I’m a Protestant but this is fast becoming one of my favourite channels. God bless, brother!

@antpassalacqua

Жыл бұрын

@@getrit3007 it’s not very nice to come on the internet and lie.

@antpassalacqua

Жыл бұрын

@@getrit3007 you don’t understand the Catholic teaching and as a result are lying about it. You can watch this very channel where trent horn has explained the Catholic view of justification, and it is not merited by works

@mariateresa9965

Жыл бұрын

@@antpassalacqua Let us offer a decade of the Rosary for him.🙏🌹🌹🌹Ave Maria!🙏🌹🌹🌹

@bassman_0074

Жыл бұрын

@@getrit3007 by saying works can save you, the meaning is that you have a relationship with Jesus. That relationship starts with baptism, but as you do good works it enhances your relationship with Jesus just like it would with any other friend. We don’t view salvation as a binary “saved or not saved” decision. It’s about us becoming more like Jesus and carrying our cross with him through grace. By making a habit of doing good works we form our will to his.

@antpassalacqua

Жыл бұрын

@@getrit3007 you can also view on this very channel trent horn taking james white to the cleaners on perseverance of the saints, I will pray for you

Unfortunately, I missed the first hour due to class, but walking into the auditorium, I was blown away by the amount of people there! There was even a large number of adults/local community. I think your arguments really stirred something in many of the attendees. Thank you for coming!

@bernardevillaw3410

Жыл бұрын

330,000 little boys in France were raped by 3,000 catholic pedophile priests, and it barely made the news, because people EXPECT that from catholics. DId you hear that part of the "debate"? Jesus said child rape was UNFORGIVABLE (Matt 18:6-14), and everyone who supported it will get eternal damnation. That means every catholic. DId you hear that part of the "debate"? Of course not.

@Cklert

Жыл бұрын

@@bernardevillaw3410 "Jesus said child rape was UNFORGIVABLE (Matt 18:6-14), and everyone who supported it will get eternal damnation. That means every catholic. " Those who are guilty would be the 3,000 involved, and those who attempted to cover it up. Not the entirety of the Church. What those priests did were awful and deserved to be punished, but your conclusion is incoherent.

@patrickkerrigan6323

Жыл бұрын

Funny to see you here Josh haha. I wish I had been in Toledo.

@bernardevillaw3410

Жыл бұрын

@@Cklert Standard catholic lie and excuse. Not according to Jesus. Your entire church and religion supported 100% of pedophiles in 100% of cases, which is UNFORGIVABLE (Matt 18:6-14), and everyone who supported it will get eternal damnation. That's from Jesus, but your child rape cult will let you get away with anything.If 330,000 children in "God's church" got raped, do you think ZERO percent of the followers would have objected, and would have sided with the pedophiels instead of the children. Are you out of your mind????? Of course you are.

@whitevortex8323

Жыл бұрын

@@Cklert No, Every Sin is forgivable. There are no unforgivable sins provided one asks for God's divine mercy. Whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven, whose sins you retain, they are retained.

Great debate. I was glad to see it in person. I was really surprised by Dr. Martin's closing statement. It seems to me he was conceding that the universe is in fact a Hilbert's Hotel.

I literally find it to be Divine Providence that this showed up in my feed. I’ve recently been debating 2 atheists on Pinterest and felt like I was doing it wrong and was “out of my league” I need(ed) to hear Trent talk about debating an atheist. I am writing this BEFORE having watched the video but I already know it’s going to be so helpful.

@abaddon2148

Жыл бұрын

pinterest debates💀💀💀

@littleone1656

Жыл бұрын

@@abaddon2148 ikr. One of them isn’t too bad but the other was definitely a fundamentalist atheist. You always know what kind of atheist they are when they have a Pinterest board solely dedicated to anti-religious/anti-Catholic pins 😝

@peterparker6956

Жыл бұрын

How did you get end up debating someone on Pinterest?

@littleone1656

Жыл бұрын

@@peterparker6956 I made a comment on a pin and then ppl started responding to my comment.

@CatholicismRules

Жыл бұрын

@@littleone1656 Keep at it! I talked to lots of people in KZread comments sections for some years, and occasionally you run into people who say they have to think about it more.

EXCELLENT DEFFENSE OF THE TRUTH, TRENT!!!! 💜🕇

I pray for the repose soul of Bishop O'Connell 🙏 Jesus please protect our catholic priests and Pope Francis

As someone who is working on being more grateful, the idea of praising someone for being good without a struggle is something I should keep in mind; being grateful to someone for whom being good comes easily - although to be fair, in a sense I'm already working on that, I'm being grateful to Our Blessed Mother who can easily be good to us without a struggle.

"It's a little bit hard to pin down exactly Spinoza's thought on the philosophy of religion." Understatement of the month Trent! Looking forward maybe to hearing the audio of the debate but thanks for this debrief

Intrigued to watch this - perfect timing to kick off the day. Solid work Trent.

I am very pleased with ALL your talks Trent. You are an amazing debater defending the Catholic Church. God so pleases with your abilities and courage to do just that. A God-given talent and you execute it with humbleness, honesty, commitment and courage for God's glory. Keep it up brother.

@Trent Horn I’m planning on attending the conference in September and that would so so fun to watch live! I hope it happens!

Hey Trent do you think you could review the interview with the abortion activist that Michael knowles did a while back?

I feel called out living in a state that often gets snow lol. Great video as always Trent!

It’s really good to refresh on arguments for theism!

Great job, Trent!

Good Morning!☀️

I live in DFW currently, but lived in both Chicago and DC for over 10 years a piece. I will say the difference in winter conditions between lots of the north and DFW is the widespread ice. For the past couple of Februaries in DFW there has been freezing rain - precipitation that falls as rain, but immediately freezes once it hits the ground - and sleet. This is very different from the typical snow that falls in the north. It's no problem driving over snow. But it doesn't matter how well you prep a road - or drive- if there is ice it is unsafe to drive.

I was there! Glad the debate could still take place despite the circumstances. You couldn't see it but Dr. Martin was very nervous and I don't think he came across as very composed. His delivery of his arguments was more emotional and pompous compared to Trent, but he had the advantage of being in-person. It was a great debate and me and my friends really enjoyed talking about the logical errors and various incoherencies of Dr. Martin's arguments after and on the entire half hour drive back home to our Newman Center at Bowling Green State University. Trent, definitely try to come to BGSU for a debate sometime! We have a lot of pro-choicers here. Our Students for Life grave of the innocents display depicting lives lost to abortion drew a lot of attention. If you came to have a debate on abortion, you'd likely have a massive crowd.

God bless you🙌🙌

Would love to hear the audio of this debate.

Sounds like it was a great debate!

Hi Trent, great video as usual. I noticed you mentioned B theory of time in a couple of your videos, including this one. Although it seems counterintuitive at first, maybe it can help us better understand some truths of Christian faith. For example, Jesus died for our sins is straightforward to understand if we consider B time theory. Would love to hear your thoughts on this in some of future videos!

Trent is EPIC.

My little sister was there and said it was a great event!

Great vid as always, would love to see you break down your chat with Dustin Crummet on abortion

@Yeatlova

Жыл бұрын

Same!

@ajboggs1522

Жыл бұрын

Bro I love your TikToks!

Thank you.

I've had a few conversations with Dr Jim Madden, the author of that Thomistic book that you recommend, and two of those conversations are recorded on my channel! Dr Madden himself has a really nuanced understand of mind body Dualism, and I wouldn't take the positions in his book to be "his position". Rather, Dr Madden outlines Aquinas's understanding

at 21:00 - this is a tricky argument for both sides, but less so for the body/spirit dualist - as any biologist, chemist, or physicist can tell you, the human body including the brain, is subject to constant turnover at every level from the cellular to the atomic. This has long been known, and can be intuited from the fact that children grow rapidly and the adult body heals wounds and grows in response to strength exercises. There seems to be a form or principle over and above the set of material parts which make up the human body at any point in life, so likewise the spirit/soul might have another hidden relation to matter at other times, and even at the same time as we live in our bodies.

Peter Van Inwagen definitely has defended belief in a resurrection. He has defended the 'duplication' model of resurrection for example as a possibility.

Nice summary, thanks. I still don't think there is much merit in the fine-tuning argument. We don't even have to go into a multiverse with infinitely many recombinations of the constants of the individual universes (which would be an unnecessary complication), but we have a universe of which we don't know the limits. It might be that universal constants are not constant but really change over huge distances, so that one observable-universe-length away, some constant is 0.1 points higher or lower and three observable-universe-lengths away it's even higher and no life is possible there. So if the universe is this incredibly large fabric with gradients of the different constants, then life developed in the very very few places where that is possible. Hmmm, and yet, even that would be a very curious thing that requires an explanation.

Dr Jordan Peterson, the psychologist, defines “believing in something” as “acting in the world as if that something were true;” by that definition, just about every determinist actually _doesn't_ believe in determinism because they always act as if they and everyone around them had free will - in fact, it is impossible to have a society without acting as if all members of it have moral agency and thus free will. Thanks for the video!

@billyg898

Жыл бұрын

Seems like the view of the 19th century philosopher and psychologist, William James. If you haven't read it before, I'd recommend reading his essay, The Will to Believe. It's online in various places.

Debate with Matt Dillahunty would be good. Also, I am sure that Thomas Westbrook would love to have a debate on Bible history with you or Jimmy Akin.

@extract8058

Жыл бұрын

Dullahunty lol Low hanging fruit

@HaroldoHattori

Жыл бұрын

What about Matt Walsh from the Bridge The Divide channel on youtube. He presents his arguments in a pleasant way and seems to understand science.

Plz post audio!

I recently studied Leibniz quite a bit and I think he explains his "best of all possible worlds" idea in his Essay "On Contingent Truths" quite well. His argument is essentially that if there are nearly (or actually) an infinite number of worlds that God could have created, but this is the world that _was_ created, then this world must be the "best," even if God's reasoning is "beyond the comprehension of his creatures." Given his infinite wisdom, his "choice" in which world to actualize should be assumed to be the best or "most ideal" for his needs or purposes. It has to do with Leibniz' distinction between "necessary" and "contingent" things that I am not going to attempt to explain adequately here. I actually find that the idea itself makes sense, even if we as humans often don't care for it from an emotional perspective.

@ComicRaptor8850

Жыл бұрын

This only works if the fact that he only created one world is not contingent. But creating only one world is something that is contingent, as creating other worlds is something that we can rationally conceive that an omnipotent God that has already created this world would do. The premise that given God's wisdom, creating a world that is most ideal for his needs or purposes is true, but he could have other needs or purposes that he might create other worlds to most ideally fulfill. Thus, it does not follow that this world is the best of all conceivable worlds.

@Epiousios18

Жыл бұрын

@@ComicRaptor8850 I see what you are saying, but if anything I just don't think we have enough understanding to make a definitive claim one way or another. If God were able to accomplish everything he wanted by making only one world, it would follow that he would only create one (for doing something in one try is more efficient or "greater" than having to do multiple attempts), and based on what we said earlier that "one world" would naturally be the "best possible." It comes down to God's intention and purpose for creating the world, which necessarily can't be fully comprehending by us.

@ComicRaptor8850

Жыл бұрын

@@Epiousios18 agreed.

@Lemon-pf3pm

Жыл бұрын

I am not exactly knowledgable in Catholic specific beliefs, but doesn't mean "the best of all *possible* worlds" to create a world that is best under preset parameters and not the best one can think of if no limits were to be set? Let's say God never creates a world that allows more pain than is necessary because He loves us and never creates a world of chaos because He is a God of order and that's what His all-powerfulness is related to. Then He creates a world where freedom would still lead to pain, for freedom is necessary for Humans to exist (metaphysical law for the nature of the rational mind?) and thus a world where the first sin corrupted mechanical reality. But He creates only a world where the effects of this freedom and the resulting corrupted mechanical reality, I mean a world with natural catastrophies, are most limited in regards of pain and most probable to produce well-being. There are infinite many such worlds, still, for even if the potential of pain and well-being are the same, in one world apples are red 🍎 and in the other they are purple 🍏💜 and so on, for every variable that is not connected with pain and well-being, that too is a best possible world, at least if the whole world would be constructed around that one change. Thus He parted an infinity of best *possible* worlds with a ... "bigger" or more powerful infinity of badder worlds in regards to suffering, something He doesn't like in-itself (thus only would it produce better well-being) out of love. Thus He choses one in specific, spontaniously, so that He Himself would make an act of freedom, which is the reason He created only one world, for being able to chose one single thing feels better than chosing multiple, I hope you get my drift, I am sure one can say that philosophical sound somehow.

Trent, regarding the greatest of possible worlds, could we assume that the world was perfect before the fall?

...written transcript?? Available?

How about debriefing your podcast with Rusland KD.

So if God is not in our time Mr Trent how does he cause miracles in time? How to be able to act without time?

Is a video of the actual debate posted anywhere?

@Renkinjutsushi

Жыл бұрын

There is no video of the debate, though there may be an audio recording that gets released eventually.

@owl2

Жыл бұрын

@@Renkinjutsushi Thanks, I was holding off on watching this until I found it!

You should bring in Matt Dillahunty to debate at the conference.

@extract8058

Жыл бұрын

LoL what a low bar to set

@CatholicismRules

Жыл бұрын

@@extract8058 Even though Dillahunty isn't a very capable defender of atheism, he is popular, so it might be good to have him in the conference to take him down.

@calebadcock363

Жыл бұрын

Maybe. Trent said in one of his Q&As that he’d enjoy debating Matt again.

@WintersunExtras

Жыл бұрын

@@CatholicismRules What's wrong with how he defends his position?

@goldenalt3166

Жыл бұрын

@@CatholicismRulesHe doesn't defend atheism at all. He would agree with Trent that if you are willing to sacrifice your own beliefs, you can hypothesize something that could be called God. What good does that do?

"We don't have a perfect circle in the real world" Maynard James Keenan: am I a joke to you?

@lonelylad9818

11 ай бұрын

Lizzo

Trent rightly jumped all over the claim God didn't create the best possible universe. It's a good point that one can make something which is the best, and still add to it. God in creating the universe saw that it was good, but then he immediately added to it, and created woman to be with man. Creation was flawless according to His plan, but it could still be made more complete according to His further will.

As you mentioned, several of these aren't very good arguments to get at an answer to the question "does God exist?" Do you think your debate opponent here just wasn't a very good debater and didn't understand that such positions don't prove atheism, or do you think it was a kind of debate strategy where he was trying to make arguments that aren't as common so as to catch you off guard?

@landonlowe4029

Жыл бұрын

Unironically I think the atheist is an atheist for a lot of simple reasons at least to start with... in the same way many Christians are said to be Christians only due to their parents or due to the culture which atheists always use a haha gotchu moment.. a lot of atheists had 1 minor moral disagreement with a faith and then questioned everything (I am not saying this isn't a valid reason I am saying that the inspiration to be an atheist is not usually scientific) most debates in this space are generally begun from emotional/moral/ethical grounds/assumptions/claims/disagreements and then people develop arguments after that ..and the truth is in that the same idea of people stick to a claim because it makes them feel good about themselves (what Atheists say about religious people) is exactly true about atheists (most of them are atheists because if they weren't they'd have to face a level of accountability they don't desire imo ). Hence you get arguments that don't disprove anything just make them/their audience feel better about themselves

@goldenalt3166

Жыл бұрын

@@landonlowe4029 Do you think that people should devote their lives to a religion when it's merely not impossible? So many of Trent's arguments here also disprove Catholicism. Does that make sense as a strategy when you're position claims to know the truth?

@landonlowe4029

Жыл бұрын

@Golden Alt I am not commenting on the validity of Catholocism. I am just saying the average atheist seems to view themselves as more thought out when they are in fact not 😅 its just kinda funny to watch

@goldenalt3166

Жыл бұрын

@@landonlowe4029 Did you tour China? Because the "average atheist" would seem to be a Chinese peasant. Do you mean the average youtube commenter that you label add "atheist"?

@landonlowe4029

Жыл бұрын

@Golden Alt I mean the average "flying spaghetti monster"/"sky daddy" commenter not some person whose never been exposed to religion . Again I don't expect them to be theology/philosophy experts but they go around using the terms mockingly as if they are the smartest human beings to ever exist and as if the questions haven't been debated for ages

Does he think he is a spinowsitall?🤣🤣

God knows all the probabilities. Therefore, it is your choice to choose the good or bad. God lives outside of time.

"A good squirrel has all its legs and can find a nut."

I'm number 7

In person is always better than zoom/Skype

Very strange choices on the atheist's part for his arguments. And I'm saying that as an atheist.

Houstonian area Texan here. Can confirm, Texans do not function well when it gets ice-y. To be fair, it’s not something that happens a lot and some roads can be hazardous in rainy conditions so adding ice to the mix doesn’t help. Our issues mainly deal with hurricanes and rain, at least around Houston since we are near the coast. As for the debate, I find some atheistic arguments interesting to listen to, but always feel like there are different definitions each side is using. Or an atheistic side is too narrow thinking or overly material to grasp what the theist is saying. Like the “Hidden God” or “Problem of Evil” arguments seem to boil down to “I’m not happy/ This bad thing happened, so therefor God cannot exist.” If we base our entire satisfaction on the material and just focus on ourselves, of course we will never be satisfied because humans are never content and are always seeking something more. If we instead acknowledge bad things happen, but don’t let those bad things stop us from doing good, then there’s more satisfaction in the long term because we can better appreciate the good having experienced the bad. With God as judge and Father, He will balance out the scales in our end. Those who had a good earthly life but shunned God will get what they want in the end, eternal separation in Hell. Those who had a bad earthly life but trusted God had not abandoned them will be rewarded with eternal communion with Him. Then of course there’s all the scenarios in between. God will Judge us fairly, but will look at us with pure love as a Father would his children. He knows we have messed up, but will hear us out and make sure we actually understood what our actions meant. At least that’s my off the top of my head reasoning. Hopefully you can get access to the audio of the debate! I’m sure you were still as articulate as ever 😇

@kevinkelly2162

Жыл бұрын

There is only one atheistic argument: Where is the evidence for your god? If a religious person can come with evidence it would be end of debate. But the fastest growing group in society are the 'nones', ie people with no religious affiliation.

@jendoe9436

Жыл бұрын

@@kevinkelly2162 to that I say what evidence are they looking for? If it’s physical then what about the miracles of healing and the Eucharist? If it’s theological, well that’s these sorts of debates are for. Ghosts and supernatural can be gleamed, though that one’s a bit harder. In most of my conversations with atheists about evidence for God, they either ignore what’s presented, claim “false” even when it’s supported by contemporary sources, or move the goalposts so frequently and widely that nothing gets through to them. So if an atheist asks me for evidence of God, I will see what level they are on and keep the conversation set on what’s already been established. For example if they say there’s no prove miracles happen to sick people, then I would naturally pull up cases and examples to the contrary. If they say “no, it can’t be from x and y, it has be from z!” and I provide evidence from z, then an honest one will say “okay, I concede.” A dishonest one will say “no! Obviously z is wrong because of x and y, so you must support Q!” That tells me they are not open to evidence and debate, but plain arguing and refusing to engage. Can theists have poor arguments? Oh, absolutely. Can atheists have poor arguments? Also absolutely. The issue is when one side refuses to engage, shuts down the argument, or purposefully misconstrues things so they don’t appear wrong. So in answer to your question: Where is the evidence for God? My response would be along the lines of “what would convince you” and “are you open to the evidence” because that will help me answer the question.

@kevinkelly2162

Жыл бұрын

@@jendoe9436 OK Something that your god said that could not have been thought up by a human. A divine revelation that only a god could know and is indisputable and is in scripture.

@jendoe9436

Жыл бұрын

@@kevinkelly2162 I’m afraid I don’t know something like that or I’m confused by your question. Like is there something in the Bible that humans couldn’t do or think of for that time? I’m not familiar with human history like that. Meaning I’m not knowledgable about what x group thought during y period generally and how that would be seen as something “only a god could know.” There’s the Messiah prophesies being fulfilled with Jesus, which would require understanding of the Torah (Old Testament) to realize how it all works. Or accounts of people receiving visions from God that came true or espoused some form of His revealing. Paul had an extreme vision that left him blind until he sought out help from Ananias, which isn’t something common and would had to have been extreme since Paul was persecuting Christians at the time. But like I said, I don’t think I’m understanding your question correctly. Or it’s just not my area of expertise so we would both end up not getting anywhere.

@kevinkelly2162

Жыл бұрын

@@jendoe9436 Yeah, those are all claims made in the Bible. Not what I mean. What I would want as evidence is something only a superior being could say and know. It is hard to think of something. I mean, we are not talking about primtives. At that time there were cities in the Amazon lined up with the stars. Maybe something like germ theory. Yes, ythat is a good example. Instead of curing ten lepers, tell people what causes leprosy and how to avoid it. This is just an example of the kind of thing I mean. Otherwise God is just some kind of superhuman and we only have people's word for what he revealed or did. I hope I have made myself clearer.

That afterlife argument is one of the worst I have ever heard coming from an Atheist. Not only is the nature of the mind/body correspondence still a matter of intense debate and mystery within science (so the entire premise is subject to debate), but you could be a strictly materialistic atheist and still believe in an afterlife if you were "optimistic" enough about human progress. It is really just is a non-starter as far as I see it, especially when it comes to debating God's existence, considering the basic assertion made is questionable.

I'm a bit confused at your response to the "perfect world" objection. It sounds like you disagree with the notion of a perfect world in principle because it would be difficult to imagine it - couldn't this same argument be applied to Catholic notions of heaven ? If we believe in heaven then it seems wrong to disagree with the idea of a perfect world in principle

@MrPeach1

Жыл бұрын

Can you know that this isn't the perfect world though? What scale do we use to rank worlds perfectness when we don't have any others to compare it to. I like the points he brings out about a perfect world lacking struggles. When you realize it takes the winter to enjoy the summer, it takes the night to appreciate the day, it takes the storm to recognize the calm, you do see that these bad things to bring about a good. The jobs that I have worked in the past that were accomplished with great struggling came with an amazing sense of job satisfaction. In a way this world seems perfected in it's imperfections.

@SuperSaiyanKrillin

Жыл бұрын

@@MrPeach1 It isn't a perfect world because its not heaven. Isn't this the Catholic perspective ? I can affirm all of the things you listed but then once you consider a heaven then it's a big question mark. Heaven lacks struggles - does that mean Trent or yourself believe that Heaven therefore can't logically be perfect ? It just seems like that's what your thinking leads to

@MrPeach1

Жыл бұрын

@@SuperSaiyanKrillin in a way my thinking does lead in that direction. There are times when i watch the sunsets and hear a train in the distance and think. Man if heaven is better than this that is saying a lot. This place may not be exactly paradise but it can come very close to it. I can punt here though be cause as Christians we say : "Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, Nor have entered into the heart of man The things which God has prepared for those who love Him. Corinthians 2:9." That's an admission that we have no clue what a perfect paradise is going to be like.

@Joker22593

Жыл бұрын

@@SuperSaiyanKrillin It's a good question. I think some theologians say that heaven is a state of being more than a physical place. It's a kind of existence where we have access to the Beatific Vision, which would be something like a complete infusion of the knowledge of God into our minds and souls. At the end of time, God creates a new Heaven and a new Earth so that our bodies have a physical space to interact with after the General Resurection. It's possible that in this new earth, we could still choose to experience struggles if they were goods, like the struggle of creativity, but would not be required to struggle due to a lack of goods, like an inability to paint restricting our ability to create a painting.

@Chicken_of_Bristol

Жыл бұрын

I think Trent is getting at the idea that if we say something is a "perfect x" what we mean is that the actual thing perfectly matches the form of "x." We're comparing the thing to its platonic ideal. But the concept of "world" that we're talking about here is just the sum total of the things in it, there's not a platonic ideal for a world that we can judge a world against without looking at the specific things in the world and judging them individually and then doing some sort of probably utilitarian calculus to add them together. Is a hypothetical world with a perfect circle and an imperfect circle better or worse than just a hypothetical world with just a perfect circle? It's not even intuitively obvious whether or not the inclusion of imperfect things would make a world better or worse than a world with fewer perfect things. And that's not even getting into considerations we have to make surrounding infinities as well. Heaven is a perfect world in the sense that everyone in heaven is perfectly conformed to God's will (and therefore is perfectly satisfied in being there), but it's not clear to me that we should consider Heaven as a separate world that exists completely independently of this one, since people move from this world to heaven, but we can also move from this world to Hell, so it really seems like we're being imprecise with our definition of "world" when Heaven is a subset of creation, not just this other thing that we're committed to believing God made and could have just made that without all this other stuff too.

Pretty sad that professors life work is about talking about another professors life work.

Being a determinist and believing in moral responsibility is like judging the rock for falling on the guy. Wacky.

@tonyisnotdead

2 ай бұрын

what? determinism, free will... it doesn't matter outside of pretentious, philosophical debates

You ever debrief your debate with Dustin Crummet??...

@YovanypadillaJr

Жыл бұрын

@YAJUN YUAN a while ago on the Majesty of Reason channel. It was on abortion.

@rebelresource

Жыл бұрын

@YAJUN YUAN A while ago - on Joe Schmid's channel.

@rebelresource

Жыл бұрын

@@YovanypadillaJr I am pro-life - but it seems like Trent was not doing super well in that discussion. I wanted to see what a thoughtful response would be like from him.

@mnmmnm925

Жыл бұрын

@@rebelresource Trent didn't do bad. It basically turned into a debate on personal identity. So the response to Dustin would just explain why Dustin's view of personal identity is wrong. Some alternative views of personal identity (that are compatible with the pro-life view) are animalism and _hylomorphic_ dualism. Those are some avenues that Trent could've taken. Also, lookup Monica Snyder's debate with Dustin. She fights fire with fire and nullifies a lot of Dustin's controversial personal identity thought experiments.

"if an all powerful God" - I guess when you can just posit this, you will be willing to believe anything.

@noahhirons8223

25 күн бұрын

Couldn't make an argument so you result to insults?

I've heard sedevacantists even praise Trent Horn...do you live in Ohio Trent? Just curious...anyway one sede said to me "Trent could be a card-carrying theologian if he wanted to be one, he's the best apologist that the "Novus Ordo" has.

"There are theists who don't believe in free will." Heck, there are atheists who don't believe in free will. Science studying minds and decision-making are a lot more conflicted on the question of free will than a lot of people realize.

:)

Hang on, you don't believe in the bodily general resurrection?? That's an absolutely core Christian teaching, and always has been since the teaching of Christ and the writing of the New Testament itself. Even Aquinas with his platonist talk of the beatific vision (a problematic concept from an orthodox perspective) didn't deny the bodily resurrection.

No, hang on. "The best of all possible worlds" isn't incoherent, isn't that what Christians believe Heaven will be like? Or is Heaven not perfect?

@martyfromnebraska1045

Жыл бұрын

I assume by “world” they mean “physical universe,” as that’s generally what’s meant in these discussions. Unity with God (Heaven) is perfection because God is perfection. What would a perfect material universe look like, exactly?

@anthonymarchetta8796

Жыл бұрын

@@martyfromnebraska1045 Wouldn't it look like the New Jerusalem? We will be bodily resurrected at the end of time. Matter isn't going to cease to exist.

@Essex626

Жыл бұрын

@@martyfromnebraska1045 but the ultimate end, as I understand it is to be a restored and perfected material universe. As it says in Revelation, a new heaven and new earth. The idea that such a concept is nonsense, except for in the future when it will be so doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

Great. Now the audience may or may not be convinced of a maybe deterministic God who maybe theres no afterlife with, and theres maybe possible reasons He allows suffering and hides himself. I'm not a full blown Jay Dyer presuppose the essence energy distinction kinda guy, but when we are finding ourselves arguing for the possibility of things contrary to our position, and relying on a possibly imaginable solution to the strongest objections something has gone wrong imho.

Spare yourself some effort and go to Penrose showing that consciousness is beyond the grasp of quantum computation. Why not interview Penrose? He is one of the only significant ones out there.

Yes it is embarrassing to be in Texas

Is the problem of evil resolved even with an afterlife as you envision it, right now? Is justice really doled out? The wicked punished and the good rewarded? Is there any fly in that ointment? Can serial murderers go to heaven? Yes. Can good, compassionate, socially equitable atheists go to heaven? No. So what exactly is being rewarded and punished in the afterlife?

@danielborst7598

Жыл бұрын

The only fly in the ointment is the one we put there. That is why Jesus tells people to take the beams out of their eyes, so that they can get the splinters out of their brothers' eyes. We are the ones who put the beams in our eyes, and it is up to us to allow God to help us take it out. Yet, what if we do not admit that there is a beam in our eyes? Can God remove that beam? Can God take the fly out of the ointment if we keep putting it there? In other words, does free will matter? God does not send us to eternal punishment--we send ourselves, by repeatedly turning away from God.

@stephengalanis

Жыл бұрын

@@danielborst7598 You've missed the point and not dealt with the problem. That wasn't worth typing out. I'll use your phrase. If "turning away from god" is what is really rewarded and punished, this necessarily shatters this idea that Christinaity resolves the problem of evil with the afterlife. "Don't worry folk, in the afterlife all the injustice of this life will be made right. Good is ultimately rewarded and evil is punished!" No it isn't. And you know that. The serial killer who turns to god gets heaven, the good socially equitable kind generous atheist who doesn't think god is real goes to hell. That's the core problem: it's not good or evil that's rewarded or punished, it's submission.

Believers do not have to debate - that's taking The Bait. Belief. That's how it works. Believers believe they are on a planet - they are not - they don't believe. Matthew 6. Why Christ said pray in private - the veil lifts, then you can easily "debunk" the bs - we're surrounded by fire - the water puts out the fire, or we'd be toast - this is judgment. Why Debate is for the foolish. Light a match. Apollo did not put his throne above the clouds (Isaiah 14). You are in rainbows (in sin) and blinded by delight.

@therick363

Жыл бұрын

We aren’t on a planet?

@noahhirons8223

25 күн бұрын

No Peter refutes this 1 Peter 3:15

Rehashing the "Does God exist?"debate reminds me of the movie Gods not Dead if you are making a sequel then you didn't prove your point the first time. There are four of those movies not. Apologists aren't actually trying to prove the existence of Yahweh just like those movies aren't trying to prove god is not dead. What apologists and that movie have in common is talking about Yahweh as an imaginary character. The real question is, Where is your God character right now in reality in real-time?

I am the only person on the planet who should be involved in these events as they are all fails from the outset and shouldn't occur. You do not debate existence for a host of logical reasons. You don't debate things into or out of existence e, ergo, there is no debate to be had. God is a word and nothing more. Albert Einstein understood this and said as much. I understand this too. Maybe he and I are,or in his case, were, the only two bright people on the planet. The opposite of theism is not atheism. It is intelligence. Existence is self revelatory. Things either exist or don't exist independent of our declarations either way. Our role is to discover they exist through our apparati of discovery/knowing. And once they have been discovered they are studied, understood, labeled , defined and classified And after that point, when anyone refers to that thing, everyone both agrees it exists and knows it by the same terms in the same way and according to one definition. NONE OF THIS applies to the term god. Unless you can tell me when and where and by whom god was discovered to exist and the whole world agrees. Furthermore, anything that is known to exist remains a subject of study and learning and is continually learned from and about. So tell me the top ten things that were learned about god in the past ten years and that were announced on CNN and that the whole world agrees to. Do you see the problem we have here. And finally, if something exists, one person should be able to point it out to another and have the other instantly agree they are both witnessing something that exists, what is is, how it functions and relates - in the same terms. Again, NONE of this applies o the term god. It doesn't apply because there is no predicate to go by because there is nothing by anyone's prefab definitions of a god that has been shown to exist. Add to this all the other logical fails of theism - that anyone can have their own version, they can keep changing their version, no two people ever have to agree, so everyone gets to be right all the time as no one can prove anyone else wrong. And I've got more. All gods are invented. All 1,000 over the past 10,000 years. Not to see this is to have a non-functioning brain. So there is no discussion nor debate regarding the word god. For atheists to engage in such is a huge mistake.

@danielborst7598

Жыл бұрын

You have a point, as you and Einstein are positing and focusing upon a scientifically-defined notion of existence. Yet, there are non-scientific understandings of existence which are as equally valid as empirically-defined existence. We believe in the words "kindness," "self-sacrifice," "honesty," "courage," "humility," "integrity," "anger," "hatred," "greed," "envy," "deceit," "selfishness," etc. We believe that these words represent realities which exist, realities which are part of the world, part of the human experience, reported upon regularly by CNN. However, the existence of these realities is not empirically verified, in the sense that they are independently observed and studied. We believe in their existence, not because we "observe" them as independent realities--we observe their effects. That is, their existence is verified through their effects. God's existence is just such a reality. We know about God's existence, not because God is directly observable. We know about God's existence because of his effects, and one of the first effects of God is a longing in the human mind and heart for him, which is verified by the experiences of various peoples, from various places, over great spans of time. So, my questions to you are the following: If God does not exist, why are you responding to this video? Why are you spending your time addressing a debate about nothing? If God does not exist, why would it be of interest that people--whatever they believe--would debate God's existence? Why would it matter that it's a huge mistake?