? I just believe in one less Richard Carrier than you.”
@@ChristLover435, Ikr. There are no eye witness accounts attesting to his existence, no contemporary accounts, no one who wrote about him knew the people who knew him, no archeological evidence for Richard Carrier, all the sources written on him are late and unreliable, the books written by him are forgeries, the videos that show him on UA-cam are fabrications, and he’s just a copy of other skeptics who lived before him. It is quite rational to be a acarrierist.
@@generalkenobi6792 exactly. Being an aCarrierist will exclude you from any political office and polite society...everybody just takes it for granted that Carrier exists. We aCarriests are supremely rational unlike these superstitious people who believe in mythical characters because their parents said so. Richard Carrier exists? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And don’t cling to biased Carriest sources to justify your myths.
@@ChristLover435, Exactly. Richard Carrier is sooo fake! I’ve never been presented sufficient evidence to support his existence. He’s just as real as Trump is the greatest president of all time! In fact I don’t even think Trump existed either!
Let's apply a bayesian analisis of the historicity of Richard Carrier
The initial odds that Richard Carrier exists are - let’s be generous - a hundred to one in favor of the proposition.
Part of the definition of Richard Carrier is that he is supposed to be a scholar with a Ph. D. in History. He is also supposed to be relatively young, which makes him one of, say, 3,000 or so History Ph. D.s to have been minted in the past five years. These factors will become important as we proceed.
Now we throw some of the other factors into the mix. Richard Carrier (if he exists) is a Jesus mythicist, someone who disbelieves in the existence of Jesus of Nazareth as a real person in space and time. Of the 3,000 or so History Ph. D.s minted in the last five years, and bracketing Carrier for the moment so as not to beg any questions, how many are mythicists? It’s a pretty safe bet that the number is close to zero. Let’s be generous, however, and suppose that there are 30, all of them devout mythicists (though in secret, for fear of damaging their careers). But - and this is the point we must dwell on - if the internet atheist community wanted to create a superhero who could defeat the Christians by his superior credentials, would we not expect them to invest him with a doctorate in History and, at the same time, have him endorse, nay, vindicate, the mythicist position? Surely this is not very improbable, say, even odds (for the mythicist position is very well represented online). And that the internet atheists should invent such a character, though it might seem a bit far fetched, is not really that unlikely, since all of history amply documents the human response to the felt need for superheroes. (Vide not only Egyptian and Greek mythology but also the Edda and The Avengers, due to be released in a couple of weeks.) Upon the whole, it seems safe to say that the probability of the invention of such a character is at least .1. At a conservative estimate, the likelihood ratio
P(Historian-myther-hero|Richard Carrier is not a real person)/P(Historian-myther-hero|Richard Carrier is a real person)
is therefore .1/(30/3,000), or 10 to 1.
But Richard Carrier is also supposed to be a “world renowned philosopher and historian” (according to the blurb on Why I am not a Christian). Problems now begin to crowd more thickly around the definition. How many History Ph. D.s are philosophers at all? Surely not very many. How many are world renowned philosophers, even though they have just obtained the Ph. D.? The percentages are vanishing; the probability cannot sensibly be estimated at greater than 0.0001. But this would be a very useful accomplishment to add to the credentials of a historian-myther-hero, if he were an invented character. Let us suppose the probability to be merely 0.1 (though it should probably be higher), and we get the likelihood ratio:
P(World-renowned philosopher|Richard Carrier is not a real person & Historian-myther-hero)/P(World-renowned philosopher|Richard Carrier is a real person & Historian-myther-hero)
= 0.1/0.0001, or 1000 to 1.
We can go further. This world-renowned philosopher-historian-myther-hero is also a mathematician. Given historians’ well-known disdain for mathematical methods, the probability of this if Carrier is a real person is low, though perhaps not so drastically low as it would be if our hero were not also a philosopher, since perhaps as many as ten percent of all philosophers can and do use mathematical methods from time to time. Call the conditional probability of this detail, given the reality of Carrier and all of the other factors considered thus far, 0.05. But the mythic Carrier would only be enhanced by adding mathematical abilities to his other powers; it is at least even money that, if he is entirely mythical, this additional qualification would be tacked onto his resume. However, so as not to overestimate the probability, let us reduce the estimate to:
P(Mathematician||Richard Carrier is not a real person & Historian-myther-hero & World-renowned philosopher)/P(Mathematician|Richard Carrier is a real person & Historian-myther-hero & World-renowned philosopher)
= 0.2/0.05, or 4 to 1.
Putting these factors together, we have to weigh odds of 100 to 1 for Carrier’s reality against the combination of other factors, which tip the scales at 40,000 to 1 against. These considerations alone leave us with odds of 400 to 1 against, or a probability just a bit in excess of .9975 that Richard Carrier is not a real person.
We might go on in this vein for quite some time, noting further incongruities in the Carrier myth. How many trained historians would misread Plutarch’s “On Isis and Osiris” 19.358b as declaring Osiris’s physical resurrection from the dead here on earth? How many mathematicians would bungle basic probability calculations? How many philosophers, world-renowned or otherwise, would endorse the position that the laws of logic “obviously” derive from the laws of physics? Yet such blunders are what we might well expect to crop up as the community feigning Carrier’s existence attempted to demonstrate his expertise in one field after another.
So the calculation given above seriously underestimates the probabilities in the case. Almost certainly, by strict Bayesian reasoning, Richard Carrier does not exist.
And yet, I venture to predict that the vast majority of Carrier-believers will pay no attention whatsoever to Bayesian reasoning when it is applied rigorously to conclusions that they hold sacred
It explains why so many people talk about Richard Carrier as if he existed. Talking about him, and convincing other people of his existence, strengthens their faith. That’s how cognitive dissonance works. Such is their desire to convince others that they even write pseudonymous books in his name.
Furthermore, ikons of Richard Carrier look vaguely like the Karate Kid, who was a popular mythic figure of Generation X children. Richard carrier alleged age is around that of Generation X. With such clear similarities, it is obvious that the Richard Carrier Myth began as a copy cat of the Karate kid
As we all know, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and, based on the recent analysis, the existence of Richard Carrier certainly qualifies as an extraordinary claim. Have you, then, verified that the video and written testimony attributed to Dr. Carrier actually meets this reasonably high standard?
Until you meet him in person (and verify that the experience is not a group hallucination, which we all know is much more probable than his existence, since any explanation is more probable than his existence), isn’t it rational to hold to the default position, that of A-Carrierism?
Feel free to copy and paste this to extend the a-carrierst movement
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
01:23 🧐 Trent Horn argues that belief in the resurrection of Jesus is reasonable by presenting three tests for evaluating unusual event claims: contradicting established facts, absence of expected evidence, and uniqueness of evidence.
08:12 🕊️ Trent critiques alternative explanations for the resurrection, arguing that they fail to account for factors such as group appearances, sincerity of disciples, and early church growth.
11:57 🧠 Trent presents the "argument from change" as evidence for a cause of the universe, arguing for the existence of a purely actual, immaterial, and timeless cause.
16:40 😲 Matt Dillahunty starts by emphasizing that belief in an event's reasonability doesn't imply its truth. He highlights the challenge of determining reasonability and stresses that consistency with known facts is crucial.
19:46 ❓ Matt questions the lack of empirical evidence for the resurrection and criticizes reliance on testimonials and hearsay. He challenges the untestable nature of claims like the resurrection, arguing they should be verifiable or falsifiable.
21:11 🤨 Matt distinguishes between verification and falsification, illustrating the challenges of exhaustive verification and concluding that reasonable belief requires the consideration of practical risks.
21:25 🧪 Falsifiability and unverifiability: Falsifiability is the ability to be proven false, while unverifiability means a claim cannot be tested. Unverifiable claims should be mundane and trivial to be considered reasonable.
22:09 📜 Evaluating historical claims: History relies on reports, testimonies, and accounts. Claims should be proportional to the evidence supporting them. The wise man proportions belief to the evidence.
23:05 🕊️ Hume's principle of superiority: David Hume's principle suggests choosing the explanation that involves the least extraordinary or improbable event. Reject the greater miracle and choose the more probable explanation.
25:11 💭 Eyewitness testimony limitations: Eyewitness testimonies are unreliable under various circumstances, and their reliability diminishes over time. The Bible's gospel accounts may not be from direct eyewitnesses.
26:21 🧠 Consistency with reality: Beliefs should be consistent with what is known to be true. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and all claims need sufficient evidence to be considered reasonable.
29:11 🧪 Lack of physical evidence: The absence of physical evidence, such as a body, tomb, blood, or artifacts, challenges the reasonability of the claim of Jesus' resurrection.
31:00 👥 Emotional factors: Emotional connections, fear of being wrong or excluded, and narrative compellingness can influence belief, but they do not constitute strong evidence.
32:12 🕊️ Historical beliefs and evidence: Historical beliefs may not necessarily align with strong evidence, and beliefs about extraordinary events require rigorous examination.
37:24 🔎 Investigating resurrection claims: Discussion about investigating resurrection claims beyond the Bible, considering historical and testimonial evidence.
40:15 🤔 The basis of reasonability: Differentiating personal belief from what's reasonable for others to believe. Exploring beliefs held by historians and the role of evidence.
43:26 🧩 Trent questions Matt's view on ethical veganism.
43:54 🤔 Matt expresses gratitude for a true statement made by Trent in the debate.
44:08 🙅 Matt clarifies his position on belief in resurrection, emphasizing his lack of conviction.
44:34 📚 Discussion on claims of historical resurrections and the evidence supporting them.
45:16 🤷♂️ Debate on the likelihood of current resurrection stories.
46:16 🤔 Trent argues that if Jesus rose from the dead, he could perform miracles today.
46:57 🧪 Matt questions the lack of physical evidence for resurrection claims.
48:13 🤨 Discussion on the reasonable acceptance of resurrection claims based on testimonial evidence.
48:41 🙋♂️ Matt probes whether Trent would accept resurrection claims without physical evidence.
49:14 🔄 Matt asserts his unwillingness to accept extraordinary claims based solely on testimony.
50:09 🙅♂️ Matt emphasizes his position on the unreasonableness of accepting extraordinary claims from testimonial evidence.
50:26 🧐 Transition to a discussion period with both participants questioning each other.
52:22 🗣️ Participants question each other's views on miracles and testimonial evidence.
53:30 🎙️ Trent asks Matt about his stance on uniformity of natural laws against miracles.
54:26 🗣️ Matt and Trent discuss their perspectives on reasonable acceptance of claims.
55:38 📚 Trent argues that history relies heavily on testimonial evidence.
56:06 🎙️ Transition to a conversational phase for further exploration of topics.
58:00 🧐 Matt challenges Trent about recognizing sufficient evidence for resurrection.
59:08 🤔 Trent defends his epistemology and view on evaluating testimonial evidence.
01:00:19 🧪 Discussion on how epistemological biases shape perspectives on evidence.
01:02:42 🔄 Participants engage in a discussion about different epistemological approaches.
01:04:08 🤯 Matt presents an analogy related to testimonial evidence and courtroom bias.
01:04:49 🧪 Trent explains his approach to evaluating historical claims based on evidence.
01:05:04 🤔 Matt Dillahunty emphasizes he's not a historian and cannot dictate historical reasonability.
01:05:33 🧐 Historical reasonability involves assessing evidence and scholarly consensus.
01:05:46 🏛️ Consensus: Jesus' crucifixion and death accepted by historians worldwide.
01:06:14 📚 Trent Horn excludes some historians with fringe views from "major universities."
01:06:56 🌎 Number of believers doesn't determine reasonableness or truth.
01:07:11 💉 Analogy: Medical consensus is strong evidence; science is distinct from history.
01:08:08 🧪 Debate on historical vs. scientific methodology; history not scientific.
01:09:34 ⚖️ Matt clarifies epistemological goals: minimize false beliefs, maximize truth.
01:10:03 🌌 Supernatural claims lack scientific verification; evidence needed.
01:10:29 👥 Historical claims can be credible based on evidence and consistency.
01:10:45 🛐 Elvis resurrection analogy; evidence and context determine reasonableness.
01:12:26 🌍 Historical knowledge compared to scientific knowledge; justification.
01:12:44 🗂️ Historical evidence: evaluation, sources, consensus, opposition's view.
01:13:07 📖 Applying historical method to claims about Jesus; consistency of accounts.
01:14:01 💬 Q&A session begins; audience questions for Trent and Matt.
01:19:09 ❓ Trent's hypothetical response to discovering Jesus' bones; faith evaluation.
01:19:31 ❓ Matt's stance on discovering Jesus' bones; atheism and theism.
01:22:01 ❓ Matt's view on resurrection artifacts; investigation and skepticism.
01:22:45 ❓ Apostles' martyrdom as evidence; possible motivations and beliefs.
01:24:11 ❓ Matt's response to apostles' martyrdom; conviction vs. truth.
01:25:12 ❓ Historical analogies of people dying for beliefs; not proof of truth.
01:26:12 🤔 Sincerity, not truth, is demonstrated by willingness to die for a belief.
01:26:40 📜 Disciples' enduring persecution indicates sincere belief in resurrection.
01:27:48 🗣️ Repeating "not convinced" isn't a cop-out; responding to arguments matters.
01:28:17 🤷♂️ Embracing "I don't know" can be unsettling but intellectually honest.
01:30:55 🔄 Speculation: If Jesus was born today, evidence might differ.
01:31:21 💡 Reasoning about God's reasons for revealing himself is complex.
01:32:48 ❓ Historical events' confidence levels vary based on evidence.
01:33:30 🌌 Accepting possibility of multiverse and extraterrestrial life isn't unreasonable.
01:38:09 🙏 Matt's criteria: Evidence should be sufficient to convince him.
01:41:48 🧠 Trent's distinction between "reasonable" and "convincing" beliefs.
01:43:15 🧐 Disagreement on reasonable matters when considering same information is a complex topic.
01:45:40 🧠 Evidence isn't a neon sign, but interpretations; courtroom analogy.
01:46:08 🚀 Beliefs become reasonable based on contradictions, expected evidence, and alternate explanations.
01:46:51 🧐 Even if there were physical evidence of resurrection, it might not convince everyone.
01:47:57 🤔 Questioning trust in someone with no absolute certainty; confidence vs. absolute certainty.
01:48:55 📏 Absolute certainty not always necessary; reasonable to act based on high confidence.
01:50:15 🕊️ Belief's impact on life doesn't alter evidence needed to affirm it.
01:51:29 🌎 Matt's disagreement on uniformity of experience; cultural variance, false beliefs.
01:52:47 👻 Matt's stance on belief: belief in experience, not necessarily the content.
01:55:13 🤝 Importance of respectful debate, focusing on reasons and evidence.
02:01:47 📚 Encouragement to research, read both sides, reach conclusions, and engage in informed dialogue.
02:05:53 🕰️ Gradual diminishing certainty with time; challenge of investigating distant claims.
02:06:20 🔍 Comparison of evidence quality for recent vs. ancient resurrection claims.
02:06:47 🧪 Importance of scientific method's reliability in understanding the world.
02:07:02 👥 Lack of supernatural/religious claims overturning established science.
02:07:30 📜 Historical argument for resurrection; reliance on book's reliability, lack of physical evidence.
I'm guessing this was A.I. generated...? If so, I would really appreciate it if you could tell me which tool it was please.
This is a compendious summary - you're a legend. 43:26 was an incredible "gotcha" by Trent.
@@Mayordomo32 Hmm...you must have watched a different debate then, as there was no "gotcha" at 43:26.
@@Mayordomo32how was asking if Matt thinks it’s unreasonable to be an ethical vegan just bc Alex O’Conner is one? Alex and Matt are not bound to agree with each other bc they are self described Atheists. Ethical veganism is a moral decision and morality is relative to the individual. This conversation has nothing to do with morality.
@@Mayordomo32you’re an idiot
Convincing evidence that has been experienced would be convincing by definition.
Thor invented the wheel and he rolled everywhere without an engine. He must not have seen B.C. before
Omg I'm 9 minutes in and this is brutal. You just equated the feasibility of riding elephants with thr resurrection of the dead.
Every few seconds a new assertion.
Every few seconds a new assertion.
Exactly, they might not question something like the elephants because there a genuine possibility of it, whereas a resurrection has never even been shown to be a possibility.
@@firmbutton6485 And thousands of years with no proof of those assertions.
Trent succeeded in his attempt to distract attention by talking about “every historian who teaches at a major university”. If every historian who teaches at a major university believed that Harry Potter really existed, would that constitute evidence that Harry Potter existed?😂
Lol Matt said a medical report (on Jesus death and resurrection) from a doctor would prove it's true. As if he wouldnt just discount that doctor, as a Christian conspirator like he does the other witnesses. Plus he would want tons of doctors to confirm it also.
Agreed, I call BS (and I'm an atheist).
It was an expression dork, not a literal statement.
I agree… even if the evidence was much much better than the hearsay of some cult members who didn’t witness any of the events that you actually have… it wouldn’t be good enough.
A doctor who confirms the death of Jesus in a made up story is still just part of a made up story.
The funny part is that God could effortlessly provide all of the necessary evidence that would convince even the most skeptical person on the planet instead of demanding to believe the story based on the same weak evidence that we have for thousands of other legends and conspiracy theories.
You are so used to not questioning reality concerning your beliefs that you can't grasp such a simple notion. How would you PROVE it then? Not talking about random unverified testimonies, because then all sorts of magical things would be considered proven, some of which in direct opposition to Christianity. Actual proof.
Yes, I would want a peer-reviewed study to prove that Jesus resurrected. Otherwise, it's just one doctor's opinion.
I'm so disappointed Trent doesn't bring up the eucharistic miracle of Jesus resurrection
This has been a great debate.
Not exactly. Believers are believers because faith, not evidence. Simple lithe that
@@ticotechhouston4917i agree, atheists sure have a lot of faith
"It's reasonable to believe Jesus rose from the dead because resurrections are likely happening today."
"How do you know that resurrections are happening today?"
"Because Jesus rose from the dead."
Facepalm.
Gotta love circular arguments
Resurrections are not likely to be happening today, nor were they likely to have happened yesteryear. If they had been that common, Jesus would not have accomplished much by having resurrected Himself. The atheist wants a certificate from a doctor in Roman times to believe. How sweet of him and idiotic.
@@emanuelgaldes3515 how exactly is it idiotic to want evidence beyond "The book says it happened"???
@@emanuelgaldes3515 Because we have no good evidence that resurrections have ever happened, it is a claim that would require extraordinary evidence to support. The only idiots are those who believe the claim WITHOUT extraordinary evidence.
@@emanuelgaldes3515 sure resurections were commonplace in the good ol' roman days. Lazaris was resurrected and before Jesus's resurrection the saint's all resurrected and partied with the living (Matthew 27:52). Nothing special about it at all those days
More discussions should be more like this between Matt & Trent 👌
Why? Trent is full of B S
@@davidohara7669 Even though I disagree with Trent I still think they had a respectable tone towards each other
@@Sixtra yeah, Trent, didn't raise his voice when dodging and tap dancing.around Matt's questions. Trent is a waste of time if you are really interested in an actual debate.
@@davidohara7669 Most theists dodge and dance around questions. But for me a debate like this is more for entertainment and to listen to what kind of arguments they are using etc.
Beloved, ❤️ I don't know you in person but God knows you. God showed to me a revelation when I was on your profile to see things around you,I saw blessings but spiritual attacks holding on to them,in prayers,i saw a woman in the realm of the spirit monitoring and plotting delay in your life, with an evil mirror, and a motive to destroy. But as I speak to you now her time is up, Render hand of favour with Anything you can afford to these motherless foundation (CHARITY ORPHANAGE HOME FOUNDATION) in Edo State Nigeria, before 2DAYS with faith, as I Rise my hands towards heaven and pray for you they shall serve as point of contact where ever you are, you will receive double portion of grace to excel and total restoration of breakthrough in your life and in the life of your family. Contact or WhatsApp the MD in charge of the orphanage to get their details +2349055483635 tell him I sent you. For it is not by might nor by power but of the spirit saith the lord (zechariah 4:6). You shall testify to the Glory of God in your life. God bless you.......................................
............................................. ................
.,..........
Lmfao that sponsor shoutout got me 😂
Where are my atheist dating websites? 😂😂
You really want them? I am open to dating anyone of any religion. I am not close minded.
Literally any other website
Tinder
I feel like if I was Trent after the first commentary should of just walked off, bro killed it
Why is Trent Horn so afraid to admit that he accepts the ressurection solely on testimonial evidence? 49:11
Because he knows that his position is untenable and is desperate to do what he always does .... run at the mouth and try to obfuscate and deflect.
@@Brammy007a Tell Tami to ask if Rainbow can reach or reaches all of the way to GOD - well, has GOD been reached?
Matt D believes that biological women can be men and biological men can be women without proof or evidence... This is a bit hypocritical and scary.
@@SINQUEFIELD83 I know..... Matt is right about a lot of things but he is "oh so woke" which is just the new leftist bullshit social theory. Matt's line is that gender is just a social construct..... total crap.
@@Brammy007a No, he just doesn't care if someone wants to identify as a man or women or take hormones to help them be who they want to be. I agree with that wholly. Gay people don't choose to be gay.
This is exactly what the world should look like.
Split screen??
The USA is getting close.
@@bellezavudd damn
?
If a large number of the 600 mentioned resurrections were proven with concrete evidence to be true, this would not be good for the Jesus resurrection story as it would make it a commonplace event not necessarily connected to an intervening diety, rather the result of unknown physical processes.
Just because an extraordinary claim puportedly occurred in ancient times when we arent able to investigate any such claims rigorously, doesnt mean we should be lowering our standard of evidence. If someone today claimed to have Superman powers, I would need some serious well-documented, scientific evidence. If someone 2000 years ago claimed the same thing, I would STILL need some serious well-documented scientific evidence.
What do you mean by "scientific evidence".
"Science isnt just beakers and measuring devises.
Thats what Horn was trying to get through to Dillahunty. The VAST majority of history, which IS a science despite Dillahuntys ludicrous claim to the contrary, doesnt have physical evidence.
The Pyramids being Tombs for the Pharaohs for example. There has never been a Pharaoh mummy found in the Pyramids. Nor are there texts saying "this is the Tomb of X", but it is the leading theory for all academics who study the Pyramids, even though they have no physical evidence for the claim. I guarantee you, Dillahunty accepts the theory without a second thought.
"Just because an extraordinary claim purortedly occurred in ancient times when we arent able to investigate any such claims rigorously, doesnt mean we should be lowering our standard of evidence."
What are you even talking about? This is possibly one of the MOST rigorously investigated claims there is. Standards arent being lowered for anything. If they where, no one would be Atheist, nor would the Religious have "crisis of Faith".
Can you please set up a debate between Trent or Stephanie gray and the channel God is grey
“Ummm what kind of physical evidence would a resurrection have?”
Jesus, maybe? He can just hang out where anyone could see him, all the time. We could hear straight from him what he wants, instead of relying on priests.
He was on earth for 40 days before accending into heaven
That's the story. But then Harry Potter was on earth for 17 years before ascending to heaven.
@@skdncbdjsjxbdb It just seems so weird to me, although I am also aware that my feeling is not proof either. But why would an all powerful, all loving being make things so difficult? Why would he give us intelligence but also demand that we believe in him without using our intelligence when he could just snap his fingers and every single person on earth could receive a 100% clear vision of him?
To be clear, I am not actually criticizing God here, I am criticizing a story that in my opinion was created by human beings. This story just sounds so human, with so many human logical fallacies that I find it really unlikely.
@@MsJavaWolf He can't snap us all into believing in Him if that's what you mean, because we have free will. He's not demanding we believe him without using our intelligence he sent his only son to earth to be crucified and resurrected in front of our very eyes. I think he made it pretty obvious and clear. Even if it happened today with video proof skeptics would say it was camera tricks. People who don't want to believe in God just aren't going to believe in God no matter what. Even if he did reveal himself to every single person on earth the next generation would be say there was something in the water supply that made us all hallucinate.
@@MsJavaWolf And of course the story sounds human, God created humans and communicates with us in ways that we understand and can connect with. How else would the story of our salvation go? In a way that only god himself would understand? That wouldn't make any sense.
Matt,
I have watched and admired your adhereance to rationally evidenced science/truth..
I always find your debating believers to become, over the span of a show, to wind up discussing everything except the points you make..
Ultimately, i find the desperation they appear to bear in trying to get you to a "Wow, you got me." moment that their conversations will reach farther and farther until it just becomes idealized absurdism..
No matter how you shuffle a deck of cards one will never suddenly pull out a tree, a rooster, a rock...
Just cards
I thank you Matt for sharing your journey and your keen mind with all of us for many years, now...Great work!!!
46:30 That was a dunk
This is how debates should be. Both men were respectful and respectable. My favourite beer is Keith's IPA and Keith's Red. Except in the summer, it is Pump House Blueberry Ale.
Try talking to your family like they spoke to each other. Let me know how long you're not on speaking terms.
You may have missed Dillahunty's cross examination. It struck me as fairly unrespectful.
When the women arrived (Matthew) they encountered the angel sitting on the rock. In Luke no angel on the rock but one inside and in Luke they encounter two women inside.
@@stephendvorak1043 it wasn’t Disrespectful it was the truth. The disrespect came from Trent refusing to answer the questions and speaking over Matt during Matt’s turn. Facts don’t care about your feelings
@@JonYen69 The truth can be expressed in disrespectful ways. In this case, that's what Matt did. Whether or not facts care about feelings has nothing to do with the fact that a respectful conversation is more successful than a disrespectful conversation.
Out of all the debates Dillahunty has done recently on MDD this was much better. Trent did a good job making his case and steel-manning Matt’s views, raising some interesting avenues of thought.
IMO this debate having proper moderation also played a significant role
@ Jax12 - haven't watched it all yet but in his opening Trent did the classic straw man of all atheists when he claimed that we believe there is no cause for the beginning of the universe: no Trent we simply reject that it HAD to have a cause because of the idea that time and therefore cause and effect in the way we understand it may be meaningless.
He also went on to add in loads of baggage that only makes his position less tenable and harder to defend (why??) when he stated that the cause of Jesus's resurrection MUST be an omnipotent, omniscient and all loving god.
Lastly, he tried saying that ALL historians believe in the resurrection of Jesus - not even all Biblical historians believe this, but since most Biblical historians are also Christians, it's likely that for them, belief in the resurrection is almost a priori, making their acceptance of it as fact irrelevant.
Of those who aren't believers (two prominent academics)at least one rejects the ressurection.
PineCreek had an excellent response to this debate.
Please time stamp the steel man, I missed it and can't find it
@@honeychurchgipsy6
@honeychurchgipsy6
I read through your comment, and am still confused as to how the statement "the universe does not have a cause" is an actual strawman rather than a short version of what you laid out. You are saying "the universe is sufficient to explain its own existence" or "does not need a cause", which is the same thing.
I also wanted to focus in on your last paragraph, where did he say that all historians believe in the resurrection? Do you mind providing a time stamp, because that would seem an absurd claim to make.
What Trent is saying is I believe in Jesus resurrection because people said it happen… just like when people believe in big foot because somebody said they saw him😭
He is a better pro life debater imo.
@@shadowmomochiuchiha6839 he’s terrible at that too.. you seen him against destiny?
At some point it occurred to me that Dillahunty sounds a little bit like Vizzini from The Princess Bride and now I cannot get it out of my head...
At 57:05 the guy Trent claims that he didn’t use the word “supernatural” in his opening, but he did use this descriptor at 3:30
Scientific Materialism is unreasonable
Science isn’t saying that all there is is material. It is saying we don’t know how to study the non-material so we don’t.
@@mkd1113 yes, you can study all these things but they are not science. To say religion is studying the non-material is just playing with words. To say that philosophy and ethics and morality are about the non-material is fine, whatever. Ideas are non-material. So what?
@@mkd1113 Cool. Scientific materialism, despite the ‘science’ in name, is also not a conclusion arrived at by applying the scientific method. It is a philosophical stance.
@@marcovoetberg6618 Exactly, so it's a self-refuting epistemological position. There is no way to know the claim "science is knowledge" from the scientific method.
@@mkd1113 Fantastic. Now we are at a point where we have something dreamed up some philosopher that is not scientific, but has scientific in its name and no way to know if it is true or not. This is why I prefer the knowledge derived from the scientific method over that based on philosophy and religion.
This went for cordial and respectful to straight hardcore real quick 😅
This would be great with some smoke.
French Horn seems like a nice fellow and knows a lot about Catholicism. But still no real answers to any of the concerns secular people have about why we should believe anything from the Bible
The evidence is that there won't ever be any.....
The Bible is part of the Christian claim. And therefore, obviously, it cannot be used as evidence for that claim.
I don't understand how someone could watch the whole 2 hour long debate and still take up this position.
@@zzm9134 how much is enough?
You believe something written in the bible because it is written in the bible. Simple. Isn't it? Just as simple as people who believe in the bible.
For me, Matt's question at 50:00 sums it all. If you're willing to accept extraordinary claims solely based on testimonial evidence, believing Joseph Smith becomes reasonable. I'm not sure if Trent would apply the same reasoning for other religions.
I haven't gotten to that part yet. I will say tho this idea of extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence is a silly idea, Why assert the adjectice to the nature of the claim. We dont say hilarious claims require hilarious evidence or stupid claims require stupid evidence. A claim simply requires evidence, now let's look at and analyze that evidence and see how reasonable it is.
@@bladeleo71 exactly well put
@@bladeleo71 whether the claim is "extraordinary" or not, evidence is still needed to prove it's validity. You don't just get to say something happened and point to hearsay as evidence
The evidence is present that this occurred. You should consider extraordinary that regular folks living 2000s years felt that their own experiences were so special that they should have them recorded.
There is plenty of none christian historians to site the life of Christ and there is also geographic data that places Jesus dying around what is written.
Just because we cannot prove how just resurrected, does not disprove that he was seen shortly after his death.
Unlike other religions the major spread of Christianity happened during the period of apostles. The roman emperor Nero who ruled from 50-60s ad persecuted Christians. The spread of Christianity (without military force) in a world where everyone already has a religion does seem very unreasonable.
That’s my standard for whether someone truly takes their logic seriously.
If the same standards cannot apply to anyone’s argument other than yours, you dont actually understand what it is that you understand.
You have not been taught, you have been indoctrinated.
The inability of believers to answer straight forward questions is so frustrating. Does Trent believe that Jesus returned AGAIN but in India 100yrs ago? Believed by millions.. eyewitness testimonies
How does Matt both say "Jesus didnt rise because people dont do that" and then agree with trent in saying "Miracles HAVE TO violate the laws of nature
Matt isn't denying that if Jesus raised from the dead, it would be a miracle. He's saying that there is not sufficient evidence that the laws of nature were violated to make believing such a thing reasonable :)
@@euclid7912 that literally isn’t at all what he’s saying. His argument is that people don’t do that therefore it didn’t happen. No amount of evidence would convince him because he has a boyfriend that dressed as a woman. Believing God exists would be in violation of his lifestyle.
@@Sm64wii what you just said is ridiculous. Him dating a trans person is irrelevant to his argument, you can't just use ad-homeinem attacks and pretend you are right. Matt's point is that there needs to be a large amount of verifiable evidence to warrent a belief in said event. It's really simple, you just don't want to come to terms with the fact that the resurrection doesn't have enough evidence to verify it.