This guy is the physical embodiment of the Reddit atheist who said, "Today I am euphoric. Not because of any phony god's blessing, but because I am enlightened. I am euphoric of my intelligence."

"What created God?" That's not low-hanging fruit. Those are potatoes.

@MrCheesywaffles

Жыл бұрын

I think you'll find those are rocks. Vaguely potato-ish rocks in size and shape, but still rocks.

@eduardogardin879

Жыл бұрын

Besides it takes a lot more faith to believe that Nothing Blew up and Became Everything. Only a God could do this

@Horustheoriginalgod

Жыл бұрын

@@eduardogardin879 but which god. There are thousands of them

@therick363

Жыл бұрын

@@eduardogardin879 why is the only two choices nothing or god?

@ironymatt

Жыл бұрын

@@therick363 "nothing" isn't a credible choice. Tbf, neither are most of mankind's concepts of god. This is what brings people of intellectual integrity and good faith to the arguments for classical theism, and the task of understanding those arguments is poorly served with one-liners and slogans.

This is Trent's "I need a break so I'll rebut something easy" video. Given the several hour long videos he's been doing recently, this is totally understandable. Thanks Trent.

@bernardevillaw3410

Жыл бұрын

The catholic god of child rape isn't the real god. 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. Jesus said child rape was UNFORGIVABLE (Matt 18:6-14), and everyone who supported it will get eternal damnation. That means every catholic. THe catholic god of child rape is satan himself.

@TheCounselofTrent

Жыл бұрын

Ha! That may be one reason. However, I do want to engage more atheism topics and, surprisingly, when you search "God does not exist" on KZread this is the third video that comes up.

@bernardevillaw3410

Жыл бұрын

@YAJUN YUAN Hilarious. The guy in this video belongs to the Catholic Church of child rape, which worships the Catholic pedophile god. This is the perfect place to comment on exactly that point. If you don't understand, then this class is too advanced for you.

@abramwarpness6053

Жыл бұрын

I see you around on other comment sections now and then. True warrior poet.

@newglof9558

Жыл бұрын

@A W some have called me a silver tongued devil, others just call me a fundie. I appreciate the recognition

"Can we have CosmicSkeptic?" "We have CosmicSkeptic at home." CosmicSkeptic at home:

@HodgePodgeVids1

Жыл бұрын

Underated comment

@omarvazquez3355

Жыл бұрын

🤣🤣🤣😂

@1122bigblue

Жыл бұрын

I burst out laughing

@calebadcock363

Жыл бұрын

This is the dollar general CosmicSkeptic

@Anthny1

Жыл бұрын

GreatValueSkeptic

I noticed the atheist didn’t actually engage any of the classic argument for the existence of God. He merely dismissed them.

@brianfarley926

Жыл бұрын

That’s because he’s unable to. Not intellectually capable even though he comes off as an expert 😂

@hanntonn2

Жыл бұрын

@@brianfarley926 That's what the British accent does.

@deiniolbythynnwr926

Жыл бұрын

@@hanntonn2 That's not a British accent, he's foreign.

@briceidycierramarrujosmith4563

Жыл бұрын

@@brianfarley926The classic arguments like nature being proof of god? Nature must not be very good proof since there are millions of gods all with vastly different characteristics & personalities. Some cultures even see nature as a sort of god in an of itself. I’d assume that a supreme deity who wanted everyone to worship it who be a little more clear. Heck! Christians can’t even agree on what the Bible means, not do they agree on justification, Baptism, if salvation is able to be lost, etc. Even worse, every denomination claims to have the correct interpretation.

@brianfarley926

Жыл бұрын

@@briceidycierramarrujosmith4563 None of those assertions you put forth shows God doesn’t exist. We can know through reason that God does exist whether everyone agrees on whether it’s the Abrahamic God of the 3 major religions and disputes over Bible interpretation also doesn’t invalide whether God exists or not. The major religions are the Abrahamic religions and they all profess to worship the same God, the creator of life. Jews, Christian’s and Muslims. And yes nature does point to the existence of God you live in an intelligible Universe bound By laws of nature that sprang from non existence into existence. The Universe has been fine tuned to accept life, and not just life but intelligent life (humans) who were placed above the animals of this earth in intelligence as well Doctrinal issues and issues of interpretation of the Bible is a human problem, so once again it doesn’t invalide whether God exists or not. Specifically I would say the evidence clearly leans in the Christian faith to Catholicism but it’s a different discussion on whether God exists or he doesn’t. For example Christianity can be false but it would not then prove God doesn’t exist it would disprove the God of Christian understanding exists.

Edgy teenagers and immature adults can be fooled by "low hanging fruit" so keep up the good work!

@rushthezeppelin

Жыл бұрын

I was for a long time. Originally was an atheist because of the problem of suffering but also later used to love the arguments like this. Ironically it was an atheist Aristotelian philosopher who actually primed me to philosophically accepting God.

@kiryu-chan577

Жыл бұрын

Yes, father, these teenagers are being taught this stuff along with other evil ideologies in public schools and even private schools.

@eduardogardin879

Жыл бұрын

I don’t think that people who are interested in atheist videos would also listen to your rebuttal

@eduardogardin879

Жыл бұрын

Another problem is that the narrator can’t show how the universe came into being since nothing can be created from nothing in the natural world

@FrJohnBrownSJ

Жыл бұрын

@@eduardogardin879 right. Also, it is as irrational to believe in the scientific explanation of what was going on in the first moments after the big bang as it is to believe in miracles. Nearly all laws of physics were apparently inapplicable! How scientific is that? But ok, that doesn't mean I deny that explanation as credible.

I recently discovered that Juan Maldacena (probably the the best theoretical physicist of his generation, according to his peers) is a practicing Roman Catholic. These people who pretend as if being sufficiently intelligent and simply employing "logic" will lead you not to believe in God drive me crazy. The entire idea of "smart"=atheism is demonstrably false and does a lot of harm in the world (especially for young people).

@killianmiller6107

Жыл бұрын

It seems like the bell curve meme. On the lower bound you have the more low IQ faithful people who may say “just have faith” as an answer to everything, then you have the median IQ being atheist/agnostic, somewhat smarter, then you have the upper bound high IQ extremely intelligent people being devout theists.

@Epiousios18

Жыл бұрын

@@killianmiller6107 Francis Bacon was right, "It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion." To your point as well, it doesn't seem like Maldacena talks about Faith or Religion much. I just saw an interview he did with the American Institute of Physics where he simply said, "Yes, I am still a Church goer" and left it at that.

@therick363

Жыл бұрын

@@Epiousios18 I disagree with bacon. The more I learn and understand the less I see any gods

@Epiousios18

Жыл бұрын

@@therick363 Bacon and most people would agree with you about understanding leading to unbelief in "gods." He was referring to God. Also, beware of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

@stefanmilicevic5322

Жыл бұрын

Of course. That's just how antireligious and militant atheistic polemics and propaganda work my dude. As long as they believe it to be true (even if it is shown to be false) they just keep the polemics alive within their echochambers which will radicalize other people to become themselves antireligious polemicst and militant atheistic propagandist. Isn't socio-psychology fun? Its a breeding space for a whole interesting study of sociolpsychology concernd with groupthink and the like.

I like how Trent monetizes atheists to further evangelization

@keagaming9837

5 ай бұрын

Amen! I'm not exactly an evangelist Christian but I agree with Trent on a lot of things and seeing him debunk these atheists is amazing! :D

@alexe8330

5 ай бұрын

​@@keagaming9837Trent is Catholic

"Ask yourself, what's more likely" oh no, here comes hand waving.

@tobiasyoder

Жыл бұрын

*proceeds to make assumption based on faith that their intuition holds despite not being based on anything*

@tobiasyoder

Жыл бұрын

Why do you think you can trust your memory or other minds exist? “Uh.. just cause… my memory and gut says so…”. People often don’t realize the implicit faith based assumptions they implicitly accept on a daily basis.

@Silvia_Arienti

Жыл бұрын

Nice seeing you here

@kacperfrontczak1257

7 ай бұрын

​@@tobiasyoderI say you're a cow. Does that make you a cow? What makes you think you can trust your mind that you're not a cow? What if everyone thought you were a cow, would you be then a cow?

@tobiasyoder

7 ай бұрын

@@kacperfrontczak1257 Right I can't no for sure that am I not a cow, but at some point everything we believe boils down to philosophical seemings. It just seems to be the case that I am a cow and until presented with a strong defeater I am going to operate under the belief that I am indeed not a cow. It just seems to be the case that the sun is hot and that 1 != 2 and I am going to go with that.

Sitting here with chronic back pain thinking about how I could have offended the god of all chairs. 😢

@DougMarv

6 ай бұрын

Good one buddy. But don't worry, the only one you offended was your own back lol

@Onlyafool172

4 ай бұрын

Irish mithology is tuff

3:50 The condescending sarcasm mixes so well with the misspelling on this screen

@macmedic892

Жыл бұрын

“Recieve” the Nobel Peace “Price”. That’s next-level!

@ironymatt

Жыл бұрын

@@macmedic892 next to the bottom of the barrel level

@purplesamurai5205

3 ай бұрын

God not only exists, but has a sense of humor.

@richardgeraghty-slevin4979

2 ай бұрын

It was not condescending

@purplesamurai5205

2 ай бұрын

@@richardgeraghty-slevin4979 It was

People need to stop saying "you can't prove a negative". I actually believed that at one point, but then I started studying logic, and it turns out, you can prove a negative. We prove negatives all the time. You can't construct a valid argument on two negative premises, but one of your premises can be a negative premise and your argument still be sound. Atheists love to claim they're on the side of "logic" and reason, but they keep repeating illogical claims like this.

@Nimish204

Жыл бұрын

Prove that we are not in the matrix.

@clintonwilcox4690

Жыл бұрын

@@Nimish204 This is nonsensical. I don't think think there's a way I could prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that we're not in the matrix, but that's an epistemological problem. It doesn't show that you can't prove a negative. We prove negatives all the time, and in formal logic, sound arguments can have one negative premise in them.

@SMt155

Жыл бұрын

​@@Nimish204 being unable to prove *a* negative, doesn't mean you can't prove negatives in general. You'd have to give a logical reason why you can't prove negatives, not just give random examples of negatives we can't prove.

@WaterCat5

Жыл бұрын

You can prove a negative. However, the Christian God is constantly moved into places where we cannot test its properties. For example, if I say I have an undetectable dragon in my garage, you cannot prove me wrong. But if I say you can see it with your eyes, then you can easily come and see that I am wrong, thus proving the negative. The issue is Christians create no lose situations l. For example, the Bible says God will answer prayers, but when we perform tests on, say, if prayer can heat up a glass of water, Christians are quick to say that it won't work because you can't test God. The very Bible itself says you should not test him. So yeah, give me a falsifiable claim about your God, and then we can talk about falsifying him.

@HansBezemer

9 ай бұрын

A negative must be interpreted as "not falsifiable". E.g. a premise like "I do not have six fingers on my left hand" is falsifiable, because I have five fingers. But still, it is stated as a negative premise. A statement like "There is a teapot turning around Saturn" is not falsifiable - although it is stated as a positive premise. Just like a teapot is small, can only be located somewhere in a vast area and is constantly moving, God is moving all the time as well. Nowadays theists claim He is "beyond space and time". Theists claim He exists - which requires positive proof. Just show the God. Therefore, the "burden of proof" lies with theists. A negative proof makes it not falsifiable, because you can't observe anything "beyond space and time". Read up on your Russell, Popper and Wittgenstein, pal.

The narrator has a very cartoonish view of not only classical theism, but, polytheistic pagan practices from classical antiquity as well. This is a common overgeneralization by many skeptics and non skeptics alike and it sprouts from a complete lack of historical knowledge and ignorance. The numerous polytheistic practices that we find in classical antiquity were far more complex than they are given credit for. There was much more to Thor and Zeus than a hammer and lightning bolts, the sky to Horus or Sun to Ra. Ancient practitioners of these traditions in antiquity, whether it be Norse, Egyptian, Roman, Greek, Slavic etc., didn't stumble and shutter everytime they heard thunder crack the sky. Many naturalistic occurrences came to be associated with the "gods", yes, these associations didn't incapsulate or contain the "gods". Science did not come along and dismantle belief in these ancient pantheons, Christianity did. Pagan reconstruction movements worldwide are seeing a large resurgence and science doesn't seem to be a hindrance. Naturalistic science came well after the widespread abandonment of pagan practices so as to why people even attempt to make that assumption is simply unfounded from a historical perspective. It's just a common strawman used against pagan beliefs in an attempt to belittle and deconstruct them. It's easier to knockdown a simplified version of your adversary than it is the real thing. Christ is King.

Good grief, who dug up this relic from 2008?

@RabidLeech.

3 ай бұрын

Ikr🤣 Either that or or he’s muffled his mic with Cheeto dust!

I used to love Trent until I found out he's a Santa denier.

@darnit1944

4 ай бұрын

Santa Claus exist. He slapped the heretic Arius' hands

@DavidelCientificoLoco

3 ай бұрын

And know he is the North Pole​@@darnit1944

@tylere.8436

2 ай бұрын

He probably meant the Americanized mythos of Santa Claus; he's not denying Saint Nicolas, who Santa Claus is based on.

@darnit1944

2 ай бұрын

@@tylere.8436 It's a joke. You missed the joke

@tylere.8436

2 ай бұрын

@@darnit1944 What's the punchline? Conspiracy theorist?

I'm offended that the narrator's voice sounds infinitely wiser than the middle school arguments it's spouting 😂

@yblackie

5 ай бұрын

Lemme guess: you're American?😂 No offence but Americans often seem to think European accents sound smarter

Anyone ever experience things like “evolution of the gaps” arguments, like trying to explain aspects of humanity by speculating on the way we think hunter gatherers lived, without evidence they actually lived that way?

@michaelchadwell4980

Жыл бұрын

The most egregious example of this is “Stoned Ape Theory”

@maxalaintwo3578

Жыл бұрын

Mega real. "Religion is just a psychological coping mechanism we've evolved to rationalize our own superstitions and mortality." Except there's no evidence whatsoever that religious belief positively correlates with mental disorder, neuroticism or anything else

@single_spaghetto

Жыл бұрын

@@michaelchadwell4980 I think I have heard of it! Please correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't it say that consciousness is a byproduct of an ape getting stoned or something?

@bernardoohigginsvevo2974

Жыл бұрын

@@single_spaghetto Yeah, from I what I know, it hypothesizes that a group higher-evolved primates (like chimps, for example) tripped on psychedelics over a period of time and were able to have a series of transcendent experiences that triggered the development of the human-level consciousness. Obviously it's more complicated like that, but that's the gist of it.

@carnivalwholesale9809

Жыл бұрын

Maybe because science has been filling those gaps and Never Have those gaps been the Catholic God

My guy put up five headed dragon from yugioh in his hypothetical about a five headed dragon. Finally someone is giving five headed dragon some love.

Seems this guy just loaded up on the God Delusion and made this video.

@AragornRespecter

Жыл бұрын

The pseudo-intellectualism caused by that book has been a disaster for humanity.

@godofthegaps6741

Жыл бұрын

Well, it Is a delusion..

@ZenexTheZealous

Жыл бұрын

@@godofthegaps6741 How so?

@garymanz3403

Жыл бұрын

@@godofthegaps6741 you’re just going to leave it at that without actually saying anything?

@WhyWasntIBornInTheMiddleAges

Жыл бұрын

@@garymanz3403 What else would you expect from these sorts of people?

90 percent of his "arguement" was most "gods and/or miracles" aren't real so there is no real God or miracles. 10 years ago I made have been hit with doubt but thank God for RCIA and the renaissance of Christian apologetics.

@cosmicnomad8575

Жыл бұрын

Apologetics are great! They allowed me to come back to the Faith when I was a skeptic for many years! It made me realize that the arguments against Catholicism and God that I had found so convincing were much weaker than I thought and showed me that Religion can and does incorporate reason. May God bless you, my friend!

Crazy to think when I was I kid I would have been somewhat persuaded by the narrator's argument. Now as an adult know better arguments in Philosophy for God, his arguments do seem like low hanging fruit.

@stefanmilicevic5322

Жыл бұрын

You are not alone with that bud. As the saying goes, you mature with age. You recognize the bad from the good,

@tobiasyoder

Жыл бұрын

@@stefanmilicevic5322 it’s crazy how you can only realize your own stupidity insights even though as teenagers we really couldn’t help but think we were wiser then we were

@kazumakiryu157

9 ай бұрын

Amen to this. When I was a younger teen, I was a devout atheist. Looking back, I was soooooooo stupid.

@tomasrocha6139

9 ай бұрын

​@@kazumakiryu157A devout atheist is an oxymoron

@kazumakiryu157

9 ай бұрын

@@tomasrocha6139 sadly, it isn't. There are many "devout" atheists. Atheism, is, sadly, a worldview that people adhere to, at least some atheists do, and I was one of them. Nothing oxymoronic going on here. As in, I did what many internet keyboard warrior atheists do, I argued with theists, I mocked them, actively went into "fellowship"(😂) with other atheists, etc. I mean, in hindsight, if I truly merely "lacked belief" I wouldn't have done those things. And, honestly, neither would you do what you are doing now. I mean, come on, wasting your single finite life to come onto a theist KZread channel to argue with a former atheist about semantics? Why even bother.

He says think critically of your God but most atheists would never even think for a second that there could be a God, therefore they are not critical of their beliefs.

@loupfau29

4 ай бұрын

That may be true. However, many atheists (like myself right now) are very unsure and skeptical about their own beliefs, which is why they are so involved in the topic of the existence or non-existence of God.

@voltekthecyborg7898

2 ай бұрын

This is why New Atheism is not the new wave of logic and reasoning: it's a cult. "Yous needs to thinks critically cause I says so. And I says so cause Richawd Doawkins says so. Yous cannot awgues with me, aw else yous a dumb person cause yous not of our New Atheism movement." They indoctrinate people and then get defensive when THEY'RE questioned, and start hurling insults at you because you questioned their way of thinking. Their religion, if you really want to make them pissed.

"What created God?" "What triggered the big bang?"

@IsraelCountryCube

4 ай бұрын

And we Christians Catholics claim big bang

@MarkelBeverley

4 ай бұрын

And who created the Big Bang argument?

@christopher7725

4 ай бұрын

The universe just is. Now what’s your argument

@jabodetabek1337

4 ай бұрын

@@christopher7725 so the universe is sentient?

@christopher7725

4 ай бұрын

@@jabodetabek1337 no

You mean the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist?! Say it ain't so Trent. Say it ain't so!

@srwordsussecuaces6374

11 ай бұрын

Weezer reference?

@NoahTravit

4 ай бұрын

Ramen!

Great episode! Quick and to-the-point! Love it when there are smaller episodes like these. They help me have more time at the end of the day. Thanks, Trent!

When people refer to the flying spaghetti monster like it’s new or something, I just kind of roll my eyes nowadays. C’mon, guys, the early 2000s called; they want their tired out memes back.

@lorddio4280

6 ай бұрын

Religion in and of itself is an old meme so I don't see the problem.

@bryantstudentd3831

3 ай бұрын

Atheism is an old meme ​@@lorddio4280

I have studied apologetics for half a year now. Arguments for God, Counter arguments and theology. This was one of the first rebuttals I‘ve watched and I was like what could you possibly say about that? Now watching again, it seems just like a really silly video. Thank God for people like you Trent who explain it, it really doesn‘t take much time to know enough to know how to rebut these videos and comments alike. God bless you all!

@TheCounselofTrent

4 ай бұрын

Thank you for watching!!

@diddsdaddiddsdad6865

Ай бұрын

You think that he done a good job 😂. You need to watch more videos.

wow, what year is it? my calendar doesn't go back to 2011 youtube...

@grubblewubbles

Жыл бұрын

This video is literally a time macine

If Cosmic Sceptic and Rationality Rules could have a baby together, the kid’s voice would sound like that guy.

@tobiasyoder

Жыл бұрын

Based on the arguments I’d say he’s probably their 13 year old son who’s going through his edgy phase

Hello, Trent! Can you make a rebuttal video on John Corvino's "What's morally wrong with homosexuality"? I am pretty sure that he took the Bible out of context

@exerciserelax8719

Жыл бұрын

☝️🙂

@brianfarley926

Жыл бұрын

💯

@Wired4Life2

Жыл бұрын

*”Those who have a problem when a man with a penis identifies as a woman are strangely silent when a man thinks of his anus as a vagina."* - Joseph Sciambra, Christian author who had lived the same-sex lifestyle and took part in hardcore porn in San Francisco during the 1990s

@brianfarley926

Жыл бұрын

@@Wired4Life2 obviously he has issues

@Wired4Life2

Жыл бұрын

@@brianfarley926 Scandalized to the point of recently leaving Catholicism for Eastern Orthodoxy. :(

I totally agree that rebutting this awful thinking is important because it is the kind of narrative that appeals to a lot of people who have never thought seriously about these things. Clearly it is viral because a lot of kids are watching it. Thank you Trent!

@communityrags6048

Жыл бұрын

It certainly appeals to me. Please let me know how, quote, "I have never thought seriously about these things"

@carnivalwholesale9809

Жыл бұрын

But Trent Horn is wrong though.

@trafficjon400

10 ай бұрын

GOD SAID I ELLECT WHO I WANT AND NOT BECAUSE YOUR GOOD OR BAD. EVEN IF YOUR A TRUE FALLOWING OPOSTLE I DON'T ELLECT UNLESS I WANT. Sounds pretty dammed evil made.THE SCRIPTURES OF (ROMULUS) Was made 200 YEARS before the Scriptures of the Gosples? Scriptures of Romulus wrote 2 baby Brothers drifting in a basket down the river and later suckling on a wolf dogs tits. sound familiar??? The finished and latest Scriptures of BABY MOSES DRIFTING DOWN THE RIVER IN A BASKET CAPTURED BY A WOMAN of the King of Rome. I TRIED TO IGNORE IT BUT COULDN'T BE SO GULLIBLE TO KEEP IGNORING THE TRUTH OF INVENTION. Why so Many Harvard and Oxford Students who are becoming ministers Honestly after Reading studying these Holy Books become instant atheist. Don't Dare become Honest in truth or Become Shuned Discomunicated by the Evil of the Invention to Control the Masses of Humans. I BEG FOR A LOVING CREATOR AND FAIL DAILY? and Hate the cruel nature that brought us in to this cruel world of evil destruction mixed with a trick of love and promises that never prevailed and continues to fool us. Who truly is the ANTICHRIST in words that God proves it doesn't really Exist but the Actually Evil of the Christian trying their Hardest to Keep a Psichopathic Slave driven Condoned Genocidle God Alive are the True Antichrist antihumanist war makers and the same God believers who took Down the TOWERS Murdering 4000 People who were innocently doing their daily work and even TRUE CHRISTIAN FALLOWERS WHO GOD LET GENOCIDE MURDER THEN AND IF REAL ALIVE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS GENOCIDE IN 2001. GOD STILL TODAY CONDONES IT BUT ITS ACTUALLY NATURES CRUELTY ? Who doesn't know how to make a Perfect Human Body by so many miss makings like the eating tube right next to the breathing tube so people can choke to death on their food trying to breath. Mans texticles on the out side of the body indangered of being castrated. NATURE OR CREATOR OF NATURE IS CRUEL IN THE END. A-MEN Creator of Honest Love please come quickly we truly beg .

@cliftongaither6642

10 ай бұрын

are you really that stupid to think that atheists haven't thought about these things ? get a clue !!

@userJohnSmith

10 ай бұрын

​@@communityrags6048Belief in no God requires more faith than a belief in a God. Agnostics can accept a lack of knowledge. Atheism though that takes an unbelievable leap of faith.

Sad or funny, but the greatest irony is how those type of individuals would swear they are the smartest, most logical being ever conceived, yet their comprehension levels are juvenile at best. Pray for them, they desperately need help [both spiritual and psychological].

@therick363

Жыл бұрын

That goes both ways I’d say.

@stefanmilicevic5322

Жыл бұрын

Its a classical example of the Dunning-Kruger effect: "is a cognitive bias[2] whereby people with low ability, expertise, or experience regarding a certain type of task or area of knowledge tend to overestimate their ability or knowledge." from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

@user-bp6zy3zx2n

11 ай бұрын

​@@therick363very true! We should all just try to go to truth and always doubt ourselves!

@cliftongaither6642

10 ай бұрын

​@@user-bp6zy3zx2nwhy the hell would you doubt yourself for a god ? that's pathetic .

@kazumakiryu157

9 ай бұрын

​@@therick363definitely does, sadly, the people on atheism who do this(90% of internet atheists) get so much more publicity and are touted as "intellectually superior", when in reality, they have all the philosophical understanding of a potato(i.e. only able to scream, "FALLACY", at shit that isn't even a fallacy)

Please make more of these! I find general videos like these more helpful than niche topics although both are important of course

That video smells like fedoras and cheeto dust

@tobiasyoder

Жыл бұрын

Wish you could add photos to KZread comments. You know *exactly* which photo I’m thinking of

I find it very ironic, telling and sad that as he's going on about God's non existence, he's displaying His handiwork; the sky, rolling clouds, the sun, mountains like where Moses received the commandments-which we have "proof" of as well-....Poor man has scales over his eyes. Thank you for sharing but yes it is low hanging and depressing in a way.

@WhiteWolfSpirit

Жыл бұрын

*

The idea he said about those gods that had to do with natural phenomena died off because we explained the phenomena is ridiculous. He has to know that's not why people stopped worshipping those gods

@thehumblepotatoreborn9313

6 ай бұрын

Why did they actually stop. Seriously

@johnhoelzeman6683

6 ай бұрын

@@thehumblepotatoreborn9313 they were converted to other religions, usually Christianity or Islam. Cause we still have people who worship elemental-type gods like that

@joshmcgill4639

5 ай бұрын

Makes since cuz it's kinda stupid to belive that every aliment us some sort of god and not just, an elament

Waiting for the average internet atheists to show up and start strawmanning literally everything and using red herrings...

@newglof9558

Жыл бұрын

@@martyfromnebraska1045 the paradox of freethought: all atheists sound exactly the same

@newglof9558

Жыл бұрын

@Marty From Nebraska ask them to explain why religion exists without denigrating believers in some way (i.e. "some people need a crutch", "lack of education" or "not smart enough")

@danaharper9708

Жыл бұрын

@@newglof9558 Religion likely started when humans obtained the evolutionary intelligence point to realize how miserable they were. A miserably cold human wished for a warm day, _Viola'_ the beginning of religion!

@newglof9558

Жыл бұрын

@@danaharper9708 why does it persist? Remember, no explanations denigrating believers.

@csongorarpad4670

Жыл бұрын

@@danaharper9708 Is that a statement about a metaphysical and objective reality? If yes; how do you justify such a statement when you're making the logical presuposition and fallacy that any product of evolution can tell you anything about the truth?

1:19 dope ass mike quality.

Also, saying we don't believe in pagan gods is sort of a false assumption. We don't believe in them in the sense of thinking they are the one true God and putting our faith in them. I don't think we can say with any real certainty that they don't exist though. We believe in spiritual powers and they seemed to have a very powerful impact in the ancient world.

@gunsgalore7571

Жыл бұрын

I know St. Justin Martyr believed the pagan gods were indeed real, and I think a lot of other Church fathers thought so as well. The catch is that they were fallen angels (demons) who led humans into worshipping them. So we would say these were just created spiritual beings, obviously infinitely less powerful than God, indeed created by God before they fell from gracew.

@cosmicnomad8575

Жыл бұрын

That’s an interesting point

SANTA ISNT REAL??!!😢

It's funny that in the same moment he is saying that negatives can't be proven, he begs the question about a negative (gods are not real) by asserting without evidence that all the gods he named are manmade.

@trentlytle7289

Жыл бұрын

That's because of the null state. In order for our universe to be logically coherent, we must assume things don't exist until they can be proven to exist. This is best expresses in Russell's Teapot analogy. To be fair, all *religions* are manmade

@HodgePodgeVids1

Жыл бұрын

@@trentlytle7289 Christ was a God-Man so you’re kinda right

@trentlytle7289

Жыл бұрын

@@HodgePodgeVids1 Jesus didn't start a new religion, he was Jewish participating in a Jewish prophecy. His followers changed practices to suit their needs and thus multiple Christianities were born.

@cliftongaither6642

10 ай бұрын

without evidence ? as if you have evidence for your god .

@kazumakiryu157

9 ай бұрын

​@@cliftongaither6642we actually do though. But... You would just like to dismiss anything I would say, so just ignore me. You'll find out one day.

Two comments: 1: Naturally explainable events do not have to be an either/or when a supernatural cause is involved. For example, a patient cured in a diagnosed terminal cancer remission can be explained by the application of medical science in chemotherapy. But that does not "prove" that it was the medical science that was solely or even primarily responsible for the cure, when prayer was also involved. 2: Not all evidence for God involves the physical sciences. For example, someone may love their pet dog. The dog may even sense that the owner loves it. However, it does not necessarily follow that the dog's owner owes the dog an explanation for every expression of that love. The dog may dislike veterinary visits, yet that is an expression of the owner's love. The dog may enjoy the food and water he is given, but that does not mean that the owner needs to explain to the dog where the food and water comes from, how it is made or the economics of paying for this care. The dog is not owed an explanation, nor could he understand, even if an explanation were given. How much more does the God who created man love us, than we love a dog whom we merely own. The sin of pride assumes that we are owed an explanation and that we have the capacity to understand it, even if it were given.

@jacobbenjamin4929

Жыл бұрын

Such a beautiful comment. I so love how you explained it in such a way showing that GOD is loving.

Hi Trent! While you were on break for Christmas, I came across a video called "How Cognitive Dissonance Explains Christianity" by Matthew Harke. I commented my own initial rebuttal thoughts, but I was hoping you or someone else with a decent following in Christian apologetics might be able to make a rebuttal video.

Oh dear - somebody didn't pay attention in philosophy class. You can't compare an a priori proposition with an a posteriori proposition. The proposition that all bachelors are unmarried is a priori, and the proposition that it is raining outside now is a posteriori. The distinction between the two terms is epistemological and immediately relates to the justification for why a given item of knowledge is held. Wittgenstein goes even a step further and claims that no proposition can be known a priori - there are no apriori truths (TLP 3.05), and that there is only logical necessity (TLP 6.37) - which your bachelor example represents. It is a logical necessity since it only exists ontologically. (TLP 2.16) "In order to be a picture a fact must have something in common with what it pictures" and (TLP 2.161) "In the picture and the pictured there must be something identical in order that the one can be a picture of the other at all" all indicate that facts relating to the real world can *only* be given a definitive truth value if they are compared with the object they represent - aka a posteriori. I don't know whether it has been represented here as such out of ignorance or whether it is just disingenuous. And I don't know what's worse.

2:05 Hold on… WHAT? No Santa??? What kind of maniac is this?

@manfredvonmanfred199

Жыл бұрын

Dear Santa deniers, if santa isnt real, why does my present CLEARLY say it was from SANTA!

@MathAdam

Жыл бұрын

@@manfredvonmanfred199 Exactly!! Internal documentary evidence clearly points to Santa

@user-jx5my5ef2c

6 ай бұрын

⁠​⁠@@manfredvonmanfred199 Santa Clause is a symbolic spirit of charity who pours out the Christmas spirit which inhabits and guides the body mind and soul of the present giver and joyful participants towards Christmas joy and merriness

Here's a like Trent for doing a another good job.

2:02 Santa Clause DOES exist. He is based on a completely real greek priest, st. Nicholas.

When another atheist is trying to logically or even scientifically prove the absence of God, asking "Who created God?", I am glad that there is wisdom among us to really think about it, but not just agree with them or simply reject their opinion.

@voltekthecyborg7898

2 ай бұрын

A co-worker asked me that, and then I told them about how if this one god created another god, it will just be a line of gods creating gods creating gods and we will not be in the universe (or multiverse) we are in. But God is infinite: He needs not a creator the same way we need one. That means God never had a beginning, and He will never have an end.

Unfollowing. I could NEVER support a Santa Denier😔😔😔

“Easy work for you brother Trent. “ 🙏 God bless you.

Trent saying “god revealed himself through Jesus Christ”, as if it was a fact, is deceitful at best because it comes from the book that is on trial here. Because that’s where his god comes from.

@razoredge6130

8 ай бұрын

It is a fact. Like Jesus and the bible are the most persevered and documented piece of literature in ancient world.

@seanodowd4085

8 ай бұрын

@@razoredge6130 all you did was say “it’s a fact”. With no evidence to back it up…..cool story.

@razoredge6130

8 ай бұрын

@@seanodowd4085 I put up the bible.

@seanodowd4085

8 ай бұрын

@@razoredge6130 I know. That’s the problem. The Bible is where you get your god. That’s like saying Harry Potter is real because of the Harry Potter series. Or spider man is real because it was written. You must look outside of what is on trial.

@razoredge6130

8 ай бұрын

@@seanodowd4085 The bible contains direct eye witnesses of Jesus. Its like dismissing eye witnesses testimony in court.

When someone does the spagghetti monster argument i lose my faith, in that we are actually the peak of intelligence on earth that is

I used to enjoy debating these people, but as I've gotten older I've gotten tired of it because despite their claims of being logical, the vast majority tend to shut down the second the logic starts heading to a conclusion they dislike. They will bite some pretty big bullets such as denying the principle of sufficient reason just to get away from anything that even shows God might be a reasonable explanation.

@Catholicsquirrel

Жыл бұрын

Agreed! I've found many atheists are "militantly atheist" and typically have unresolved daddy issues- not to be rude, but truly. In reality, their allegiance is not to the truth at all, but to making themselves feel better and therefore makes having a genuine conversation with them impossible. If God doesn't exist you don't need to be so angry about it!

@therick363

Жыл бұрын

What conclusions does the logic start heading to?

@therick363

Жыл бұрын

@@Catholicsquirrel I’ve found many theists don’t want to learn about what atheists think or why and choose to act like they are all the same.

Trent, you express yourself so well with examples. I enjoy listening to you on these. He seems to have a lot of questions and doesn't really offer answers.

He said that the religious rain stuff was proven wrong but we’re the Greeks not just converted to Christianity?

1:40. Woah. Okay buddy. Being a Santa denier is a step too far for me.

Fantastic episode. All the bilge that guy was spewing sounds just like every modern or recent atheist who thinks they worship science and that science has all the answers. I wish each time he committed a logical fallacy you had identified the fallacy because he committed about ten of them at least.

@communityrags6048

Жыл бұрын

The whole point of science is that it DOESN'T have all the answers. It teaches us to be skeptical. Not to go ahead and just flat-out believe made-up stuff.

@l.m.892

11 ай бұрын

Just about everything Alex says is a logical fallacy.

The problem with "debunks" is that they don't necessarily demonstrate that the views of the debunker are any more credible. For example, if a proposition that the Moon was made of green cheese being debunked by a person who held that it was made of ice cream does not make either proposition realistic. The only way to truly debunk atheism would be to provide consistent and comprehensive evidence that God exists.

@cadenorris4009

5 ай бұрын

...and that's been done through philosophy over the centuries. Atheism as a trend is very new, all things considered. Theists don't see a need to reinvent the wheel, because MANY philosophers much more intelligent than most people today have ALREADY argued for the existence of God, and they thought that the existence of an uncaused beginning to the universe was common sense, because the belief that there ISN'T a God seemed so irrational that it wasn't even worth considering. The evidence is there. You just have to dig for the truth. And if someone isn't willing to dig for it, they do not deserve the revelation of truth itself, or the privilege of making claims or influencing others.

His argument is essentially "I don't believe in God and I think I am smart so trust me, bro." 😂

Bro watched a Ricky Gervais routine, Niel Tyson short, and a bill maher video and thought he was genius

I would be interested to see you make a rebuttal to TheraminTrees. Similarly low-hanging fruit, but widely shared to me by atheist friends of mine.

@canibezeroun1988

Жыл бұрын

I feel bad for him. Watched a video by him explaining narcissism which was fantastic, but absolutely showed he had a rough childhood with his mother.

@Cklert

Жыл бұрын

I believe he already has done at least one rebuttal to TheraminTrees.

@kacperfrontczak1257

7 ай бұрын

​@@canibezeroun1988Atheists: we're not Atheists because we have issues. Also Atheists: complain about their serious issues 🥴

One thing that really opened my eyes about the whole "one less god" argument was Chesterton's The Everlasting Man. Polytheistic deities and the actual God are completely different categories. The former are pretty much part of creation, just more powerful and nebulous. None of them claim to be the First Cause, the Absolute, the Uncreated Creator (and if one does, then it is very distinct from the rest of that pantheon). And if we subscribe to Chesterton's interpretation of mythology (which I'm not sure if it's correct, but it sounds convincing), then most of these deities aren't even supposed to be "gods of the gaps". They aren't supposed to explain the natural phenomena away, they're supposed to make them more interesting. A form of fanciful make-believe for the sake of enriching everyday life. (there's also darker cults with human sacrifice and whatnot, those are definitely demons)

@cosmicnomad8575

Жыл бұрын

I’ve really wanted to read Chesterton but haven’t got to it yet. What would you recommend for a new reader of his books? For some background if that helps, I grew up Catholic but came back to the Faith very recently after being an atheist for several years.

@ishashka

Жыл бұрын

@@cosmicnomad8575 I recommend starting as I did, with the three famous essay collections: - Heretics (criticism of late 19th/earlt 20th century writers and philosophers, some people love it, but imo it's not necessary to read and not as fun as the others, so you can skip it) - Orthodoxy (a follow-up to Heretics where Chesterton explains his personal philosophy that led him to Christianity) - The Everlasting Man (an original look at history of religion and history of salvation, and how Christianity is something completely different to all the pre-Christian religions)

The thumbnail is genuinely hilarious in every way possible

Pray for our country to put things in order… my dad always said - God, family, country then everything else will fall into place!!!

The problem of the materialistic-atheistic view is that is not self explanatory. You can apply a materialistic view to the earth physical phenomenons, but that does not examine WHY it occurs and why that way and not other. Only examines the mechanism through it occurs.

Only 27 minutes late and atheists really can have bad arguments.

the spaghetti monster is a tentacular subtle demonic enity generated by the octahedron

The Narrator (N) presents the case that we can infer that if God is a reasonable belief then we should be able to write a "Nobel Prize-winning" Scientific paper "proving" the existence of God. Trying to come up with a description of this contrast, I infer a pattern that either X or Not-X is decidable. And that suggests to me we do not share a common understanding of what rigor is required for belief or reasonable conjecture. Along with this, I detect a colloquial form of the word "probable". But there definitely is a level of rigor of the formal use of the word "probable". I could go into it, but any objector is likely to say "That's not the level of rigor required for any use of the word "probable". However, I guarantee you that if you were to "write a prize-winning Scientific paper" and use the word "probable" as a functional brick of your "proof", you would have to define the condition C where you claimed that P(C) that equaled or that was greater than zero. So, what is the level of rigor required for this argument? Is it merely *okay* to construct a argument that enough fellow atheists would find unobjectionable, but to resist it, we require Nobel-winning papers? To "disprove" God we need to use whatever atheists can agree to, but to simply argue the case that not all god-extrapolations are equally meaningless simply by the distribution of claims to the counter. That god-believers who find no need for method or rigor should be simply numbered against other god-believers who can make finer distinctions regardless of a potential for a more competent argument is a sort of pre-emptive straw man. Meanwhile a colloquial meaning of the word "probable" when there is no suggestion of computation can reasonably be interpreted to mean a degree to which a claim disrupts what one take as the regular patterns of the world. Thus, I can see why N and Hume think "A is more likely than B" because that fits into their reductionist worldview. So, our platform seems to be that which an atheist is more likely to think. It should be unthinkable that if any non-god claim which does not support a evident Scientific paper it implies that all inferences and methodologies toward the resolution of that matter should in future be disqualified simply because there is a wide-distribution of disagreement and the terms have proved hard to forge. I don't find that a reasonable heuristic in the least.

thanks for what you do Trent 👍

Such a low hanging fruit, it was a carrot 😆

Excellent Trent ! Keep doing these !

Just here to say he spelled “receive” wrong therefore forfeited his argument

That video is embarrassing. What makes it worse is the narrator’s condescending Attitude

It all depends on the level of analysis, Santa Claus does exist, if he didn't exist you wouldn't have a tree to put gifts under it on the first place, in "the mystical body of Santa" we are all his little workers, but he is the one existing on a higher ontological level that makes us pursue what we pursue on Christmas.

@ZenexTheZealous

Жыл бұрын

Santa Claus does exist because it wasn't my parents who slapped Arius at the Council of Nicea. Simple as.

@garymanz3403

Жыл бұрын

@@ZenexTheZealous I thought it was a punch?

@bernardoohigginsvevo2974

Жыл бұрын

Beautiful

Now we no longer have Zeus throwing lightning bolts!, ​​now we have the creator: "matter and his friend the laws of physics"! 🤦

oh just have the guy hang out with an exorcist Priest for about a year I’ll change his mind right away 😊

19:25 I could not help but to laugh out loud at this part

@tobiasyoder

Жыл бұрын

It’s so ironic because he’s getting at the impossibility of an infinite casual chain which is actually just about the most classic argument for God

@tobiasyoder

Жыл бұрын

Causal*

Thanks for this great video.

The more critically I thought about god, I eventually found him at the bottom.

@voltekthecyborg7898

2 ай бұрын

Critically? Or emotionally? Critical thinking leads to God, because He is that He is. Emotional thinking leads to blaming God for things humanity does. "Cartels trafficking drugs? God is responsible, not the cartel", sort of deal. Saying God is a genocidal tyrant is, again, pushing blame on Him, not humanity. And even so, He's a tyrant for punishing people? Yet He's a "good God" for saying yes to everything? That's not how any of that works. Would He still be God if we demanded Him for everything and He gave it to us? No, He would not.

4:30 and he's also confused on why you get a Peace Nobel Prize. You can't get a Peace Nobel Prize for a *scientific* article.

Let's pray for this man that Mr. Trent easily debated against. I hope that he soon finds these answers to his questions through the acts of God Almighty because of divine intervention.

2:00 I think Trent misunderstands the statement. Yes, you can prove a statement leads to a contradiction and thus, its negative is true. But you can't prove a negative. For example, we can't prove Santa Claus does not exist because he might exist but isn't performing his duties. Long story short, it might exist but we just haven't found it yet.

@philosopher-2007

5 ай бұрын

But Santa doing his duties is the proof of his existence. If he does exist, then he'd be doing his duties, OR he isn't actually Santa

@user-pt1ky6db9y

5 ай бұрын

@@philosopher-2007 Perhaps my example is not good enough. You can't prove there isn't a squirrel in your backyard for example.

@philosopher-2007

5 ай бұрын

@@user-pt1ky6db9y except I can by going to my backyard and not seeing a squirrel...

@user-pt1ky6db9y

5 ай бұрын

@@philosopher-2007 How do you know it isn't hiding from you? You cannot confirm that something you cannot observe does not exist.

@philosopher-2007

5 ай бұрын

@@user-pt1ky6db9y because I know what is defined as my backyard, if I can go to my backyard, and there is no squirrel, then there is no squirrel in the backyard...

Of course santa clauuse exists..he punched arius for heresy

@voltekthecyborg7898

2 ай бұрын

Arianism: the heresy that says God created Jesus, which denies what Jesus said, which is the He and the Father are One.

Produce him if you think different.

@Kenny-mu2xb

3 ай бұрын

Huh?

The answer for who created God? “I AM that I AM” He just is that He is.

@TyrannosaurusRex1997

Жыл бұрын

Correct

Trent, i need to know, did Bob win the case? I can't believe you did not tell us by the end of the video if he was innocent like Mary and Frank or if he was the murderer

@ironymatt

Жыл бұрын

In the final analysis we just don't know, but at the very least he must've fired his lawyer

Alex spelled recieve (sic) wrong in his presentation. Maybe they spell it differently in England?

Or, as I like to put it, there is virtually no difference between a virgin and an OF model. The virgin just refuses only .000000001% of the male population more. They're practically twins.

Really admire Trent's patience and charity. I hear this and think about this narrator's reaction when he faces God.

@carnivalwholesale9809

Жыл бұрын

Not really

That is just a 'copy and paste' of Richard Dawkin's book.

@user-gs4oi1fm4l

Жыл бұрын

I hope Dawkins puts a little more effort to this... these arguments are pitiful.

@byletheisner5006

Жыл бұрын

​@@user-gs4oi1fm4l Dawkins is a very poor philosopher, exceptionally poor

@tylere.8436

2 ай бұрын

​@byletheisner5006 Dawkins considers himself as a "cultural Christian". He recently reasserted this label in responses to the rise of Islam and celebration of Ramadan instead of Easter.

@voltekthecyborg7898

2 ай бұрын

@@tylere.8436 He likes living in a Christian Country, calling himself a "cultural Christian", yet he wants to destroy Christianity because of God? Kinda like a guy who likes milk, yet hates cows, and kills cows, but when he's told that he's doing something stupid, he responds with, "Oh, I can get milk at the grocery store."

I was so mad at the vicious Ad Hominem Fallacy he dropped that I nearly stood out of my chair

What is it with these online atheists? They continually arrive at their assertion of God's non existence using the most narrow, reductive epistemology. It's depressing. Even Nietzsche cringes in his coffin knowing that his legacy has been derailed and destroyed by spotty faced fan boys whose arguments are an embarrassment to real atheist philosophers like Graham Oppy

Oh my gosh! I haven't listened to this level of cringe in a while! The orinal vlogger reaches such a level of inanity and ignorance it boggles my mind!

“Atheism taken to its logical Conclusion destroys rationality.” John Lennox

@carnivalwholesale9809

Жыл бұрын

Not really as Matt Dillahunty has made theist including Trent Horn look like Morons. As Trent Horn said he was willing to believe the resurrection based on the bible itself.

@voltekthecyborg7898

2 ай бұрын

@@carnivalwholesale9809 I can make Dillahunty look like a moron if I told him to prove to me his ideas were true without using atheist sources like Dawkins or other atheists. No credible articles or anything, just him and his words. Just as we need science to understand God as Creator, we need the Bible to understand God as God. Without the Bible, we wouldn't be able to understand what it takes to get to heaven.

@carnivalwholesale9809

2 ай бұрын

@@voltekthecyborg7898 thats a false equivalency, TRY AGAIN!

@voltekthecyborg7898

2 ай бұрын

@@carnivalwholesale9809 Uh uh. No. If you guys can tell us to prove God without the Bible, we can tell you to prove your belief without using your trusted sources.

@carnivalwholesale9809

2 ай бұрын

@@voltekthecyborg7898 i can prove the fundamental theorem of calculus along with the quadratic formula as well. This is secular math and its much better proof than your deity.

This is why I like the prime mover explanation. Something (God) had to start all motion that exists in the visible and invisible.

@lorddio4280

6 ай бұрын

Why god? Why a concious entity?

@voltekthecyborg7898

2 ай бұрын

@@lorddio4280 Because God created everything. It may sound like a lazy answer, but, when I mean everything, I don't simply mean the order of the cosmos. But, rather, God created all that is good and true. He created that. But, if He just made that, then we're just robots on a rock. He made all that is evil and untrue, to differentiate between the good and true. This is why the atheist argument, "there is no truth" is illogical, because that statement cannot be true. If there is no truth, that statement is not true, and because of that, there are no lies as well. If there is no truth, then physics isn't true, and the earth is flat, because there are no lies. In order to have truth, we need lies so that we can differentiate lies from truth. It is illogical to say there are no truths, because, if there are no truths, there is no logical explanation, for it is now illogical for there is no truth. And why a conscious entity? The simple answer to this is math. A conscious entity had to have created math, because math is absolute. Because math is absolute, it applies to every physical thing in this universe, and in order for math to be absolute, a conscious, infinite being had to have created it as such.

Thank you, Trent

I find his incredibly condescending and snarky attitude towards theists very irritating. Let's however move onto his ''arguments''. He strawmans theism to such an extent that I thought he had made a parody video but sadly a lot of atheist internet apologetics today demonstrates a complete ignorance and lack of understanding of basic arguments for God's existence and philosophy of religion literature more generally. Obviously when theists talk about God, we speak of God as being the Ceator of everything. If God were one of these deities he mentions in the video, Thor for example, he would have a body, and his being would have a mixture of potency and act, of form and matter. His material parts would occupy different places. He would not be simple. He would not be _God_ . He could not in principle be the ultmitate explanation for why anything exists at _all_

Thanks Trent - such a shame these atheist will never revise their reasoning - thus acting very unscientifically

@tobiasyoder

Жыл бұрын

Let’s not generalize

@wimvanackooij2594

Жыл бұрын

@@tobiasyoder You are right ; With these I meant those using the not so good arguments Trent adresses here, but it is good to specify indeed.

Man, all those reasons why God doesn't exist were really bad. I've heard them so often that I can't keep track anymore.

Biggest news to me is that Santa is not real. I thought he just didn’t like my kids and I had to fill their stockings instead.