Is belief in the Resurrection reasonable? Trent Horn Vs Matt Dillahunty Debate 

Trents opening statement: 3:40 Matts opening statement: 18:30 Trents cross exam: 36:56 Matts cross exam: 45:50 Open discussion: 58:10 Q&A 1:20:36 Trents closing statement: 1:59:42 Matts closing statement: 2:04:49

At some point Matt asked Trent why he thinks it is reasonable to believe Jesus was resurrected, and he answered with "because it is possible" and when Matt asked how he knows it is possible, Trent said "Because Jesus was resurrected". That's literally a circular argument.

At one point I thought Matt was going to hang up on him 😁😁😁

Every time I watch any clip with Matt, RU-vid’s broken algorithm auto plays this video.

What a great show! I enjoy these two actually talking about everything civilly. Great debate!

Yes to the cross exam. No one wants to just hear you talk for 30 mins and not be questioned about what your saying.

Excellent debate format; very informative

I love how Matt was looking for the button to hang up @49:15.

I am so excited to watch the replay of this debate!

When Matt said "my mom is a fundamentalist southern Baptist" I understood many things...

liked the debate format

This was the best debate of its kind I've watched. Both interlocutors were engaging to listen to and actually responded thoughtfully to each other instead of what you typically see in this kind of discussion, where the speakers go back to delivering their monologue when they have the floor. Absolutely fantastic job by both speakers and the moderator, who did an excellent job of keeping things on track and was obviously closely following the discussion. I'm just sad I found this so long after it was broadcast.

As an atheist I was struck by Trent’s closing comments, where he listed text for and against the resurrection, ranked easy (pop) to serious (academic). Encouraging people to read such texts for themselves and draw their own conclusion was brave of him to say the least. This points to an admirable level of intellectual honesty that is, I have to say, unusual for protagonists on either side of the divide. Kudos to both debaters and the moderator for the civility and respect shown.

First time on the channel .. VERY well organized debate! Really enjoyed both speakers...

This shows that Trent is a good conversor, a lot of people Matt debates just are in such denial and so ready to rumble at every moment that it ends in a shouting party between both, so this was a nice contrast

Need to get Gary Habermas on a debate with dillahunty for this topic

What a great debate. Very interesting and respectful. Also a big shout to the moderator who did a great job. 👍🏻

"It's reasonable to believe Jesus rose from the dead because resurrections are likely happening today." "How do you know that resurrections are happening today?" "Because Jesus rose from the dead." Facepalm.

This was structured well 👍

This is just very enjoyable to watch to see two intelligent men discussing the topic with such vigor but still being respectful to each other while they are in disagreement, its quite fun to see there was much good-natured banter once in while between Matt, Trent and the moderator, throughout the debate, and the moderator did a very good job. I have watched other Matt's debate vs other religuous people and most of the time it went sideways while Matt's opponents werejust being ridiculous and apathetic, because they just simply lost argument debating Matt. Total respect for both speakers.

That was an interesting discussion, thanks to all. I would be interested in a follow up conversation between Matt D. and Trent, it did sound like they have additional ground to cover.

That was really interesting.

“If claims are evidence, then the claim that claims aren’t evidence is evidence that claims aren’t evidence.” -Matt dillahunty.

Very interesting debate.

Hi Matt here are some future debate suggestions. Shannon Q vs Mari Pablo ( Athiest psychologist vs Catholic psychologist) on Is belief in God healthy? Jason Evert vs A s*x worker on Should you have s*x before marriage? Matt Dillahunty vs Ben Watkins on Do atheists have a burden of proof? (The new atheism vs Philosophical atheism) Paulogia vs Trent Horn on Are the martyrs good evidence for the resurrection?

1:19:52 - Trent “we have good evidence of where the tomb is” 1:22:09 - Trent - “we would have a very difficult time determining this was actually his tomb” Uh.. what?

Matt’s arguement is that there is no doctors chart of Jesus’s body after he was crucified in the first century. Matt’s standard would reject all of history since history isn’t proven by scientific standards. History is based on testimony but he argues you shouldn’t believe anything from history. He even denies historical details of the death of Jesus that every historian agrees with.

One of the better discussions I've heard on this subject.

Matt- "If my position is I don't have an explanation for how this happened I don't get to invent one and I don't get to claim it was aliens or gods or demons or anything. If I don't have an explanation I don't have an explanation. As much as that sucks that's the truth." Truth.

That sponsorship made me almost spit out my coffee lmao

How rare and how thrilling, two intelligent and passionate men having a respectful discussion. Well done!

this was great

In his opening Trent said it was important that resurrections weren't a common occurrence so that it can clearly be seen as a miracle and a sign from God. Then during cross-exams he turns around and tries to attack Matt's position by saying Matt doesn't have proof that resurrections don't happen commonly, while not acknowledging it would also undermine his own world view. A bit later he goes on to say that he doesn't particularly care about other cases of resurrection because it wouldn't change his view of Jesus' resurrection. What ?

Thank you gentlemen, I spent 2 hrs watching YT clips of Ibex this morning and now this debate. Is YT debate content getting better or is it just me?

The two debaters showing respect to each other. Awesome.

that was awesome

That was as good as I had hoped it would be

Very disappointing that Trent did not seriously take up Matt's challenge to provide hostile witnesses that affirm Christian claims. Gary Michuta wrote the book _Hostile Witnesses_ taking up this challenge. One mention of Tacitus was not sufficient or satisfactory.

This was a good discussion by two calm human beings. I may not agree with everything said (by both sides) but it was well done. I wish more debates 9n these topics were like this.

Trent is on point when he asked Matt what if he’s already seen the evidence but failed to accept it as such. That’s hyper skepticism for you, so sad..

As an atheist, props for the civilized format and debate!

I very much enjoy this civil debate! Respect to both the debaters. Thank you for hosting this 👍

I have yet to engage in a debate that proceeds and ends with such professionalism.

1:10:40 God is not to be tested but trusted. Matt must’ve missed this one: In the New Testament, specifically in Matthew 4:7 and Luke 4:12, Jesus quotes Deuteronomy 6:16, saying, “Do not put the Lord your God to the test.” Proverbs 2:6: “For the Lord gives wisdom; from his mouth come knowledge and understanding.”

Great conversation here, these two bounce off each other very well.

🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 01:23 🧐 Trent Horn argues that belief in the resurrection of Jesus is reasonable by presenting three tests for evaluating unusual event claims: contradicting established facts, absence of expected evidence, and uniqueness of evidence. 08:12 🕊️ Trent critiques alternative explanations for the resurrection, arguing that they fail to account for factors such as group appearances, sincerity of disciples, and early church growth. 11:57 🧠 Trent presents the "argument from change" as evidence for a cause of the universe, arguing for the existence of a purely actual, immaterial, and timeless cause. 16:40 😲 Matt Dillahunty starts by emphasizing that belief in an event's reasonability doesn't imply its truth. He highlights the challenge of determining reasonability and stresses that consistency with known facts is crucial. 19:46 ❓ Matt questions the lack of empirical evidence for the resurrection and criticizes reliance on testimonials and hearsay. He challenges the untestable nature of claims like the resurrection, arguing they should be verifiable or falsifiable. 21:11 🤨 Matt distinguishes between verification and falsification, illustrating the challenges of exhaustive verification and concluding that reasonable belief requires the consideration of practical risks. 21:25 🧪 Falsifiability and unverifiability: Falsifiability is the ability to be proven false, while unverifiability means a claim cannot be tested. Unverifiable claims should be mundane and trivial to be considered reasonable. 22:09 📜 Evaluating historical claims: History relies on reports, testimonies, and accounts. Claims should be proportional to the evidence supporting them. The wise man proportions belief to the evidence. 23:05 🕊️ Hume's principle of superiority: David Hume's principle suggests choosing the explanation that involves the least extraordinary or improbable event. Reject the greater miracle and choose the more probable explanation. 25:11 💭 Eyewitness testimony limitations: Eyewitness testimonies are unreliable under various circumstances, and their reliability diminishes over time. The Bible's gospel accounts may not be from direct eyewitnesses. 26:21 🧠 Consistency with reality: Beliefs should be consistent with what is known to be true. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and all claims need sufficient evidence to be considered reasonable. 29:11 🧪 Lack of physical evidence: The absence of physical evidence, such as a body, tomb, blood, or artifacts, challenges the reasonability of the claim of Jesus' resurrection. 31:00 👥 Emotional factors: Emotional connections, fear of being wrong or excluded, and narrative compellingness can influence belief, but they do not constitute strong evidence. 32:12 🕊️ Historical beliefs and evidence: Historical beliefs may not necessarily align with strong evidence, and beliefs about extraordinary events require rigorous examination. 37:24 🔎 Investigating resurrection claims: Discussion about investigating resurrection claims beyond the Bible, considering historical and testimonial evidence. 40:15 🤔 The basis of reasonability: Differentiating personal belief from what's reasonable for others to believe. Exploring beliefs held by historians and the role of evidence. 43:26 🧩 Trent questions Matt's view on ethical veganism. 43:54 🤔 Matt expresses gratitude for a true statement made by Trent in the debate. 44:08 🙅 Matt clarifies his position on belief in resurrection, emphasizing his lack of conviction. 44:34 📚 Discussion on claims of historical resurrections and the evidence supporting them. 45:16 🤷‍♂️ Debate on the likelihood of current resurrection stories. 46:16 🤔 Trent argues that if Jesus rose from the dead, he could perform miracles today. 46:57 🧪 Matt questions the lack of physical evidence for resurrection claims. 48:13 🤨 Discussion on the reasonable acceptance of resurrection claims based on testimonial evidence. 48:41 🙋‍♂️ Matt probes whether Trent would accept resurrection claims without physical evidence. 49:14 🔄 Matt asserts his unwillingness to accept extraordinary claims based solely on testimony. 50:09 🙅‍♂️ Matt emphasizes his position on the unreasonableness of accepting extraordinary claims from testimonial evidence. 50:26 🧐 Transition to a discussion period with both participants questioning each other. 52:22 🗣️ Participants question each other's views on miracles and testimonial evidence. 53:30 🎙️ Trent asks Matt about his stance on uniformity of natural laws against miracles. 54:26 🗣️ Matt and Trent discuss their perspectives on reasonable acceptance of claims. 55:38 📚 Trent argues that history relies heavily on testimonial evidence. 56:06 🎙️ Transition to a conversational phase for further exploration of topics. 58:00 🧐 Matt challenges Trent about recognizing sufficient evidence for resurrection. 59:08 🤔 Trent defends his epistemology and view on evaluating testimonial evidence. 01:00:19 🧪 Discussion on how epistemological biases shape perspectives on evidence. 01:02:42 🔄 Participants engage in a discussion about different epistemological approaches. 01:04:08 🤯 Matt presents an analogy related to testimonial evidence and courtroom bias. 01:04:49 🧪 Trent explains his approach to evaluating historical claims based on evidence. 01:05:04 🤔 Matt Dillahunty emphasizes he's not a historian and cannot dictate historical reasonability. 01:05:33 🧐 Historical reasonability involves assessing evidence and scholarly consensus. 01:05:46 🏛️ Consensus: Jesus' crucifixion and death accepted by historians worldwide. 01:06:14 📚 Trent Horn excludes some historians with fringe views from "major universities." 01:06:56 🌎 Number of believers doesn't determine reasonableness or truth. 01:07:11 💉 Analogy: Medical consensus is strong evidence; science is distinct from history. 01:08:08 🧪 Debate on historical vs. scientific methodology; history not scientific. 01:09:34 ⚖️ Matt clarifies epistemological goals: minimize false beliefs, maximize truth. 01:10:03 🌌 Supernatural claims lack scientific verification; evidence needed. 01:10:29 👥 Historical claims can be credible based on evidence and consistency. 01:10:45 🛐 Elvis resurrection analogy; evidence and context determine reasonableness. 01:12:26 🌍 Historical knowledge compared to scientific knowledge; justification. 01:12:44 🗂️ Historical evidence: evaluation, sources, consensus, opposition's view. 01:13:07 📖 Applying historical method to claims about Jesus; consistency of accounts. 01:14:01 💬 Q&A session begins; audience questions for Trent and Matt. 01:19:09 ❓ Trent's hypothetical response to discovering Jesus' bones; faith evaluation. 01:19:31 ❓ Matt's stance on discovering Jesus' bones; atheism and theism. 01:22:01 ❓ Matt's view on resurrection artifacts; investigation and skepticism. 01:22:45 ❓ Apostles' martyrdom as evidence; possible motivations and beliefs. 01:24:11 ❓ Matt's response to apostles' martyrdom; conviction vs. truth. 01:25:12 ❓ Historical analogies of people dying for beliefs; not proof of truth. 01:26:12 🤔 Sincerity, not truth, is demonstrated by willingness to die for a belief. 01:26:40 📜 Disciples' enduring persecution indicates sincere belief in resurrection. 01:27:48 🗣️ Repeating "not convinced" isn't a cop-out; responding to arguments matters. 01:28:17 🤷‍♂️ Embracing "I don't know" can be unsettling but intellectually honest. 01:30:55 🔄 Speculation: If Jesus was born today, evidence might differ. 01:31:21 💡 Reasoning about God's reasons for revealing himself is complex. 01:32:48 ❓ Historical events' confidence levels vary based on evidence. 01:33:30 🌌 Accepting possibility of multiverse and extraterrestrial life isn't unreasonable. 01:38:09 🙏 Matt's criteria: Evidence should be sufficient to convince him. 01:41:48 🧠 Trent's distinction between "reasonable" and "convincing" beliefs. 01:43:15 🧐 Disagreement on reasonable matters when considering same information is a complex topic. 01:45:40 🧠 Evidence isn't a neon sign, but interpretations; courtroom analogy. 01:46:08 🚀 Beliefs become reasonable based on contradictions, expected evidence, and alternate explanations. 01:46:51 🧐 Even if there were physical evidence of resurrection, it might not convince everyone. 01:47:57 🤔 Questioning trust in someone with no absolute certainty; confidence vs. absolute certainty. 01:48:55 📏 Absolute certainty not always necessary; reasonable to act based on high confidence. 01:50:15 🕊️ Belief's impact on life doesn't alter evidence needed to affirm it. 01:51:29 🌎 Matt's disagreement on uniformity of experience; cultural variance, false beliefs. 01:52:47 👻 Matt's stance on belief: belief in experience, not necessarily the content. 01:55:13 🤝 Importance of respectful debate, focusing on reasons and evidence. 02:01:47 📚 Encouragement to research, read both sides, reach conclusions, and engage in informed dialogue. 02:05:53 🕰️ Gradual diminishing certainty with time; challenge of investigating distant claims. 02:06:20 🔍 Comparison of evidence quality for recent vs. ancient resurrection claims. 02:06:47 🧪 Importance of scientific method's reliability in understanding the world. 02:07:02 👥 Lack of supernatural/religious claims overturning established science. 02:07:30 📜 Historical argument for resurrection; reliance on book's reliability, lack of physical evidence.

This has been a great debate.

Trent said to Matt at one point "that's just your view or belief." Incorrect Trent, Matt is there speaking for millions of us who are Atheists/Secularists who share much the same views. Speaking of which as usual I think Matt did a great job...call me biased. :)

I just appreciate how Matt cuts through here. Sharp as a tack.

He turns his camera on at one minute remaining? So subtle, yet such a perfect indicator. The simplest things can win you a sub ❤️

I think Matt's point around the 40 or so mark was pretty spot-on. In many cases, we might accept testimonial evidence when it comes to things we have witnessed temporally, but that standard of evidence increases drastically when it's something we have not seen prior.

I am willing to believe that Ceasar was a person, that Homer wrote plays, that George Washington founded America... all off testimonials

I must say that this was one of my favorite debates I have ever seen. The differences seem to stem from evidence versus testimony, which was a refreshing change from what I usually see in this sort of debate.

Mat missed a trick when Trent confirmed that he believes resurrections on purely testimonials. The immediate response should have been to revisit all those testimonial resurrections in Keners book previously mentioned and again ask if he also believed in those just on those testimonials provided as well

No way he would have been able to move the stone considering he was dead an hour or two before

Lmfao that sponsor shoutout got me 😂 Where are my atheist dating websites? 😂😂

At 57:05 the guy Trent claims that he didn’t use the word “supernatural” in his opening, but he did use this descriptor at 3:30

Great,good clean debate,it’s nice to see mutual agreements concerning different worldviews,they both treated each other with respect,I’m an atheist but enjoyed listening and watching Trent’s arguments and debate methods,great watch.

1:08:40 wanting to acquit as many guilty people as possible and spare as many innocent are actually directly correlated. This is a concept in statistics called type 1 and type 2 errors. They are inversely related, meaning they are dependent on each other. It would be entirely unreasonable to believe what he was saying, which is funny given he believes anything he is convinced of is reasonable

Dillahunty gets angry quite easily, just like Aron Ra, Christopher Hitchens and so many atheists. I believe that's telling. Also, the subject of the debate is is the belief in God REASONABLE yet Dillahunty keeps talking about being CONVINCED or not. Too bad the moderator allowed that.

Matt just said history isn't science then said science is simply knowledge.

Why is Trent Horn so afraid to admit that he accepts the ressurection solely on testimonial evidence? 49:11

The unanswered question is, what is truth? The truth is what is universally non-contradictory. We can follow truth or lies!

Trent at 3:00 has a good point for a flaw in our attempt at being non biased but obviously showing selective skepticism. I personally believe every action has a cause but that it does not have to be intelligent to act and effect another entity or chain of events.

Wouah, surprised! Simon Kimbangu that Trent mentioned was a Congolese preacher who preached Jesus and Congo DR liberation from colonialist Belgium. My sister in law and her family are kimbanguists , they literally believe that Simon Kimbangu is 'God' because among other many reasons he raised people from the deads just like Jesus . They call him, God the Holy Spirit, Tata Kimbangu. I ve had some heated debates with them, trying to 'make them catholic', LOL!

I’m not convinced Richard Carrier exists.

21:41 immediately draws up Time without Becoming by Meillassoux. This succession of sensations presupposes a principle of continuity when something like the necessity of absolute contingency can be slotted into that space s as well

1:35:51 As Asimov said either way if life exists elsewhere in the universe or not amazing The Laserous (sp) effect is a technique (still not proven conclusively ) whereby the brain is super cooled (by various means) to such an extent that metabolically it can survive relatively intact so that when the body is repaired (ie heart attack) or restored to basic life functions one can be wholly restored.

Lol Matt said a medical report (on Jesus death and resurrection) from a doctor would prove it's true. As if he wouldnt just discount that doctor, as a Christian conspirator like he does the other witnesses. Plus he would want tons of doctors to confirm it also.

Matt: I'm not convinced. Trent: What would convince you? Matt: Errr... I don't know

Just because an extraordinary claim puportedly occurred in ancient times when we arent able to investigate any such claims rigorously, doesnt mean we should be lowering our standard of evidence. If someone today claimed to have Superman powers, I would need some serious well-documented, scientific evidence. If someone 2000 years ago claimed the same thing, I would STILL need some serious well-documented scientific evidence.

As a Christian, I like watching Matt throw down in a debate; it's good. He knows how to think at a level that takes, experience, and mental horsepower. I appreciate him holding Trents feet to the fire on the Yes, or No question because what came out was, essentially, faith is the underline difference. Also, if he didn't press Trent we may not have got the response; that a miracle is unique to the general expectation, which, though obvious, is a fair point in this context. Really good conversation in my opinion.

I like how he immediately attempts to flip the burden of proof on Matt.

one of the best debates I've heard so far.

Nice debate.

Trent having to keep switching to last names to distinguish between Matts brought a little bit of levity to the conversation.

Scientific Materialism is unreasonable

Every time someone mentions group hallucinations I just think about the Dancing Plague video on Puppet History. lmao

If a large number of the 600 mentioned resurrections were proven with concrete evidence to be true, this would not be good for the Jesus resurrection story as it would make it a commonplace event not necessarily connected to an intervening diety, rather the result of unknown physical processes.

“Ummm what kind of physical evidence would a resurrection have?” Jesus, maybe? He can just hang out where anyone could see him, all the time. We could hear straight from him what he wants, instead of relying on priests.

Matt's method seems to be to take Trent's views, which obviously require explanation and nuance, reduce them to yes/no questions that no one can reasonably get behind 100%, and not accept any answer that contains more than one word. Having forced Trent to admit a strawman that does not reflect his true beliefs, Matt can declare Trent an unreasonable credulous fool. Interestingly, this method was not reciprocated; and when Trent did rephrase Matt to use yes/no questions (without insisting on it), Matt did not give a yes/no answer, but gave a more nuanced answer, the kind he refused Trent.

While the debate was good, it was a mistake to give this a thumbs-up for I really did need an invite for a journey to Mecca.

33:33 Did that guy get hit by the Flying Spaghetti Monster? 😂

Omg I'm 9 minutes in and this is brutal. You just equated the feasibility of riding elephants with thr resurrection of the dead.

Can you please set up a debate between Trent or Stephanie gray and the channel God is grey

Convincing evidence that has been experienced would be convincing by definition.

Thor invented the wheel and he rolled everywhere without an engine. He must not have seen B.C. before

Matt (Fradd), what state are you from? Surely your favourite beer has to be Tooheys New, VB or XXXX

Pints with Aquianas is the Catholic version of Capturing Christianity

47:40 so a medical doctor can determine if someone is dead because he/she just “believes”that person is dead… science my friends

Who are the authors?

Once one is willing to accept such extraordinary claims based on testimony, you've stepped outside the bounds of being "reasonable".

The fact that there is even a debate about a resurrection, is a strong inductive indicator that a resurrection never happened at all.

Matt, I have watched and admired your adhereance to rationally evidenced science/truth.. I always find your debating believers to become, over the span of a show, to wind up discussing everything except the points you make.. Ultimately, i find the desperation they appear to bear in trying to get you to a "Wow, you got me." moment that their conversations will reach farther and farther until it just becomes idealized absurdism.. No matter how you shuffle a deck of cards one will never suddenly pull out a tree, a rooster, a rock... Just cards I thank you Matt for sharing your journey and your keen mind with all of us for many years, now...Great work!!!

Well done to both

This is how debates should be. Both men were respectful and respectable. My favourite beer is Keith's IPA and Keith's Red. Except in the summer, it is Pump House Blueberry Ale.

Why would it be reasonable to believe someone came back from the dead?

1:47:10 Trent is correct. Matt has no standard of proving the resurrection. Trent shouldve answered Matt every time "im not convinced". Give him a taste of his own medicine.

46:30 That was a dunk

Thanks Trent, from a Dillahunty fan. A Christian apologist with an intellectual view is refreshing.