Тёмный

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

Pints With Aquinas
Подписаться 548 тыс.
Просмотров 818 тыс.
50% 1

Trent Horn will debate Matt Dillahunty on whether It is reasonable to believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. Then we'll be taking questions from patrons and super chatters.
Learn more about Matt Dillahunty here: www.axp.show/
Learn more about Trent Horn here: www.trenthorn.com/
🔴 FREE E-book "You Can Understand Aquinas": pintswithaquinas.com/understa...
🔴 SPONSORS
Hallow: hallow.com/mattfradd
STRIVE: www.strive21.com/
Catholic Chemistry: www.catholicchemistry.com/?ut...
🔴 GIVING
Patreon or Directly: pintswithaquinas.com/support/
This show (and all the plans we have in store) wouldn't be possible without you. I can't thank those of you who support me enough. Seriously! Thanks for essentially being a co-producer co-producer of the show.
🔴 LINKS
Website: pintswithaquinas.com/​
Merch: teespring.com/stores/matt-fradd
FREE 21 Day Detox From Porn Course: www.strive21.com/​
🔴 SOCIAL
Facebook: / mattfradd​
Twitter: / mattfradd​
Instagram: / mattfradd​
Gab: gab.com/mattfradd

Опубликовано:

 

7 апр 2021

Поделиться:

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист
Посмотреть позже
Комментарии : 19 тыс.   
@conner200
@conner200 3 года назад
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
@weinschelbarretto3263
@weinschelbarretto3263 3 года назад
All superheroes don't wear capes lol
@ericlucas82
@ericlucas82 3 года назад
Connor Harris is a superhero.
@eldritchwulfe
@eldritchwulfe 3 года назад
thanks for the timestamps
@j.victor
@j.victor 3 года назад
Thanks for doing this!
@chizomero4843
@chizomero4843 3 года назад
Thanks :)
@JosVanWeesel
@JosVanWeesel 10 месяцев назад
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.
@thetrib1
@thetrib1 10 месяцев назад
Welp
@shaqyardie8105
@shaqyardie8105 10 месяцев назад
christianity in a nutshell.
@jebellion4833
@jebellion4833 10 месяцев назад
Are you referring to the moment around 45:30? If so, that's not what happened. At this point in the video, the audio cuts out a bit, but I think the question that Matt is asking Trent is: "Do you think it is reasonable/possible that resurrections (other than Jesus') are likely happening now?" Trent replies that it is possible, but he thinks it would be infrequent. Matt asks how he knows its possible. Trent replies that it is because Jesus rose from the dead. So, in Trent's view, it is possible that resurrections could being occurring now because Jesus, being God, was resurrected and has the power to resurrect. So from Trent, this is not a circular argument but rather a reasonable conclusion to hold IF the claim that Jesus was resurrected is reasonable. Which is the focus of the debate, and what this line of questioning from Matt fails to address. So it just pushes the question back: is it then reasonable to believe that Jesus was resurrected from the dead? Which, I believe, Trent managed to argue that yes, it is indeed reasonable. Cheers.
@shaqyardie8105
@shaqyardie8105 10 месяцев назад
@@jebellion4833 Wow! A whole lotta nothing to come to the same conclusion. The only evidence Trent and all christians have that a man died and came back to life is that a book said it happened. Outside of that, nada.
@KorruptedFlame
@KorruptedFlame 10 месяцев назад
@@shaqyardie8105 So the same exact evidence that we have for every other historical claim/"fact"? Gotcha lol
@ultramagnus8240
@ultramagnus8240 3 года назад
At one point I thought Matt was going to hang up on him 😁😁😁
@catearth8864
@catearth8864 3 года назад
@Roberto Cartwrighto yeah I would too if my performance was embarrassing as matts 😅
@pumpuppthevolume
@pumpuppthevolume 3 года назад
he did it ....when it was over :P
@BenJover
@BenJover 3 года назад
@@catearth8864 0/10 troll attempt. That was so bad that you should feel bad.
@mobilegamersunite
@mobilegamersunite 3 года назад
@@BenJover right! Lol 😂
@Carlos-fl6ch
@Carlos-fl6ch 3 года назад
That actually is funny
@MrDSAPPY
@MrDSAPPY 4 месяца назад
Every time I watch any clip with Matt, RU-vid’s broken algorithm auto plays this video.
@Robert-Downey-Syndrome
@Robert-Downey-Syndrome 3 месяца назад
An Aron Ra video sent me here
@jordanmenc3454
@jordanmenc3454 3 месяца назад
What a great show! I enjoy these two actually talking about everything civilly. Great debate!
@8slkmic
@8slkmic 3 года назад
Yes to the cross exam. No one wants to just hear you talk for 30 mins and not be questioned about what your saying.
@iMilhouse
@iMilhouse Месяц назад
Excellent debate format; very informative
@manfredconnor3194
@manfredconnor3194 6 месяцев назад
I love how Matt was looking for the button to hang up @49:15.
@virtualpaladin3507
@virtualpaladin3507 3 месяца назад
lol he couldn't help himself
@JohnnyNada
@JohnnyNada 2 месяца назад
HAHAHAHHAA
@lynneshine6606
@lynneshine6606 3 года назад
I am so excited to watch the replay of this debate!
@mathew4181
@mathew4181 3 года назад
Proof of resurrection Shroud of Turin . The Shroud of Turin is a centuries old linen cloth that bears the image of a crucified man. A man that millions believe to be Jesus of Nazareth. Is it really the cloth that wrapped his crucified body, or is it simply a medieval forgery, a hoax perpetrated by some clever artist? Modern science has completed hundreds of thousands of hours of detailed study and intense research on the Shroud. It is, in fact, the single most studied artifact in human history, and we know more about it today than we ever have before. And yet, the controversy still rages. This web site will keep you abreast of current research, provide you with accurate data from the previous research and let you interact with the researchers themselves. We believe that if you have access to the facts, you can make up your own mind about the Shroud. Make sure you visit the page where you can Examine the Shroud of Turin for yourself. We hope you enjoy your visit. Barrie M. Schwortz, Editor. shroud.com/ ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-w4RBXVs70_g.html m.ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-4G4sj8hUVaY.html
@ishmael2586
@ishmael2586 Год назад
Weirdo
@galileovenica6449
@galileovenica6449 3 года назад
When Matt said "my mom is a fundamentalist southern Baptist" I understood many things...
@paul_321
@paul_321 3 года назад
He’s an atheist now 🤔
@tonywallens217
@tonywallens217 3 года назад
😂
@icebread8857
@icebread8857 3 года назад
Ex fundie lol
@nancyjanzen5676
@nancyjanzen5676 3 года назад
So did I.
@nancyjanzen5676
@nancyjanzen5676 3 года назад
@@paul_321 but he is still arguing always against fundamentalism which no Catholic believes either.
@mayur0pawar
@mayur0pawar 6 месяцев назад
liked the debate format
@StatsBloke
@StatsBloke 6 месяцев назад
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.
@scottblack7182
@scottblack7182 5 месяцев назад
No
@plasticvision6355
@plasticvision6355 Год назад
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.
@2fast2block
@2fast2block Год назад
To be an atheist is to not show much reasoning. Think. Do it for you, not for me or anyone else, but YOU. It is ABSURD to conclude we got all this on its own naturally. Matt is just some clueless being followed by other clueless beings. I can badmouth religions till the cows come home and for good reason, but God is not a religion. Man made religions. What God made, man can't make. The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
@murph8411
@murph8411 Год назад
Well it’s not exactly the 1st law of thermodynamics but the law of conservation of energy and both apply to a closed system. Neither even suggest a god or if or how the cosmos came into being. As soon as Trent started with the apostles suffered and said they saw a risen Jesus stuff I was tempted to give up as we only have anonymous authors and Paul’s word on who saw what. Paul spoke to Peter and Jesus’s brother James but none of the other people who supposedly saw a risen Jesus. At least that’s what Paul says but that isn’t exactly much in the way of evidence. Especially given it seems Paul didn’t exactly agree with James and Peter. It’s also strange how James didn’t believe in his own brother when he was alive. Didn’t he see the miracles? Didn’t Jesus’s mother also turn up with his brothers to take him in hand at one point when he was alive? Wouldn’t his mother support him and tell his brothers about Gabriel visiting her and what she was told?
@plasticvision6355
@plasticvision6355 Год назад
@@2fast2block Personal incredulity and arguing from ignorance are themselves logical fallacies. It is deeply ironic that you are pleading with me and other atheist to think critically when you show in your very comment that critical thinking is the last thing you’ve applied and are capable of exercising. Pitiful.
@bobbrereton135
@bobbrereton135 Год назад
@@2fast2block You poor lost soul. You are in way over yer noggin.
@2fast2block
@2fast2block Год назад
@@murph8411 "but the law of conservation of energy and both apply to a closed system." Clueless you, the universe is an isolated system. If it wasn't, well, the laws would not be laws. Do show though how the universe can be anything but isolated. You skipped that key point. About the 2nd law, it works in all three systems. The definition does not exclude the other two systems. To think that the 2nd law does not apply to the universe and to the earth also, shows how tiny your brain is.
@greaper123
@greaper123 3 года назад
First time on the channel .. VERY well organized debate! Really enjoyed both speakers...
@scottblack7182
@scottblack7182 5 месяцев назад
No
@parkernelson3775
@parkernelson3775 3 месяца назад
@@scottblack7182yes
@psychicvoid3512
@psychicvoid3512 8 месяцев назад
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
@backinblack03
@backinblack03 4 месяца назад
Apart from the word salad
@joe5959
@joe5959 3 месяца назад
​@@backinblack03"youre just playing word games!🤓"
@ThichabodCrane
@ThichabodCrane 3 месяца назад
Maybe if being a "good conversor" was to grasp at "gotchas" and creating strawmans. You should really look up what these words mean if you are having trouble understanding what a "good conversor" would be...
@Robert-Downey-Syndrome
@Robert-Downey-Syndrome 3 месяца назад
​@@ThichabodCraneyou are good commentor
@llamahguy7229
@llamahguy7229 3 месяца назад
​@ThichabodCrane Do you have any examples of those strawmans and "gotchas".
@user-yn2ct2ie9m
@user-yn2ct2ie9m 8 месяцев назад
Need to get Gary Habermas on a debate with dillahunty for this topic
@Tony-gg3nd
@Tony-gg3nd 2 года назад
What a great debate. Very interesting and respectful. Also a big shout to the moderator who did a great job. 👍🏻
@davehenderson3739
@davehenderson3739 2 года назад
When it comes to debates, Matt is very tolerant and respectful.
@johndoney2665
@johndoney2665 2 года назад
@XICODECOPA Well you don`t have to believe, or obey, just don`t complain about the consequences when they catch up with you
@mikeb9638
@mikeb9638 2 года назад
This isn't even remotely a debate 😂. Trent was obliterated.
@bobbyhunsaker8233
@bobbyhunsaker8233 2 года назад
@@johndoney2665 There's no hate quite like Christian "love."
@jerrylong6238
@jerrylong6238 2 года назад
@@johndoney2665 That sounds a lot like a threat to me, do you have any proof something is going to catch up with you?
@karlkalina3022
@karlkalina3022 2 года назад
"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.
@paulgribble3832
@paulgribble3832 2 года назад
Gotta love circular arguments
@emanuelgaldes3515
@emanuelgaldes3515 2 года назад
Resurrections are not likely to be happening today, nor were they likely to have happened yesteryear. If they had been that common, Jesus would not have accomplished much by having resurrected Himself. The atheist wants a certificate from a doctor in Roman times to believe. How sweet of him and idiotic.
@paulgribble3832
@paulgribble3832 2 года назад
@@emanuelgaldes3515 how exactly is it idiotic to want evidence beyond "The book says it happened"???
@karlkalina3022
@karlkalina3022 2 года назад
@@emanuelgaldes3515 Because we have no good evidence that resurrections have ever happened, it is a claim that would require extraordinary evidence to support. The only idiots are those who believe the claim WITHOUT extraordinary evidence.
@amadain17
@amadain17 2 года назад
@@emanuelgaldes3515 sure resurections were commonplace in the good ol' roman days. Lazaris was resurrected and before Jesus's resurrection the saint's all resurrected and partied with the living (Matthew 27:52). Nothing special about it at all those days
@rager4able
@rager4able 6 месяцев назад
This was structured well 👍
@scottblack7182
@scottblack7182 5 месяцев назад
No
@rio20d
@rio20d 8 месяцев назад
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.
@TorianTammas
@TorianTammas 3 месяца назад
One believes Superman is real based on the comics of Superman.
@aerotorc
@aerotorc 3 года назад
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.
@seanbirch
@seanbirch 3 года назад
they really dont
@zapkvr
@zapkvr 3 года назад
It wasnt interesting at all. Trent spent the entire time deflecting and dissembling. He's a grifter. And not a very good one.
@seanbirch
@seanbirch 3 года назад
@@pastormikewinger7212 fart noises
@kirby1pro
@kirby1pro 3 года назад
@@pastormikewinger7212 This sounds like the ramblings of a mental patient, or a poor attempt at deception.
@pleaseenteraname1103
@pleaseenteraname1103 Год назад
@@zapkvr that’s not an argument actually he gave a criterium, and actually gave arguments to support his position, unlike Matt Dillahunty, Who didn’t even attempt to substantively counts or any of his points or any of his standards, his only argument is he’s not convinced I don’t know and you don’t know, and then when I asked how he knows that Thent doesn’t know, he replies with I don’t know 😂😂😂.
@interestingreligion5204
@interestingreligion5204 3 года назад
That was really interesting.
@shamefulcritic1125
@shamefulcritic1125 19 часов назад
“If claims are evidence, then the claim that claims aren’t evidence is evidence that claims aren’t evidence.” -Matt dillahunty.
@dynamic9016
@dynamic9016 3 месяца назад
Very interesting debate.
@BigDaddyAddyMS
@BigDaddyAddyMS 3 года назад
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?
@ericb.1384
@ericb.1384 3 года назад
First bit, he's speaking of the general area. Second bit, he means we don't know which one exactly, out of many tombs.
@chuckhaugan4970
@chuckhaugan4970 3 года назад
@@ericb.1384 LOL!!!! Really? Then he has nothing. But, what can one expect from faith? My Dad had faith he'd win the lottery. LOL! Same thing.
@xnoreq
@xnoreq 3 года назад
@@ericb.1384 Chuck is right, then he has nothing. Putting a building where believers gathered because they believed something happened there to deter them doesn't make their beliefs true. The ideas about Jesus' grave as described in the Bible are completely ridiculous anyway. That's not how executed criminals were interred. It's a mythological story and believers picking some random grave doesn't magically make the story reality.
@juance2262
@juance2262 3 года назад
@@chuckhaugan4970 False analogy.
@juance2262
@juance2262 3 года назад
@@xnoreq Why?
@adamaxton9641
@adamaxton9641 2 года назад
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.
@Deto4508
@Deto4508 2 года назад
Not having an explanation is his truth, not truth in itself, that’s when our reason and faith are combined, that’s when we understand Truth himself, God.
@BrentCatesMusic
@BrentCatesMusic 2 года назад
@@Deto4508 faith is simply choosing to believe something without good evidence. I’d rather just say “I don’t have the answer and when there is sufficient evidence, I will believe the claim”
@Deto4508
@Deto4508 2 года назад
@@MrTheclevercat When you say “evidence against them”, what do you mean? That I don’t have good enough evidence to believe in the particular thing I believe in, or that I’m believing in something that’s in contradiction with logic or science?
@Deto4508
@Deto4508 2 года назад
@@MrTheclevercat What evidence exactly is that because scientific methods of evaluation aren’t really in place to assess whether the supernatural and God is real or not. I don’t exactly know what you mean by supernatural claims conflicting with each other as well, I apologize, but if you don’t mind can you clarify it a bit more. And I’m not necessarily here to make the case for Religion as a whole but Christianity instead and so that’s mainly where if you have any objections, which you seem to do, I would like for you to hit at, because I do fall the contrary and feel there is good evidence and ultimately reason, to assent in belief in Christianity.
@Deto4508
@Deto4508 2 года назад
@@MrTheclevercat What kind of proof would be sufficient for you to come to reason that’s Christianity, at the least, is reasonable?
@sebastianalberty715
@sebastianalberty715 8 месяцев назад
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.
@nathanmckenzie904
@nathanmckenzie904 8 месяцев назад
Would you believe a story of anyone else being brought back from the dead based on stories from people that weren't there?
@sebastianalberty715
@sebastianalberty715 8 месяцев назад
@@nathanmckenzie904 clearly you haven’t read the Bible cause they did see him get crucified and they saw him after risen alive with all the scars to prove it was actually him. Not just the disciples saw him but over 500 people saw him after he rose from the grave. I believe eye witnesses. Especially when they believed it so deeply that they were given a choice to recant or die and they choose to die. They clearly believed they had seen him. Considering the religious context and historical context. The physical Resurrection is not just rational it is probable. It is the one hypothesis that explains everything, from the empty tomb, to Christianity’s massive explosion in the first century.
@shaqyardie8105
@shaqyardie8105 8 месяцев назад
@@sebastianalberty715 Great, your only evidence that a man died and came back to life is that a book said it happened. Why don't you believe the supernatural claims in the koran also? 500 people saw him after he died? Who took the time out to do a head count for this? lol
@sebastianalberty715
@sebastianalberty715 8 месяцев назад
@@shaqyardie8105 my evidence for every record historical event is that’s written in a book or other written media. What’s your evidence that Alexander the a great exist? Yeah a book that talks about his life. Source of Alexander the Great were written 400 plus years agter and no questions it. The gospel were written by eye witnesses, who say everything Jesus did. I choose to believe eye witnesses on what happened, when there account is the one explanation for what happened. The resurrection is the only thing that explains all the events that followed. The empty tomb, the appearance after resurrection, the spread of Christianity, and why the followers of Jesus chose to die, and if they were lying why die for it. Jews at the time wouldn’t have believed in a bodily resurrection of the messiah, they believe resurrection happened for all people at the end times. Unless they actually touched Gina nd spent time with him they wouldn’t have believed it. In the gospel they didn’t believe right away, they are convinced cause Jesus spend forty days with them after the resurrection.
@cbtam4333
@cbtam4333 5 месяцев назад
@@shaqyardie8105 Yes, ancient people did not have the mental ability to count heads. They only had 10 fingers, right?
@macfid
@macfid 7 месяцев назад
One of the better discussions I've heard on this subject.
@scottblack7182
@scottblack7182 5 месяцев назад
No
@2ndPigeon
@2ndPigeon 4 месяца назад
@@scottblack7182 yes
@andrewfairborn6762
@andrewfairborn6762 3 месяца назад
@@2ndPigeoncan you say why it’s yes?
@2ndPigeon
@2ndPigeon 3 месяца назад
@@andrewfairborn6762 Because they both offer eachother beer
@andrewfairborn6762
@andrewfairborn6762 3 месяца назад
@@2ndPigeon that in no way makes sense
@petergermanese
@petergermanese 2 года назад
That sponsorship made me almost spit out my coffee lmao
@sammysosadchoom
@sammysosadchoom 2 года назад
i spat out mine, then proceeded to sign up.
@ArmandoRove
@ArmandoRove 2 года назад
🤣🤣🤣🤣
@HTGY6YTH67Y
@HTGY6YTH67Y Год назад
It almost seemed like a parody
@Grace-it8jc
@Grace-it8jc Год назад
ME TOO LMAO
@AJAlvarado82
@AJAlvarado82 Год назад
They making it too easy for priests now.
@repulblicanguy1650
@repulblicanguy1650 3 года назад
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?
@YovanypadillaJr
@YovanypadillaJr 3 года назад
Oh Yes, please. Add Molinism vs Thomism
@alpacamaster5992
@alpacamaster5992 3 года назад
@@YovanypadillaJr I feel that the Gramh Oppy-Alexander Pruss debate is the debate I want most
@onlychaosmatters
@onlychaosmatters 3 года назад
@@alpacamaster5992 It would be the endgame of debates
@onlychaosmatters
@onlychaosmatters 3 года назад
@@alpacamaster5992 Final boss of theism vs final boss of atheism
@teamarie123
@teamarie123 3 года назад
Oooooo I would love Shannon q and Mari pablo!!!!
@dennisheins257
@dennisheins257 8 месяцев назад
How rare and how thrilling, two intelligent and passionate men having a respectful discussion. Well done!
@steveanton763
@steveanton763 8 месяцев назад
Who else was there other than Matt?
@owenwilliams105
@owenwilliams105 8 месяцев назад
Being respectful is totally irrelevant.
@BK-rl5lw
@BK-rl5lw 7 месяцев назад
@@steveanton763Definitely not Matt. Typical atheist comment
@joerdim
@joerdim 7 месяцев назад
48:07 There is absolutely nothing intelligent about what Trent is doing there.
@picitnew
@picitnew 6 месяцев назад
​@@joerdim I totally agree. Kudos to Trent for not being dishonest, like most religious people will be during a debate. But his language throughout this debate shows that Trent never has been really challenged on his religious beliefs. Talking for example "plausible" vs "unplausible" when talking about things that has never been proven to have happen shows a troublesome knowledge with probability and rationality. Knowledgeable, honest and sincere about his beliefs? Yes. Intellectual? No. Trent is showing that most honest, decent people are fully capable of being tricked into believing almost anyhing because they haven't ever learned basic critical thinking.
@user-yq5kc8wo4h
@user-yq5kc8wo4h 16 дней назад
this was great
@john_reese
@john_reese 3 года назад
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 ?
@Chris-cs7nv
@Chris-cs7nv 3 года назад
I wonder whether he would accept a miracle from another religion if it had the same type of evidence. Many people claiming that they saw it, people allegedly dying for the belief, women instead of men making the report of something relevant to the miracle (for example an empty tomb if we are talking about a resurrection miracle) etc. At some point they would have to accept it in order to be consistent.
@john_reese
@john_reese 3 года назад
@@Chris-cs7nv Do you watch PineCreek ? This seems a lot like his "flying man"
@Chris-cs7nv
@Chris-cs7nv 3 года назад
@@john_reese that's exactly it. His idea.
@mikethemonsta15
@mikethemonsta15 3 года назад
During cross exam, he attacked Matt's standard for resurrection claims generally. The fact that Matt doesn't really have any objective standard. Trent's position is consistent throughout: 1) Trent has a 3 prong approach for establishing the reasonability of unique historical claims. (Detailed in his opening) 2) Matt does not have an objective approach for establishing reasonability of unique historical claims. 3) Jesus Resurrection is the most unique claim that satisfies the objective three prong criteria for establishing reasonability. Therefore, since Trent gave a standard that Jesus satisfies and Matt failed to provide a standard at all, Trent wins.
@joseonwalking8666
@joseonwalking8666 3 года назад
Just cause someone is using a form of argumentation to explore an opponents views doesnt mean they need to subscribe to it personally
@SaintCharbelMiracleworker
@SaintCharbelMiracleworker 3 года назад
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?
@nmn3541
@nmn3541 3 года назад
It’s just you. Matt has been doing this a long time on RU-vid and he’s always been awesome.
@SaintCharbelMiracleworker
@SaintCharbelMiracleworker 3 года назад
@@nmn3541 Ive never seen a debate on his channel before. Which debates are you referring to?
@nmn3541
@nmn3541 3 года назад
@@SaintCharbelMiracleworker a simple search on RU-vid or google will provide you with numerous examples of Matt debating theists. He always brings his A game. Watch some atheist experience episodes on here with him hosting if you want to see him discuss theism with average theists or he has many debates with religious scholars posted as well.
@SaintCharbelMiracleworker
@SaintCharbelMiracleworker 3 года назад
@@nmn3541 I wasn't taking about Matt the debater. I was talking about Matt Fradd, this is his channel. We got our wires crossed. 😂
@nmn3541
@nmn3541 3 года назад
@@SaintCharbelMiracleworker lol that’s funny. sorry about that! Still hoping that you check out Matt Dillahunty’s videos though haha
@MusikSarawak-zu3ic
@MusikSarawak-zu3ic 6 месяцев назад
The two debaters showing respect to each other. Awesome.
@scottblack7182
@scottblack7182 5 месяцев назад
No 🤣
@MrWinMrWin-qr2bn
@MrWinMrWin-qr2bn 5 месяцев назад
Um are we watching the same debate? 48:50 😂
@MusikSarawak-zu3ic
@MusikSarawak-zu3ic 5 месяцев назад
@@MrWinMrWin-qr2bn That is considered and so does the whole debate.okay. You have not watched the others debates os Matt till he was pissed and one debate he even left the debates.
@MrWinMrWin-qr2bn
@MrWinMrWin-qr2bn 5 месяцев назад
@@MusikSarawak-zu3ic I think it's okay to disagree but when one side starts getting angry and rude it really never looks good.
@MusikSarawak-zu3ic
@MusikSarawak-zu3ic 5 месяцев назад
@@MrWinMrWin-qr2bn Actually every atheist hates one thing which is Christians not answering their simple questions directly instead they talk about something else which does not answer the question.
@felixmeier3298
@felixmeier3298 7 месяцев назад
that was awesome
@terrencelally2150
@terrencelally2150 3 года назад
That was as good as I had hoped it would be
@glassworks4850
@glassworks4850 3 года назад
@@pastormikewinger7212 get out of here scammer
@tonyl3762
@tonyl3762 Год назад
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.
@GodsDefender-
@GodsDefender- 8 месяцев назад
Here you go, Josephus, Pliny the Younger, Lucian of Samosata, Celsus, Porphyry etc.. how many do you need ? While some of them and their writings are critical of Christians, they still confirm the existence of Christian communities during his time.
@tonyl3762
@tonyl3762 8 месяцев назад
@@GodsDefender- I'm not saying there are no hostile witnesses. I'm saying Trent could have done a better job providing them and explaining their significance for the debate. I'm referring viewers to a book that does a better job meeting that challenge.
@ramigilneas9274
@ramigilneas9274 7 месяцев назад
@@GodsDefender- It’s still strange that none of those sources mention a resurrection or any of the supposed miracles of Jesus… almost as if no non-Christian source who wrote about Christians knew anything about their most basic beliefs. Also… those would be great sources in debates like "Is it reasonable to think that Jesus existed?“ or "Is it reasonable to think that some Christian sects already existed in the 1st century?“… but in this debate those sources are irrelevant.
@ttff-bd2yf
@ttff-bd2yf 7 месяцев назад
​@@GodsDefender-josephus is a heavily interpolatated section of antiquities it's problematic, we don't have what celsus wrote, that's also much later. Porphyry is also much later. The others just mention Christians or the cult of Christianity that claims Jesus rose from the dead. None of these are contemporary hostile accounts.
@gusgrizzel8397
@gusgrizzel8397 7 месяцев назад
@@ramigilneas9274 Agree, surely there were people who would have know about Lazarus being raised from the dead and at least one person seeing him.
@Lord9Genesis
@Lord9Genesis 5 месяцев назад
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.
@jamescrawford3956
@jamescrawford3956 5 месяцев назад
What do you disagree with, please?
@O_Canada
@O_Canada 4 месяца назад
trent should be debating goldfish.
@pinball1970
@pinball1970 4 месяца назад
​@@O_CanadaI have seen worse theist arguments. Trent should have been more direct with a few of his answers.
@pinball1970
@pinball1970 4 месяца назад
​@@O_CanadaThe resurrection claims part was silly. Of course they do not happen. Not one verified resurrection claim, on the planet by professional scientists using modern techniques ever.
@Techy-fem
@Techy-fem 2 месяца назад
Calm? Perhaps not 100% of the time - 8mins to drill… be rude…
@nelidascott6917
@nelidascott6917 Месяц назад
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..
@chrisdistant9040
@chrisdistant9040 9 месяцев назад
As an atheist, props for the civilized format and debate!
@Omar.313
@Omar.313 8 месяцев назад
Yh great debate but matt needs to relise God gives us free will so it's up to you to believe or not. God proves himself by miracles and witnesses which is good evidence.
@chrisdistant9040
@chrisdistant9040 8 месяцев назад
@@Omar.313 I am infallible and all-knowing, and I say you have no idea how epistemology works or what qualifies as evidence.
@Omar.313
@Omar.313 8 месяцев назад
@@chrisdistant9040 fair point but there are many Christians who lived and died. Scientists and philosopher's who had more knowledge then you? and understood epistemology and believed in God. Or are you saying you're smarter then every Christian who's ever existed??
@MEZZROW4444
@MEZZROW4444 8 месяцев назад
Try having a debate with a muslim lol. Very rare to see a civilized and format debate. It happens, but it's rare.
@jameskolar9655
@jameskolar9655 8 месяцев назад
@@Omar.313 fool!
@shuying2368
@shuying2368 2 года назад
I very much enjoy this civil debate! Respect to both the debaters. Thank you for hosting this 👍
@sfprivateer
@sfprivateer 2 года назад
I was gonna type the same thing. Finally a debate not filled with shouting and nonsense... but instead, we had a proper discussion. Well done by both guys!
@GonzoGonschi
@GonzoGonschi 2 года назад
no. its soo boring like this. i want blood.
@pleaseenteraname1103
@pleaseenteraname1103 Год назад
Not really for Dillahunty I mean I appreciate that he came on, only to get decimated by Trent, because he treats these debates as if they’re just discussions and not actual debates, he’s asking questions as if he’s in the audience and not actually debating. His only argument is basically I’m not convinced and you didn’t provide evidence, when Trent literally asked him what evidence would satisfy him and he said testimonial evidence and then when he gave examples of testimonial evidence, he just said that’s not sufficient.
@judyfrancis4515
@judyfrancis4515 Год назад
​​@@pleaseenteraname1103 Matt didn't say that just any old testimony would convince him. In a court of law, for example, evidence may be completely dismissed in certain cases, such as if it's unreasonable/impossible ("Matt killed that guy using black magic"); if it contradicts previous testimony; if the info is too vague to be useful ("I only saw his shadow, but it looked like a tall guy, and Matt's tall, so it must have been Matt"); if the witness falsely claims expertise in some area ("I knew Matt was having a heart attack rather than a seizure", when s/he has no medical training). There are many examples of statements which negate or diminish the veracity of testimony, so all evidence is NOT created equal.
@pleaseenteraname1103
@pleaseenteraname1103 Год назад
@@judyfrancis4515 yes and that was also the point Trent was making sometimes we have to trust testimonial evidence, and sometimes that’s all we have. And Matt literally said that’s what would convince him but then he backtracked once Trent explained to him that we have examples of that in the Bible, but then he tried to bully him into saying that he would except nothing but testimonial evidence alone when he literally said that’s what he would accept. Yes but you have to prove this is actually what is said in the gospels. Yes I agree yes I definitely agree.
@CatholicQuartet
@CatholicQuartet 2 месяца назад
I have yet to engage in a debate that proceeds and ends with such professionalism.
@SincerelyUnconscious
@SincerelyUnconscious 5 месяцев назад
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.”
@Zripas
@Zripas 5 месяцев назад
So blind faith in what book says?
@9891904317589
@9891904317589 8 дней назад
ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-kHWEGsic1Q4.html
@CaBdosdos
@CaBdosdos 3 года назад
Great conversation here, these two bounce off each other very well.
@iqgustavo
@iqgustavo 10 месяцев назад
🎯 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.
@HazhanJalal
@HazhanJalal 5 месяцев назад
I'm guessing this was A.I. generated...? If so, I would really appreciate it if you could tell me which tool it was please.
@Mayordomo32
@Mayordomo32 4 месяца назад
This is a compendious summary - you're a legend. 43:26 was an incredible "gotcha" by Trent.
@eminboztepe
@eminboztepe 3 месяца назад
@@Mayordomo32 Hmm...you must have watched a different debate then, as there was no "gotcha" at 43:26.
@_D_W_
@_D_W_ 3 месяца назад
⁠@@Mayordomo32how was asking if Matt thinks it’s unreasonable to be an ethical vegan just bc Alex O’Conner is one? Alex and Matt are not bound to agree with each other bc they are self described Atheists. Ethical veganism is a moral decision and morality is relative to the individual. This conversation has nothing to do with morality.
@oldmanpoopie
@oldmanpoopie 3 месяца назад
@@Mayordomo32you’re an idiot
@StarrDust0
@StarrDust0 17 дней назад
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. :)
@bierkofbauer
@bierkofbauer 8 месяцев назад
This has been a great debate.
@ticotechhouston4917
@ticotechhouston4917 7 месяцев назад
Not exactly. Believers are believers because faith, not evidence. Simple lithe that
@stevenwizzle533
@stevenwizzle533 3 года назад
He turns his camera on at one minute remaining? So subtle, yet such a perfect indicator. The simplest things can win you a sub ❤️
@spaceisalie5451
@spaceisalie5451 3 года назад
this was a satisfyingly funny comment
@markcollins3888
@markcollins3888 3 года назад
I just appreciate how Matt cuts through here. Sharp as a tack.
@amare.adonai5464
@amare.adonai5464 3 года назад
Who do you think won?
@brianprinty112
@brianprinty112 3 года назад
@@amare.adonai5464 I think both sides won for arguing honestly. I think Matt won on established facts. We all won as an audience because we got to watch an honest debate rather than a Ken Ham crazy fest
@amare.adonai5464
@amare.adonai5464 3 года назад
@Jim Merrilees well how do you think this whole resurrection theory started? You don't believe they found an empty tomb,? Christianity was up and running when Paul came into the picture. His letters can be dated 10 years after the death of Jesus. It's not the time from then to now that matters. What matters is the time the claims originated. For some reason the followers of Jesus thought he rose from the dead. As a Christian we can't necessarily prove Jesus rose from the dead, but we can prove that his followers claimed he did. So where did this idea come from?
@amare.adonai5464
@amare.adonai5464 3 года назад
@Jim Merrilees testimony is a form of evidence. We have multiple sources Paul's letters, James, Peter , Luke, Matthew..... we also have the talmudic writings, these were all separate books at one point. These are all different individuals claiming the same thing. If you were a juror and had to judge whether a man was guilty of stealing with no physical evidence only eyewitnesses testimony you could still make that judgment. It also helps when there's more than one witness, just as the resurrection of Jesus was. Yes anybody can claim anything but I don't think Christianity wouldn't have gone far if something didn't happen.
@robinrobyn1714
@robinrobyn1714 3 года назад
I just appreciate how Trent cuts through here. Sharp as a tack.
@humesspoon3176
@humesspoon3176 5 месяцев назад
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.
@kwk111
@kwk111 5 месяцев назад
53:35 to be specific. Cheers
@SnakeWasRight
@SnakeWasRight 5 месяцев назад
Yeah, it's not a black and white thing, it isnt that testimony either IS or IS NOT reliable. There is a huge spectrum of trustworthiness.
@humbleservant1294
@humbleservant1294 5 месяцев назад
You ever heard of ppl dying on an operating table and coming back to life? I’m confused why anyone would think bringing someone back to life isn’t possible
@SnakeWasRight
@SnakeWasRight 5 месяцев назад
@@humbleservant1294 yeah okay, let's all pretend that medical science and resuscitation of someone whose brain has not yet rotted is the same thing as MAGIC raising someone from a state of actual exsanguination and ROT. Are you suggesting God sent a team of doctors to give the (mostly) dead Jesus a blood transfusion and some chest compressions? After his brain was starved of oxygen for THREE DAYS?? What a pathetic, bad faith attempt at WORD GAMES. In a medical context, to borrow from a great movie again, people who are brought back are only MOSTLY dead, which means they are slightly alive. The BRAIN is still alive. Many of your cells remain alive for hours after the heart stops beating and brain cells start to die IRREVERSIBLY. As long as there is little to no BRAIN DAMAGE, then if you get the PIPES going again, then you ARENT ACTUALLY DEAD because the BRAIN didn't die. So, it isnt resurrection. It isn't raising someone from death, it's ACTUALLY bringing someone back from the BRINK of death. So, what are you talking about? A medical intervention in 1st century Judea to save Jesus from the BRINK of death? Or a miracle saving him from ACTUAL death? Do not even dare, EVER, compare the two again.
@humesspoon3176
@humesspoon3176 5 месяцев назад
@@humbleservant1294 Yeah, a million times in fact (slight hyperbole). The difference between those is that Jesus didn't require a defibrillator to come back to life, nor did he come back to life with the aid of another person on Earth. It was something he did in a time without that technology and it was something he sort of did himself (maybe Yahweh helped, too, if Yahweh is separate in this case). So, no, not even slightly similar in terms of epistemological scale.
@ScottDonnelly-gs4xm
@ScottDonnelly-gs4xm 6 месяцев назад
No way he would have been able to move the stone considering he was dead an hour or two before
@rethinkyourself1
@rethinkyourself1 4 месяца назад
Yeah, because this whole story is fiction. You're welcome.
@hannahalice1000
@hannahalice1000 3 года назад
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
@ghostapostle7225
@ghostapostle7225 3 года назад
There're several events that has to be explained in that context, the atheist/agnostic/whatever mistake about this subject is thinking that discussion is only about the resurrection, ignoring that it's about a whole set of events wich, in the christian view, it's better explained with Christ resurrection. Either you disprove these set of events or come up with a better explanation for those.
@utubepunk
@utubepunk 3 года назад
@@ghostapostle7225 You're shifting the burden of proof there.
@hannahalice1000
@hannahalice1000 3 года назад
@@ghostapostle7225 I notice you didn't address my point at all. Strange that
@davemacdougall6039
@davemacdougall6039 3 года назад
@@ghostapostle7225 Nope, that's not how the world works.
@peterkirk8510
@peterkirk8510 3 года назад
@@urbandesitv3529 uh, no, in cases like this, you have to adequately demonstrate that something has happened before you can expect another to believe it. In this case, you’d have to demonstrate that a resurrection had occurred, you wouldn’t be able to say “a resurrection occurred” and tell us we now have to show that it didn’t occur.
@leyrua
@leyrua Год назад
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.
@Jonathan-tw4xm
@Jonathan-tw4xm Год назад
Honestly why not accept testimony that is kinda stupid. Based on this period of time what would have been the best evidence. A news article? Video footage? Blogs? Audio recordings? Idk what he wants but if there is sufficient evidence. We can look at testimony in this case as well as the impact of jesus till this day. He either duped people for 2000 years or he is telling the truth.
@leyrua
@leyrua Год назад
@@Jonathan-tw4xm Either somebody violated the laws of physics and reality as we know it, or somebody didn't and it was just a myth, like Zeus? Arguing from longevity isn't a good argument either. Christianity has primarily been around for as long as it has because of how brutally it has forced itself upon others. Plus, there are older religions. Wouldn't that make them more plausible, since they have been around even longer?
@brucetopping248
@brucetopping248 11 месяцев назад
@@Jonathan-tw4xm Do you accept testimony from all the *OTHER* religious books, too? Have you ever read about Romulus or other gods? We'd expect an all-powerful god to do better than write a book in a dead language with no surviving copies. Honestly putting a message presumed to be this important, all in a book, when you know languages die out and change over time, is absurd. Goes along with the rest of the absurdity, frankly. talking donkeys, virgin births, fish swallowing men, resurrection. Seems to be obviously the stuff of fairy tales and legend... but if you grow up with it and your parents and community tell you it's true then you create a special, lower-threshold of evidence in our minds.
@Nick-Nasti
@Nick-Nasti 10 месяцев назад
@@Jonathan-tw4xmsince he’s god, how about just a tiny bit more than stories from anonymous authors?
@PA-1000
@PA-1000 10 месяцев назад
@@Nick-Nasti well we have Pual's letters so that's something
@lokdog257
@lokdog257 8 месяцев назад
I am willing to believe that Ceasar was a person, that Homer wrote plays, that George Washington founded America... all off testimonials
@ramigilneas9274
@ramigilneas9274 8 месяцев назад
We have more and especially better evidence for George Washington than for ALL characters in the entire Bible combined. Are you also willing to believe that Caesar was the son of God… or that all of the stories of the Illiad and the Odyssey actually happened… based on testimony?😂
@cbtam4333
@cbtam4333 5 месяцев назад
⁠@@ramigilneas9274 Did Caesar ever claim to be a god capable of supernatural acts or demonstrate such? The claims for him don’t seem to be the same as the claims for Jesus. Sometimes kings or emperors were believed to be some sort of demigods, but this seemed to stem more from their positions as rulers than from any specific claims or witnessed demonstrations of supernatural powers.
@Brickhouseacademy
@Brickhouseacademy Месяц назад
@@ramigilneas9274 the Bible stories clearly are not made up to fool or embellish . TD is disarming anything historical anyway as not some sort of science so you couldn’t use any history according to his logic and argument used in this debate
@09Dragonite
@09Dragonite 7 месяцев назад
Lmfao that sponsor shoutout got me 😂 Where are my atheist dating websites? 😂😂
@ronitsrivastava377
@ronitsrivastava377 3 месяца назад
You really want them? I am open to dating anyone of any religion. I am not close minded.
@rager5600
@rager5600 Месяц назад
Literally any other website
@JustinaSadikova
@JustinaSadikova Месяц назад
Tinder
@donharris8846
@donharris8846 3 года назад
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
@andytekno
@andytekno Год назад
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.
@gfujigo
@gfujigo Год назад
As a Christian I fully agree with you about the tenor of this debate.
@sherpacool9931
@sherpacool9931 Год назад
youre an atheist? im not sure so i am asking. every atheist has their own worldview....atheism is just about one question....thats it. you werent implying that atheists have some collective world view were you? you meant matt and trents personal worldviews? which
@johnclark3152
@johnclark3152 8 месяцев назад
At least one of the views is erroneous.
@pleaseenteraname1103
@pleaseenteraname1103 8 месяцев назад
Except for 48:47 Matt was quite condescending.
@lrvogt1257
@lrvogt1257 7 месяцев назад
@@pleaseenteraname1103 : I didn't get that at all. He's just expressing his reasoning and that will by it's nature conflict with a different view. The questioner dismissing what Matt claimed to be his view was condescending as if Matt didn't know or explain what that belief was already.
@kyleworrall
@kyleworrall 3 месяца назад
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
@constructivecritique5191
@constructivecritique5191 4 месяца назад
The unanswered question is, what is truth? The truth is what is universally non-contradictory. We can follow truth or lies!
@jamalchristian
@jamalchristian 3 года назад
Matt just said history isn't science then said science is simply knowledge.
@Frostyd241
@Frostyd241 3 года назад
Think I've already tried to explain this to you but maybe not. Two things called google and definitions will help with that. Can't help you anymore than that.
@jamalchristian
@jamalchristian 3 года назад
@@Frostyd241 I have never interacted with or heard of you. Stop lying.
@Frostyd241
@Frostyd241 3 года назад
@@jamalchristian wow. Go right to lying? Couldn't be that maybe I'm having several discussiona at once and couldn't remember if I had said that to you or someone else. Do you always automatically jump off the handle like that? I'm totally fine with having a discussion with you but please grow up a bit if you so wish.
@jamalchristian
@jamalchristian 3 года назад
@@Frostyd241 I apologize.
@turbothrottletrouble4217
@turbothrottletrouble4217 3 года назад
I got a headache from that hahahahah. Science has to use history within their theories which was developed using the scientific method hahaha. But science translated literally means knowledge. Idk if he's taking about social sciences or natural sciences (although I presume 100% that he's talking about natural sciences- like physics bio and chem). Also, when he mentions that miracles are supernatural that doesn't obey the laws of nature, he's right to an extent, but miracles can still happen obeying the laws of nature, except the the work being done (in joules) is done by a supernatural entity.
@andrewaaboe3418
@andrewaaboe3418 3 года назад
Why is Trent Horn so afraid to admit that he accepts the ressurection solely on testimonial evidence? 49:11
@Brammy007a
@Brammy007a 3 года назад
Because he knows that his position is untenable and is desperate to do what he always does .... run at the mouth and try to obfuscate and deflect.
@trustinjesus1119
@trustinjesus1119 3 года назад
@@Brammy007a Tell Tami to ask if Rainbow can reach or reaches all of the way to GOD - well, has GOD been reached?
@SINQUEFIELD83
@SINQUEFIELD83 3 года назад
Matt D believes that biological women can be men and biological men can be women without proof or evidence... This is a bit hypocritical and scary.
@Brammy007a
@Brammy007a 3 года назад
@@SINQUEFIELD83 I know..... Matt is right about a lot of things but he is "oh so woke" which is just the new leftist bullshit social theory. Matt's line is that gender is just a social construct..... total crap.
@GSP-76
@GSP-76 3 года назад
@@Brammy007a No, he just doesn't care if someone wants to identify as a man or women or take hormones to help them be who they want to be. I agree with that wholly. Gay people don't choose to be gay.
@jamesmangold7563
@jamesmangold7563 15 дней назад
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.
@jnorth1000
@jnorth1000 8 дней назад
They get very angry because it's ALL about ego gratification for them, not reasoning. They put so much importance on reason, yet they think there is no reason for their existence. Why even argue about anything if there's no ultimate reason for doing so, other than for ego gratification, which, in reality, is the actual reason that they argue. And also, they make a lot of money for arguing. But they would never acknowledge that their ego and financial gain were involved in what they pontificate. Their ego is in control of their intelligence, rather than their intelligence being in control of their ego. You see how arrogant they are- thinking they're the "smartest kid in the class".
@kermitstewart6572
@kermitstewart6572 4 месяца назад
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.
@alexs.5107
@alexs.5107 3 года назад
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!
@ImTiredOfThisChurch
@ImTiredOfThisChurch 3 года назад
Same 😅 but you know they have a kinda huge adherents as well . I’m from Congo too and It was just fun hearing his name mentioned 😅
@alexs.5107
@alexs.5107 3 года назад
@@ImTiredOfThisChurch which Church are you tired of by the way?
@georgenicolas2857
@georgenicolas2857 3 года назад
Keep praying for your families conversion and fast for them. God bless you and I pray your family come home to the Catholic Church to be part of the true Church and fullness of faith.
@gastonpablo8392
@gastonpablo8392 3 года назад
Hey brother I think it’s a kind of joke when you say you want to convert them ( your sister in law and her family) to Catholicism... if not why don’t you accept their claim that Simon Kimbangu is God and rose from the dead? By the way Kimbangu is still dead according to the latest informations so is Jesus if he ever existed because dead people stay dead
@hervedavidh4117
@hervedavidh4117 3 года назад
I was surprised too! I'm from Benin and I discussed some kimbanguists before.
@generalkenobi6792
@generalkenobi6792 3 года назад
I’m not convinced Richard Carrier exists.
@ChristLover435
@ChristLover435 3 года назад
I’m an aCarrierist. The “evidence” we have for Richard Carrier is allegorical space spiritual alien none sense. Richard Carrier is just a copy of older pagan gods. I always tell people that believe that Richard Carrier exists “you don’t believe in multiple Richard Carriers, right? I just believe in one less Richard Carrier than you.”
@generalkenobi6792
@generalkenobi6792 3 года назад
@@ChristLover435, Ikr. There are no eye witness accounts attesting to his existence, no contemporary accounts, no one who wrote about him knew the people who knew him, no archeological evidence for Richard Carrier, all the sources written on him are late and unreliable, the books written by him are forgeries, the videos that show him on RU-vid are fabrications, and he’s just a copy of other skeptics who lived before him. It is quite rational to be a acarrierist.
@ChristLover435
@ChristLover435 3 года назад
@@generalkenobi6792 exactly. Being an aCarrierist will exclude you from any political office and polite society...everybody just takes it for granted that Carrier exists. We aCarriests are supremely rational unlike these superstitious people who believe in mythical characters because their parents said so. Richard Carrier exists? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And don’t cling to biased Carriest sources to justify your myths.
@generalkenobi6792
@generalkenobi6792 3 года назад
@@ChristLover435, Exactly. Richard Carrier is sooo fake! I’ve never been presented sufficient evidence to support his existence. He’s just as real as Trump is the greatest president of all time! In fact I don’t even think Trump existed either!
@leovere
@leovere 3 года назад
Let's apply a bayesian analisis of the historicity of Richard Carrier The initial odds that Richard Carrier exists are - let’s be generous - a hundred to one in favor of the proposition. Part of the definition of Richard Carrier is that he is supposed to be a scholar with a Ph. D. in History. He is also supposed to be relatively young, which makes him one of, say, 3,000 or so History Ph. D.s to have been minted in the past five years. These factors will become important as we proceed. Now we throw some of the other factors into the mix. Richard Carrier (if he exists) is a Jesus mythicist, someone who disbelieves in the existence of Jesus of Nazareth as a real person in space and time. Of the 3,000 or so History Ph. D.s minted in the last five years, and bracketing Carrier for the moment so as not to beg any questions, how many are mythicists? It’s a pretty safe bet that the number is close to zero. Let’s be generous, however, and suppose that there are 30, all of them devout mythicists (though in secret, for fear of damaging their careers). But - and this is the point we must dwell on - if the internet atheist community wanted to create a superhero who could defeat the Christians by his superior credentials, would we not expect them to invest him with a doctorate in History and, at the same time, have him endorse, nay, vindicate, the mythicist position? Surely this is not very improbable, say, even odds (for the mythicist position is very well represented online). And that the internet atheists should invent such a character, though it might seem a bit far fetched, is not really that unlikely, since all of history amply documents the human response to the felt need for superheroes. (Vide not only Egyptian and Greek mythology but also the Edda and The Avengers, due to be released in a couple of weeks.) Upon the whole, it seems safe to say that the probability of the invention of such a character is at least .1. At a conservative estimate, the likelihood ratio P(Historian-myther-hero|Richard Carrier is not a real person)/P(Historian-myther-hero|Richard Carrier is a real person) is therefore .1/(30/3,000), or 10 to 1. But Richard Carrier is also supposed to be a “world renowned philosopher and historian” (according to the blurb on Why I am not a Christian). Problems now begin to crowd more thickly around the definition. How many History Ph. D.s are philosophers at all? Surely not very many. How many are world renowned philosophers, even though they have just obtained the Ph. D.? The percentages are vanishing; the probability cannot sensibly be estimated at greater than 0.0001. But this would be a very useful accomplishment to add to the credentials of a historian-myther-hero, if he were an invented character. Let us suppose the probability to be merely 0.1 (though it should probably be higher), and we get the likelihood ratio: P(World-renowned philosopher|Richard Carrier is not a real person & Historian-myther-hero)/P(World-renowned philosopher|Richard Carrier is a real person & Historian-myther-hero) = 0.1/0.0001, or 1000 to 1. We can go further. This world-renowned philosopher-historian-myther-hero is also a mathematician. Given historians’ well-known disdain for mathematical methods, the probability of this if Carrier is a real person is low, though perhaps not so drastically low as it would be if our hero were not also a philosopher, since perhaps as many as ten percent of all philosophers can and do use mathematical methods from time to time. Call the conditional probability of this detail, given the reality of Carrier and all of the other factors considered thus far, 0.05. But the mythic Carrier would only be enhanced by adding mathematical abilities to his other powers; it is at least even money that, if he is entirely mythical, this additional qualification would be tacked onto his resume. However, so as not to overestimate the probability, let us reduce the estimate to: P(Mathematician||Richard Carrier is not a real person & Historian-myther-hero & World-renowned philosopher)/P(Mathematician|Richard Carrier is a real person & Historian-myther-hero & World-renowned philosopher) = 0.2/0.05, or 4 to 1. Putting these factors together, we have to weigh odds of 100 to 1 for Carrier’s reality against the combination of other factors, which tip the scales at 40,000 to 1 against. These considerations alone leave us with odds of 400 to 1 against, or a probability just a bit in excess of .9975 that Richard Carrier is not a real person. We might go on in this vein for quite some time, noting further incongruities in the Carrier myth. How many trained historians would misread Plutarch’s “On Isis and Osiris” 19.358b as declaring Osiris’s physical resurrection from the dead here on earth? How many mathematicians would bungle basic probability calculations? How many philosophers, world-renowned or otherwise, would endorse the position that the laws of logic “obviously” derive from the laws of physics? Yet such blunders are what we might well expect to crop up as the community feigning Carrier’s existence attempted to demonstrate his expertise in one field after another. So the calculation given above seriously underestimates the probabilities in the case. Almost certainly, by strict Bayesian reasoning, Richard Carrier does not exist. And yet, I venture to predict that the vast majority of Carrier-believers will pay no attention whatsoever to Bayesian reasoning when it is applied rigorously to conclusions that they hold sacred It explains why so many people talk about Richard Carrier as if he existed. Talking about him, and convincing other people of his existence, strengthens their faith. That’s how cognitive dissonance works. Such is their desire to convince others that they even write pseudonymous books in his name. Furthermore, ikons of Richard Carrier look vaguely like the Karate Kid, who was a popular mythic figure of Generation X children. Richard carrier alleged age is around that of Generation X. With such clear similarities, it is obvious that the Richard Carrier Myth began as a copy cat of the Karate kid As we all know, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and, based on the recent analysis, the existence of Richard Carrier certainly qualifies as an extraordinary claim. Have you, then, verified that the video and written testimony attributed to Dr. Carrier actually meets this reasonably high standard? Until you meet him in person (and verify that the experience is not a group hallucination, which we all know is much more probable than his existence, since any explanation is more probable than his existence), isn’t it rational to hold to the default position, that of A-Carrierism? Feel free to copy and paste this to extend the a-carrierst movement
@Hreodrich
@Hreodrich 7 месяцев назад
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
@Scrungge
@Scrungge Месяц назад
46:30 That was a dunk
@fletcher373
@fletcher373 11 месяцев назад
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.
@Vic2point0
@Vic2point0 11 месяцев назад
Agreed, I call BS (and I'm an atheist).
@josephrich3509
@josephrich3509 8 месяцев назад
It was an expression dork, not a literal statement.
@ramigilneas9274
@ramigilneas9274 8 месяцев назад
I agree… even if the evidence was much much better than the hearsay of some cult members who didn’t witness any of the events that you actually have… it wouldn’t be good enough. A doctor who confirms the death of Jesus in a made up story is still just part of a made up story. The funny part is that God could effortlessly provide all of the necessary evidence that would convince even the most skeptical person on the planet instead of demanding to believe the story based on the same weak evidence that we have for thousands of other legends and conspiracy theories.
@Titantr0n
@Titantr0n 8 месяцев назад
You are so used to not questioning reality concerning your beliefs that you can't grasp such a simple notion. How would you PROVE it then? Not talking about random unverified testimonies, because then all sorts of magical things would be considered proven, some of which in direct opposition to Christianity. Actual proof.
@josephrich3509
@josephrich3509 8 месяцев назад
Yes, I would want a peer-reviewed study to prove that Jesus resurrected. Otherwise, it's just one doctor's opinion.
@Lerian_V
@Lerian_V 3 года назад
Matt: I'm not convinced. Trent: What would convince you? Matt: Errr... I don't know
@les2997
@les2997 3 года назад
Well, I'm convinced that watching any debate in which Dillahunty participates is a waste of time.
@SquatchRN
@SquatchRN 3 года назад
How do you know what would convince you until you are convinced? For some it is an addition of multiple things.
@nardforu131
@nardforu131 3 года назад
Lol
@TheFirstAtom
@TheFirstAtom 3 года назад
@@SquatchRN Same logic can be used in “how do you know what evil you’re capable of doing until you’ve snapped.” But they’ll never understand that. They are taught that they have the irrefutable truth of the Universe through god as their proxy. There’s no way their god can be wrong, therefore they try rationalize the errors in their scriptures by saying our interpretation is wrong.
@weirdwilliam8500
@weirdwilliam8500 3 года назад
What would convince you that a teapot exists outside of space and time that occasionally replaces tea in our universe with its own tea which is always identical to the tea it replaced?
@4OHz
@4OHz 3 месяца назад
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.
@Requinix17
@Requinix17 5 месяцев назад
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.
@carllennen3520
@carllennen3520 4 месяца назад
What do you mean by "scientific evidence". "Science isnt just beakers and measuring devises. Thats what Horn was trying to get through to Dillahunty. The VAST majority of history, which IS a science despite Dillahuntys ludicrous claim to the contrary, doesnt have physical evidence. The Pyramids being Tombs for the Pharaohs for example. There has never been a Pharaoh mummy found in the Pyramids. Nor are there texts saying "this is the Tomb of X", but it is the leading theory for all academics who study the Pyramids, even though they have no physical evidence for the claim. I guarantee you, Dillahunty accepts the theory without a second thought. "Just because an extraordinary claim purortedly occurred in ancient times when we arent able to investigate any such claims rigorously, doesnt mean we should be lowering our standard of evidence." What are you even talking about? This is possibly one of the MOST rigorously investigated claims there is. Standards arent being lowered for anything. If they where, no one would be Atheist, nor would the Religious have "crisis of Faith".
@PumpkinRow
@PumpkinRow 2 года назад
I like how he immediately attempts to flip the burden of proof on Matt.
@TRivera0517.v2
@TRivera0517.v2 Год назад
My thoughts exactly
@kitten-whisperer
@kitten-whisperer Год назад
Lol yeah. My ears perked up right away. I mean, hey. Might as well try everything you can to win.
@Robert_Jacobs
@Robert_Jacobs Год назад
Such an old dumb trick. Shifting the burden of proof and asking someone to prove a negative. Matt is not the one claiming something supernatural, so he is not the one that needs to prove or disprove the supernatural.
@jdoe7674
@jdoe7674 Год назад
As a Christian who believes a number of pretty unorthodox things this is one of the biggest issues I have with other Christian’s that I have conversations with it’s one of there favorite tactics along with making claims about how I’m taking something out of context which I’m open to if the proper context is then provided which it never is of course
@festerreloaded2690
@festerreloaded2690 Год назад
Except you are lying. Only Matt shirks his share of the intellectual burden - as do all you lazy atheist clowns.
@theblackkaiser5748
@theblackkaiser5748 3 года назад
one of the best debates I've heard so far.
@writteng
@writteng 2 месяца назад
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.
@joe5959
@joe5959 2 месяца назад
I love the part where matt uses so much of his brainpower he repeatedly claims incredulity as an argument.😂
@GodcodeX77
@GodcodeX77 2 месяца назад
Hey man. Check me out and spread the word.
@jamiegallier2106
@jamiegallier2106 5 месяцев назад
Nice debate.
@leyrua
@leyrua Год назад
Trent having to keep switching to last names to distinguish between Matts brought a little bit of levity to the conversation.
@mkd1113
@mkd1113 3 года назад
Scientific Materialism is unreasonable
@marcovoetberg6618
@marcovoetberg6618 3 года назад
Science isn’t saying that all there is is material. It is saying we don’t know how to study the non-material so we don’t.
@marcovoetberg6618
@marcovoetberg6618 3 года назад
@@mkd1113 yes, you can study all these things but they are not science. To say religion is studying the non-material is just playing with words. To say that philosophy and ethics and morality are about the non-material is fine, whatever. Ideas are non-material. So what?
@marcovoetberg6618
@marcovoetberg6618 3 года назад
@@mkd1113 Cool. Scientific materialism, despite the ‘science’ in name, is also not a conclusion arrived at by applying the scientific method. It is a philosophical stance.
@mkd1113
@mkd1113 3 года назад
@@marcovoetberg6618 Exactly, so it's a self-refuting epistemological position. There is no way to know the claim "science is knowledge" from the scientific method.
@marcovoetberg6618
@marcovoetberg6618 3 года назад
@@mkd1113 Fantastic. Now we are at a point where we have something dreamed up some philosopher that is not scientific, but has scientific in its name and no way to know if it is true or not. This is why I prefer the knowledge derived from the scientific method over that based on philosophy and religion.
@CrescentDolluwu
@CrescentDolluwu 5 месяцев назад
Every time someone mentions group hallucinations I just think about the Dancing Plague video on Puppet History. lmao
@Jordanmode
@Jordanmode 3 года назад
“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.
@skdncbdjsjxbdb
@skdncbdjsjxbdb 3 года назад
He was on earth for 40 days before accending into heaven
@harrycooper5231
@harrycooper5231 3 года назад
That's the story. But then Harry Potter was on earth for 17 years before ascending to heaven.
@MsJavaWolf
@MsJavaWolf 3 года назад
@@skdncbdjsjxbdb It just seems so weird to me, although I am also aware that my feeling is not proof either. But why would an all powerful, all loving being make things so difficult? Why would he give us intelligence but also demand that we believe in him without using our intelligence when he could just snap his fingers and every single person on earth could receive a 100% clear vision of him? To be clear, I am not actually criticizing God here, I am criticizing a story that in my opinion was created by human beings. This story just sounds so human, with so many human logical fallacies that I find it really unlikely.
@skdncbdjsjxbdb
@skdncbdjsjxbdb 3 года назад
@@MsJavaWolf He can't snap us all into believing in Him if that's what you mean, because we have free will. He's not demanding we believe him without using our intelligence he sent his only son to earth to be crucified and resurrected in front of our very eyes. I think he made it pretty obvious and clear. Even if it happened today with video proof skeptics would say it was camera tricks. People who don't want to believe in God just aren't going to believe in God no matter what. Even if he did reveal himself to every single person on earth the next generation would be say there was something in the water supply that made us all hallucinate.
@skdncbdjsjxbdb
@skdncbdjsjxbdb 3 года назад
@@MsJavaWolf And of course the story sounds human, God created humans and communicates with us in ways that we understand and can connect with. How else would the story of our salvation go? In a way that only god himself would understand? That wouldn't make any sense.
@YardenJZ
@YardenJZ 3 года назад
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.
@0zyris
@0zyris 5 месяцев назад
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.
@michaelbell3181
@michaelbell3181 6 месяцев назад
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.
@danielsampong6607
@danielsampong6607 3 года назад
Can you please set up a debate between Trent or Stephanie gray and the channel God is grey
@youaremopped
@youaremopped 2 года назад
Omg I'm 9 minutes in and this is brutal. You just equated the feasibility of riding elephants with thr resurrection of the dead.
@firmbutton6485
@firmbutton6485 2 года назад
Every few seconds a new assertion.
@firmbutton6485
@firmbutton6485 2 года назад
Every few seconds a new assertion.
@alexhetherington8028
@alexhetherington8028 Год назад
Exactly, they might not question something like the elephants because there a genuine possibility of it, whereas a resurrection has never even been shown to be a possibility.
@FourDeuce01
@FourDeuce01 Год назад
@@firmbutton6485 And thousands of years with no proof of those assertions.
@FourDeuce01
@FourDeuce01 Год назад
Trent succeeded in his attempt to distract attention by talking about “every historian who teaches at a major university”. If every historian who teaches at a major university believed that Harry Potter really existed, would that constitute evidence that Harry Potter existed?😂
@cmack17
@cmack17 7 месяцев назад
Convincing evidence that has been experienced would be convincing by definition.
@floppyseizure8615
@floppyseizure8615 3 месяца назад
33:33 Did that guy get hit by the Flying Spaghetti Monster? 😂
@alistairkentucky-david9344
@alistairkentucky-david9344 3 года назад
Matt (Fradd), what state are you from? Surely your favourite beer has to be Tooheys New, VB or XXXX
@zacharyshort384
@zacharyshort384 3 года назад
Pretty sure its always been Texas.
@alistairkentucky-david9344
@alistairkentucky-david9344 3 года назад
@@zacharyshort384I meant Matt Fradd.
@zacharyshort384
@zacharyshort384 3 года назад
@@alistairkentucky-david9344 Ahh gotcha.
@PintsWithAquinas
@PintsWithAquinas 3 года назад
South Australia so I should say Coors but it's basically most stouts.
@xpictos777
@xpictos777 3 года назад
@@PintsWithAquinas Do you mean Coopers mate? :) South Aussie here too, converted to Orthodoxy from Protestanism a couple of years go. Next time you're in Adelaide let's grab a Pale Ale, haha.
@noah7477
@noah7477 3 года назад
Pints with Aquianas is the Catholic version of Capturing Christianity
@zacharyshort384
@zacharyshort384 3 года назад
Is there a point or are you just sharing an obvious observation? lol
@noah7477
@noah7477 11 месяцев назад
​@zacharyshort384 hello there two years later. Just was sharing an obvious observation.
@doomman700
@doomman700 2 месяца назад
Thor invented the wheel and he rolled everywhere without an engine. He must not have seen B.C. before
@kieronbrowne7881
@kieronbrowne7881 5 месяцев назад
Who are the authors?
@shanec67
@shanec67 2 года назад
Once one is willing to accept such extraordinary claims based on testimony, you've stepped outside the bounds of being "reasonable".
@evanlutz7071
@evanlutz7071 Год назад
Almost everything we believe is based on testimony. Even medical records are forms of testimony from a source we believe to be credible.
@macysondheim
@macysondheim Год назад
@@evanlutz7071 No.
@kaiza6467
@kaiza6467 Год назад
@@evanlutz7071 If a credentialed doctor gives you a medical diagnosis and a faith healer tells you that you're possessed by a demon and need an exorcism, are those claims on the same footing to you?
@ashleyclarke5047
@ashleyclarke5047 Год назад
@@evanlutz7071 There are at least 4 different testimonies of the resurrection in the Bible and all are different. So which one are you going to use to prove the claim of a resurrection? Using your example of medical records, though you can consider them testimonies, do not normally contain 4 different versions.
@peetee32
@peetee32 Год назад
@@evanlutz7071 in one sense, you're correct. Medical records ARE a form of testimony. But if your medical records say you had a fever of 300degrees...we DONT BELIEVE IT BECAUSE ITS A MEDICAL RECORD. That claim goes against all testable repeatable evidence, and what we've discovered about reality. So we REJECT the medical records that claim we had a 300 degree fever. Much like we reject the testimony of magic bread, talking snakes, men rising from the dead and demon pigs
@wickedchef
@wickedchef 3 года назад
The fact that there is even a debate about a resurrection, is a strong inductive indicator that a resurrection never happened at all.
@thiccmcchicken550
@thiccmcchicken550 3 года назад
Explain how does this follow? I don’t get it
@wickedchef
@wickedchef 3 года назад
@@thiccmcchicken550 If you look at all this, the fact that there's ANY question at all about whether or not Jesus was a historical figure, or supernatural, or resurrected, and it doesn't matter whether you go way out into the conspiracy theorist weeds or you're still within the realm of modern scholarship. The fact that god has not cleared this up is already a damning enough problem for Christianity. The fact that this issue isn’t the most solid fact of all of history is the nail in the coffin for Christianity. Because this god comes down to earth at a time when there is no way to record this. During an era where you know most people are illiterate, ignorant, superstitious, believing the earth is flat and the center of the universe. When there isn’t proper scientific testing or technology. And skepticism and critical thinking are still far in the future. We haven't even reached the enlightenment era. And this god decides that 2000 years before all that is the exact perfect point in time to come down to earth, take human form, sacrifice himself to himself, and then raises himself from the dead. And this should be good enough evidence for everybody? It makes this god look a bit incompetent wouldn’t you say? Because that is exactly the wrong time to do it. And anything that would qualify as an all-knowing god, would clearly know that.
@tomasrocha6139
@tomasrocha6139 5 месяцев назад
​@@wickedchefModern scholarship does not doubt that Jesus was a historical figure at all, it can't establish the supernatural since it is methodologically naturalistic.
@DavidDiazCinematographer
@DavidDiazCinematographer 6 месяцев назад
47:40 so a medical doctor can determine if someone is dead because he/she just “believes”that person is dead… science my friends
@nathanmckenzie904
@nathanmckenzie904 6 месяцев назад
If they were a good doctor thwy wouldn't "believe" the person was dead. They'd take vitals, feel the temperature of the skin etc . And that just the start of it.
@cbtam4333
@cbtam4333 5 месяцев назад
@@nathanmckenzie904 A non-doctor could do the same. Either way, it’s still testimony.
@MajesticMan-iz2wz
@MajesticMan-iz2wz 4 месяца назад
​​​@@cbtam4333If the doctor is legit than that doctor is making a claim. It's not a testimonial evidence. A testimonial evidence is if someone says "I saw the dude get hit by a truck".
@MohawkOnTheBlock
@MohawkOnTheBlock 7 месяцев назад
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!!!
@nameforcomments4092
@nameforcomments4092 3 года назад
Why would it be reasonable to believe someone came back from the dead?
@NeverTalkToCops1
@NeverTalkToCops1 3 года назад
It's a trojan horse, using the word "reasonable" to attempt to start a dialogue, a dialogue hardly necessary.
@nameforcomments4092
@nameforcomments4092 3 года назад
@Lady Macbeth You can't use reason or evidence to reach the conclusion someone came back from the dead, or that there is anything other than the physical world. It can't be reasonable to make something up and act on that assumption with no reason to do so. It would be just as reasonable to imagine anything with no evidence and say that it's totally reasonable because you believe there's some other plane of existence that can never be evidenced but that justifies it. The whole point of religious faith is that it isn't reasonable.
@zacharyshort384
@zacharyshort384 3 года назад
@Lady Macbeth It's rather reasonable to approach it through the lens of a naturalistic worldview when we are literally living in the Natural and not the Supernatural. Demonstrate the Supernatural to begin with and (as Hitchens once said) you'd have a ghost of a point.
@jonathanwhitaker9115
@jonathanwhitaker9115 3 года назад
@Lady Macbeth well yes, that and the fact that we live in a world where miracles are never observed to happen, so regardless of worldview, why should we believe ancient accounts of a dubious nature relating multiple miraculous events?
@tonywallens217
@tonywallens217 3 года назад
for example: you saw your dead father sit down and eat with you
@johnd.9
@johnd.9 3 года назад
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.
@corylohanlon
@corylohanlon 3 года назад
Try talking to your family like they spoke to each other. Let me know how long you're not on speaking terms.
@stephendvorak1043
@stephendvorak1043 3 года назад
You may have missed Dillahunty's cross examination. It struck me as fairly unrespectful.
@noelhausler2911
@noelhausler2911 3 года назад
When the women arrived (Matthew) they encountered the angel sitting on the rock. In Luke no angel on the rock but one inside and in Luke they encounter two women inside.
@JonYen69
@JonYen69 3 года назад
@@stephendvorak1043 it wasn’t Disrespectful it was the truth. The disrespect came from Trent refusing to answer the questions and speaking over Matt during Matt’s turn. Facts don’t care about your feelings
@stephendvorak1043
@stephendvorak1043 3 года назад
@@JonYen69 The truth can be expressed in disrespectful ways. In this case, that's what Matt did. Whether or not facts care about feelings has nothing to do with the fact that a respectful conversation is more successful than a disrespectful conversation.
@CMCSeahawk
@CMCSeahawk 5 месяцев назад
Well done to both
@sandersGG
@sandersGG 2 месяца назад
Well done both where I'm getting tired of the middle of road bs matt logic is vastly more superior then trends flawed logic to say both have equal footing is ridiculous call it terrible logic for what it is TERRIBLE
@nathanmcclarren4432
@nathanmcclarren4432 2 месяца назад
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.
@neuron1012
@neuron1012 11 месяцев назад
Thanks Trent, from a Dillahunty fan. A Christian apologist with an intellectual view is refreshing.
@fletcher373
@fletcher373 10 месяцев назад
If by refreshing you mean rare, there are numerous intelligent Christian scholars, and ID theorists.
@11bsavage64
@11bsavage64 10 месяцев назад
That because it isn’t Protestantism. I was an atheist for a long time. I followed Matt for years as well, I learned much from him and others. I found now that I am a Catholic my problems were with protestants. I don’t ever hear Catholics debate. There are so many problem with protestanism and their beliefs I can’t list them all. When it comes to Catholics and Orthodox you’ll get consistent answers. You will get reason, and not some fallacy filled protestant making stuff up.
@ramigilneas9274
@ramigilneas9274 10 месяцев назад
@@fletcher373 If by numerous intelligent ID theorists you mean 5… then sure. And none of them are taken seriously by actual scientists.
@the-outsider8458
@the-outsider8458 10 месяцев назад
​​@@11bsavage64it's is been my experience that most Catholics consistently fall back on god of the gaps, argument from ignorance, and argument from authority. If you disagree, how do you logically explain the Trinity?
@the-trustees
@the-trustees 9 месяцев назад
Are you being sarcastic? PLEASE say yes, because if not, we didn't watch the same "debate."
Далее
Eddie Hall VS Neffati Brothers
00:11
Просмотров 1,6 млн
Homemade Professional Spy Trick To Unlock A Phone 🔍
00:55
Gavin Ortlund Vs.Trent Horn: Is Sola Scriptura True
2:24:24
Did Jesus Even Claim to be God? Bart Ehrman Says No...
1:31:12
Evidence For The Resurrection of Jesus!
32:19
Просмотров 362 тыс.