DEBATE Trent Horn vs Dan Barker | God: Supreme Being or Imaginary Friend?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 2 жов 2024
- shop.catholic.c...
A Debate on the Existence of God between a Catholic and an Atheist
This debate from Wednesday, February 12, 2014 matches Catholic Answers apologist and author Trent Horn against Dan Barker, co-president of the Freedom from Religion Foundation.
Catholic Answers hosted the event to provide an opportunity for a lively yet respectful clash of ideas during which believers and unbelievers would be able to hear the best arguments for and against the existence of God.
The debate was attended by an overflow crowd of about 300, divided evenly between Christians and atheists. This debate includes argument, rebuttal, cross-examination, and an audience-participation question-and-answer session.
Kudos to Catholic Answers for leaving the comments section open.
***** Did you change your name from Darth Vader?
***** Cause that turned my world upside down. I no longer know what to
believe.
+Aviv Aviv Agreed.
Catholics love debating, same as Jews
59
Reply
*kudos to Catholic Answers for leaving the comments section open.*
Unfortunately the average comment from the very misinformed, angry YT atheist is typically cynical, insulting, blasphemous and profane. One wonders why they are so obsessed with the God they don't believe in.
And of course, the atheist devolves into hatred and finger pointing of certain bad individuals within the Catholic Church. That in no way disproves God's existence. I guess the atrocities of atheists such as Hitler and Stalin don't matter. People are imperfect. People within the Catholic Church are sinners. That in no way disproves God's existence and the holiness of the Catholic Church, the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church founded by Jesus Christ.
Xavier Velasco Actually Hitler was a Roman Catholic, he was even a creationist and darwins books were banned in Nazi Germany.
But then again... many Christians would claim that Catholics arent real Christians. ;)
Xavier Velasco HITLER WAS A CATHOLIC....HE NEVER SAID HE WAS AN ATHEIST (MINE KAMPFT REFERENCES HIS BELIEF IN GOD) and THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AIDED THE NAZIS and EVEN CELEBRATED HITLER'S BIRTHDAT IN GERMANY...(go and read and see for yourself). Next....Stalin (atheist as he might well have been) did not commit atrocities in the NAME of 'atheism'. The people of many religious backgrounds (Roman Catholics certainly included) have killed in the name of god. The god of the bible ordered the Israelites to slaughter ALL the Amalekites SPECIFICALLY INCLUSIVE OF BABIES...innocent babies....and their innocent animals too. The god of the bible was so self absorbed and had such a wicked pathological streak that he made Abraham attempt to take his own son's life just to show his submission to his will (does that sound like a loving leader of any sort to you or a psychopath)? The god of the Bible killed all the first born of Egypt (including children) just to make a point that he was powerful (is it ever ok to kill innocent children, especially just to make a point?). The god of the bible cared more about men being circumcised, than to insist that we shouldn't enslave one another. In fact, the god of the Bible permitted the Israelites to bequeath slaves from one generation to the next and allowed people to beat their slaves to within a hair of their lives.....even if the slave dies three days after the beating...without having to even do penance. The New Testament tells slaves to be obedient to their masters, and tells masters to treat their slaves well (there by condoning slavery). What kind of all loving all powerful 'god' do you believe in? One of the Gospels states that all of the graves in Jerusalem were opened and the dead came back to life and walked about, and that there were hours of darkness in the middle of the day and a huge earthquake at the moment of Jesus' death...YET NOT ONE MENTION OF ANY OF THESE EXTRAORDINARY EVENTS RECORDED BY ANY OF THE ROMAN AUTHORITIES OR THE JEWISH LEADERS OF THE TIME....seriously....you think that they would not have written about that if it really happened. You are Catholic...so I would hope that you don't take the Noah Story or the Genesis story as literal....but in case you do....seriously....science shows that none of that could have occurred in the way described. A perfect god would have made sure that his 'word' was perfectly clear for all the ages...yet even in the times of 'Jesus' (if he was even a real historical figure) and then later during the early Christian period...there was lack of agreement on the interpretation of many scriptures....so what kind of perfect god would allow his word to come to us in such an imperfect way? (Oh by the way...I used to be a bit of a poster boy for 'the good catholic boy'...really).
Xavier Velasco No one can disprove 'god' in the general sort of deistic sense....but we sure can demonstrate the silly notion that is the god described by the big monotheistic faiths of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. All loving, all powerful and all knowing simply does not fit the pattern of basic apathy 'demonstrated' by the universe.
stevytube Hitler was not a Catholic. He was baptized a Catholic as a child but later rejected the faith. Calling Hitler a Catholic would be no different than calling you, a lapsed Catholic, a faithful Catholic. Both you and Hitler have rejected the faith, thereby making you not Catholic. Also, Mine Kampft has references to the Lord. This was simply a political ploy. If you have actually read Mine Kampft, you would likely know what Hitler advocated using propaganda that bears no relation to the truth but is designed to sway the masses. Hitler was playing on the religious sensibilities of the German citizens who were either Catholic or Lutheran, of which the majority of his willing followers were Lutheran. So to call him Catholic is quite simply false. To call him religious is also false, as he hated religion with a passion. Perhaps he was spiritual, but even that is a stretch. As I said earlier, he used religious symbolism to get the masses riled up and to support him. One should really take anything Hitler said, who was a sociopathic maniac, with a grain of salt. Hitler also was a proponent of social Darwinism and atheistic philosophy. And yes, Stalin did kill in the name of atheism. Call it what you will. He hated religion and anyone who practiced religion. One does not have to be a Christian to recognize this. One just has to have an understanding of history. Also, I'm pretty sure I mentioned this in an earlier comment, but the entire reason I brought up people like Hitler, Stalin, and Mao was as a counterweight to the accusations of religious people committing atrocities in the name of God. Yes, terrible things have been done in the name of God. I am not denying that. But that is not some how evidence that God does not exist. And statistically speaking, atheist have killed far more people than religious people have. The greatest genocides, responsible for the killing of hundreds of millions have been committed at the hands of atheists. Not to mention the slaughtering of millions of unborn children in the womb on an annual basis. But yes, I do recognize that religious people have committed atrocities and I did mention that; but these atrocities, many of which are blown out of proportion, do go against Christian teachings. So just because a Christian commits a terrible act does not mean that Christianity as a religion condones said act. Also, as I said earlier, this does not help to further your cause as an atheist. Also, your understanding of how scripture was written is flawed. The Bible is the inspired Word of God. But it was written by flawed humans. The Bible was not dictated to the inspired authors. The writers were conditioned by the cultural precepts of their time. Also, a number of Old Testament stories are not literal and were not written as literal stories. And in terms of the flood, there are actually a number of plausible scientific explanations. And the region in which gained influence from, Mesopotamia, experienced great floods quite often. We are arguing for the existence of God. Your problem seem to be more with Christianity than with the existence of God. Also Jesus did exist. He is the most historically attested person in the history of mankind. The Gospels themselves are historical documents. Not to mention the number of extra-biblical sources that have attested His existence such as Josephus, Pliny the Younger, etc. You do seem to be very angry with Christianity and I am sorry if you have been hurt by Christian people, but because Christians are flawed does not serve to help your cause. If you would like some Scriptural apologetics, I can direct you to some great articles and books. But, again, that is not what this whole thread is regarding. Anyway, you are in my prayers. May the peace of Jesus Christ be with you.
Xavier Velasco amen to that
I noticed Trent consistently stayed on topic and actually focused on the arguments. The atheist was certainly on topic here and there but went all over the place, including obsessively talking about what "Atheism" means, As though that at all matters.
I USED to be intimidated by atheists, but then i learned to look past rhetoric and into the actual logic of things. Now their intimidation is greatly reduced, though not gone completely.
I would hope no one would be trying to intimidate anyone else. The point is to have a discussion. These two gentlemen are a perfect example of that.
I think definitions ARE important. If I'm a Vegetarian, and someone keeps arguing about Vegans, then time is indeed wasted...like, if Dan said to Trent, "Ah, Protestant, Catholic, Pentecostal, Church of Christ, you all are Christians, and read from the same Bible..."
Ronald Mendonca He kind of did, though, didn't he? And he assumes all Christians read the Bible the same way. Even though he clearly admits we think differently. Hmmmm...
ChesterKhan The way I got it was he was saying that NO Christians read the Bible the same way. And that's the problem. Different sects, and denominations, and fighting over interpretations are a MAJOR problem in all religions. Paul wrote "God is not the author of confusion." But, can you think of a single book that's caused more confusion than the Bible? God loves us. So, why couldn't he have made His message a little more clear?
Ronald Mendonca
And yet he turns around and says that Exodus means this and Jesus teaches that, and you should hate it. The bit about some men should cut their testicles off, for example. Dunno where Jesus said _that_ - or who but an atheist or anti-Christian would interpret it that way.
His statement - and yours here - assumes that the bible is the only word of God. This is an assertion with which many Christian churches would disagree. Not only the spurious Mormons, but also many Anglicans, many Lutherans, as well as the Orthodox and Catholic Churches. Speaking for myself, as a Catholic, the Bible is only a subset of a larger body of divine revelation known as Sacred Tradition. In fact, if it were not for the bishops who codified the Bible, and the unwritten decisions of rabbis and kohanim when we were Jews, we would not have a unified Old or New Testament.
Do you follow me?
ChesterKhan Yeah, I think I follow you, but help me out. So, what else is the word of God? How do you determine "God breathed" from not? I'm sure there would be many Christians who would call you somewhat of a heretic to say that the Bible is NOT the only word of God. You've already labeled Mormons as spurious.
It's been a while for me, but I think the castration verse is Matthew like 12...something? You said "who but an atheist or anti-Christian would interpret it that way?" You forgot Ex-Christian, or someone who is a Non-Christian, like a Buddhist.
What I see in this argument is a Christian who understands the atheist point of view, and an atheist who completely misunderstands the theistic concept of God. I could’ve made Dans arguments at age 18. It’s the more intellectually lazy point of view.
wrong barker was both do you know that? and not everything has to be big worded and complicated
Let’s say you’re right, the atheist completely misunderstands the theistic concept of God. Why is it so easy to do so? I’d think a god that actually exists would be harder to ignore.
Lol, it's the contrary. Dan was literally a preacher for 19 years of his life. Trent has never been an atheist.
Explaining Christianity in simple terms rather using convoluted language (for sole purposes to obfuscate and sound intelligent) is not a sign of a straw man. It's going to the point quicky, cutting the BS
I don't think you did understand anything dan said stop religious bias take a step back from it
Ppl actually are infinitely more invested in heaven than God, I suspect.
You're right about that, a lot of Christians are like that.
I dunno, some are, but I've mostly been invested in God. I think it's hard to separate our selfish motivations though, and most Christians will acknowledge that there is some selfish component to their belief, but they also will acknowledge that, ideally, that selfish component should not be there. Thanks to human nature, it is.
@@drumsandcymbals8779The reason St Leonard said most people Christian and non-Christian go to hell
As I get older, it becomes increasingly evident that Dan and his arguments are not in the same intellectual league as Trent by a long stretch.
lmao, trent and his faith is intellectual? damn u guys r so delusional.. faith =/= intellectual
@@Bodonism exactly.
Trent is still in the crayon stage.
@@Bodonism * are
Me thinks, you are devoid of intellect Sarah. Dan wiped the floor with Trent! If you thought otherwise, then you have obviousley, been brainwashed and indoctrinated. It's a shame you have wasted your entire life, believing in supernatural crap!.. Hope you get enlightenend... If Dan Barker can't persuade you no one can... Can't understand how people can believe in 'sky daddies' in the 21st century. I feel there is no hope for them😢😢
Catholics can USE BOTH Faith and Reason since we DON'T follow Sola Scriptura.
If you use reason, then why would you need faith?
@@riverofthewood I think the idea is that both are involved in a wholistic understanding of things. (Wholistic not a typo, a variant spelling but often used in the context of trying to look at the "whole" picture, at least in my humble observation/course of reading)
@@wendyleeconnelly2939 Okay. What is the value in using Faith as an epistemology? What purpose is being served that is not being served by science?
Darn, I've watched 2 debates involving Trent Horn and in both of them, his opponent suffered a meltdown.
And this is coming from an atheist.
Yes, Barker gets pretty emotional...
No, a dishonest theist,an atheist would never say that.
@@frankwhelan1715 Atheist would never say what?
You're another lying theist
He is all Barker and no bites 🤣🤣🤣
I've just started to listed to Trent Horn, what a blessing he is to christianity.
He is quite reasonable, although I don't agree with many of the deductions/assumptions he makes in his arguments. For example, if the universe is an isolated system, as suggested by the "2nd law of thermodynamics" argument, than it cannot be influenced by a god by definition, otherwise the the 2nd law doesn't apply to it. Its a nonsensical argument once you actually break it down and think about it, and i feel this way about every one of his arguments, even though i can understand why someone might be convinced be them, they all have some problem which makes them basically someone's best guess about the reason the universe exists, and i am simply not convinced that these guesses are correct. What could we ever hope to deduce about something immaterial spaceless and timeless, this literally defies logic, it wouldn't follow the same rules of logic that we observe in the universe if it exists outside the universe.
@Jim H
Yikes...sounds like somebody is moved by Trent's words...or he wouldn't be so bothered!
Yeah, a blessing for the church, so they can rake in more unearned dollars.
Lol
Dan Barker make a lot of semi protestant insults, very funny to see how he argue from a sola scripture standpoint.
Is that Matt Fradd in the audience?
Yep
Looks like him.
at what minute did you saw him?
El Canal de Shackra every time the camera points at the audience
Bryan Kling pardon?
Imagine believing that torturing a baby and enjoying it is not inherently wrong
You don't need inherence so that everybody finds it wrong.
If you are a mere animal without a soul, know that we humans who are made in God's image and likeness are to have dominion over all the animals.
And this kind of mentality is how we get mass extinction of species
@@IowaRonin that line reeks of conceit and I don't believe a word of it
In psalms it literally instructs the Israelites to "dash their little ones upon the stones." Referring to a rival tribe. God literally instructs the Israelites to torture and murder babies. Some God of yours.
If God doesn't exist, everything is ultimately meaningless, i.e. futile, because we die and go to nothing. If all is futile, then atheism is futile. Therefore one may reasonably dismiss atheism and assume theism, for otherwise, who cares?
I like ur comment.
Even if it were true that a universe without a deity made life meaningless, why does that make a deity likely? Why is a universe with meaning more likely than a universe without ultimate meaning?
What you should ask yourself though, is why you consider an afterlife to be something that gives THIS LIFE meaning. Wouldn't a longer, better life ultimately just invalidate this short one into being trivial? Wouldn't this being the only life we get make it MORE important? Do we not judge the value of an object based on its rarity and how precious it is? And if the afterlife is what makes life worth living, than what makes the afterlife worth living? If there is no afterafterlife, isn't the afterlife meaningless?
Futrix
I'm not arguing that it makes theism true; I'm arguing that it makes it pointless to believe that atheism is true, for if atheism were true, then the truth wouldn't really matter. Also, we would have no objective moral duty to be rational, to even care what the truth is.
I don't think an afterlife makes life meaningful. Sentience is meaningful in itself. Life is meaningful whether or not God exists. I said that life is *ultimately* meaningless if God does not exist, not that life is meaningless. On atheism, sentience ceases to be at death, so ultimately sentience does not exist, ergo, life is ultimately meaningless. Nothing *ultimately* matters...including atheism.
Also, the purpose of this life is to choose God freely so that we can enjoy Him forever in the beatific vision. Love must be freely chosen.
Meta-character
*if atheism were true, then the truth wouldn't really matter*
Well atheism is simply the a word to describe those who do not buy into the concept of deities (for whatever reason). It isn't really a statement or belief structure that can be "true or false." I assume you mean to say: if there were no deities, truth wouldn't really matter. How do you get to that conclusion though? A good step in helping you question and examine your claim would be to ask why the existence of a deity would somehow make truth meaningful in a way that it wouldn't be otherwise.
*we would have no objective moral duty to be rational, to even care what the truth is.*
If that were true, why does the existence of a deity give us a moral duty to be rational? How does a deity make moral absolutes viable in a way that they would be impossible without said deity? And don't we care about morals and truth regardless of our perception of a deity? Isn't that evident simply in how people of different faiths, along with those who don't have a faith, still hold to concepts of morality and reality when describing the world? It would seem that this alone makes your claim silly.
*On atheism, sentience ceases to be at death, so ultimately sentience does not exist, ergo, life is ultimately meaningless.*
You are saying something that eventually ceases to exist is meaningless? In your view, everything that is finite is meaningless? Why does something have to be eternal to have meaning?
As I've said before, I would hold that since our sentience is finite and fleeting, it is more precious and more valuable. It is something to treasure *because* it won't last forever.
Godz Drivel "Theocrats attempt to take the science out of our history books."
I'm a Catholic and I'm not opposed to the teaching of evolution. It's mostly crazy Evangelical Protestants who are against it.
"Theocrats would also love to usurp the rules of order and laws of our secular government."
I don't know exactly what you're referring to and why it's a bad thing.
Plus, on atheism, we're about to rot in the ground anyway, so none of it really matters anyway.
I absolutely love that point at which Trent Horn asked Dan "what are we debating here?"
I find it fascinating that in multiple debates I've seen about the existence of God the atheist always starts attacking Christianity/Catholicism/The Bible. The debate isn't about Christianity being true. It isn't about the Christian God being the One True God.
I wonder if they realize how weak those arguments are in the context of the debate they're supposed to be having. It's tiptoeing into an ad homienen attack instead of refuting the actual arguments. "Well, your bible says this!" We're not here to debate the bible.
Christianity being true depends on the Christian God being the one true God. God being the one true God depends on the truth of the claims that describe him (i.e Christianity). If you can prove that the claims describing him make no sense, you could them easily say that he himself makes no sense, proving him likely to not exist.
@@deerecoyote2040 I agree that if the debate about the Christian God being true then those arguments are probably more appropriate. My point was this debate wasn't about the Christian God being true - it was about there being A God.
Dan Barker seems to have a lot of animosity against the Christian God, and Christianity, and so it seemed he wanted to turn this debate into a debate about that and not what it was actually about.
I wonder how stupid one must be not to realize that his or her faith that a mental state of delusion.Have you ever wondered why ,if there is such a god like the one you purportedly believe in,the world is such a mess,Only one completely oblivious to the world around would confess belief in some fim=gment of his deluded imagination.What a sorry state of mind.
Are you daft? The claim of "God's" existence is rooted in the Bible, so of course the source material is going to be scrutinized and it has nothing to do with ad hominem.
The bottom line is that all arguments for "God" are fallacious in one way or another, whether we use philosophy, theology, charismatic appeals, science, or logic. Literally every single argument is fallacious thus dismissible.
@@davidarbogast37 Hi there! I'm not sure we watched the same debate. This debate wasn't about the Christian God being true, or that the Christian God is the one True God. It was really and simply about A God existing. Therefore, the Bible is irrelevant in this debate. Notice that the Christian didn't even try to prove the existence of the God he believes in.
One can believe that a god exists and *not* believe that the Christian God,the God of the Bible, exists.
I'll say again that if the debate was about proving the Christian God's existence then absolutely bring the Bible into it! But that's a different debate.
As a catholic, if a husband came to my house looking for his wife for whom I'm providing sanctuary, I would lie to the husband and say she is not in my house because lying in this case would be a lesser evil than handing over the wife to be beaten or killed.
For if God is for you, then who can stand against you. Nothing from Gods words states that we can practice SIN-Lite. Sin is Sin. Period.
If I the husband came to my house, I would not open the door. I'd call 911.
@@HugeDaKing you could make it a bit more interesting by saying ' your getting warmer , warmer , no now colder ' .
@@starwarsisdead5731 and yet the woman who protected the three Hebrews in the Old testament lied and was declared justified.
Even Pope Pius X lying to the Nazis while he protected hundreds of thousands of Jews by saying they were baptized Christians
Perhaps telling the truth will free the husband from a cheating wife and allow the cheating wife to face her reality of sin
42:28 Dan Barker, who's strawmanned nearly every theist argument in this debate, asks Trent not to strawman him, lol.
Dan Barker: i won't be praying to you.
Trent Horn: I'm sure you won't...
Hahahahah very nice
@@AsixA6 ya I didn’t get it either.
I've seen a few of these debates with Dan Barker and it always seems to be more of he doesn't want to debate the existence of God, rather to give the reasons he doesn't like God. He claims to have this empirical evidence. I would like to hear a piece or 2 without being forced to buy his book
Yeah his opening statements are the worst offenders of this. I couldn't care less about your books dan, I know you want money for your anti-theistic ministry, but maybe bring some of that stuff from the books into the actual debate?
That's a fair way to debate. The god of the bible apparently is good. Showing how it's not put this god in the category of "contradictory things". Contradictions are illogical and don't exist.
No. Dan Barker merely observes that the concept that there's an omnipotent, omniscient, all-loving God (e.g., that answers prayers) is not reflected in reality and is not even logically consistent. That's why he doesn't think God is real at all. There could be a God that exists who is not all-loving; in fact, that would be more consistent with the reality we observe, but that is not consistent with the invariable characterization of the Christian God as an all-loving God (who is described as the epitome of "good"). It is also misleading (or nonsensical) to say that Barker "doesn't like God". Barker doesn't like or dislike the Christian God, in the same way that Barker doesn't like or dislike Odin, Thor, Zeus, or Ra (the Egyptian Sun God). He just thinks they're all myths.
Trent Horn is a great debater.
Tyler Lahr a MASTERdeBATER
Tyler Lahr I thought he sucked
Tyler Lahr Awful,.. he just went round and round to finally be destroyed by that extraordinary closing by Dan Barker.
1984serpiente i think trent destroyed barker
Rob Koch he doesn't
If god real why bad thing happen. God mean. If God real why religious person do bad thing.
That's a good point actually. God is all-powerful and all good, yes? So why do bad things continually occur when he could easily get rid of them? Seems like he is either vastly limited in his powers or he is not as moral as we think he is.
Dan Barker's last argument: "God doesn't exist because there is no need for him to exist." Thats could be said of anything, for example "The universe doesn't exist because there is no need for it's existence." But the universe, despite being unnecessary, still exists. Therefore, God doesn't 'need' to exist in order to actually exist.
Although, you may be wondering how you can ground morality and logic and all physical reality, and in that case, God would need to exist :)
Did Barker actually say that? I remember him multiple times in other talks/debates saying “I’ve never said god doesn’t exist, just that the evidence is zero so we can effectively treat him as such”. I suspect you’re misquoting or mischaracterizing him, though not necessarily intentionally.
But if he actually did say that in this talk _and_ that’s what he secretly believes-the second part especially which I have reasons to highly doubt-then he is wrong. We cannot disprove god just as we cannot disprove the existence of a teapot floating somewhere in space at just the right location and time where we can’t see it.
…Effectively causing us to not consider its existence as a serious existential topic for millennia 😉
@@ZhangK71 I’d have to go back and see what he says exactly. But the teapot example is different from God, because not only do we not have any good reasons to think that such a thing exists, but we also have good reasons to think that a teapot does not exist in orbit. And God has been a major existential question in philosophy for millennia, yes. And is even still.
I'm always astonished at people's complete inability to comprehend things when I read the comments. It's as if the commenter didn't actually watch the video. Oh I get it, once again, your ideology was destroyed so you have to put words in his mouth to give yourself a straw man to comfort yourself. Getting your belief system challenged is very hurtful to you.
@@blade_warrior_blue lol, nice ad hom.
great debate guys, one of the best non fallacious debates I've heard. Well done Trent, well done Dan.
Ultimately, Mr. Atheist's argument devolve into breaking down linguistics ineffectively which doesn't disprove God at all.
666 fuck jesus and his whore mother Mary
Ultimately you can't disprove god.so what he attempted was to rationally dismiss god.which either flew over your head or was ineffectively absorbed by you.
Yekay yeke You are in my prayers. May the Lord Jesus Christ have mercy on your soul.
Jose Colon You know you can comment without being condescending. Anyway, dismissing God is a fundamentally flawed and irrational endeavor that runs into many walls. If one approaches this debate with an honest heart and mind it becomes increasingly clear that God does exist as Trent raises a number of atheism's pitfalls. Do not approach this debate with a preconceived notion and bias, but rather with an open mind. To enter into a debate without actually being open to the possibility of changing your stance is intellectually dishonest. The strongest case that atheists can present is the problem of evil, which is itself a mystery that no one has the answer to. That being said, a question does not, using your distinction, "dismiss" the existence of God. It definitely doesn't disprove or dismiss anything logically or rationally. You know that. But it's a common atheistic tactic to infuse objections with a sense of condescension, which both you and the atheist in this video did. Condescension and personal attacks do not strengthen your arguments but only serve to weaken them.
Lets all just agree that god is a superstition and snakes don't talk. OK ? :'(
Jesus did Miracles but you wouldn't believe if they were done in front of your eyes. The Catholic Church has bodies of Saints that bodies are incorruptible. Plus others.
ella hope Jesus said that his followers would perform greater miracles than his, but instead all they do is claim that a vaccine or cancer treatment is a kind of miracle that replaces regrowing a limb or moving a mountain.
Of course I wouldn´t believe, because I can´t rule out Clarkes 3rd law or just a trick like illusionists perform, if i have no method to test that. I just don´t pretend to know what I don´t know.
Amen...atheism are 100% nonsense.
@SD4FR1J13GL C5HD1GF Jesus didn't exist? That's one of the most willfully ignorant statements ever uttered. "The world's most influential person never existed." You can't be serious.
@SD4FR1J13GL C5HD1GF The thousands of manuscripts about Him. The Roman historian Josephus briefly writes about Jesus, only to complain about how His "People of the Way" are annoying. (People of the Way was an early term for Christian, or a follower of Jesus because He referred to Himself as the Way.)
He contradicts himself. At one point he says all you have to do is visit a child cancer hospital to know there is no God. However, when he next speaks. He says atheist are fine with suffering, "we don't need an explanation" So does he need an explanation or not?
Artty 1975 One does not need a god as a way to deal with cancer. One needs cancer research. Comforting delusions of a loving God are an optional psychological extra-works well with children.
I love how everyone is so quick to judge God first. Wouldn't that make them a believer? Yes God allowing things to happen is just like letting our kids go out with friends then your child falls and breaks his leg. Whose fault was that? The child's? Or the parent? People who blame God for things wrong in their lives are absolutely ridiculous. What about the Devil? Let's just say for a atheist there's no God or no devil. Then why do bad things happen?
You theists seem to be missing the point! Atheists aren't judging god or blaming god for anything! God doesn't exist, just as well blame something on unicorns! Atheists are just pointing out the obviously dumb assertion by theists that if god is all good! If god is all good why is there so much bad/evil in the world!? Why is there cancer? Why is there starvation? Why is there sickness? matix0587 brings up the devil!? Who created the devil? God is supposed to be all knowing so he knew when he created the devil that devil would be evil! If there is evil in creation its because GOD put it there! So god knows evil and there must be evil in god! How do you people not see the obvious contradiction in YOUR RELIGION! If a contractor builds a house and the house falls over because it had a bad foundation I bet you people blame the house!
Darby Why is there wrath, envy, jealousy and ill toward your fellowman? Where did that come from? If an all good god created everything where did all this evil come from?
Jacob Lee
God being “all-good” is not something that “theists” just make up, especially when you consider what it actually means to be “all good”. God’s “goodness” exists as a logical consequence of Him being the unmoved mover or unchanged changer. To be “all good” is to be “maximally good” i.e. to fulfill your own maximal potential. Thus, a being’s “goodness” in the classical sense is not some sort of value judgement, but a question of whether or not this being is maximally itself, which an unchanged changer must be. Thus, to look at suffering and make a value judgement on this being is really non-sensical.
I still can't believe Dan Barker argued things like love is not a thing it's just a concept. Like existence is just a concept. I'm still stuck on that because that makes no sense. They are true, they are real, there are definitely things even if it's not material. I'm still shocked he argued that they don't exist.
I suppose the mind is just a concept, too, because it doesn't consist of matter and occupy space.
Perhaps Dan and Trent should of spent some time defining their meanings of their words. Dan should have clarified what makes a concept different from an idea or the immaterial. It sounded redundant, if you ask me. Like he wanted to make it sound more material, but it really makes no difference, because a concept is still immaterial, though it's purpose may not.
Even if it's a concept it still exist inside our head, it's still beautiful. I don't see the problem.
A concept has nothing to do with existence
Does that prove that any gods exist?
This Atheist dude is in no position to make moral judgments because he doesn’t have a philosophically sound justification for the concept of right and wrong. 🤪
Let me guess, they're handed out by your imaginary friend and only him? 😅
@@polishprince9086 so is every human being who is not a christian and doesn't believe in a fiction book.
Who creates evil in the world? Isaiah 45:7King James Version (KJV)
7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.
Thank you. At least this makes God's permissive will understandable ~ God permits evil to exist because He created it and He permits evil to enact itself upon His creation because this is consistent with His will. I suppose this is so because God has some Master Plan in mind that can cause some good to come of it ~ a good that He defines, that is on His terms and for His purpose. We just have to understand and trust and take the leap of faith that "everything will work out and be ok in the end". All we have to do is endure, and wait ~ and be grateful for it. I am but God's plaything. Wish God would just come right out and say that.
@atheism delusion that is what the fictional book says so he is correct about the book saying that only! Reality of course dictates reality and that passage is not true but a metaphore!!! The entire buybull is a book of metaphors and nothing more!
@atheism delusion the book! It actually says that in their! Even though it's wrong it's still written and you can look it up yourself!
He is trying to measure God who cannot be measured. He is trying to redefine being and putting God in a box which is a fallacy. This argument alone starts off on a wrong course.
Dan Barker is very good at dodging hard questions...
Trent Horn won the debate!!!!!!
no, Trent lost, Dan Barker won
Trent won the debate by a great shot!
AgapeLove LOL that's sarcasm right!? This wasn't even close, Dan clearly won this debate!
So Trent didn't show evidence so there for won ?
Wow! Incredible debate. Great ideas expressed!
Atheist create their own morals.
So do all humans.
I lost all respect for Dan Barker as a suitable representation of the atheist position when he boastfully considered Jesus Christ to be an immoral person. His examples from the Bible were laughable. Christ commanded masters to "beat their salves" he said. Give me a break. Dan, go read the passage again.
Mr. Barker obviously does not understand what the Bible is -- especially the traditional, historic, and Catholic understanding of scripture. Just because something evil or abhorrent is IN the Bible does not mean the Bible thereby ENDORSES evil. Context must be taken into consideration, for the Bible is not one book: Inspired as it may be, the traditional Christian view acknowledges the fully human aspect of the text - including literary genres, ways of speaking, limitations of language, skills and talents, and worldview assumptions.
Atheist arguments give me deja vu. No, nope, nothing, no...denial is their only tool ;)
+Attack_Dog513 - and faith based upon no facts or logic is your only tool. Not impressed.
Thanks for Being a Useful Idiot lol! Our faith can be found in history Jesus is a historical figure. About your faith as an atheist where did it came from? Hmm I guess from magic ie "the universe came out from NOTHING" I watched at and bgt all the time it's so entertaining heheh
+Anna Santos Villanueva - Jesus is a historical figure? You really got me there, had he not taken the time to write, in his own hand, and perfectly preserve a Gospel which remains in our possession to this very day, I wouldn't be so impressed but thank God we have such proof. Not to mention the extensive documentation of Jesus' life in ancient Roman records, right Anna?
It's fun seeing how far the fine tuning argument has come since this debate. It has been advanced significantly, and ONLY in the theist's favor.
I just wondering what would happen when non-believers die and find out God does exist? I imagine it would be shocking I guess but they would not be able to change their mind anymore, because they already did here on earth. So sad.
You are trying to make the impossible possible what if you find out there never is a god
The one part of atheism I can’t get by is why be moral. If I can decide to do immoral things, what is to say that is right or wrong.
We homo sapiens have evolved as a social species. This is why we have empathy [morality] hard wired into our DNA. This is also demonstrable in many other socially evolved species.
Evolution selects for the survival of the fittest and groups that work together and care for others in the group are more successful at surviving and passing on their DNA to their offspring.
Hope that helps.
@@johnhammond6423 If I choose to not be moral because I see empathy’s development as a mere feature of developing the human race, which in turn I see no point to, then should I act immorally? There is no ultimate point to morality if I can. This is especially true if I am in an environment where I can get away with acting immorally and I like doing it. There ultimately is no reason to be moral, or even to follow reason, outside of the fact that I may like to. If I lived and died immoral and/or unreasonable but happy, who cares.
@@jonnyturtleneck7153
_'There ultimately is no reason to be moral'_
You are a moral species [homo sapiens] Unless your a psychopath you can't not be moral.
I like how Trent defeated the atheist 👍👍👍
It has never happened and will never happen until theists finally have something more than transindental arguments. When your god shows up, we'll believe, but still not worship
Christians are so cute. xx
At least you’re consistent in your affinity for fantasies
AT LEAST This atheist actually made some effort to refute Trent's arguments...
A lot of them do. You're in an echo chamber, come over to our side, the view is much nicer.
Damn lol. this was 8 years ago. a lot has changed... including coming over to your side :) @@deerecoyote2040
@joeturner9219 Ah, you poor deluded child.
god is the un-caused cause? and you don't call this wishful thinking? You definitely are deluded!
There has to be an uncaused cause or else nothing else would exist. Aristotle calls it the “unmoved mover”
@@Isaac8_13 I don’t care what Aristotle said. You are trying to make sense of something that we may never know. Maybe the universe has always existed or maybe it came out of nothing. What it is not correct is to try to put a supernatural entity there that you cannot explain neither. So you are basically trying to solve a mystery with an even bigger mystery. The best thing to do is to go with what we have and currently know and be honest of what we don’t know instead of trying to come up with wishful thinking answers out of ignorance or loneliness. Science is learning more and more on this. If we run into the bearded guy at one point then great but don’t take anything as fact without proper verifiable evidence. You are just shooting yourself in your intellectual foot.
@@afvro75 even if the universe always existed, there would still have to be a unmoved mover to be able to create the Earth and the different planets. I could also say atheism is wishful thinking because you don’t want to think your actions have consequences. Also the existence of God is a philosophical question, not a scientific one, I suggest looking at arguments for both sides and go from there.
@@Andrewthememer You are assuming I haven't looked at both arguments and I've actually done that quite extensible. You say.. why if the universe has always existed that there should have been an unmoved mover? You don't know that. So how the unmoved mover came into existence? and then you'd probably say the unmoved mover has always been there and so on and we get into an infinite regress of speculation and that is not only not right but not helpful either.
There's plenty particles in the quantum realm that pop in and out of existence on their own. So was that God?
Obviously not, those are natural processes. Then you say that Atheist don't like to think that actions don't have consequences and so on and that's so wrong and untrue. I can't speak for all Atheist but I'll speak for myself. Actions have more consequences because the evidence shows that there's nothing else beyond this life (until proven otherwise) and since this is the only life we know of then with more reason we have to make it a good one and take care of it and cherish very much. The likes of you say, If I believe in this or that I'll be rewarded in another magical place where there's zero evidence for. Again, it's best to believe something where there's real and good evidence for it. Having faith it's a good way to be wrong and unfortunately the delusion gets promulgated. .
@@afvro75 even if the particles popping into existence is a “natural process” that doesn’t mean God didn’t create the particles because he could’ve created the process. When i said atheists don’t like to think their actions have consequences, it was a response to you saying that God is just wishful think, because the atheistic view also has the benefit of not having to worry about your actions. Also, do you believe that morality is objective or subjective?
Something that never speaks to anyone or shows themselves to anyone and who you talk to is by all definition an imaginary friend .. end of debate ..
FACTS!
Barker: “got any evidence besides that translation of a translation of a copy of a cobbled together copy of a two-thousand year old book”?
Trent: Yes actually, in chapter four verse sevente-“
Barker: “no I said-“
Trent: “I know what you said and I’m answering-“
Barker: “okay okay”
Trent: *repeats his interpretation of an interpretation of a translation of a two-thousand year old book.
Just because a book is old, doesn't mean it doesn't contain truth!
@@johnroemeeks_apologetics oh yes of coarse not! There’s a good amount of books that are both older and truer than the Bible so I’d never say otherwise
This literally didn't happen in this video
It's annoying that Barker kept changing the debate to "Christian God or imaginary friend" and not keeping it on the topic agreed, which is whether a God in general exists.
It looks like Dan missed our Lady's predictions at Fatima!
Dan Barker is a bitter old man. Very unfortunate
Full disclosure: I listen to Catholic Answers every day and am a donor. I also have met both Christopher Check and Trent Horn. But Dan Barker's performance was simply disastrous. He got snarky and petulant, seemed disorganized in his thoughts and rambled constantly. I really respect non-theists who do their homework but Dan Barker is a very poor debater. His view of God is distorted and heavily focused on events in the Old Testament. I think based on its warped view of God, it's easy to see why he left Protestantism. Trent Horn bested him totally.
So you would be ok if Christians started making bibles that were just the new testament and cut out the old testament? And you do realize that Jesus said He has not come to change the law but to fulfill it and not one tittle will be changed. He also said he has come to bring the sword...and he never apologized for the atrocities Yawheh committed in the O.T
@@p0kern00b6 and there cant be the new without the old. I love it when believers resort to "that was the old testament "
Trent so won!!!!!!
If he won, people would not have to believe in God; they would KNOW it, as also the whole world. Since this is not the case, Trent did not win.
1:35:24 Dan is so incredible toxic... everything he says about caring about life seems like an oxymoron to me. When he talks like that about christians (and he surely means muslims, hindu, buddhists etc. too), I cant't believe him saying "I care about ...". Personally, it sounds like he fakes his moral in order to not get hated by people, even though he himself is full of hatred.
Thank God Trent is on "our" side! He's a brilliant apologist and does his job with great charity.
Ginarita77 We Christian's believe God is all-knowing, and has created a universe optimized for the most people to be saved. There are countless instances in the Bible where evil is used to bring out the glory of God. The burden of proof is on the atheist to show that God is not all knowing and does not know what he's doing :)
And God is so powerful he needs apologists to talk on his behalf .......🙄
jezah H He uses humans to reach other humans. When we give our lives to Him, we’re happy to reach out. It has nothing to do with His “needing” us, or his omnipotence. 🙄
@@TheBadTrad that doesn't even address what I wrote. Why does God use humans to talk on hid behalf? What's more important to know about? Gravity or god ?
jezah H You commented on God “needing” apologists as a way to attack our belief in Him and His omnipotence. I’d say my response addressed that.
Dan Barker looked really bad in this debate. Not only did he not answer ANY of Trent's main points (other than to say "well philosophy is silly!") he CONSTANTLY distracted the audience from the main point with ad-hominem attacks and straw man attacks on Christianity. This debate was on the existence of God, not whether or not Christianity is true, so stay on topic. He kept accusing Trent of "shooting himself in the foot" but then his actual criticisms only demonstrated a very poor understanding of Trent's points. Yet another so-called free thinker who has nothing to offer in his own defense other than empty, inflammatory rhetoric.
agentjs09
You were watching with belief-colored glasses.
An ad-hominem implies calling the other person a moron or a dumb-ass; that never occurred by either party. The most either said was "I disagree with ".
Trent was the individual defending a religion-based or "objective" morality and then accused Dan of "not staying on topic" when Dan responded.
The question of whether a god is existent or imaginary requires examining the reasons that others put forward. Clearly, the subtext of the debate was "does the CHRISTIAN god exist or is it imaginary".
Trent did present self-contradiction throughout the debate. Do you have free will in the presence of or are you subject to the mysterious greater good that only god can understand? Does your god intervene as a response to prayer... or again, are you simply subject to the mysterious greater good that only god can understand?
Atheism needs no defense. The vast (VAST!) majority of non-believers say "I see no evidence to believe so I do not". Which is to say that if there were some form of verifiable and repeatable evidence we could be convinced to consider the alternative view. In theory there are atheists who claim absolute certainty there is no god (gnostic atheism) but I've never heard of and certainly never met one.
Theism (all forms of it) is a positive assertion that a thing exists and has rules.
So if you claim a leprechaun exists, lives under rainbows, and has a pot of gold then that is a positive assertion and should be accompanied with evidence (several captured leprechauns, lots of gold, and very likely more Irish beer than any one person could handle).
Equally, if you claim that hanging crystals above your bed imbues you with a fundamental power and energy of the universe and will heal you or prevent sickness... then it's a positive assertion and we should be able to see evidence in the form of positive results from a double-blind trial.
There is no evidence for anything supernatural which includes all deities.
So believe in a chatty burning bush (christianity) or a winged horse (islam) or a source on another star/planet (lds) if you want to.
As for me and my household, we will respond to reason and evidence.
The stars are bright not just because of their light, but also because the sky is dark. There is no dark sky for god to exist in.
It'd be great if there was actually a good god (not the terrible, angry, vengeful, not so smart god of the bible)
What? Free will is only when you don't know the outcome? So when i play Mass Effect for the 66th time and in the end i need to pick the ending, and I saw every fa**ing ending for 22 times, I don't have free will?
Shinigami00Azael if I decide on my own free will to grab a pitcher and pour myself a glass of water it is merely because I did not know that my cup would have water in it 😂 otherwise it’s not free will
Dan doesn't realize that the "until you can prove it" argument takes a certain level of faith.
Dan said, "An all knowing God and freewill cannot coexist". That is false.
When we were granted free will that broadened our options for destination. It is possible for God to know where we will go if we choose him and where we will go if we don't choose him.
If I had a dollar for everytime I heard Dan use that lame "all you have to do is walk into a children's hospital to see there is no God" line, I'd have like 200 bux...
no doubt it is a Catholic hospital who tries to heal the suffering, not an atheist funded hospital.
It's a strong argument.
William Lane Craig
Who are you? Mr. Spock? Should we all act like green-blooded Vulcans without emotion?
Christopher Hitchens was very good at blaming God for the hungry children but in all his time on earth I have never read or heard of him ever kneeling down to feed a Hungry child. He was outraged by Mother Theresa as a blood sucker of the poor and dying. But I have talked to volunteers, they didn't meet a blood sucker, but one they found scrubbing the stone floor in the chapel at 3 in the morning. Atheists are dogmatic humourless bores and I know we had them as rulers for 40 years, they ran the StB and their prisons were not for the faint hearted. His brother is 10,000 a better man, difference an emotional heart who sees suffering not as a black boot from God but a chance to use your hands in love. Yes atheists I am retarded, stupid, a idiot please add as you wish...
Thomas McEwen
You paint atheists with a broad brush. Some are jerks, some are good people. Same goes for religious people.
It seems both gentlemen are truly devoted to their beliefs. Barker is very intelligent. Barker's comments regarding biblical passages, cameras in the confessional booth, and United Nations statements related to the Catholic church was unnecessary and beneath him. I hope to see more respectful comments in future debates. Atheists questions seemed to focus on suffering frequently in this debate and unanswered prayers. Maybe the Christian perspective needs to better address the mystery of suffering and why Christians pray. Overall, it was a enjoyable debate.
Why, if I may challenge you? Why was Barker’s criticism-attack, even-on the Catholic Church unwarranted? “Punching below the belt”, in a literal context, is frowned upon in men’s boxing and even illegal because you could produce undue amounts of damage to your opponent’s reproductive health and also incapacitate your opponent in a way that doesn’t display any skill or physicality, the refraining of both of which contributes to the spirit of the competition. But what the Catholic Church does is neither a game nor removed from the problems of religion (it’s about as _not_ removed as you can get, actually), so I don’t see any reason why it isn’t “fair game”.
You may not happen to be a Catholic, in which case you can’t just use your own lack of Catholicism to dismiss the hundreds of millions of Catholics to profess to spiritually following the wisdom of this organization known as the Roman Catholic Church. If you are a Catholic, then you have even less room to condemn Barker’s claims because-whether you like it or not, fairly or unfairly-your protestations will only ring a little hollower due to your biased position. (Unless you have a specific, valid reason why your Church should not have been criticized the way it was? Do you have any rebuttals to those criticisms?)
Is it just me or does Mr Barker seem to have a very personal animosity toward religion while Trent seems to be level headed? There were several personal attacks by Dan that suggest more to his story but overall good debate
Hello, Mr Stratton. It might be just you. And Mr Barker might actually have an animosity toward religion. But, can you point me to one of the several personal attacks?
+Ronald Mendonca
Ron I was referring to his attacking the bible that seemed to stem from a very personal place. I would honestly like to speak with him and hear exactly why he left his ministry. He also had some low blows about the abuses by some priests in the church which was irrelevant to the debate
Dan Stratton Oh, ok. I see. Cuz I've seen lots of Dan's debates, and he's always been very cordial. Altho, you think bringing up abuses is a low blow, I think it was relevant. The question they were discussing was morals, and moral accountability. You're making it sound like he pulled it out of thin air for no reason.
Ronald Mendonca
I believe the abuse comment was a loaded comment though. If talking strictly about morals the general term of "child abuse" would have sufficed. And simply because people do immoral things in no way proves their stance on God is right or wrong. I enjoyed the debate though.
I am not in either camp, but I think your comment is fair and it's something I've noticed in other such debates. This is leading me to the conclusion that, on the whole, believers are less emotional and more fair minded : I like them better.
This is one of Dan Barker's better performances. He's honest, although he's not as rhetorically gifted as other debaters on his side.
I'll have whatever you're smoking and I'd love to see the train-wrecks of his other performances, if this is one of his better ones.
Dan Barker appeals to emotion in each and every single one of his "arguments" which aren't even arguments, but rather rhetorical questions or rhetorical assertions. It's ridiculous for anyone with the slightest shred of intellectual honesty and integrity to consider Dan Barker as reasonable, let alone somebody to waste their time on.
@Csongor Árpád I’ve seen you in the comments of a lot of religious debates and I wanted to say thanks for standing up for the catholic faith even if atheists are everywhere and always try to put you down
@@Isaac8_13 religion should be put down for good
He is a great debater
If this is one of his best performances I can't even begin to imagine how horrible his other performances are lmao
Barker was mind numbing. Not one valid point.
You are a stupid person. Thank you
Jimmy P. When it all comes down to it, apologists like Trent never adequately address 'the problem of evil'.
18:44 - 19:07 Trent basically says that doing things that are morally wrong (like raping women) are always wrong EVEN IF IT LEADS TO REDUCING OVERALL HARM.....and then later at 40:15 - 41:45 it seems that he contradicts himself when it's god who is doing the wrong - or at least allowing the wrong to happen when he has knowledge of it and has the power to stop it but doesn't, because ...according to Trent...god may allow the suffering or evil to take place to achieve a greater good.
So...let's get this straight...the architect of the great cosmos with its billions of billions of stars, master of physics (after all, Trent and his ilk are suggesting that god is responsible for the 'fine tuning' of the physical constants), the ALL KNOWING, the ALL LOVING and the ALL POWERFUL....could not find a better more moral way of achieving his greater good than to allow...say...toddlers to be rapped? Yeah...god cares more about the free will of the paedophilic rapist than the physical and emotional well being of infants....and his plan for a greater good could only come about by looking on with all his knowledge, love and power and doing nothing. The suffering of innocent babies means not so much to god because he's going to grant them heaven (if they are good), so...who cares if they suffer in this life......surely not god.
That sort of thinking is terribly disgraceful apologists....you should be ashamed of yourselves.
+Jimmy P. - problem is, if you are a believer, your mind was numb to begin with. Can't blame Barker for not thawing it out.
@@stevytube Most atheists have an incorrect/inadequate on evil
It seemed to me that Mr Barker had trouble defending the existence of a supreme being. So he had to attack Mr. Horn's belief system every 5 minutes. This was not suppose to be a debate on whether there is a catholic God, but just a supreme being. Mr. Horn did a great job staying on topic and shaking off the hate.
Amy W yea he lost me with that he turned into a Protestant for a second
You didn't watch the debate at all right?
Barker wasn't defending the existence of a supreme being. He's an atheist. Not sure what debate you were watching.
was Matt Fradd at this debate?
I can never get past the first argument from the theist side, although I am just trying to kill time.
"The greatest tragedy in mankind's entire history may be the hijacking of morality by religion." - Arthur C Clarke
“Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning...”
― C.S. Lewis
It would have been nice to have a purely philosophical debate... this goes onto too many side issues which are debates in themselves. However, I did enjoy it, and hope to see more debates from Catholic Answers!
How can you not believe in God when you have a blatant miracle performed in this video?
10:58-11:05
The man goes from a Japhethite to a Hamite in seconds flat.
God can’t be explained using the world we live in so he don’t exist? What.
He certainly can't be demonstrated
I find both of these gentlemen to be extremely boring. I listened to mister horn .
I wasn't impressed. He seemed to jump to conclusions that were cleverly worded but really didn't make any sense, at least not to me. It seemed as though he was asking the listener to go along with everything he said but he had really no evidence. Or reliable sources.
At least barker was understandable. Being a former preacher himself it's probably no wonder I find him rather dull. But he did at least have an understandable message whereas the other man was talking about so-called spiritual things . Dan was a little more down-to-earth a little more practical and way more believable.
what is a "being"? Dan Barker, like most "professional" atheists, doesn't seem to know the difference between a univocal and an analogous use of a word. And most of what he said in his opening statement was that Trent's arguments (from contingency, from motion, from objective morality) were bad, but didn't show how they were bad. We should expect more from someone who served as a clergy of some sort for so many years.
Honestly, whoever Barker learned from to become a preacher utterly failed him and countless others, and the foundation he put his faith on was never solid.
Barker lost another one. Excellent job Trent !! 👍✝️
We must be watching different debates and forever trying to defend Catholics but …. Integrity too important
Mr. baker do you seriously believe because people have different understandings of God that proves that God doesn't exist? That's completely illogical.
I am truly interested in this type of debate. I sometimes ask questions on a forum or try to send a question to the debaters. It is really hard to get a question through to debaters of the religious side. To the atheist side it is really easy and the great majority is really quick to answer and always in a polite fashion. I always formulate my question in a good tone of voice, but it strikes me that when I get an answer from the religious side it is mostly defensive, a bit aggressive, not very explanatory, condescending and far from humble. I want to underline that I have only asked only Swedish religious people and from the USA. The answers I get are sometimes equally impolite, but very seldom the ones from Sweden. One of my friends is a priest and when I showed him a debate he definitely agreed with the atheist side. He said that he does not have any proof for anything, and irrational or not he still believes in God. I am so baffled about the responses I get from the religious side when asking a question. Can somebody religious please explain why it, in the majority of the cases, is like this?
4 years later... Did you ever find an answer to your questions?
I suffered Barker and his snarky tone for over 2 hours and avoided commenting, because it’s a waste of time and frankly I don’t care enough. BUT the fact that in his closing statement he asks for evidence in a philosophical discussion- which Trent already shut down in the beginning - shows that he is really not up to the task. It’s a bit like with Dawkins, doesn’t know the difference between Metaphysics and Metamucil. He finally blows it when he shows that he doesn’t get the difference between atheist and agnostic. Alex O’Connor does a way better job…
1:06:20 Umm... we actually do live in that kind of moral dilemma nowadays.
Can atheists explain various apparitions such as the Fatima apparition of the rotating Sun witnessed by 70000 people or Our lady of Zeitoun Egypt in 1962 which was witnessed by over 1000000 people? Or the miracles at Lourdes?
If there is no God, why would someone who doesn't believe use up so much energy to debate it and try to convince believers of it? Bizarre to me.
Because they believe in God but refuse to know of him - and so God will never have known them…and, you know what’s supposed to happen if you’re told “depart from me, for I never knew you”.
Mythology is very powerful in the human psyche
Dan Barker is amazing, with out a doubt an inspiration
I know! His question on Trents definition of an immaterial God being indistinguishable from actual “nothing” is amazing! And it’s inspiring, therefore to conclude that something came from nothing.
@@garymanz5919but if we grant things can exist that aren’t physical then God isn’t nothing.
@@garymanz5919and yes God is something and he came from nothing but he is timeless etc he doesn’t face the same problems the universe would coming from nothing.
What a disgusting, pitty, awful, sad old man that Barker. No surprise he is a former member of one the miserable prot sects.
The atheist's arguments will all fail with a thorough understanding of the Catholic faith, especially who God is and the answer to the problem of evil.
every theist argument fails. every single one
+b1bbs g0t h4nds How many theist arguments are there?
Calvin Engime dunno. how many atheist arguments are there?
Well, you're the one who knows that every theist argument fails, aren't you? So you must know what those arguments are.
b1bbs g0t h4nds Nor did I say you said that.
Mr Barker said at one point: Thank God we don't live in a world [where a mob will torch the city if we do not release an innocent man to be lynched by the mob].
The Omaha race riot. A perfect counterexample in my own backyard.
A lot of what Mr. Barker said was either not an argument or a very bad argument against the existence of God. But he did come up with some good questions. And I don't know if it's just because he's an American, but I don't instantly hate it when he talks.
I liked this debate.
The religious side never gave a good answer to the problem of evil or suffering. Appealing to an omniscient entity that supposedly has this master plan for humanity rippling through time doesn't answer the basic issue... why is suffering necessary? In my opinion the question does not disproof the existence of a hypothetical deity, but it renders the idea of an omnipotent and perfectly good god logically impossible. Either suffering in the world is necessary or not. If it is necessary, god, whatever his plan is, has no choice but to allow suffering to happen and therefor is not omnipotent, being impossible for him to avoid even the tiniest amount of suffering more than it does to achieve his goal. If instead god had alternatives, and had te possibility to carry out his plan for humanity (we don't need to know what that is) with less suffering in the world than what we experience, than god would be omnipotent, but not good. You can toy with possibilities all you want, but in every scenario you will have to appeal either to an unknown necessity that makes suffering necessary (god not omnipotent) or to an unknown alternative god might have to preserve his omnipotence at the expense of his goodness.
UCantHandleTheTruth3 I have no issue with your analogy, as long as we agree that in it god is not omnipotent. Of course I don't believe it being an atheist, but that's irrelevant to the problem of suffering, which doesn't disproof the existence of god, it shows the logical impossibility of a god being all good and omnipotent at the same time. Even if one appeals to god's "nature" the question remains "does god chose its nature? Or is he bound by it?" In the first case when he takes that "bath" he could produce the benefits without suffering, which means that suffering is just his choice, or he can't achieve the result without allowing suffering, which means he's all good and just does the best he can.
Cross examination at 58:46
Just imagine, Dan had to prompt Trent to answer a simple "yes" or "no" when asked of he would have stopped 9-11. That's what it's normally like talking to my religious friends, they do some amazing tapdances around the logical questions.
Dan was destroyed by the truth.
@@mikerodgers7620 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@Jesusisimaginary LOL
So he points out god is not a question for science and then goes on listing scientific reasons for gods existance.......eating your cake and keeping it :)
My favorite cake is Red Velvet with cream cheese frosting,
No he was making a philosophical argument. He used science to back up the premises in the philosophical argument.
@@TheBusttheboss philosopjy has No Place in Science. Sciences Works philosophy is just Words
@@DrBased philosophy just don't prove anything. Theist can do all the philosophy they will and still not a shred of evidence for their imaginary sky monster
@@DrBased no no philosophy is good for many things - has no value as evidence or method for scientific progress. Tell me did philosophy take us to the moon, gave us an edge in computers or price anything religious!? No because the critical thinking and scepticism that's a part of the scientific method works!
If there were evidence for the existence of ANY god or gods, there would be no debates like this one. It's called faith because it's not knowledge
Dan is contradicting himself like every other sentence, so painful to listen. He is like a fallacy machine gun.
Your statement is as delusional as you are.
@Jim H Dan just keeps falling back to sentimental rhetoric when he doesn't have a strong argument or answer to refute Trents arguments, typical escape technique. Trent never did that. Maybe you need to watch again.
@Jim H Ah ok, you are just reflecting arguments now. So cheese, bye.
It is so inconsistent to say in your opening remarks that atheism is only a lack of belief but then go right ahead and say God cannot exist. I can see why it holds true that the only consistent world-views are Christianity and infinite skepticism. It must be seriously taxing mentally to constantly undermine yourself in your thinking and speech that you have periodic meltdowns.
The atheist is a hypocrite because he made a declaration and pretended he didn’t
@@the_abandoned_monastery7218 well put
I like this. It shows that 2 people who have different beliefs can still explain there beliefs but also be respectful to each other.
We should never stop debating, just stop insulting each other.
*kudos to Catholic Answers for leaving the comments section open.*
Unfortunately the average comment from the very misinformed, angry YT atheist is typically cynical, insulting, blasphemous and profane. One wonders why they are so obsessed with the God they don't believe in.
They're obsessed with the God that even us devout Catholics don't believe in. Atheists usually have a lack of understanding of what they're debating, and it just turns into condescending remarks going crazy.
Trent Horn is a blessed man. Let’s pray for him.
If he is a blessed man, why does he need prayers??
@@Dweesil Anyone can be blessed within certain areas of their life. For Trent, it’s in his intellectual capacity for apologetics. This doesn’t mean Trent isn’t facing trials & temptations like the rest of us. We all need prayers
@@SuperrBoyful Can you tell me what it means to be blessed?
@@Dweesil For Trent, he is “blessed” in the sense that he has a much greater aptitude to engage, digest, & instruct apologetic material than the average person/Catholic. His higher capacity for understanding & engaging with asinine ideas is a gift that Trent was freely given from a source outside of himself. Similarly to his very life itself. In this sense, all is gift.
@@SuperrBoyful Thank you for answering 😊😊
God ?? Which one ?? Hindus have thousands !!
Thank you Dan for waking me up from 'fantasy Land' back to reality.
Ex-Catholic.
What lead you away from the Catholic Church?
@@bearistotle2820
Maybe a realisation of not dismissing any other religion (and domination) out there as being false without knowing anything about them just because I happened to be born in this particular one .
And then giving myself the freedom to listen also to the other side of the argument besides the only one I was fed and manipulated with since my childhood without asking for it...and comparing it to the reality.
brazer Mitar
Okay, so you decided to look into the question more, which is fine, but how was it shown to be false? What specifically demonstrated that Catholicism is false?
@@m1976ali have you went back to the very beginning of Christianity, have you done research and arguments to be more informed of Catholicism
You can tell he's an atheist because he spends al lot of his breath spewing insults
Is it immoral to institute church wide acknowledgement of Hitler's birthday?
Believers don't have answers in the explanatory sense of the word. They have extraordinary claims and faith to put in the spot where an actual explanation should be. No faith based claim is stronger in any way than me saying "hey - Fred, who is not here, made the moon - no really. I have this strong intuition that this is true so you should take my word. DO take my word. Don't force me to conflate words with reality and start ordering reality around by rearranging my words".
I didn't know Trent was a Scientist😂.. how does he answer everything
Just like Jordan Peterson does, by creating word salads😂
When ANY HUMAN comes out to know everything, _you_ should be sceptical to them. As humans are very limited, and they can not know _everything_. But i guess you take it on faith.
Atheism isn't 'true', it doesn't pretend to be 'true', atheism is without belief, how could it be true. There is no belief involved in being an atheist, it doesn't ask for someone to believe that a lack of belief is somehow 'true'. Also I'm sick of hearing apologists open debates with pronouncements such as, 'science can't prove god'' and then later go on to use science to back up their holey, holy arguments, no hypocrisy there then.
If the theory of multi-verse is true then it is logically possible that in one of those universes God exists since in the multi-verse theory anything is possible. And if God exists in one of those universes then He would also exist in all of the universes for limitless existence follows from his very essence. Thus the multi-verse theory does not and cannot get rid of God.
And if the great magic donkey exists in one of those universes then He would also exist in all of the universes for limitless existence follows from his very essence. Thus the multi-verse theory does not and cannot get rid of the great magic donkey.
Sounds like youtube being youtube.
If the god of the bible had been portrayed as a king instead of a God , he would be remembered as the most evil, mass murdering, tyrannical dictator of all time! Christians give the bible god a free pass because, they say, he is god the creator. I don't see the difference whether man or god. If his actions were evil or immoral, as the bible states, then he'd be just as guilty of being evil as any human committing the same deeds.
Wow, it's almost as if God has a higher authority than man 🤔
The locomotive engine that pulls a series of boxcars and the caboose is a type of unmoved mover. Each boxcar is a middle term, according to Professor Michael Augros, that depends on the engine (first cause) to be set in motion and pull the boxcars behind them. The boxcars are moved movers and secondary causes like matter and energy that have been set in motion by God.