Debate: Does God Exist? - Fr Gregory Pine Vs. Ben Watkins 

Who won and why?

Fr Pine is definitely one to look up to.

I enjoyed listening to Ben Watkins. Very intelligent and kind individual. There was no animosity on either side, just smart and charitable people having a real conversation. God bless him and guide him

Fr. Gregory is one of the most amazing thinkers I’ve ever seen in my generation.

I almost think that Fr Gregory’s strategy here is not so much to win the debate. As in his focus here is not to debunk Ben but rather to to help the audience (us) understand Ben’s stand and his concepts so that we can derive the conclusion on our own. Strategic! Also, Fr seems to in a boxing match. Lol. Downing tons of water at every down time.

Fr. Gregory "As it were" Pine

Great debate. Very respectful and both made great points. I would give the nod to Father Gregory but I'm biased. I appreciated how Mr. Watkins came across open-minded and also did his homework. More like this! Also, cheers to Mr. Watkins on his beer choice. Well done!

Ben Watkins' demeanor in this debate is to be praised...much better than the late Hitchen's approach and I actually like the late Christopher Hitchens. Much more is accomplished with less personal animus and vitriol.Cheers from Canada!!!

Here are some of my on-the-spot, post-debate thoughts: - Seeing Fr. Pine debate and how he articulated his position (especially on how he "combined" the first 3 ways of Aquinas into a single "argument") is the final straw for me: I WILL enter the Dominican order. That's an irreversible decision now (at least it seems to me at this time) - I appreciate the fact that Ben Watkins argued for the apparent incoherence of Classical Theism (i.e. how it poses problems with Divine Freedom/modal collapse and Divine Knowledge) against Fr. Pine's position. It's very rare for "RU-vid Atheists" to do that. Ben's argumentation is a breath of fresh air for the Atheist internet movement, after many years of New Atheist dominance. - I just want to express a minor dissatisfaction I had with Fr. Pine's position: his failure to address Ben's objection that there is still a gap problem between an "unactualized actualizer" and a "purely actual actualizer". I would've loved to hear Fr. Pine's thoughts on that one. Which brings me to my next point... - Gaven Kerr should debate (or at least have a dialogue with) Ben Watkins on the De Ente Argument. I think Ben's concern on the gap problem can be properly addressed once we focus on the Thomist conception of esse as an actualizing principle. - I think Ben should've pressed upon his objection that neither a per se nor a per accidens series of causes imply a need for a first cause and that both causal series can be infinite (another point that, I think, Fr. Pine also failed to address properly/adequately). If this objection is correct, then it would bring Thomism (and even Theism in general) to its knees, because Thomism says that God is the first cause of created reality. If there need not be a first cause, then we need not posit an entity like God (Ben can then argue, like Graham Oppy would, that Naturalism/Atheism should be preferred to Theism given the former's simplicity as a theory over the former, but I don't know: probably Oppy's anti-Theism is different from Ben's) - Fr. Pine is correct in reiterating that God cannot be a subject to anthropomorphizing, and that He transcends creaturely classification. If God cannot be a moral agent like us, then the apparent problem of evil and suffering that we have as creatures cannot be applied to things about God. - Fr. Pine could've also phrased better his view on morality, I think: given his commitment to the natural law, he could've just said first that moral goodness is just a special case of what metaphysical/transcendental goodness is, in general. He touched upon this idea, of course (when he used the examlle of how we naturally would want to take care of our teeth) but he could've made it clearer still. - Overall, I'd say this: the debate is a 9.8/10! It isn't a "super perfect" debate, of course, given the time constraints and all that, but the debaters have articulated their views in a very intellectually engaging fashion. I thank them both because of it. Also, Matt Fradd is right: this is a breath of fresh air after all the stress we received from political discussions and the like which tend to be toxic. I hope debates like this can be more regular in the future. - I think that Ben Watkins won simply for 2 reasons: (1) the 2 objections that Fr. Pine failed to address (or at least address properly) that I noted above, and (2) because Thomism, the philosophical system that Fr. Pine adheres to, is such a huge system that it won't do justice for it to be simply represented in a limited/time-constrained debate. It is expected that, even if Fr. Pine answers many questions in this debate, his presentations will raise more questions that he unfortunately can never address in this debate. With regards to this, the fun will always be found in books and academic papers. I pray that some day, Ben Watkins will finally come to acknowledge the existence of God who lovingly and mercifully sustains him in being and is absolutely worthy of his worship!!!

This was probably the first RU-vid debate that I've seen where the Atheist actually presented arguments for his position.

I wish I had the intelligence level to understand what either of these guys were talking about 😂 😂

Wow. Fr Gregory's closing statement was awesome! O.P. charism shining through

This shouldn’t be one and done here. There is more than enough for both Ben and Fr Pine to review the debate and their notes, mutually agree on points for further discussion, and drill down into those in another debate sooner rather than later. I don’t like that these debates seem to end right when they get interesting. This happened on a daily basis with the philosophers of the recent past, let alone the ancients. Do another one with these two ASAP, Matt!

Fr. Gregory Pine, you are a saint. Miss you man. Fr. Gregory needs no notes. Ben seemed to stumble and rely only on his notes during the rebuttals and opening statements, and yielded his time because he had nothing to say a few times .

🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:00 🍻 Introduction to the debate between Father Gregory Pine and Ben Watkins. 01:12 🙏 Format of the debate: opening statements, rebuttals, cross-examination, audience questions, closing statements. 01:54 🤝 Encouragement for charitable and respectful discourse between atheists and Christians. 03:05 🎙️ Introduction of the debaters: Father Gregory Pine and Ben Watkins. 04:41 🌌 Father Pine's approach: Presuming and proving God's existence, acknowledging challenges. 09:22 🤝 Recognizing varying levels of access to belief in God based on education, personal disposition, and circumstances. 11:14 💡 God's existence accessible to all thinking persons; obstacles due to human limitations, sin, personal and societal formations. 12:55 🌍 The metaphysics of creation and the act-potency distinction as a basis for reasoning. 15:13 🧠 The cosmological arguments: motion, efficient causality, contingency, and their connection to God as the ultimate cause. 18:36 🌟 Believing in God: Revelation and natural reason intertwine; existence of God as a necessary explanation for reality's coherence and intelligibility. 19:44 🙌 Ben Watkins expresses gratitude, acknowledges the importance of the discussion, and introduces his opening statement. 20:32 🤖 Atheism distinction: New atheism vs. contemporary philosophical atheism, aligning with analytic philosophy tradition. 21:00 🛡️ Goal: Present three arguments for philosophical atheism over Friar Gregory's Thomism. 21:28 💼 Distinction between classical theism and theistic personalism, affecting the perception of God. 23:34 🤨 Bayesian argument from evolutionary evil: Evolution's suffering challenges classical theism's goodness. 27:49 🤔 Argument from freedom: Classical theism's God lacks perfect freedom, contrasting traditional belief. 29:40 🧐 Argument from changing knowledge: Classical theism's unchanging God incompatible with changing knowledge. 33:38 🤨 Summing up arguments: Philosophical atheism more likely due to evolutionary evil, divine freedom, and changing knowledge. 43:44 🤔 In discussing the possibility of a beginningless causal series, each link in the series might have a concurrent cause, suggesting no unique initial cause. 45:10 🌐 An example of a conceivable beginningless causal series: a gunky physical object made up of smaller parts, creating a regress that may never terminate. 46:13 🧠 Consideration of a contested Aristotelian metaphysics at the core of arguments for the existence of an unactualized actualizer. 47:12 🛐 Arguments don't inherently lead to a being worthy of worship or perfectly good, necessitating further argumentation to fill this gap. 47:43 💡 Questioning the justification for existential inertia, the idea that something needs continuous actuation to sustain its existence. 49:23 📖 Engagement with the problem of evil, considering different perspectives and acknowledging human suffering. 50:05 🧐 Exploring the notion that God's nature surpasses human understanding and human-like criteria. 51:02 🧘‍♂️ Reflecting on the mystery of God in relation to human suffering, emphasizing a deeper understanding rather than definitive answers. 51:17 🤝 Seeking a perspective that avoids anthropomorphizing God and acknowledges human limitations in understanding divine nature. 52:00 📚 Exploring the interplay of moral principles derived from reason (ethical non-naturalism), including Kantian, consequentialist, and contractualist perspectives. 55:17 ⚖️ Contemplating the criteria for determining types of consequences and discussing various moral principles that guide human actions. 57:08 🌐 Analyzing the implications of different moral principles, including the potential convergence of deontological and consequentialist perspectives. 57:25 🤝 Cross-examination focused on understanding moral principles, the nature of reason, and the potential compatibility of different ethical theories. 01:07:50 🤖 Heaven as a possible world with no animal suffering is discussed. 01:08:15 🌎 The nature of non-physical souls in relation to heaven is explored. 01:08:56 💡 Different possible worlds, including a world of disembodied minds, are considered. 01:09:12 💕 The potential for loving relationships and an infinite loving relationship with God in heaven is discussed. 01:09:54 🌌 The possibility of matter's presence in heaven and the nature of goodness are explored. 01:14:18 🎭 Discussion on God's goodness, metaphysics of evil, and theological perspective on evil's nature. 01:18:06 🕰️ Ben's argument about changing knowledge and determinism, and reconciling the implication for divine attributes. 01:24:58 ⏳ The nature of time and changing knowledge's relation to time in Ben's argument is clarified. 01:28:40 🛠️ Creation and sustenance: When discussing God's creation, it's not about making something from existing materials, but about making something out of nothing (ex nihilo). The creative act imparts the very act of "to be" without relying on intrinsic properties. 01:30:08 🧠 Existential inertia: The debate explores whether God sustains everything in existence constantly or if things have inherent existence (existential inertia). The idea of existential inertia challenges the need for continuous divine sustenance. 01:31:47 🤝 Objective moral values: Cosmic Skeptic argues that morality is objective but not grounded in God, comparing moral truths to mathematical truths. Moral principles are seen as necessary truths, independent of a divine source. 01:34:06 💔 Purpose of suffering: Suffering can reveal depths of love, call forth moral integrity, and lead to greater meaning. Ben questions the compatibility of a loving God with the existence of gratuitous suffering and languishing. 01:37:18 💡 Evaluating suffering: Distinguishing between pointless and non-pointless suffering is complex. Ben discusses using moral principles (Kantian, contractualist, consequentialist) to systematically evaluate suffering's justifiability. 01:43:11 🕊️ Epistemic and metaphysical: Ben justifies inferring that suffering is gratuitous based on phenomenological impressions and moral principles. The question of God's moral standards and the objectivity of moral judgments arises. 01:47:12 🌟 God and morality: Cosmic Skeptic argues that God should be subject to moral standards. He leans toward theistic personalism, emphasizing that God's goodness must align with human moral intuitions. 01:49:35 ☀️ Parallels in religion: Father Pine acknowledges parallels between Christianity and pagan religions and suggests that Christianity often adopts similar themes for evangelistic purposes, recognizing shared human inclinations toward certain beliefs and values. 01:50:59 📚 Father Gregory Pine highlights how God's revelation is communicated through scripture, transcending human experiences. 01:51:13 🌍 Creation accounts reveal God as one, good, and able to use human choices to bring about beauty despite evil. 01:51:42 🌞 Interpersonal relationships reflect the triune God's nature, and the concept of love aligns with familial terms in various cultures. 01:52:21 💔 Ben Watkins argues religious disagreement is a significant challenge to the existence of a perfectly loving God. 01:52:49 🌅 Sun god parallels aren't the main focus; the debate centers on the question of God's existence. 01:53:30 💬 Both debaters discuss the best argument from the opposing side and why they think it fails. 01:58:25 📜 Father Pine explains the argument of divine hiddenness, discussing God's subtle revelation through history. 02:03:38 🧠 Ben Watkins reviews his three arguments: evil, freedom, and changing knowledge, challenging traditional theistic concepts. 02:07:10 🤝 The debaters emphasize the value of genuine philosophical discourse for personal growth and understanding. Made with HARPA AI

as an agnostic I have to say I like these talks with this Pine dude a lot

Why can’t atheist be like Ben Watkins or Alex (CosmicSkeptic), which is not rude and militant to argue their skepticism of God’s existence? Comments below are evident that many atheists are not eager but angry to want to take down God’s existence. I’m glad, Ben Watkins is a figure in the atheist group. I sure hope the field of atheist learn from him.

1:16:45 One of the best moments of the debate, lighthearted and mutually charitable. Thank you, Matt, for organizing this, and thank you to Ben and Fr. Gregory for such a good debate!

Great debate, both sides were very respectful! I would say that Fr. Gregory Pine won (no doubt, really). Good night and God bless You all! ✝️ 💜

Fr. Pine is becoming one of my favorite Catholics to listen to!!

Fr. Gregory was more versed in my opinion. Ben did a great job though. Both were civil. But to be truly sincere, I see Ben’s misconceiving about God’s knowledge and many more topics (ex: the metaphysics of time) more demanding of explanation (and not so basic ones) so that hardly could be posed as a benefit to his side as far as a “debate” goes, due to the fact that Fr Gregory Pine had to deal and maybe correct those misconceptions. I sincerely think Fr. Gregory won it overall (and won it clearly: both in possessing more profound knowledge on the matters discussed and in its transmission, all difficulties already taken into account), even though he probably would have needed much more time to this than what he specifically had in this kind of format. He probably is a greater lecturer than a debater, but from that in NO WAY it follows that he has lost it or his opponent fared better.

Thanks for the good debate to both. We won. The best part of the debate is that everyone was respectful and polite and thoughtful.

Fr Pine won, but only if you understand the premises that his arguments are based on. To the average viewer, the other guy seemed to address logical human complaints based in a worldly view of existence. Fr Pine addressed these concerns with a presumptive understanding of transcendent realities. This was less a debate as it was two guys, who aren’t on the same page at all, taking turns talking.

It's a trap: both are theists, but only one of them knows it.

Hearing Fr. Pine was like drinking from a fire hydrant. I should stick to pop-apologetics.

This was a very pleasant debate. It was so refreshing to see two men so diametrically opposed engage each other intelligently and respectfully. The avoidance of polemics and presence of charity was a breath of fresh air.

Odd that many here in the comments are saying that Fr. Gregory is more well-versed and responded well to the objections he was able to respond to, but lost because he was not able to respond to all of the objections. How does that make any sense? No you cannot assume he would have refuted the other objections as well as the ones he was able to get to, but to judge the winner of a debate based on what was left unsaid does not make much sense. I would say Fr. Gregory very clearly won - Ben certainly knows his stuff better than the average "atheist" you may encounter on the street, but he has critical misunderstandings of God's knowledge, which Fr. explained and Ben still seemed to not comprehend, and God's relation to time. God, as Being itself, is not bound by time, and you could say all of time is present to Him always (in that, He knows time as time only has existence because of Him... additionally, as Fr. mentioned, time is simply how we measure change in this world). This also provides answer to how God could hear and answer millions of prayers being offer simultaneously. As He is not a secretary sitting at a desk receiving emails containing prayer requests which He must then sort through and deal with accordingly, His answering of prayer does not work this way. This assumption would be anthropomorphic as other assumptions in this debate were, which Fr. also pointed out.

Of course I am biased towards the belief in God because I am a Christian. Hands down for the argument\ explanations for God.However both sides were over my head for sure. Well done to both Father and Ben. And of course Matt. I appreciate the desire for dialogue .

Most atheists I've met seem to have a chip on their shoulder, but Ben seems like a super chill dude. Definitely a guy I'd have a beer with (and I don't even like beer!). Always a fan of Fr. Gregory. Great debate!

It was a very pleasant debate to listen to . I have a lot of respect and admiration to both debaters who engaged in such a a civil way with each other . Fr Gregory was a surprise for me tbh .. .. Matt Fradd , you have definitely set up a great civil debating platform that is often missing in other platforms .. Good job my fellow Aussie

Great debate guys!

Such a satisfying discussion, one of real substance, where interlocutors carefully listen and concisely speak.

GOD BLESS HIS ONE AND ONLY CATHOLIC CHURCH! :)

Was blown away at the quality of the argumentation here. Loved the debate. A suggestion for Fr. Gregory that he work on finding a way to expound the monolith of thomism more concisely (I'm not even sure how it can be done, but it seems possible prima facie). I believe it's healthy for beginners to see good philosophy fly above their heads, but even for the sake of interested intermediates, it would be beneficial if Fr. Gregory could cover more content of the objections.

Fr. Pine for the win. He knows his stuff. I was not impressed with Ben Watkins. But both were very respectful. Thanks to all involved.

Fantastic debate! @MattFradd, could there be a future debate on Mary and the Immaculate Conception?

I can usually follow most Christian/Atheist debates but what Fr Gregory Pine is saying is mostly flying over my head, and I'm Catholic. Where do I get a start on Thomism without prior philosophical training?

In case of modern Christian Apologetics I really recommend G.K. Chesterton, Feliks Koneczny, C.S. Lewis, Edward Faser, Thomas E. Woods, Fr. Thomas Joseph White OP. and Wolfgang Smith among others. :-) ✝️ 💜

19:10 Matt asking Ben what beer he’s drinking and Fr Gregory is seriously drinking his water

Animal pain is a cop out. We can’t even know how animals experience “suffering.” Suffering includes experience of time, fear of death, etc, etc. Animals certainly don’t experience pain in this way, to the degree of human beings. I wish more time was focused on the cosmology and metaphysics.

We all make mistakes in life in which some are simple financial mistakes, some are tragic outcomes such as war injuries and other physical injuries due to our decisions. However, if you are wrong about the existence of God , you have made the ultimate mistake in that you could suffer for eternity. Wow, I'm not willing to make such an eternal mistake. Give up your sinful behaviour which will ultimately get you nowhere.

Should have been Ed Feser

Beautiful and effectively moderated debate! Both participants were respectful and well-spoken, making clear and pertinent arguments. I would however say, probably because I myself am Christian, that the case for God's existence was more convincing.

Praying for Mr. Watkins...God will get him...Just wonder if God does not exist why does it matter to Mr. Watkins....How am I hurting him....I would rather be wrong with my belief than to not believe at all...

A swaggering, punk-kid Thomist? Now I've heard everything

Thoroughly enjoyed this. Win-win. Thanks. Praise God.

I am an atheist but I must admit that people with a religious faith seem a lot more content than the ardent atheist.

Proposition for next debate topic: Sedevacantism

Tbh, I don't understand what keeping Ben from embracing Theism.

this is like debate club where both are religious and one is chosen to represent the other point of view. a real debater would be challenging the underlying assumptions; he doesn't do that.

The irony of exalting “Reason” that somehow is not based in rationality itself-but mindless processes that just happened to produce organisms with the ability to reason. Absurd!

Personally I think that since something does not come from nothing then that requires an eternal uncreated entity who is all powerful.

I found Ben Watkins only recently and now am a big fan!

Awesome, thank you so much for hosting these debates.

Father Pine is SO handsome!

If God exists, atheists lose. If God didn't exist they will also lose. What will they earn if they win this argument?

It surprises me how people accept Darwin´s theory of evolution, almost without hesitation. Darwin´s theory has been proven wrong by paleontology, genetics, philosophy. I think that if that obstacle is remove, many people would have an easy way to accept God´s existence

Why are these debates still happening, that fact alone is a bit of an obstacle for the affirmative side. If they want an easy win, they should debate.."Is it possible to convince yourself a God exists". That's a win every time.

Atheist: Prove God exists! Theist: Describe an existential proof. Atheist: I don't understand. Theist: Exactly. Atheists demand existential proofs yet have no idea what one would even look like. Instead of the existence of God, let's start with something easy, let's say, your keyboard. Prove to me that something obvious exists exists and we'll see if you have the capacity to understand existential proofs, first. After that we can talk about God.

I feel incredibly dumb after watching this.

Ben! But I’m a little biased 🥰

Hundreds of millions of years of animal evolution and suffering don’t prove that God is evil. Within that suffering was also love - birth of the fawn, the wolf eating the burned fawn from the forest fire, etc. plus these are animals we’re talking about, without reason and only driven by survival.

Finally watched the entire debate. In my opinion, Ben has so many misconceptions about God, and it takes a lot of time to make someone understand the nature of God in Catholic perspective. Fr. Pine needed a lot of explanation to debunk Ben's proofs cuz they are derived from misbeliefs abt God. I think if Ben truly understand God and takes time understanding Catholic Theology, it would break down a lot of atheists view that God doesn't exist.

I really wanted to enjoy the debate but I literally had no idea what they were saying like 80% of the time. I feel like this knowledge that both of these guys have isn’t accessible to like 99% of ppl just because of their vocabulary.

So if the metaphysical ideas caught your interest but went over your head, a fellow priest and I are working through Daniel J. Sullivan's introduction to Classical Realism on the Amateur Philosophers' Club podcast www.buzzsprout.com/883282

We love Fr. Pine. He’s wonderful.

Well done fellows! I am so impressed at how this remained a true debate, rather than argumentative. A lot of this went way over my head, however, based on what I did understand I believe Fr. Gregory won.

I did thoroughly enjoy this. Hearing the perspective from Ben’s position (and those that are less aggressive towards faith) was encouraging and a conversation I believe to be more fruitful than what is possible with the “new atheists.” I am biased...but Fr. Gregory Pine is a beast!

Watkins: "A fawn burning to death in a forest fire ... is not biologically or morally useful". Euhm, yes it is morally useful because you just used in as a moral argument against the existence of God. And it could also be biologically useful because darwinistically speaking that particular fawn was just not adapted well enough to it's environment to escape the danger quickly enough, thereby removing him from the gene pool.

1:18 "I went from an IS to an OUGHT". It is true that we use hypothetical Imperatives (as in your example) routinely, but, by themselves, they don't solve the Is/Ought problem in the sense of providing an objective basis for morality. Father Pine cares about the condition of his teeth, but someone else who did not care about them is not bound by the 'moral' obligation to take care of them.

This debate has been going on for years and years

Get Dr Nigel Cundy (Oxford Quantum Physicist and Thomist) on!

Great job Father Pine ! Nice to see you ! We miss you in Louisville at St Louis Bertrand. We are the Tricia Crosswait family and Susan and Pat kenny family. We pray for you and all priests and religious🙏✌️✝️🇺🇲

I still fail to see how you can start with "suffering is real" and lead to "everything came into existence out of nothing." At best, the problem of evil could be a rebuttal against God's compassion or against a specific God... but that's only if we want to debate against the Christian God, but atheism postulates that no God, no intelligent being is behind existence. Even if you could go as far as saying that God is a psycho who enjoys suffering, that still wouldn't count as an argument for atheism. The more I ponder on the argument of evil, the more it seems like an emotional argument: -Suffering is real -Suffering seems pointless and unnecessary -If God is real, He could/should stop it -Suffering is still real and unncessary -God doesn't care about our suffering or either enjoys it -God is a total jerk -I can't cope with such a God existing -Hence: God is not real (????)

1:42:23 what's the problem? For instance when one considers their past it is "pre determined" in so far as that it already happened and you don't have the free will to change it. The only domain where freewill exists within the infinity of time is this thin slice less than a nanosecond called now.

Welcome back Matt!

A person can be deceived by worldly wisdom in two ways, that is, sometimes by the real principles of philosophy, and sometimes by fallacious arguments. And Paul teaches them to beware of both: See to it that no one makes a prey of you by philosophy, that is, by philosophical teachings: “Your wisdom and your knowledge led you astray” (Is 47:10). For there are many who have turned from the faith after having been deceived by philosophy: “Man has become foolish in his knowledge” (Jer. 10:14). As regards to the second way to be deceived he says, and empty deceit, which is based on the way words are used: “Let no one deceive you with empty words,” as is said in Ephesians (5:6). But how are they being deceived? One who deceives another must have something which seems reasonable, and something which is not really so. So first Paul shows the basis of this seeming reasonableness. It is based on two things, the first being the authority of the philosophers. And about this he says, according to human tradition, that is, according to what is handed down by some, basing themselves on their own judgment: “The Lord knows the thoughts of man, that they are but a breath” (Ps 94:11). The second source of an apparent reasonableness are the contrivances of reason, that is, when a person wishes to measure or judge about the things of faith according to the principles of things, and not by divine wisdom. And many are deceived in this way. And so Paul says, they should not be deceived by those judging according to the elements of the universe, and not according to Christ: “They were unable from the good things that are seen to know him who exists” (Wis 13:1). Now the higher a cause is, the more superior is its effect. And so those who wish to investigate certain effects in terms of causes that are inferior are deceived. For example, if one were to consider the movement of water in terms of the power of water, he would not be able to know the cause of the tides of the sea; to do this he would have to consider water in terms of the power of the moon. Thus, those people are even more deceived who consider the proper effects of God in terms of the elements of the world. And this is the reason for the seeming plausibility of what they say. Commentary on Col. 2:5-10, Thomas Aquinas

Matt, I'm curious...your guests appear to be recording with higher quality mics, but you are only using the audio from their headphones or computer speaker on the stream..it appears. Why is that? Are you using their HQ audio later on for a podcast release because it's too hard to use their HQ audio live (assuming you are using ecamm)? or some other reason? thanx

Did you hear that ladies, time to leave the atheists ;)

Old, tired arguments from the atheist on evil. And time?...of course God can know the future as He is outside of time. And no cause to the Big Bang? Father Pine definitely won this debate. I highly recommend Peter Kreeft for more explanation on the problem of evil...

I barely understood anything but enjoyed

Looking fresh Matt!

I think Ben was the better debater but I think a lot of what he says doesn't really make sense and I'm disappointed his opponent didn't seize on them. I'm not a professional thomist philosopher but I can see why a non actual actualer musr be purely actual and why there must be one actus purus and why all causal series ordered per se must terminate at the same actus purus.

The world rejected their creator long ago.

I think that anything that is negative in us is a drawback or deficiency in our character and results in many kinds of suffering which consequently trigger off God's response by grace as a God built in auto correct/auto repair mechanism to try to restore our fallen nature to its full potential, perfection and former splendor, in other words a self-monitoring heavenward trajectory. Why do people never complain that fire is hot and can kill or that airplanes can crash down?

This was painful to watch. Homeboy is a google atheist. He's like literally googling what to say next because he doesn't know his own arguments.

How can you have necessary abstract realities unless something could eternally and necessarily ground them? It couldn’t itself be abstract!

God is not constantly acquiring new knowledge. He has complete knowldge.

Gregory clearly won when Benjamin didn’t offer a rhetoric about Reason and Matter.

man Pine was swag

Hi Matt, For your podcast, how do you do it? I want to start a podcast, but I don’t know how to make one! If you could help out, I’d appreciate it!

Who else noticed that Fr Gregory looks serious in this episode 😂

I wish atheists would drop the problem of evil argument or leave it for a separate debate because it has no place in a debate about Gods existence as it argues against a certain kind of god at best. In addition it simply bogs down any debate in which it is mentioned, because its just too much ground to cover in addition to the classical arguments...

Whatever they are drinking, I want those. Hopefully, it would make me keep up with their thoughts.

The general topic of whether God exists should start at the BEGINNING- Creation. My premise is simple. We are All creationists: Facts the denier wont want u to know: nearly all scientists accept there is nothing in the physical realm that is infinite or eternal in the past. So how do we explain creation from both world views? which theory do we really need to discuss: cosmic, chemical or biological dvolution: blind, random goal-less and bottom up or intelligently designed and top-down ? - Macro or Micro, the one espoused by Darwin or Gould or perhaps the new theory involving junk’ DNA which is not really junk at all? So how do the naturalist explain anything like origins, except life changing or adapting to its environment? Go back billion years before life and in particular explain the most insurmountable problem for atheists -Creation ex nihilo: 1) why anything could exist now when all time, matter and space had an absolute beginning in the finitude of past (time), proven by the impossibility of an infinite regress of past physical states or events.) * 2) how every (material) thing came from nothing (billions of years before primitive life came to exist) 3) the origin and existence of all the ABSTRACT, immutable Laws of science that describe how the physical world responds (oh yes, they just are and they just do) 4) the incredible fine-tuning of the physical constants (let's invent an infinite no. of universes, "now prove me wrong!") 5) the extremely narrow preconditions necessary in the BB for the universe to exist at all 6) the uncanny applicability of abstract math that is the metaphysical language written on every one of the 1 x10^80 atoms in the universe. 7) the incredible beauty, patterns and information embedded in nature 8) the emergence of life from non living matter (oh yes, aliens seeded the earth) 9) the emergence of a sentient, moral being gifted with intelligence to wonder at this "miraculous, comprehensible, abstract law-abiding universe of ours. As Einstein says we should expect "a priori, an incomprehensible, lawless lifeless chaos" 10) and last but certainly not least why the pursuit of the transcendent has been the most dominant issue in all human history. DO you really have enough faith to believe mindless matter is the only game in town? Ask your self the fundamental question we all face - what evidence should we expect if God exists and what evidence above suggests He doesnt? If the latter appeals to you, then ask yourself WHY do u really want God not to exist?

An Atheist who knows Per Se causal series! Wow.

Imagine thinking God was 3 dimensional

I wonder if God is laughing! He probably made us for his entertainment.

Good debated I think that Ben won this debate but just because Thomism is really hard to explain, they would have need another two hours to explore all the interesting thinks that were left out. Matt you should bring Brant Pitre to debate the resurrection or the reliability of the New Testament that'd be awesome, or Jimmy Akin for some debate on some random topic God bless you, and glory to Jesus

Fantastic debate , haven't seen the whole debate so I don't know who is the winner yet but I believe in God due to the complexity of the universe among many other reasons