@@Roman-Labrador It seems you are bearing false witness against Mr. Fradd, publicly. You might want to consider the sinfulness of such behaviour before continuing to do so in future.
@@Roman-Labrador And what does Scripture say about warning a brother twice? What does the Church teach about the *Church's* right to interpret Scripture and Magisterium both? You haven't even said what you think Mr. Fradd said that was "the devil's work", and yet you publicly make this charge against him. This does not seem charitable to me.
I didn't watch it yet, but I am already sorry for your loss Brian....this isn't because of you Brian. You are great! But we all know that Trent Horn is a Cyborg sent from the future to save the Catholic Church.
Trent horn is a idiot, he has the attitude that is totally arrogant, a wolf in sheeps clothing, outwardly a meek humble sheep, but deep inside a wolfwho devours naive people who are not mature enough to be not influenced by his logic and persausive attitude. Keep repeating the same dogmatic truths so called and if you not born from god, they wear you down from their constant scriptural mantras. Matthew 16 and peter the rock is the main mantra.
Brian is one of my favorite Catholic “explainers” on UA-cam. I will listen to him, intently and thoughtfully, regardless of the person with whom he speaks.
Brian is always that guy who explains things correctly and gently in the most understanding way from the heart and mind. Trent is there to level me up in the deepest technical and logical way. Both of them together is like combining 2 body parts of the Christian Megazord.
Years ago, apologetics was taught in Catholic seminaries and universities (see the classic book "College Apologetics" by Fr. Anthony Alexander). Sadly, apologetics got a bad name and went out of fashion in the 1970s, to be replaced with seemingly endless "dialogue." The purpose of authentic apologetics, when done for the proper purpose and in charity, is to help both parties to reach the truth about the matter at hand. What could be more Christian than that? (Excellent video, BTW.)
Hi Brian, This is my favorite one you’ve ever done I think just about. At least in the top five I really enjoyed this. I never really have enjoyed Catholic answers for various reasons, but I know they’re speaking Catholic doctrine. I never really listened to much to Trent Horn and I really didn’t have a positive view of him… But this changed my mind. It showed me to be open minded and listen even when I have doubts. And maybe I wouldn’t like every single episode of discussions like this but I did like this. I thought you Brian were the best I’ve ever seen you and relaxed. Yes, just a nice guy. A smart nice guy. Thank you very much for this. It probably made me a better person which was definitely needed! God bless you both.
I've been pretty invested for a long time now in finding if Christianity is true and eventually converting - Brian made probably the strongest case against God (for me) that I've seen. Scared me for a moment! But Trent never fails to pull through XD He also did a good job articulating what imo is the strongest case in favor of abortion - it seems ridiculously harsh and probably a lot of pro-choicers would intuitively distance from it, but I think it's the logical development/fleshing-out of what's at the heart of a lot of pro-choicers positions. And Trent pointed out that its hard for a materialistic atheist to make a case for something like equal rights. When I was a full atheist, I basically held to 'might is right' and believed I had to reject notions of 'equal rights' or morality in generally if I was going to be intellectually honest and logically consistent. If we want to live in a way that is logically coherent, rational, and 'good', and not in a way that most sane people would find repulsive, I think its Christianity or bust. There comes a point where the cognitive dissonance, willful blindness and distractions of the world/flesh just don't cut it anymore - we have to find God and eventually the beatific vision, or die.
There are no degrees of atheism; either you believe in a god or you do not. Atheism also has nothing to do with anything else other than one's conviction concerning the existance of a god or gods. Your musings have nothing to do with atheism.
@@kevinkelly2162 When I say 'full atheist', I mean 'committed, confident atheist'. Yes, atheism is belief there is no God - but that's a belief that informs many other beliefs; its a basis for building up a lot of one's worldview. I don't think its reasonable to try and totally isolate theism/atheism from all other metaphysical or philosophical questions.
@kevinkelly2162 Theology precedes ontology, epistemology, anthropology, teleology, morality, etc. Different levels of philosophy are like rivers. You pick a source to start from, and they take you to a set of destinations based on what does not contradict the preceding philosophy. You cannot logically get to some beliefs via atheism as ones theological belief system. That's what being serious about atheism means - you understand the beliefs that are incompatible with atheism. Just as a Christian should understand the beliefs that are incompatible with Christianity.
@@Leraje241 Nah, atheism is lack of belief in a deity or deities. The 'a' part means without. What you are is what we call the strong atheist position. Most of us don't hold that position.
I love listening to content like this while I’m mowing the lawn and I got to listen to this debate in its entirety while I did that. It was extremely helpful. I’ve actually done debates with abortion rights advocates before, and Brian’s argument was one that I have not heard before. I enjoyed very much hearing Trent’s answer to his higher versus lower forms of beings and rights argument. Thank you to you both. One of the cool things about this particular video was that I learned about Trent’s video series a couple of months ago while I was watching Brian recommend other Catholic UA-cam channels.
@Brian, love this! You're a great debater. Do more of these, please. Especially please do a similar one on something like "Josephologist Debates Me on Virgin Joseph" where you could play "devil's advocate" by taking the Non-virgin Joseph view and any Josephologist (Fr. Don Calloway, Fr. Boniface Hicks, Dr. Scott Hahn, Dr. Brant Pitre, Joe Rodrigues, Sister Miriam James, etc.) and they take the Virgin Joseph view. It would be a fun, in-house debate that would explore both of these traditions and see the pros and cons of each and see which one is actually the most ancient, the most Biblical, the most apostolic. And when you do, I'll happily add it to our "Josephology" channel's "Josephology Apologetics" playlist section. THANK YOU.
Wait what? How can two Catholics 'debate' these things that both surely agree on? Suddenly apprehensive that Brian is having a struggle... until reading UA-cam comments saying he just wants to practice arguing against the things he does indeed believe in, haha. Okay, phew! Glad you're okay, Brian. And no offence that I never doubted Trent Horn's situation; I've just seen his videos more recently and suddenly wondered if I'd missed a big turn with you.
Good job mentioning the imbalance of logic and persuasiveness between opponents in theological and moral arguments. Really good to here commentary from you both on that😁👍
The disciples on the road to Emmaus not recognising him can be explained by the phenomena whereby the brain struggles to recognise ppl when they are outside of their usual context. I remember a psychology professer taking his student overseas to a country he was attending a conference in. He took her because her parents were also going to be in that city and he wanted to test this theory that they would not recognise her. They stood outside of the hotel, knowing the parents would be leaving to go on a trip at a certain time and despite looking right at their daughter they walked straight past her. I worked in pubs for years, ppl I knew very well would look at me blankly if I said hello when I bumped into them at the supermarket. Out of my expected place their brains struggled to identify me. Same when ppl are usually seen in uniform and then are seen in plain clothes, ppl can't remember them.
That was a totally click bait title. You got me. I could not imagine you two disagreeing on the faith and church teaching. God bless you two for spreading the truth and inspiring fruitful dialog.
Brian does a great job presenting the opposing point of view and Trent as usual gives a great response Great video on debating the pertinent issues of our day😊
This was a master class . Thank you for this awesome video. I agree with Trent on Craig vs Hitchens. I was a Protestant when I watched that debate. Dr. Craig is the Original Cyborg ! Although there's no doubt in my mind if Dr. Craig debated our Catholic Cyborg on Catholicism vs Protestantism Trent Horn would demolish him.
I just rewatched the Hitchens vs Craig debate and I have to say, while Hitch didn't seem at the top of his game, Craig was utterly nonsensical. You had to have been pre-sold on his theology not to have face palmed every 5 mins. Craig is the epitome of someone who uses arcane vocabulary and esoteric philosophical concepts to paper over an incredibly weak and simplistic foundation.
Brian, I think you put up very good arguments, especially that one about the hiddenness of God. And I think Trent could improve a little bit on this particular challenge. But both of you did a very good job! I would say, that instead of tackling the hiddenness of God in a roundabout fashion, Trent should attack it straight on. The question to be answered is "Why is God's hiddenness a good thing?" Trent eventually touched on this, but I think in a "defensive" way. I would like Trent to defend that the hiddenness is indeed a good thing. Any other explanation is lacking IMO. I myself have experienced a tragic marriage breakdown, which inspires me to think about God as the lover seeking out the loved one. With such a backdrop, I can see how God cannot "overpower/violate" us. Furthermore, he cannot be "our super-rich/wealthy bachelor" seeking our attention - thus he cannot answer all prayers like we want to. For real love to exist at all, there is a certain probing of intention, at least in the spousal relationship. Hiddenness is thus not a bug, it's a feature. However, God is of course not completely hidden. I would argue is finding the *exact* balance for every human.
I really liked this format. I'd love to hear you guys do the same thing for cannon-law defined mortal sins. Things like civil marriages, or married couples using a condom, etc. I'm looking for theological arguments for such things to be classified as mortal sin.
@@ninjason57 the purpose for this life, is to “find” God. It’s supposed to be a challenging mystery, it is so much more rewarding that way, like solving a puzzle, who wants the answers before you solve it? All will be revealed to those who seek and desire salvation. I hope that’s helpful
Whatever you pursue, pursue the truth. Keep in mind that the devil likes to remain undetected, so shining light on the people of God is something the devil opposes. If what you’re doing is easy, you’re definitely doing it wrong. If it’s hard, you’re still probably doing it wrong and still have more room to improve. God bless you both in your ministry. Would love to have you both spend some time on Catholic eschatology. ❤
All I keep observing is this: even with the most amazing minds working on this, faith is a very simple thing and requires very little explanation. But if your ego won’t let you accept it, you will always find an argument against it. This stubborn obsession is powered by evil. God please calm my disbelief , let me be drawn into your love.
One danger in the divine hiddenness argument is thinking that God is only speaking, if you feel or hear an interior voice. But God has spoken to us in many ways, through the church, through the prophets, through scripture, through the believers around us, through the sacraments. When we receive communion, that is Christ giving us his body and blood and presence. We are fallen creatures, and I am not sure that we can necessarily hear God in an unmediated way without a great deal of training.
couldn't have said it better myself. our Catholic faith is incarnational and sacramental. it's visible (or perhaps a better word is "sensible") as opposed to merely invisible.
This debate/discussion, right off the bat, brought up an interesting point. How do people who believe God to be who they say He is, "prove" that? As Christians, we profess Jesus to be God. Why skirt around the issue? There is ample evidence (more than any other religion...ever) that Christians are right. By trying to come up with theoretical or conceptual reasons of the existence of God, that only weakens the evidence there is of an actual, personable (for the lack of a better term) God.
Trent's unmoved mover could be the quantum field (no consciousness). The resurrection could be embellished stories of the life and times of an apocalyptic preacher written decades after his death...like the embellished stories of the moon being split.
I thought this would be boring, after all, it’s one Christian talking to another Christian about things in which they agree. However, this was actually very interesting to listen to. Well done Brian.
The hiddennes problem is too difficult to refute because everyone has their own definitions of hidden. Some people want Jesus to appear to them out of thin air. Others claim the existence of the universe alone is enough
Oh man. I dont follow you, Brian, just becuase I don't follow that many people on youtube, but Im aware of your channel and when I saw the title of this video I thought "oh no! Did brian lose his faith??" Im glad to see this is all just hypothetical debate. :)
Why naturalistically should all humans have equal rights? The question in response to that would be "Why should they not"? Unless you believe that every human is capable of foreseeing the future how can you say another human is less beneficial to society? When a persons life is over, that is the only time you can sum up it's value to society.
Brian, Would you be interested in calling to PineCreek and having a conversation with him? He regularly speak to religious people and let's the conversation have a natural flow. It would be interesting.
Can someone explain to me the Catholic Churches that are in one union with the Roman Catholic Church? How can we still receive the sacraments at a church other than the Roman Catholic Church?
It's not "…in one union with the Roman Catholic Church" or "…at a church other than the Roman Catholic Church". Within the Catholic Church (note: not the "Roman Catholic Church") there are different groups called "particular churches". These are separate communities headed by their own bishops, answering to the Pope. They all answer to the Pope and are all fully part of the Catholic Church. The largest of these by a long shot (something like 98% of living Catholics by baptism, globally) is the Latin Church, and probably in part because of the connection between the words "Latin" and "Roman" and similar things across languages, it's often called the Roman Catholic Church. While people often mean the entire Catholic Church when they say "Roman Catholic Church", that is in fact incorrect. The second largest by population is the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, which to an outsider experiencing it on a Sunday morning, would feel almost identical to the Ukrainian Orthodox, and vastly different from the Latin Church. But they answer to the Pope, while the Ukrainian Orthodox do not. Technically speaking, a Catholic is a member of the particular church in which they were initiated, and to switch to a different one, there is a process. But that being said, any Catholic can participate and receive the Eucharist and confess their sins in any of the particular churches. (I'm not sure on the other Sacraments, TBH, but surely if there is something saying "you must be married in your own particular church, there'd be a workaround as it's more of a bookkeeping thing than anything else.) I hope that helps! This Wikipedia article is a handy jumping-off point if you'd like to learn more: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_particular_churches_and_liturgical_rites
circuit reasons have no logical fallacy to them. For instance, the mechanism that chemistry allow, have feedback which within the overall can break and emerge. No absolutely necessary thing needs to be, to grant many other things which may( based on the criteria selected) disclude an event or thing having being. Weather cycles, evaporation are circular which are necessary and can migrate to causation of other thing.
@@Roman-Labrador What are you talking about? Marshall is a pariah at the moment, Fradd and Horn barely speak about him because of his problematic views. Just because there aren't videos of them _attacking_ Marshall it means they're in some circle?
@@2righthands816 aren’t all Christian’s meant to be “pariahs”? To share in the sufferings with Christ? Being on the side of the guys who are least persecuted always seems like a losing bet according to the teachings of Christianity.
Ive only seen Brian on one other video so I was like wait... Isnt this guy Catholic?.. debating....? ...... And then Reading the comments😅 nice practice! Loving it!
I've heard Trent Horn argue that zygotes should be aborted because it increases the likelihood they will end up in Heaven, this was pretty convincing to me and I've not heard a good counter-argument about this yet.
@@EatHoneyBeeHappy Going to heaven by Comdeming yourself to hell? Sending others to Heaven via Murder? This shite logic is why I stopped even talking to most Atheist as they are nothing but bad faith agitators. And I can see your shite comments and their twisted logic as well on other videos.
@@silverhawkscape2677 according to your religion that person wouldn’t be “condemning themselves to hell” because they could simply repent later, and that’s without getting into the fact that abortion isn’t murder and you people have no valid arguments to support your position. You’re truly incapable of…thought, aren’t you?
Great double question Brian (12:53), and your interweaving was more justified than Trent's separation (17:04) acknowledged.
He accepted (though not until 31:40) that we need a "bunch" of (highly abstract) arguments. We need, he admitted, "patience" in order to uncover rationally the Judeo-Christian, One Creator. God seems then much more hidden to natural perception than that discerned by most committed theists-on-the-street, and than straightforward readings of the bible. It's hardly "walking with God in the cool of the evening". -- -- While most of the abstract properties industriously derived by Trent’s Scholasticism are true, the inference steps IMO have understandably failed to work in our scientific culture. The natural essence and existence of horse and stegosaurus (26:00) is a function of environmental causation across the space-time cosmos (the difference of era between stegosaurus & my horse has been discovered as of the 'essence'). Such holistic (‘efficient’ and ‘formal’) physical causation does not of itself jump beyond its boundaries to the metaphysical. That would deny the definition of “cause” today. Similarly, we do analogically ascribe existence to a unicorn (26:48) in as much as we use it, and its posited environment, to have fun and learn together. It’s essence and existence are immediately relative our mind. Might not the same be true of our whole cosmic environment: God’s stage for us to grow morally. After all Newman and Pope Benedict called conscience the echo of the personal voice of God and the “connecting principle between the creature and his Creator”. As your two-sided question seemed to be hoping for, this vision demands less philosophical patience and divine hiddenness. It's closer to the intuitions of most of the devout, and more likely to increase that number today.
I have to say that I don't find the argument of why God doesn't present Himself at (roughly at 42:00) to be remotely convincing. Considering that according to Christian theology, if one does not believe in/worship God, he will go to hell and be tortured for eternity, any warm & fuzzy feelings you get from evangelism should be negated by the thought of the billions of souls condemned to torture simply because enough evidence has not been supplied. And yes, any being powerful and willing enough to send you to a place of eternal torture will invoke fear much more than love. Just the facts.
@1:17:00 the Imposter Theory is discussed. Good points! But this is also believed by the Muslims. They believe that Jesus did NOT die on the cross but think that an IMPOSTER stood in for Jesus and died instead of Jesus! This could've (should've?) been mentioned. Just FYI for your next chats with your Muslim friends.
@@kimfleury he’s a UA-cam movie maker. He makes movies and he posts em on his UA-cam page online on the web. Any webhead like me will get addicted to his videos. He talks Catholicism on web and/or net all the time.
alright man I conked out at 45 minutes it was a little too tiring but I hope you debate matt "the man" dillahunty even if he can be a bit of a prickly pear sometimes
It seems that Brian is getting debate practice by arguing against the things he believes and giving Trent the opportunity to show his apologetic experience.
“She wanted to make a podcast as a response to something that happened on Pints With Aquinas” *cough* Matt Fradd saying women aren’t funny *cough* (But to be fair, he said female stand up comediennes aren’t funny, but Laura Horn is hilarious.)
Trent's smart ass, "ok," at 18:01 would have me pooping my pants if I were debating him.
Yup. The debate equivalent of the Stuka divebomb squeal.
Oh it was sarcastic at the least Matt and did get Brian smirking for quite some time.
I'm taking a screen shot of this and sending this to him lol -Kyle
@@Roman-Labrador It seems you are bearing false witness against Mr. Fradd, publicly. You might want to consider the sinfulness of such behaviour before continuing to do so in future.
@@Roman-Labrador And what does Scripture say about warning a brother twice? What does the Church teach about the *Church's* right to interpret Scripture and Magisterium both? You haven't even said what you think Mr. Fradd said that was "the devil's work", and yet you publicly make this charge against him. This does not seem charitable to me.
I didn't watch it yet, but I am already sorry for your loss Brian....this isn't because of you Brian. You are great! But we all know that Trent Horn is a Cyborg sent from the future to save the Catholic Church.
I think you are confusing Trent for Jimmy Akin. Cy Kellet's words, not mine. 😂
For real though, Trent is one of the best modern apologists.
@@supernerd8067Trent's the one who programmed Jimmy, but he lost control.
I personally think that Jimmy and Trent are amazing!
One thing I know for sure...
Is that I am grateful that they are Catholic! 🤗
Trent horn is a idiot, he has the attitude that is totally arrogant, a wolf in sheeps clothing, outwardly a meek humble sheep, but deep inside a wolfwho devours naive people who are not mature enough to be not influenced by his logic and persausive attitude. Keep repeating the same dogmatic truths so called and if you not born from god, they wear you down from their constant scriptural mantras. Matthew 16 and peter the rock is the main mantra.
hahahahaha I think we have many..... Trent Skywalker, Scott Hahn Solo, Jimmy Wan Kenobi etc
Two of my favourite youtubers. Much love from Nigeria.
I love both you guys and this was very fun to watch. Thank you both for taking the time to make this.
Brian is one of my favorite Catholic “explainers” on UA-cam. I will listen to him, intently and thoughtfully, regardless of the person with whom he speaks.
Brian is always that guy who explains things correctly and gently in the most understanding way from the heart and mind. Trent is there to level me up in the deepest technical and logical way. Both of them together is like combining 2 body parts of the Christian Megazord.
Well, now I need to know who the other 3 zords would be, lol. Fradd and Walsh would have to be in there too.
@@davidrojas6457 father gregory pine is an absolute unit
@@davidrojas6457Michael Knowles is not as combative as Walsh but his Catholicism come through more clearly
The final Catholic boss is Bro. Peter Dimond.
@@davidrojas6457 If church officials are allowed, Bishop Barron or Father Ripperger would be great. If it's just the lay, then Peter Kreeft.
Debate starts at 12:55
My man
Goat
The collab we have been waiting for! I hope you will invite more Catholic apologists and UA-camrs here, Brian.
I’m an atheist, and I love both of you guys. Mad respect
hahah i clicked on this video wondering what possibly Trent and Brian could be debating, wasn't expecting the devil's advocate twist 😅😅😅
fantastic vid
Two of my favorite podcasters, both of whom are very sincere in their faith. Great show! ❤
Years ago, apologetics was taught in Catholic seminaries and universities (see the classic book "College Apologetics" by Fr. Anthony Alexander). Sadly, apologetics got a bad name and went out of fashion in the 1970s, to be replaced with seemingly endless "dialogue." The purpose of authentic apologetics, when done for the proper purpose and in charity, is to help both parties to reach the truth about the matter at hand. What could be more Christian than that? (Excellent video, BTW.)
This is the collab I knew we needed. I'm excited to watch it !
Hi Brian, This is my favorite one you’ve ever done I think just about. At least in the top five I really enjoyed this.
I never really have enjoyed Catholic answers for various reasons, but I know they’re speaking Catholic doctrine.
I never really listened to much to Trent Horn and I really didn’t have a positive view of him…
But this changed my mind.
It showed me to be open minded and listen even when I have doubts.
And maybe I wouldn’t like every single episode of discussions like this but I did like this.
I thought you Brian were the best I’ve ever seen you and relaxed.
Yes, just a nice guy. A smart nice guy.
Thank you very much for this. It probably made me a better person which was definitely needed!
God bless you both.
I've been pretty invested for a long time now in finding if Christianity is true and eventually converting - Brian made probably the strongest case against God (for me) that I've seen. Scared me for a moment! But Trent never fails to pull through XD
He also did a good job articulating what imo is the strongest case in favor of abortion - it seems ridiculously harsh and probably a lot of pro-choicers would intuitively distance from it, but I think it's the logical development/fleshing-out of what's at the heart of a lot of pro-choicers positions. And Trent pointed out that its hard for a materialistic atheist to make a case for something like equal rights. When I was a full atheist, I basically held to 'might is right' and believed I had to reject notions of 'equal rights' or morality in generally if I was going to be intellectually honest and logically consistent.
If we want to live in a way that is logically coherent, rational, and 'good', and not in a way that most sane people would find repulsive, I think its Christianity or bust. There comes a point where the cognitive dissonance, willful blindness and distractions of the world/flesh just don't cut it anymore - we have to find God and eventually the beatific vision, or die.
There are no degrees of atheism; either you believe in a god or you do not. Atheism also has nothing to do with anything else other than one's conviction concerning the existance of a god or gods. Your musings have nothing to do with atheism.
I'll take "Videos I didn't expect to find a Takodachi in the comments of" for $500, Alex
@@kevinkelly2162 When I say 'full atheist', I mean 'committed, confident atheist'. Yes, atheism is belief there is no God - but that's a belief that informs many other beliefs; its a basis for building up a lot of one's worldview. I don't think its reasonable to try and totally isolate theism/atheism from all other metaphysical or philosophical questions.
@kevinkelly2162 Theology precedes ontology, epistemology, anthropology, teleology, morality, etc.
Different levels of philosophy are like rivers. You pick a source to start from, and they take you to a set of destinations based on what does not contradict the preceding philosophy.
You cannot logically get to some beliefs via atheism as ones theological belief system. That's what being serious about atheism means - you understand the beliefs that are incompatible with atheism. Just as a Christian should understand the beliefs that are incompatible with Christianity.
@@Leraje241 Nah, atheism is lack of belief in a deity or deities. The 'a' part means without. What you are is what we call the strong atheist position. Most of us don't hold that position.
I’m so glad I found Brian’s channel. I subscribed and look forward to seeing more content! 🙏✨
I love listening to content like this while I’m mowing the lawn and I got to listen to this debate in its entirety while I did that. It was extremely helpful. I’ve actually done debates with abortion rights advocates before, and Brian’s argument was one that I have not heard before. I enjoyed very much hearing Trent’s answer to his higher versus lower forms of beings and rights argument. Thank you to you both. One of the cool things about this particular video was that I learned about Trent’s video series a couple of months ago while I was watching Brian recommend other Catholic UA-cam channels.
Brian having better production quality on podcasts than most people have in their shorter videos
Ah two of my favorite UA-camrs! So awesome!
@Brian, love this! You're a great debater. Do more of these, please. Especially please do a similar one on something like "Josephologist Debates Me on Virgin Joseph" where you could play "devil's advocate" by taking the Non-virgin Joseph view and any Josephologist (Fr. Don Calloway, Fr. Boniface Hicks, Dr. Scott Hahn, Dr. Brant Pitre, Joe Rodrigues, Sister Miriam James, etc.) and they take the Virgin Joseph view. It would be a fun, in-house debate that would explore both of these traditions and see the pros and cons of each and see which one is actually the most ancient, the most Biblical, the most apostolic. And when you do, I'll happily add it to our "Josephology" channel's "Josephology Apologetics" playlist section. THANK YOU.
Wait what? How can two Catholics 'debate' these things that both surely agree on? Suddenly apprehensive that Brian is having a struggle... until reading UA-cam comments saying he just wants to practice arguing against the things he does indeed believe in, haha. Okay, phew! Glad you're okay, Brian. And no offence that I never doubted Trent Horn's situation; I've just seen his videos more recently and suddenly wondered if I'd missed a big turn with you.
Trent Horn is my favorite apologist!
He’s based
@@Roman-Labrador what's wrong with that?
@@Roman-Labrador No he doesn't promote Taylor Marshall.
Why does your god need godsplainers?
@@Roman-Labrador Tell me how he does that?
Good job mentioning the imbalance of logic and persuasiveness between opponents in theological and moral arguments. Really good to here commentary from you both on that😁👍
So excited, can’t wait!
Great to see both!!! Nice!!
Excellent video. Thanks
You guys are awesome. God bless.
not yet finished with the video but enjoying it so much and Trent seems like he’s having a lot of fun!
Great video... would love to see Jimmy on your show
Love it! Fun! Would have loved it more and been more fun if Trent Horn debated you on Joseph's Perpetual Virginity though :-)
I'm interested to see where these men disagree if at all.
The disciples on the road to Emmaus not recognising him can be explained by the phenomena whereby the brain struggles to recognise ppl when they are outside of their usual context.
I remember a psychology professer taking his student overseas to a country he was attending a conference in. He took her because her parents were also going to be in that city and he wanted to test this theory that they would not recognise her. They stood outside of the hotel, knowing the parents would be leaving to go on a trip at a certain time and despite looking right at their daughter they walked straight past her.
I worked in pubs for years, ppl I knew very well would look at me blankly if I said hello when I bumped into them at the supermarket. Out of my expected place their brains struggled to identify me. Same when ppl are usually seen in uniform and then are seen in plain clothes, ppl can't remember them.
That was a totally click bait title. You got me. I could not imagine you two disagreeing on the faith and church teaching. God bless you two for spreading the truth and inspiring fruitful dialog.
I am an atheist, but I LOVE listening to Trent Horn. He is a top tier debater.
Fascinating thank you for sharing.
Brian does a great job presenting the opposing point of view and Trent as usual gives a great response
Great video on debating the pertinent issues of our day😊
This was a master class . Thank you for this awesome video. I agree with Trent on Craig vs Hitchens. I was a Protestant when I watched that debate. Dr. Craig is the Original Cyborg ! Although there's no doubt in my mind if Dr. Craig debated our Catholic Cyborg on Catholicism vs Protestantism Trent Horn would demolish him.
I just rewatched the Hitchens vs Craig debate and I have to say, while Hitch didn't seem at the top of his game, Craig was utterly nonsensical. You had to have been pre-sold on his theology not to have face palmed every 5 mins. Craig is the epitome of someone who uses arcane vocabulary and esoteric philosophical concepts to paper over an incredibly weak and simplistic foundation.
@@Charlotte_Martel LOL 😆 you have obviously drunk the Koolaid of materialism!
Trent just said Dr. Craig demolished Hitchens!
Try not to be a Catholic twit!
@@davidjanbaz7728 The Kool Aid of materialism aka accepting reality.
God Bless both of you! Trent ❤
If all debate were in good faith like this is be v much more inclined to watch them
Brian, I think you put up very good arguments, especially that one about the hiddenness of God. And I think Trent could improve a little bit on this particular challenge. But both of you did a very good job! I would say, that instead of tackling the hiddenness of God in a roundabout fashion, Trent should attack it straight on. The question to be answered is "Why is God's hiddenness a good thing?" Trent eventually touched on this, but I think in a "defensive" way. I would like Trent to defend that the hiddenness is indeed a good thing. Any other explanation is lacking IMO. I myself have experienced a tragic marriage breakdown, which inspires me to think about God as the lover seeking out the loved one. With such a backdrop, I can see how God cannot "overpower/violate" us. Furthermore, he cannot be "our super-rich/wealthy bachelor" seeking our attention - thus he cannot answer all prayers like we want to. For real love to exist at all, there is a certain probing of intention, at least in the spousal relationship. Hiddenness is thus not a bug, it's a feature. However, God is of course not completely hidden. I would argue is finding the *exact* balance for every human.
I thought you guys were beefing with each other 😅
God bless both of you 🙏
I want Trent to debate Ben Shapiro.
I really liked this format. I'd love to hear you guys do the same thing for cannon-law defined mortal sins. Things like civil marriages, or married couples using a condom, etc. I'm looking for theological arguments for such things to be classified as mortal sin.
Wonderful discussion!
If God was fully revealed to us there would be no purpose for this life.
What does that even mean?
@@ninjason57 the purpose for this life, is to “find” God. It’s supposed to be a challenging mystery, it is so much more rewarding that way, like solving a puzzle, who wants the answers before you solve it? All will be revealed to those who seek and desire salvation. I hope that’s helpful
You are both very inspiring
Whatever you pursue, pursue the truth. Keep in mind that the devil likes to remain undetected, so shining light on the people of God is something the devil opposes. If what you’re doing is easy, you’re definitely doing it wrong. If it’s hard, you’re still probably doing it wrong and still have more room to improve. God bless you both in your ministry. Would love to have you both spend some time on Catholic eschatology. ❤
Brian is the kind of guy you want to have a beer with, I love his demeanor.
I wanna beer with Laura Horn. She'd be a blast.
I have done that. He's as cool as he seems. There is no pretense here.
Bravo, two very courageous gentlemen indeed. In hoc signo vinces +.
All I keep observing is this: even with the most amazing minds working on this, faith is a very simple thing and requires very little explanation. But if your ego won’t let you accept it, you will always find an argument against it. This stubborn obsession is powered by evil.
God please calm my disbelief , let me be drawn into your love.
One danger in the divine hiddenness argument is thinking that God is only speaking, if you feel or hear an interior voice. But God has spoken to us in many ways, through the church, through the prophets, through scripture, through the believers around us, through the sacraments. When we receive communion, that is Christ giving us his body and blood and presence. We are fallen creatures, and I am not sure that we can necessarily hear God in an unmediated way without a great deal of training.
couldn't have said it better myself. our Catholic faith is incarnational and sacramental. it's visible (or perhaps a better word is "sensible") as opposed to merely invisible.
I subscribe to both of you and enjoy what you have to say. Thanks!
This debate/discussion, right off the bat, brought up an interesting point. How do people who believe God to be who they say He is, "prove" that? As Christians, we profess Jesus to be God. Why skirt around the issue? There is ample evidence (more than any other religion...ever) that Christians are right. By trying to come up with theoretical or conceptual reasons of the existence of God, that only weakens the evidence there is of an actual, personable (for the lack of a better term) God.
Trent's unmoved mover could be the quantum field (no consciousness). The resurrection could be embellished stories of the life and times of an apocalyptic preacher written decades after his death...like the embellished stories of the moon being split.
Great job guys!!🎉🎉🎉❤
Love the interaction between these two...likening it almost to " Freud and Jung" of the Catholic faith. 😊
“So hard to watch but really really funny”, is also funny!
I thought this would be boring, after all, it’s one Christian talking to another Christian about things in which they agree. However, this was actually very interesting to listen to. Well done Brian.
Wow, what a match-up!
Trent failed in the hiddenness argument. This is a difficult argument.
It is hard only in the philosophical apologetics fiesta, the simple truth is that those who have ears to hear, hear 🙏🏻
The hiddennes problem is too difficult to refute because everyone has their own definitions of hidden. Some people want Jesus to appear to them out of thin air. Others claim the existence of the universe alone is enough
MY TWO FAVORITE CATHOLIC SPEAKERS IN ONE VIDEO, LETS GO
Oh man. I dont follow you, Brian, just becuase I don't follow that many people on youtube, but Im aware of your channel and when I saw the title of this video I thought "oh no! Did brian lose his faith??" Im glad to see this is all just hypothetical debate. :)
Why naturalistically should all humans have equal rights?
The question in response to that would be "Why should they not"?
Unless you believe that every human is capable of foreseeing the future how can you say another human is less beneficial to society?
When a persons life is over, that is the only time you can sum up it's value to society.
This was such a great idea and Brian made a stronger case for atheism than many atheists Trent has interacted with lol
I'm wondering if the whole idea of essence, leans heavily close to gnosticism/hermeticism at 26:00 ?
I’m 25 minutes in - and this is great so far.
Brian,
Would you be interested in calling to PineCreek and having a conversation with him? He regularly speak to religious people and let's the conversation have a natural flow. It would be interesting.
It would be!
Who, and/or what, and/or where, is Pine Creek?
Me like this duo!
Can someone explain to me the Catholic Churches that are in one union with the Roman Catholic Church? How can we still receive the sacraments at a church other than the Roman Catholic Church?
It's not "…in one union with the Roman Catholic Church" or "…at a church other than the Roman Catholic Church".
Within the Catholic Church (note: not the "Roman Catholic Church") there are different groups called "particular churches". These are separate communities headed by their own bishops, answering to the Pope. They all answer to the Pope and are all fully part of the Catholic Church.
The largest of these by a long shot (something like 98% of living Catholics by baptism, globally) is the Latin Church, and probably in part because of the connection between the words "Latin" and "Roman" and similar things across languages, it's often called the Roman Catholic Church. While people often mean the entire Catholic Church when they say "Roman Catholic Church", that is in fact incorrect.
The second largest by population is the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, which to an outsider experiencing it on a Sunday morning, would feel almost identical to the Ukrainian Orthodox, and vastly different from the Latin Church. But they answer to the Pope, while the Ukrainian Orthodox do not.
Technically speaking, a Catholic is a member of the particular church in which they were initiated, and to switch to a different one, there is a process. But that being said, any Catholic can participate and receive the Eucharist and confess their sins in any of the particular churches. (I'm not sure on the other Sacraments, TBH, but surely if there is something saying "you must be married in your own particular church, there'd be a workaround as it's more of a bookkeeping thing than anything else.)
I hope that helps!
This Wikipedia article is a handy jumping-off point if you'd like to learn more: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_particular_churches_and_liturgical_rites
circuit reasons have no logical fallacy to them. For instance, the mechanism that chemistry allow, have feedback which within the overall can break and emerge. No absolutely necessary thing needs to be, to grant many other things which may( based on the criteria selected) disclude an event or thing having being. Weather cycles, evaporation are circular which are necessary and can migrate to causation of other thing.
Can someone point me to the Abraham Lincoln quote? It's such a powerful explanation and I'm not sure where I can get a copy of it
Debate about what? You guys should agree with most things.
In the video itself it’s explained that Brian is playing devil’s advocate and arguing for ideas he disagrees with to the best of his ability
You should learn to watch the video before making comments like these
@@Roman-Labrador What "Taylor Marshal-Matt Fadd" circle? These two couldn't be further apart!
@@Roman-Labrador What are you talking about? Marshall is a pariah at the moment, Fradd and Horn barely speak about him because of his problematic views. Just because there aren't videos of them _attacking_ Marshall it means they're in some circle?
@@2righthands816 aren’t all Christian’s meant to be “pariahs”? To share in the sufferings with Christ? Being on the side of the guys who are least persecuted always seems like a losing bet according to the teachings of Christianity.
Two great Catholics
Could you timestamp this please?
Man Brian makes a really good atheist. Great video guys
Ive only seen Brian on one other video so I was like wait... Isnt this guy Catholic?.. debating....? ...... And then Reading the comments😅 nice practice! Loving it!
I've heard Trent Horn argue that zygotes should be aborted because it increases the likelihood they will end up in Heaven, this was pretty convincing to me and I've not heard a good counter-argument about this yet.
Shit argument since you can justify Infaticide as well because it increases their chances to go to heaven as well.
@@silverhawkscape2677 I don't understand why that makes it a shit argument. Going to Heaven is the goal, correct?
@@EatHoneyBeeHappy Going to heaven by Comdeming yourself to hell? Sending others to Heaven via Murder? This shite logic is why I stopped even talking to most Atheist as they are nothing but bad faith agitators. And I can see your shite comments and their twisted logic as well on other videos.
@@silverhawkscape2677 according to your religion that person wouldn’t be “condemning themselves to hell” because they could simply repent later, and that’s without getting into the fact that abortion isn’t murder and you people have no valid arguments to support your position.
You’re truly incapable of…thought, aren’t you?
By that logic, it would be okay for people to murder people who just made a confession and are thus in a state of grace.
Everytime Trent Horn mentions his books, take a sip of light beer. You'll be wasted in no time at all.
Excellent depiction of Christopher Hitchens’ demagoguery by Trent.
If we, as time/space creatures, could now experience God in a non-time/non-space manner with our senses, our earthly existence would have no meaning.
Great double question Brian (12:53), and your interweaving was more justified than Trent's separation (17:04) acknowledged.
He accepted (though not until 31:40) that we need a "bunch" of (highly abstract) arguments. We need, he admitted, "patience" in order to uncover rationally the Judeo-Christian, One Creator. God seems then much more hidden to natural perception than that discerned by most committed theists-on-the-street, and than straightforward readings of the bible. It's hardly "walking with God in the cool of the evening".
-- --
While most of the abstract properties industriously derived by Trent’s Scholasticism are true, the inference steps IMO have understandably failed to work in our scientific culture.
The natural essence and existence of horse and stegosaurus (26:00) is a function of environmental causation across the space-time cosmos (the difference of era between stegosaurus & my horse has been discovered as of the 'essence'). Such holistic (‘efficient’ and ‘formal’) physical causation does not of itself jump beyond its boundaries to the metaphysical. That would deny the definition of “cause” today.
Similarly, we do analogically ascribe existence to a unicorn (26:48) in as much as we use it, and its posited environment, to have fun and learn together. It’s essence and existence are immediately relative our mind. Might not the same be true of our whole cosmic environment: God’s stage for us to grow morally. After all Newman and Pope Benedict called conscience the echo of the personal voice of God and the “connecting principle between the creature and his Creator”.
As your two-sided question seemed to be hoping for, this vision demands less philosophical patience and divine hiddenness. It's closer to the intuitions of most of the devout, and more likely to increase that number today.
"who think the earth is still flat", becuase as we know, the earth stopped being flat 500b years ago, in what we call the Great Rounding
I have to say that I don't find the argument of why God doesn't present Himself at (roughly at 42:00) to be remotely convincing. Considering that according to Christian theology, if one does not believe in/worship God, he will go to hell and be tortured for eternity, any warm & fuzzy feelings you get from evangelism should be negated by the thought of the billions of souls condemned to torture simply because enough evidence has not been supplied. And yes, any being powerful and willing enough to send you to a place of eternal torture will invoke fear much more than love. Just the facts.
If Friar Casey was here, would be my most OP mashup of all Catholic UA-cam.
A though just came to me. Which animals, other than man (or woman), kill their unborn children?
@1:17:00 the Imposter Theory is discussed. Good points! But this is also believed by the Muslims. They believe that Jesus did NOT die on the cross but think that an IMPOSTER stood in for Jesus and died instead of Jesus! This could've (should've?) been mentioned. Just FYI for your next chats with your Muslim friends.
why are they debating? don't they agree?
Brian is playing the devils advocate. He is using the approach of an atheist.😀
Thank God for this. Brian getting to the bottom of the atheistic perspective. Well done
Dr. Brandon Holdsworth V. Dr. Travis Horn. (Already putting it as if it a courtroom alibi!). Wow. This is incredible!
Who's Brandon?
@@kimfleury he’s a UA-cam movie maker. He makes movies and he posts em on his UA-cam page online on the web. Any webhead like me will get addicted to his videos. He talks Catholicism on web and/or net all the time.
That's just dope
Does anyone know where the Hallelujah chant in the very beginning of the video is from?
I strongly disagree that the ancient civilizations didn't actually believe in their Gods. That's such a silly claim.
alright man I conked out at 45 minutes it was a little too tiring but I hope you debate matt "the man" dillahunty even if he can be a bit of a prickly pear sometimes
Debate. I would hope that you would not want to oppose anything that Trent would hold dear to.
1:04:30 why assume this?
Wait what is happening? Don’t they agree on all these things already???
It seems that Brian is getting debate practice by arguing against the things he believes and giving Trent the opportunity to show his apologetic experience.
Learn to watch the starts of videos before making assumptions on the content
@@MikeyJMJ I did. It was taking too long. This was quicker.
What is the debate about?
Still cant find the debates between Timothy Gordon vs Trent Horn any longer. Horn lost in both debates.
Great method acting by Brian as an Atheist.
I can’t imagine a Catholic topic Trent wouldn’t smoke Brian on
That is because Trent Horn is a professional Catholic apologist and Brian is not….yet.
“She wanted to make a podcast as a response to something that happened on Pints With Aquinas” *cough* Matt Fradd saying women aren’t funny *cough* (But to be fair, he said female stand up comediennes aren’t funny, but Laura Horn is hilarious.)
And to be doubly fair, he specifically singled out Laura as a unique exception to his original statement.
She’s funny….but I can’t take much of her. Just in very small doses.