DEBATE: God's Existence - Alex O'Connor Vs. Trent Horn
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 15 сен 2024
- Alex O'Connor @CosmicSkeptic debates Trent Horn @TheCounselofTrent on the existence of God.
God's existence.
🔴 ABOUT TRENT AND ALEX
Alex's RUclips Channel: / alexjoconnor
Trent's RUclips Channel: / trhorn100
🔴 SPONSORS
Hallow: hallow.com/mat...
Catholic Woodworker: catholicwoodwo... Use promo code mattfradd
🔴 LEARN MORE
🙏 Join our Locals community: mattfradd.loca...
💻 Learn more about Pints With Aquinas: pintswithaquin...
🔴 APOLOGETICS CONFERENCE
www.virtualcat...
🔴 DEBATE FORMAT
Opening Statements
Affirmative Opening Statement (15 minutes)
Negative Opening Statement (15 minutes)
First Rebuttals
Affirmative First Rebuttal (7 minutes)
Negative First Rebuttal (7 minutes)
Second Rebuttals
Affirmative Second Rebuttal (4 minutes)
Negative Second Rebuttal (4 minutes)
Cross Examination
The cross examiner is allowed to interrupt and move the flow of the argument as he sees fit.
Affirmative cross examines negative (12 minutes)
Negative cross examines affirmative (12 minutes)
Audience Questions (30 minutes)
Each person gets 2 minutes to answer a question addressed to them and their opponent gets 1 minute to respond
Closing Statements
Affirmative Closing Statement (5 minutes)
Negative Closing Statement (5 minutes)
![Baby Kia - GLOVES & DRACS (BLACK AF1s) [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ajm8LeB0qQk/mqdefault.jpg)
Welcome! I'd like to start hosting monthly debates like this one. Please help by subscribing and sharing! 😃🙏
I think the topic should be more focussed next time, I felt they brushed over a lot, also it would be nice if you asked them some questions of your own or try and mediate more to prevent them talking past each other. Otherwise great debate and would love more👍🏻
Fair income Matt
Spanish speaking subtitles Gracias
Trent v Bart Ehrman
Bring an Orthodox to debate with Trent please, Matt. I'd suggest Jay Dyer, Ubis Petrus or Snek.
An intelligent Christian apologist who doesn't ride his moral high horse, and an intelligent atheist who doesn't resort to crude and sophomoric arguments to insult religion. This debate puts many religious apologists, and just as many atheist debaters, to absolute shame. Congrats to both of you.
Thanks to all involved.
Is Alex an Atheist or a skeptic...
@@supersmart671 A Christian in the making. There.
@@supersmart671 both.
Agreed!
@@algfayomega lol you can see it too or you joshin?
Man, I can't remember the last time I saw a comment section this civil for a debate between an atheist and theist. A win in itself - good job Matt!!
Being a Christian, I think Alex is my favorite kind of skeptic: he's driven not by hatred for God or a disdain for religiosity, but out of compassion for living beings
That’s most of us 😁
i llike his genuity to seek truth with a seeminlgy open mind
Jesus From Hyrule he seems like a kind person but at the same time don’t forget, his channel is anti christ and his arguments are getting people out of their faith. I wouldn’t give him so much like because he is still a wolf with respectful argument convincing young people to become atheist
Yes. But his kind dangerous in a boat in covid times ;-).
David F I agree we should be weary. But remember, hate the sin but love the sinner. That’s kinda the approach I’m taking but I’m glad u pointed out that he does have a bad mission
One of my favourite debates of all time. Please invite Alex and Trent on your show more often :)
I agree, mine too.
My brother Thomas! See you everywhere haha
I'm not impressed with cosmic "skeptic" or the undue attention given to him.
brooooooooooo ive been seeing you EVERYWHERE lol, youre the last person i ever thought would be watching something like this.
I initially shrugged this one off, even though I adore Trent's pro-life debates. I'm listening to the opening statements, and I gotta say, this is starting to get good.
I'm here because of Alex but I must applaud Trent for how confident and prepared he was for this debate. Not saying anyone won or loss, but Trent is definitely a skilled debater.
@J w okay
Trent won
@Kade Daivis I respect that you acknowledge the depth of differences between Catholic/Orthodoxy and Protestantism. Having been an atheist previously, I noticed its very uncommon to see an Atheist make that distinction. I see many of them attack Protestant talking points and assume that Catholics/Orthodox believe the same erroneous ideas, when in fact we likely agree with the Atheists in asserting that their arguments are erroneous or fallacious!
Protestants believe in Objective Truths and Morality theoretically, but in practice they are very much subjective. Why? Because like you said, sola scriptura. They give themselves the authority to interpret scripture and give themselves the authority to believe certain doctrines of the traditional Catholic/Orthodoxy Christian faith, while rejecting others. A perfect example of this is the major disagreements in the Eucharist. (Martin Luther and Calvin were both in favor of the sacrament to a certain extent) This is why protestanism has fractured into thousands of different donimations and why they have no formal body of established theology.
The Catholic Church however, is rich in philosophical and theological knowledge. Their teachings are very clear on what a Catholic must follow in order to be in good standing. The magisterium of the Church is not subject to the individual conscience, so we have a very good reason to believe that what the church teaches now are essentially the same principles that the early Christians taught. The Catholic Church has the capability of forging civilizations (Constantine's Roman Empire, Carolingian Empire/Holy Roman Empire, France, UK, Spanish, Portugal, Etc). The Church also is the reason we have institutions of higher learning aka the University. Oxford, the very university that Alex studies at, was founded by the Catholic Church.
No protestant church has this kind of track record, which is why other Atheist should avoid blending Catholic/Orthodoxy and Protestanism together.
@@parapoliticos52 LOL
@@parapoliticos52 ah no, he didunt
Dude, I'm not Catholic but that woodworkers page is gorgeous. Makes me want a rosarie
Nomen est omen 😉 the name is a sign
Is that a way of spelling “rosary” that I’ve never seen?
Get one! It can’t hurt to learn a new prayer and meditate on the mysteries of Christ!
@@dinopad10 makes it clear I'm not Catholic clearly lol
Jake Pope
I honestly thought maybe it was a different spelling. Hope you didn’t think I was trying to correct you... I was thinking it was a cultural difference.
Wow great polite debate. Im an atheist and i really enjoyed Trent
I'm a devout Christian and like Alex a lot, this may be the best debate between a Christian and an atheist that I've seen
What I enjoy about both of them is their ease of concession on certain points. Neither of them seem to hold on to their arguments for the mere sake of a perceived victory
As a nonbeliever myself, this is the kind of debates I enjoy 🤘🤓
Just because physics cant explain ramdomness in quantum mechanics doesnt mean principle of sufficient reason is false. It just mean physicists have reached their limit.
I noticed Alex is rejecting the PSR due to randomness found in quantum mechanics, but at the same time allowing future explanation for things science can't explain at the moment. This is self contradictory.
Alex is by far the most respectful atheist on RUclips. Didn't know about Trent Horn before this but that was a tour-de-force display
America would be better off if our politicians could behave this well.
Dana Harper strychnine
I wish they had this kind of honesty.
Then they’d just be politely corrupt...
@Enjoy and Travel The World! Definitely, and with a surfboard. I don’t disagree with you; however, maybe you could articulate yourself in a more scholarly and polite fashion. The two gentlemen in the discussion seemed capable of intense disagreement, yet maintained a respectful discourse. This is better as it allows the audience to fully appreciate and evaluate each interlocutor’s argument.
post presidential debate this comment is painful
My friends: so what do you watch on youtube?
me: It's complicated...
Tutorials for vegan orbital nuking and lectures on Quantum Physics and ontological metaphysics
@@reggiestickleback7794 Pretty much
Yeah! I feel you! Lol.
I wish I can talk to my friends about this but most of my friends aren’t into philosophy and Christianity and one is an agnostic. 🤷♂️
@@nathenram4891 Literally same. My whole family are agnostic apart from my mum and all my friends are basically atheist as well, your not alone, you might feel alone at times, but there are so many who are in the same boat. 1 Peter 5:9
Boy, the side I agree with sure won this debate! :)
nice lol
Me too!
Woah, same
No way! Mine too!
Haha so true. Watch Christian vs Muslim debates and look at the comment sections. Tribalism at its best. I think its just part of being a human, although we should strive to reduce our biases as much as possible
As an atheist I actually really enjoyed Trent’s arguments.
They are the same old refuted arguments
@@LuciferAlmighty Refuted by whom?
@@ethanm.2411 Exactly, atheists always claim that they are refuted, but there is no proof of them being refuted anywhere, they just go silent.
@@davidus9702 Atheist here. I can refute them, and I won't go silent on you.
He says the universe has to be caused by something because the contents of the universe are always caused by something. That's a fallacy of composition. It's like claiming that if a building is made of bricks, the building has to have the same properties as a brick. In actuality, we don't know how the universe began. There are hypotheses, but it remains a mystery. God is merely inserted into the gaps of knowledge. This way of thinking has a poor track record, since the number of times where a mystery has turned out to be caused by God is 0. It always turns out to be something natural. And, Trent doesn't think God needs a cause: an argument from special pleading. In other words: "all things need a cause, except this one thing I call God". "God" has no explanatory power, and can't be used to solve a mystery. Happy with that refutation?
@@smaakjeks Yes, thanks, good day.
I would LOVE monthly debates between Trent and Alex.
Yes! Both of them are brilliant!
I agree!! ❤️
E H well one of them yes
@@NobleVagabond2552 I agree.... Alex is brilliant.
Absolutely !!
This was a wonderful and friendly discussion. Thank you for hosting Matt.
Actually Matt hosted him
Vagaba Assassina Lol because he didn’t use a comma after “hosting.” He probably meant to be thanking Matt. It’s often used as an easy shortcut, I use as well, to quickly write what I want to say, without using punctuation. I also like using too much punctuation, to confuse what I’m saying, as well. ;)
@@junelledembroski9183 Ah okay
This is the best debate I've ever seen. Compelling, respectful and made for intelligent people but not in a pompous but in a simple honest build-up. Applause to all👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
While I may not agree with Alex as much as I may agree with Trent on a few of these topics, I can't help but be humbled by Alex's commitment to understand what the other person is "trying" to say, even going so far as to address a point in the context of "the benefit of the doubt".
We need more on all sides like Alex.
Seth Gustafson smells like bias to me. Thats ok to admit it too.
@@Leo-yn5fx agreed that it is ok to admit. Bias is good and bad. Without our biases we may not hold helpful nor unhelpful predispositions. Which is why the charge is bias is unhelpful.
Well most theists never seem to understand other perceptions. It’s always their way or the highway without good reason.
@@Jrod- I agree with that many theists fail to understand the perspectives of people holding apposing views, just as many people who hold any socially "charged" position. However I disagree that "most" is representative, in fact hasty sweeping generalization as such are not typically indicative of an intention that is looking to understand either.
@@Phill3v7 that’s the hard truth about most theist, it’s an a generalization. If you ask theists the hard questions, they don’t have a reasonable and sincere answer. They avoid it or lie in order to keep fooling themselves into their beliefs. Everyone knows that and if I don’t agree, then you’re denying it.
I'm an atheist, but I'm super impressed by Trent.
He’s a Thomist like myself but I’m not catholic. That is he’s a follower of Thomas Aquanis and his 5 ways. You can look them up to familiarize your self with the 5 proofs of Gods existence. Edward Feser probably the best philosopher out there right now wrote a book on it called “the five proofs for Gods existence.” Feser once was an atheist teaching philosophy to his students he came across Aquinas again but this time instead of brushing it off as wrong like he did before he noticed it had merit.
@@TheLloyz Thomists are not christians?
Mister.P unKnow Probably he believes in and holds Thomistic thoughts and ideology, but he himself is not baptized and does not believe in LORD Jesus Christ. I’d say that’s just a fancier way of being a neo-Aristotelian deist.
@@mister.punknow6639 Not sure what you are asking, i myself am a reformed baptist bought by the precious blood of Christ.
@@TheLloyz You said you were a thomist but not a catjolic so I wondered if non christians could be thomists but yeah it turns out you are christian just not catholic
This debate really pushes a lot of buttons
Okay, joking aside, this was such a pleasant listen, regardless who you support. :-)
@Order Of The Black Cross Like Matt Fradd, and this debate was a joy to listen 😄
I love your channel so much!! My regards from a Roman Catholic brother in Christ from Brazil!!
Ah, this explains what had you so worked up on your illustration!
Hey bojan, you have catholic fans too
@@solberg7049 I know! Love you guys!
As a Theist, I have to say Alex is my favorite person to watch debate. He’s very interested in truth and an incredible intellectually smart person. Alex is very pleasant to his opponents and respectful, that being said very good debate and both brought up very good points. I’m impressed by Alex’s point with determinism vs free will and also loved Trents Moral argument and reasoning.
In the early 1980's, Australian philosopher and atheist J.L. Mackie wrote, “we can concede that the problem of evil does not, after all, show that the central doctrines of theism are logically inconsistent with one another.”
@@andrewferg8737 "But," he should have continued to say, "internal logical consistency says nothing about truth."
@@rickwitten But, it’s still not an inconsistency whereas the atheist has an inconsistency in claiming that they have universal moral duties. What are they and where did they come from?
If they claim that they don’t, we would live in a free-for-all, do what you please society, but we don’t. Why? Is it that stable and prosperous societies are built upon the assumption that there are universal moral laws?
@@hugomunoz9039 The word Morality points to the concept of judging human actions as good or bad. Judgment is definitionally a subjective act. Universal or Objective Morality (you said “moral duty”, which is even less defensible) is self-contradictory. A married bachelor.
Even if one could point to a god (no one can) and demonstrate the unambiguous moral opinion of that god (no one can), that would still be the subjective morality of that god. We, as humans, would have the right and the responsibility (moral duty even?) to determine for ourselves if that god’s morality is appropriate for us as humans to accept.
No atheist that I agree with claims there is a universal morality.
If you assume a distribution of moral opinions across the human population, the median values at any given time will tend to win out. In the absence of an oppressive power, when most members of an evolved social species hold opinions that are conducive to (relative) stability and (relative) prosperity, that’s how societies will be built. Those humans outside of the median will engage in problematic (in the view of the majority) behavior, which necessitates laws, police, judges, social workers, etc., etc., none of which would be expected if a perfect and maximally powerful being wrote it’s moral code upon our hearts.
Your assumption of the type of world we would have given the atheistic understanding of the world we actually live in, is based upon the false teachings of religion. Namely, that humans are bad, born of sin, and in need of redemption/saving. Once you accept that humans exist across a wide range of possibilities due to the error-prone means of natural reproduction, this puzzle you perceive will vanish. Humans need not look for a perfect being as a source of goodness, but to each other.
Truth and theism don’t go together
If you keep hosting alex, i will stay subscribed.
Wow, wow, wow. I'm just in Alex's cross examination and boy am I impressed with this debate. What a refreshing, challenging and highly informative debate between two intelligent and kind men. Not an insult to be heard, just solid arguments. On a side note: Matt, would you ever hold a "classical" debate on your channel? I mean a disputation like what people did in Aquinas' day? I would be FASCINATED to see these two debate under that format.
in Aquinas' day you would be hearing them in Latin, and then in the middle of the disputation the atheist would be burned in a festive auto-de-fe.
I think both made some good arguments, and I enjoyed listening! It is nice to have a debate where both participants are respectful to each other.
Can you name a single sound argument that Trent presented?
@@xnoreq The first one
@@matthewschmidt5069 Which is?
@@xnoreq Uncaused Cause
@@matthewschmidt5069 How is that a sound argument?
I'm not a Christian but I am someone who studies chemistry and I know enough about physics to know that the young man is incorrect in his explanation of quantum entanglement. Quantum entanglement does not mean that the spin of one particle causes a spin or an action from it's entangled particle. This is a misunderstanding that I've even seen professors make. All it suggests is that the state of an entangled particle gives you data about it's matching entangled particle. Just as if you ripped a piece of paper in half, studying one half of the ripped paper gives you some data about the other half.
Trent Horn is brilliant. I didn’t know Alex before, he seem really a smart and an honest person.
Really, Trent is one of the best Christian (Catholic) apologists out there. Period.
Yep, they are both great guys. I think Feser vs. Oppy made stronger arguments (of course, they are experienced philosophy professors) but I was impressed with Trent and Alex for arguing fairly and kindly.
@Catholic Crusader Deus vult yes, super intelligent.
If he is the best then the religion is in deep trouble.;)
The best? Just scrolled randomly through this video and both times this guy is into special pleading fallacies, like "our intelligent mind has to come from somewhere, and that must God". And of course this God doesn't have get his intelligence from anywhere.
Last time I heard someone correct someone committing this fallacy was by a six year old kid. When a six year old are able to understand logic better and/or being more honest than Horn that should tell you something.
@Max Payne You would be better off actually argueing my comment instead of saying Alex didn't argue this particulure point.
And who are you to say I'm a layman and Alex isn't? That's some claims I would love you to give some good arguments for :)
I’ve watched some debates recently where the Theist does a truly horrible job defending our position, and spends the entire time defending the weakest parts of their argument and getting caught up in defending trivialities. Thank you Trent for being an excellent defender of the faith!
If it's 'faith" it needs no defense.
Check out William lane Craig. He does an excellent job. I found the exact opposite scenario where I was disappointed in the Craig-Hitchens debate because I felt like Hitchens didn't understand how to debate. This one was much more satisfying because both sides seemed to understand the rules.
Trent rehashes the same tired arguments.
@@darkdragonite1419 You'd think after Hume, after Nietzsche, after Freud, after Wittgenstein, that they would abandon trying to logically justify a belief in God. Why can't they just say "We believe because we believe" and leave it at that? They could then be left to their product of wish-fulfillment and whatever peace and serenity it gives them. But no, they demand others should take their belief seriously and so they try to produce evidence for their belief. True faith needs no external evidence, its effect is entirely internal.
@@ibanezdudeck you think that... Hitchens didn't know how to debate?? 🤨
I watch ALOT of debates and I've never seen so much respect for one another while debating. Especially with all the chaos in the world today- it's nice to see a healthy disagreement like this
I haven't seen Trent before, but this is how Alex operates. He can get his dander up when disrespected, but he's otherwise always collegial, kind and brilliant.
This was an absolute delight to watch! Thanks so much to the both of you. Thank you Matt Fradd for hosting this as well!
I’ve reeeeally enjoyed this debate and its participants! Even if I don’t have the same views as Alex, I really respect and thank him for thinking and giving serious arguments!! This has really made me think. And Trent thank you for defending our beliefs so well!! 😍😍😍👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻 Really happy for discovering this debate.
I'm not gonna lie Trent's arguments in the opening statement were really strong.
Really? It was basically 15 minutes claiming avoiding an infinite regress requires a sentient god who is supposedly self evidently the objective source of morality. Meh.
@@gilesbbb Let's be all serious here faith in creation and logic are two completely different things. Any assertion of faith will always lack rationality; however, people entertain creationism because of the fact we can think, feel, and experience. There is and we are. This whole perpetual nothingness, concrete laws of the universe around us, etc does require SOME explanation when you think through it. Why is energy concentrated in different parts, what is empty space, why are some things in the universe bound by laws. Why are there theoretical limits to things.
Now this type of thinking doesn't justify you having faith in things with obvious logical conclusions. There definitely are theologians and religions that create more god of the gaps arguments than not. However, we cannot follow that there is a logical reason for everything existing. Humans are bound by fundamental unchangeable aspects that is beyond our comprehension and always will be in my opinion.
@@Kyle-pj2vc the thing about the God Trent advocates is that, supposedly, belief in his existence is a necessary condition to avoid eternal damnation. Seems like he has some obligation to make his existence accessible to people don't you think? Unless (and seems far more likely to me) it's just some human created God myths that don't really hold together.
@@gilesbbb Except that's not the God Trent advocates for in this debate. It's also not the God Trent personally believes in. Lumen Gentium and the catechism make clear that it is possible for those who do not belive in the Christian God to be saved. Maybe I missed it, but where in the debate does Trent argue for what you say he's arguing for?
-That must have been tiring for those two.
-This is definitely among the top three debates I've ever watched. Thanks Matt for hosting it.
-I am now convinced that Matt Fradd should not be a bedtime story reader.
What are the other top 2
@@npc9207 Jordan Peterson v Sam Harris,
Christopher Hitchens v William Lane Craig
@eeneemeenee6236 ok thanks I've seen the second one you mentioned, personally I would put the sean carroll debate with william lane craig as the best
Good to know, thanks
This is an amazing debate. I’m on Trent horns side but Alex has definitely got my gears grinding. As a Theist I consider it a blessing to be able to watch debates like this.
Iron sharpens iron.
Hopefully Alex can become a Disciple of Jesus Christ.
@@danielsmithiv1279No he won't
@joeturner9219 I'm not because he doesn't exist. No rational will believe in any relegion.
@joeturner9219 What a dumb response after 7 days.
I never said that someone is irrational because of belief in God.
And what evidence have you seen of God?
And who are those brilliant mind that are Christian?
@@someone-jl4sjIt's *YOUR* opinion that God doesn't exist.
I've listen to about two thirds of this so far. How rare: to see two brilliant minds having a civil debate over a profound issue. I tend to side with Alex, but I'll quickly admit that I don't understand all that's being discussed here. I'll definitely have to listen to the whole thing again. Matt, thanks for hosting this and following the rules you've laid down.
A Christian here, I tip my hat to Alex. He did a good job, was polite and interesting to listen to. Obviously very smart too... Or as my grandma use to say about my uncle; to smart for his own good. I don't know if that's true, but certainly more knowledge brings more suffering.
I wish Alex all the best.
More knowledge brought cures from diseases and erased fear of the unknown.
Limiting knowledge is a great way of controlling people. They may find out they've been lied to.
@@andrewoliver8930 👍 of course knowledge is good and has helped humanity tremendously. But it's also true that new knowledge often comes with new moral and ethical questions.
But my grandma, born 1908 to simple farming family, and lived through the great wars, cold war and 60-70's culture revolution, thought that there was a certain blessing in not knowing all. That living simple, and humbly has its own rewards.
So, " to much knowledge for your own good" was just a saying she used when people got stuck in, or even sick of, overthinking.
She was a simple, sweet old lady. None worth getting upset over.
@@mikkis668 Lovely. Take it easy.
@@andrewoliver8930 😁✌️
Alex agrees that valid deductive arguments for God's existence can dissolve peripheral questions such as animal suffering and quantum randomness, but at the same time he says that peripheral issues are the main reason he isn't a theist. If the central arguments are more important then why does he concentrate on peripheral questions, and why doesn't he show how Trent's deductive arguments for God's existence are invalid ?
Exactly. Good Point.
Basically it makes the 2 hours a waste of time. It doesn't prove or disprove anything.
I think he heard Bart Ehrman making this Point and decided to use it for his case.
Because Alex cannot refute Trents points. God is a necessary Being. There is no way around it.
@@libertarian85 _"God is a necessary Being."_
Demonstrate your ridiculous claim.
@@libertarian85 Hahahahaha. That's hilarious. Well, I claim that God, but evil, is a necessary being. There is NO logical way out of this argument if we accept god as a necessary being. There is no modal function that entalis [~(possible) ~(moral being)]
@@libertarian85 then super god is a necessary being as well, I guess
As a theist this is one of my favorite theological debates, both of them are incredibly smart and brought up points I've never considered. Specifically from the angle of animal suffering as it relates to the existence of god, which is something you don't often hear talked about in these debates.
Well it is clearly displayed in the Bible when god decided to flood the earth but only saving two of the so called “unclean” animals and sevens of the so called “clean” animals. The fact that no explanation as to why the animals where murdered for the deeds of men proves the atheist points.
Alex is too bright, educated, and polite to remain an atheist for too long. Watch...
@@algfayomega this statement doesnt make sense
Probably the best debate I’ve seen. Seriously! Both sides had great arguments and communicated their points in a respectful way. Most Atheists that I hear in debates attack strawmen, but Alex was very impressive. I’d love to hear more discussions from these two. I have something in common with both of them: I’m also vegan...as well as a devout Catholic.
This was a very lovely debate! While i tended to agree more with Alex, Trent also made a lot of great points and I really enjoyed listening to him. I would love to see more discussions between these two!
I speak from Brazil and it is amazing to see a debate with both respecting each other. Unfortunnately im Brazil, the public debates about politics and religion frenquently turns in a offensive activity, with the debaters curse each other. We have so much to learn with you. Thank you very much for the debate.
“Did I mention that I’m vegan?” 😂🌱✊🏼
The circlejerkers are gonna love this.
I’m vegan btw.
@@lllULTIMATEMASTERlll who are the Circle jerkers?
I'm vegan btw
That settles it.
When did he say that? Is he really vegan?
@@reggiestickleback7794 hE sAiD iT mAnY tImEs iN tHe vIdEo tHoUgH
I am a Alex fan but I must say that this debate was not one of his best ones .Useally his opponents have sweat on the forehead from digging a hole for themselves from which they cant get out but Trent is a smart cookie .A lot of technical stuff but nothing that has convinced me that there is a god.
Yeah, he had Dr. William Lane Craig laughing.
You're probably not going to be convinced just watching debates, debates barely skim the surface on these issues. You're going to want to listen to a lecture, an interview or read the actual literature if you want some insight into what Christian scholars are really saying.
@@vincentiormetti3048 Thanks for your comment ..I dont need to be convinced .i am a 73 year old Atheist and it served me well .I am just impressed with the level of common sense from a young man like Alex and also the calibre of intelligence from the people he debates .kudos to both .
Hope you will find Christ in your heart and search Him for your salvation. God created us, He gave us life and He created earth and all things so thank we may have food to eat, etc. if a person chose not to believe in God he/she has a freewell, but there is hell.
Trent is one of those shotgun debaters. Just rattle off a bunch of nonsense with the goal of either confusing your opponent or over stimulating them. It's such a dishonest debate style. Typical theistic tactic.
I would like to see a debate where it was a little more focused on one of the subjects as opposed so many. It was very good but a little scattered brained. If it was more focused I think they would be able to dive deeper. Loved it! Thanks Matt and Trent and Alex!
You if I am hearing you right this does not prove a moral God or even any God at all thank you
The question of "free will" in heaven is rooted in a false (liberal) definition of "freedom" Trent missed an opportunity to correct that.
I agree! I thought the answer he gave to that was his weakest answer.
@@jacintagundrum2159 Hello
Take a look at this video. It explains what happened to the Catholic Church after Vatican II.
ruclips.net/video/VB_hUdRKi4o/видео.html
Also, see vaticancatholic.com, it contains critical information on the Traditional Catholic Faith, which is necessary for salvation.
@@rebeccaolinger2135 Begone sede
Wasn’t satan in god presence
and didn’t he choose to rebel?
Will we be in awe and become submissive or will we choose to rebel?
I would like to ask what the difference between free will and freedom? I would really appreciate an answer. they seem the same to me. thank you.
LOL. The Counsel of Trent, might have to check it out!
Great debate. Look forward to more Matt.
I especially like the cross examine and q&a.
I really enjoy listening to Alex because he brings up the right questions, the truly intellectual difficult questions that help me learn and understand god/Christianity better
Totally, agree. I initially hated Alex on the way he questioned others in his other videos, but understood that it’s cruel of me that I did so. He helped me get the answer for those questions which I thought aren’t necessary. Well, sometimes it is. At least, I can explain other Atheists the essence they actually miss. It just deepens my relationship with loving God anyway.
Any chance in Trent Horn debating with Jay Dyer or any other Orthodox Christian, like Craig Truglia, Ubi Petrus, Snek etc? Trent Horn is such an amazing person and a really good debater, I'd love to see him debating with an Orthodox.
Btw, Trent's books are incredible, everyone should read them, and for nowadays I'd recommend ''Counterfeit Christs''.
I doubt anybody wants to debate Dyer. Dyer would just start screaming at his opponents calling them retards etc. A debate with Craig seems infinitely more possible.
I believe in orthodox Christianity, but I find Jay to be obnoxious and disrespectful when debating. It's hard to listen to him without getting frustrated even if I agree with his point.
I'll have to look up the other names you mentioned though. I'm trying to find more good orthodox content
@@dylanfernandez3910 Yeah. Jay debating is pretty annoying to watch tho, but I don't think Craig would debate Catholicism vs Protestantism.
Maybe (on Protestantism) Trent should try debating with Jordan Cooper.
@@jacob5283 Indeed. I like watching Jay's videos, and I'm also considering to convert to Orthodoxy, but I don't like watching him debating as much as I enjoy his normal videos.
@@magnus8704 Yeah, some of his non-debate videos have some good info, and he seems well-read.
For an introduction into Orthodoxy and to see how it compares and contrasts to other churches, I'd recommend Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy by Fr. Andrew Stephen Damic. You can either read the book or listen to the podcast version.
What an incredibly solid and thorough opening statement by Trent. Probably the best I have ever heard on this subject from the affirmative perspective.
Not really... he's essentially a presuppositionalist. You kinda have to be to believe in a God.
@@papabeard4976trent is in no way a presuppositionalist, and this should have been quite clear from what he said
Debate suggestion: Trent Horn vs. William Lane Craig on the validity of the Catholic Church and/or the Protestant Reformation
That would be great
Oh, we don't want to start another Thirty Years War, and devastate Western Europe again, do we?
@@drawn2myattention641 How about Dr James White? He's an expert on Catholicism.
@Travis, that'd b awesome. Love Craig, but he can be very shallow when attempting to explain his Protestant interpretations of Biblical passage in support of anti-Catholic views of soteriology.
@@Justas399 Trent Horn already debated White, his Calvinist misreading of John 6:44 is amusing
Great debate, I hope there can be another discussion between Trent and Alex.
was not a debate more like a discussion too much topics to respond why does Alex has with hitler, quantum, and free will very safe points for discussion
As someone who studies physics, I want to comment on Alex's point on quantum physics. I'm not familiar with the principle of sufficient reason (PSR), which sounds like something from the realm of philosophy. It's not taught in physics classes for sure. But Alex seems to equate it to causality.
It is true that a phenomenon in quantum physics, called quantum entanglement, has been proven to be non-local, due to Bell's theorem and related experiments. In quantum mechanics, non-locality refers to "instantaneous propagation of correlations between entangled systems (can be atoms, electrons, particles, light, etc), regardless of how far apart they are separated." If I have two entangled particles and I measure the outcome of one particle, I'll instantaneously know the outcome of the other particle even if it may be located at the other end of the universe. But the outcome/result of measurement itself is random, so there's no way to know the outcome before the measurement.
physics.stackexchange.com/questions/200642/how-to-understand-locality-and-non-locality-in-quantum-mechanics
Also, Bell's theorem doesn't eliminate the hidden-variable theory entirely, only the local ones. There's also a class of non-local hidden-variable theory.
But non-locality doesn't imply causality violation. In relativity, causality simply means an effect occurs after a cause. If there are two events, A and B, and A causes B, all observers in the universe must observe that A occurs before B. They may not agree on the exact timing of, and between, these two events, but they all agree that A occurs before B. But if some observers report that B occurs before A, then causality is violated.
To cause B, A must send some information or signal to where B is located. This signal/information can't travel faster than light. It turns out that if the signal could travel faster than light, causality would be violated. Causality violation is prevented in quantum mechanics precisely because it is random. We can't send meaningful information if what comes out is random. And it can't be used to induce cause and effect relationship between two events.
I don't think an atheist physicist in a debate about theism would bring up quantum entanglement or randomness as a case against theism. Maybe they would, but not in the context of causality violation. Also, from what I understand, causality is different from PSR in that PSR presumes that every event must have a cause, while causality doesn't. Causality only dictates the rules which observation of events would follow, when the events do have causal relationship.
This is not a comment in support of any party in the debate. I just feel the need to clarify the matter.
Alex: "I'm a vegan, not married and no children". Why am I not surprised?
Wow. This debate topped every single one I've watched in the last 3 years. I am finally persuaded that there are good arguments for God. Is there any way of getting a hold on Trent's apresentation (like power point or summary) so I can study the arguments?
@Matt Blaise thanks
Agreed! Alex is for sure a worthy opponent! They did a beautiful job! Trents YT page (as Matt referenced) is really insightful. You will find more of his debate dialoges with any and all religious/atheism etc on Catholic Answers YT channel. He holds open forums that share controversial topics. Hope it helps!❤
Check out Jimmy Akin
@@__Man_ Thanks for checking up! Still on going. I lean more towords a deist view (god of the philosophers), but in the sense that there are decent enough reasons to believe, but not to have a justified true belief (just too many good objections to the many views to make me comfortable to say "I Believe!".) So, right now, the best I can do is say there are good reasons to believe, but they have good objections against them. For the christian ver. of God, I'm now into the history arguments, but they seem to have similar results. The more I study, the more Jesus turns out not to be who I thought he was. Still trying though. This year I get my degree on Philosophy and will try to get a master's degree on justified belief\epistemology. Hopefully I can go as deep as a phd. Would've never happened if it weren't for content like this. So, long road ahead still. Wish me luck.
@Comboman70 Good luck. Funny how this video produced the most wholesome and respectful people.
Hey, Matt. Thanks for setting this all up, love all three of you guys.
One request for future debates, please let the audience know that not all questions will go through, even if they were sent in as superchats. I understand you had a surplus here and a time constraint, but it was somewhat frustrating putting in a $20 superchat that never got read.
Looking forward to the next one!
Suffering is not an argument against the existence of God! It is an argument against his goodness.
Billions of years of absolute power have worked their poison on him. That seems quite a feasible possibility to me.
As many philosophers such as Thomas Aquinas have proven God is indeed All Good. But even if on earth is a lot of suffering, God let‘s it happen to bring about greater good. Best proof being that a saintly life through many sufferings (whatever kind they are) God will reward with eternal beatitude. St.Paul says: „For I reckon that the sufferings of this time are not worthy to be compared with the glory to come that shall be revealed in us.“ (Rom 8,18)
Kyle J Hartman read summa contra gentiles Book 1 Chapter 13 for Gods existence; chapter 37-41 for Gods goodness. Through logical reasoning one can easily get to the knowledge that the christian revelation is the only true revelation of God. (Reasons for the christian revelations truth are the following: 1) the divineness of its founder 2) witnesses/ martyrs 3) dignity of its teaching 4) fulfillment of the prophecies 5) incredible amount of miracles 6) miraculous spread over the whole world 7) I could go on and on...--And in this divine revelation God promises all of this.
Kyle J Hartman As to Islam we all know that this religion contradicts the law of nature, Mohammed was a thoroughly immoral man, he spread his religion only through violence and war of aggression...
As to Jesus divinity: look at the shroud of turin, look at historical facts (also the miracles (Lazarus)), if he was a normal person how was crucified and died, then the real miracle is, how come nearly the entire world converted to the christian faith, which in the first centuries only promised a cruel death?
Prophecies: In no other religions are prophecies which come close to the ones of King David (1000 b.c.)and Isaias 700 b.c)...about the future messiah. In other religions there is no such thing as a real prophecy, their “prophecies” are vague, so that you can always interpret it the way you need to...
If we find new scientific principles, then the question ought to be, who put these complex laws in place, if there’s a law there needs to be a legislator.
Miracles: Don’t need to speak about that look up Padre Pio, look up the miracle of the sun in Fatima, look up Lourdes....
It’s not worthwhile arguing any further with you. I think you are a skeptic and with skeptics you to nowhere expect to skepticism. Furthermore your will is too obdurate to even consider my arguments.
“For, professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.” (Rom 1.22)
I don't understand why most comments here focus on how polite the participants were with each other. The truth or falsehood of a worldview is not determined by which side is more polite. An angry rude opponent can possibly be correct, and a very friendly polite opponent can be wrong. I pay more attention to argument content and nearly no attention how nice somebody sounded when giving an argument.
I understand your point, but someone shouting and insulting automatically sounds a little stupidier
@@Eriksat4 Right but I'm just wondering why so many commentators focus nearly exclusively on how polite and friendly the debate participants were...as if the politeness were the only commendable aspect of the debate, and progress toward figuring out who has the stronger position had nothing to do with anything,
@@user-ov8iz9vz4n Agreed. I mean this is a two hour long debate, there’s probably a lot else we can comment on. Although generally in debates, at least one person starts shouting or insulting or both
Incredible debate. Whether you are an atheist or a theist, I think we can all agree that these two men have an unbelievable talent for this. Kudos to both of these guys!
True. Tell you something...I think those who doubt the existence of God and the afterlife must look at the claims of so many people about their journey in the spiritual realm. Some in visions and dreams, while others had such mind boggling experience during NDE [near death experience]. These people who have such claims come from different ethnicities, social and educational backgrounds, and religious beliefs [including atheists]
You may say it's just an hallucination...but
Do you know what truly spells the difference between those who just had hallucinations with those who had a real personal experience with God and the spiritual realm?
Those who had hallunications never came back with something tangible to prove the veracity of their claims, of their experience, while those who had a personal experience with God or in the spiritual realm came back with tangible proof in the form of the following:
1. A miraculous recovery from a fatal illness or from a high risk surgery that even doctors are so dumbfounded they consider these recoveries as nothing short of a miracle.
2. These people who have had real experience in the spiritual realm come with stories they would not have known had they not been told by the spiritual beings who spoke to them while in heaven.
Case in point:
1. DR. EBEN ALEXANDER, BRAIN SURGEON
He only came to know that he had a sister after his near death experience. He was an only child of his adopted parents. His adoption was not disclosed and was kept a secret so he never got to meet his one and only sister who died years ago.
How did he find out he had a sister after his NDE?
He said during his journey in heaven, he met this woman who had so much love for him.
She became his guide during his journey in the spiritual realm.
When this brain surgeon came back to life and recovered, he became so curious about the identity of the woman and shared with his parents how he felt so connected, on a soul level, to this woman.
His parents then revealed to him that he was adopted and that he had a sister who died years ago..and so to cut the story short, he set out to get more information about his sister and was able to get hold of her picture. He was flabbergasted as the woman in the picture is exactly the same woman who guided him during his journey in the heavenly realm. He became a cganged man after his NDE. He now believes in God. [He used to be an atheist]
@@mikeygarcia8271 personal experiences, especially those in altered brain states, are not evidence
@@Dumbstuffwatcher What about the experience of a brain surgeon, an ex atheists who became a believer after experiencing the spirit realm during his NDE. Surely, he knows "altered brain states" better than you..you have a soul my friend..you are eternal..but its up to you where you would want to spend eternity with..with satan who is bound to destroy you...or God who gave up His life for you and ressurrected from the dead after three days that you too will live for all eternity
@@Dumbstuffwatcher I wouldn't say they "aren't evidence" but rather I would say that they couldn't be used for objective premises or propositions that others cannot determine are true.
that dude totally destroyed the other dude!
Tomás Iriarte couldn’t have said it better
@Gabe Norman Oh boy, this comment is ironic
Clearly he crushed him
I disagree. I get the joke here, but I don't actually think anyone was crushed in this debate
Yeah that one dude LITERALLY ate the other dude alive on that one ship
A Christian theist here. I really respect Alex, especially the environment to which he promotes and stands for. All too often atheist-theist debates are very tribalistic.
I really respect a purely intellectual and respectful discourse. Thank you, for the host and both speakers!
as a debater myself notice Alex uses a this and that thoughts ( puzzles, theories but very little data or facts) Aquinas thoughts usage would be helpful but this was good but it open debate tooo ooooo bad ( arguments would have better) animals? Alex are you confusing free will or free choice base where we are living visit Poland and Italy then come back, consumerism, habits of mind and inquiry thinking Alex ( what is your stand and show evidence in math and science Dawkins thinker talks a lot but just rambles shorten the talk host next time
CosmicSkeptic is not a good debater. They're both being respectful, which is nice. But the debate isn't great and Alex wasn't making any interesting points. Atheism is amoral. Veganism is immoral.
One of the most rational debates I've heard on the topic. So refreshing to hear open dialogue and respect for conflicting views.
Debater X: spends most of the time refuting his opponent's arguments
People: DAMMIT! Why aren't you presenting your own arguments?
Debater Y: spends most of the time making a case for a position
People: DAMMIT! Why aren't you refuting you opponent's arguments?
Yep.
@Nigel Butt, lol
@Gabe Norman I'm sorry but
Where is the evidence that all evidence must be empirical.
Also here is the scientific, empirical, peer reviewed study you asked for, hope you can read italian: www.mediafire.com/file/2j2j8qalrmcrlb4/Lanciano_Article_16-45-35.pdf/file
You are really my favorite Catholic Apologist ..I am ur no 1 fan here in the Philipines Mr Trent Horn..Keep defending our faith..God bless you and your family🙏
And yet he didn't present a single sound argument that proves God. Also, no believer believes because of convoluted, fallacious, "sophisticated" philosohpical arguments. So it really is not a defense. It exposes the absurdity of apologetics.
@@xnoreq very well said indeed 👍 and for Mariefa - defending the catholic faith you should watch the debate with Christopher Hitchens on whether the Catholic Church is a force of good in the world, Hitch and Stephen Fry absolutely spell out the truth of the matter.
@@colinross3755 The truth according to a pair of posh English pansies.
Congratulations gentlemen Trent and Alex. You are both very bright and eloquent speakers. I admire your being professionals without any insults on each other's person or even position. The respect of each other is very palpable. Hope the two of you can square off again in other topics. Very good moderator Matt.
There's not a single animal in nature that has CHOSEN to eat vegetables instead of other animals out of pity for them. Alex kind of proves how extraordinarily different he is from all other animals by being able to make that weird, completely unnatural choice.
@SheepOfChrist818 This is the conclusion you would have to draw from materialism, but the presupposition of materialism is the issue, not the solution.
Dogs clearly choose to not eat their injured friends, and eat kibble.
Same for cats.
These are two readily available examples of animals that CHOOSE to not eat the meat of their friends but rather eat vegetables.
@@jeffbalsz5563bro they probably don’t know they can eat their friends 🤣🤣🤣
@@robintillotson-tv2ri IF your position is that animals don't choose because they "don't know," I'm not sure how you'll show that.
If that's not your position, I'm not sure how you'll show they don't know.
It certainly seems like some dogs will eat other dogs and won't eat pack, or cats will eat people after they die... it certainly seems like some animal behavior is animals other than humans "choose" not to eat their friends. I'm also not sure I *could* choose to eat a himan without dying.
Love the conversation, only one request for @Matt Fradd, next time put the timer up so that we know how much time each candidate has. Just an easier and more time constant way of having the debate. I know you could just keep listening, but sometimes one candidate picks up the pace because of the time crunch and you aren't sure how much more time the candidate actually has for trying to fit it into the time.
Get Ed Feser to debate David Bentley Hart on universalism... that’d be so epic
u just want to see the world burn u absolute mad man
Matt Fradd please make this happen!
I would really like to see this.
David Bently Hart would just start roasting everyone in the studio for no reason
I assent to this proposition and second it.
I recommend apologetics of G.K. Chesterton, C.S. Lewis, Wolfgang Smith, Edward Feser, Thomas E. Woods, Thomas Joseph White OP.
Believers overrate apologetics.
Ed is great
Thanks. God always win ❤❤❤
@@borneandayak6725 well which god is the question, you can't specify with Trent's argument, it's basically just a longer Kalam argument
Gerrit Kruger
As Trent said, his arguments apply to an all-knowing, all-powerful, Good God outside the universe.
Loved the moderation in this debate. Good format.
And love how Alex brought in the animals in the problem of evil even if it may have not been his strongest point. Love the activism. Would love to see more talks between these two. Trent spoke very well
AMAZING debate!! Loved the part where Trent just said how much fun he was having!
Excellent job hosting as well Matt.
Trent put forth some really excellent arguments, and as always, Alex does a great job putting forth some unique challenges. Both men handled themselves very well, debate format was excellent, loved every minute of it. I’ve watched some of Alex’s material before and I really admire his intellect and ability to express himself. I do think Trent made a great point, however, that Alex never really challenged Trent’s arguments made in his opening statement, but just raised some logical difficulties, or puzzles, which if not fully solved, they still both engaged well on.
10/10! Way to go Trent and Alex!
One of the main issues with bringing up quantum indeterminacy is it puts the epistemological cart before the horse. If the PSR can be established independently on metaphysical grounds, then empirical science which is presupposed by metaphysics to even get off the ground would have to follow its lead.
Yeah this is quite true. #fapisdegeneracy
So how do you reconcile your epistemological framework with the indeterminacy of Quantum Mechanics??
@@abdallahayman9802 Well, before we actually get to how we are going to reconcile it, we mst first understand the ramifications of denying the principle of sufficient reason in the first place.
If the principle is to be denied, then science, of course, is now completely impossible. The simple reason for this is that if a thing has no sufficient reason for its existence, then there cannot, even in principle, be any form of causal regularity or intelligibility within nature which science takes for granted in its everyday operations. This also has the implication that the things we believe have sufficient reasons for their existence or operations may not have any such reasons. This ultimately culminates in the denail of human rationality in its totality. The simply reason for this is that when somebody reasons from a set of premises to a conclusion, the sufficient reason for the conclusion is found within the premises itself. But, if the principle of sufficient reason is false, then it is impossible to know whether any such conclusions actually follow from a set of premises. You may well retort, "isn't it obvious that the conclusion follows from the premises?!", but such a response would simply beg the question, as whether or not they do have a sufficient reason is precisely what is being debated. It may well be the case that your own intuitions do not have a sufficient reason for their existence and operations, meaning that any for of deduction would be made completely impossible. It is complete madness to deny the principle, and it was quite embarrassing that the quantum physicist said that the principle of sufficient reason is actually holding science back instead of pushing it forward.
The principle cannot be denied, as the logic or induction you use to deny it will also be denied as a consequence of denying the principle in the first place. It must be affirmed.
@@abdallahayman9802 The most hilarious thing about this debate is that nobody can reconcile anything with anything if the principle is false.
I think that the PSR can survive indeterminacy, though, or at least a somewhat limited version of the PSR that still works to run a cosmological argument. If you state the PSR as simply "everything has a reason for its being" rather than "everything has a reason for its being one way rather than another", you run into no complications with quantum mechanics. The reason the electron passed through the left slit is simply indeterministic laws. The reason can just be that it was a random selection within some set of constraints. Though I haven't thought it out much, I also think the more limited PSR is easier to reconcile with Free Will, as it doesn't conflict with indeterminism like the stricter one does.
Catholicism has thousands of years of thought on it's back... It's not like evangelical Christianity in that respect.
There are older religions than Catholicism
@@shhiknopfler3912 not thats still around today
@@stuckmannen3876 well Judaism is way older than Catholicism.
@Cairo Ayres that's called a wanna be called Judaism.
Judaism is what Jesus tried to call out as Hypocrites and what not, it's still around and obviously older.
It's obvious Christianity came out of Judaism, Just like evangelicals Protestants Came out of Christianity.
So when you talk about older don't Confuse yourselves with your Believes.
@Cairo Ayres Isaiah 66
22 For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the Lord, so shall your seed and your name remain.
23 And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the Lord.
From one Sabbath to another.
How a Religion that abandoned everything of the OT
even the Sabbath, trying to Claim that they are the Oldest and Original is beyond me.
I know the Sabbath is between God and the Israelites,
But don't claim to be the Original and Oldest.
Although Alex is completely incorrect, he makes good points. He’d make for a fantastic Catholic theologian, I pray for his return to the faith
Classic Christian Narcissism.
I hope ypu don't get your wish, he makes great arguments, which Trent was not able to refute
What good points does he make? He talks about evil, but evil according to what? His worldview can’t give an account for evil
Woah that argument against abortion caught me off guard completely and I’m pro-choice.
I hope Fr. Ripperger gets featured on this channel.
Yes, please. YESSS
Ripperger rejects Evolution. It will be akin to featuring flat earthers
@@st.mephisto8564 He rejects evolution? Please tell me that's not true.
@@Catholic-Redpilled-Spaniard It is unfortunately!
He's atleast very critical of Evolution and doesn't understand it, imo.
@@st.mephisto8564 I'll look into it. I thought fr Chad was pretty red-pilled. I hope I wasn't wrong
I'd absolutely be up for another Trent & Alex vid! Great discussion.
Alex's brain is my argument for the existence of God.
😂
What do you mean? Im only 24 minutes in, but wanted to check the comments lol.
I've realised that I need to catch up on quantum mechanics
I just can't help but be excited at the potential that Alex's life holds. So many good things can come from him. He's intelligent, compassionate, passionate and YOUNG. AND BAPTIZED.
Baptized lol
@Qwerty And???
Pain and suffering is a good thing. Here is why:
For those of you who want an answer to why there is pain and suffering:
Pain and suffering is a troubleshooting mechanism to tell us that something is wrong, before it gets progressively worse if not addressed - causing more pain and suffering and ultimately the end of existence.
Pain and suffering is like a check engine light on your car dashboard. Nobody likes it when it comes on, but we don't argue the light is a bad thing, as it is a mechanism to tell us that something is wrong, so that we can take action and keep things from getting progressively worse. Pain and suffering has a spectrum. Its like a check engine light that flashes faster and faster the longer we ignore it, and the issue gets more and more critical. So the light, as well as pain and suffering are not bad, as they are a good warning mechanism to show us that something is 1 - wrong, and 2 - allow us to take action to keep things from getting worse, and ultimately keeps everything functional and existing. If you took away the check engine light, as well as the pain and suffering, things would get worse and worse exponentially until an inevitable end of existence occurred. In the example of a deer experiencing pain and suffering while it is crushed under a fallen tree.... The pain and suffering acts as a good warning mechanism to allow the deer to keep trying to resolve the situation. Because of the pain and suffering, the deer will keep fighting to restore maximum function, and ultimately survival. If you took away pain and suffering, the deer would have no reason to move or jump out of the way of a falling tee, as it notices it. This warning mechanism cannot be something that the creature likes, as that would only lead to self destruction.
So yes, pain and suffering is a good mechanism to keep things in this world from getting progressively worse, and to ultimately keep things existing.
Why does God not stop or reduce pain and suffering? It wouldn't be smart to take a check engine light out of a car, simply because we don't like it when it comes on. The only other alternative is to fix the issue that is causing the check engine light, or the pain and suffering. This would then negate the sole purpose of creation of man - a creation with free will. Here is why:
God created this world, and set rules that would result in the best possible life in a best possible manner for everything. He gave these rules to man, but he also gave man a choice to follow the rules, or not. He did this, so that man would be more than just a robot forced/programmed to obey. Only a creation of free will that chooses good by its own free will, is ultimately good. When man chose to not follow the rules, he essentially said, he knows better than God what he should and shouldn't do. So God having created a perfect creation decided to withdraw from His creation, and allow man to rule the world, so that man can ultimately see how taking things into his own hands will result. Since then, we have done a poor job ruling this world. All evil that is here in the world, is here due to mans non understanding of this world, and non willingness to listen to the one who created it. We are but children who decided we were smarter than our parents who know much more about how things work.
Natural disasters are not caused by God, but rather happen as a result of a world that is falling apart after God withdrew. God withdrew from the world so that man could see just how powerless man is without God. Essentially God is saying.. if you think you know better how to make this place as best as can be, here take the wheel. Man has been driving the creation into the ground ever since. At a certain point, God will step back in and take charge. At that point, mankind will see just how wrong they were in thinking they know better than the Creator Himself. God is not taking vengence on man, but in fact is helping man come to the ultimate good by observing his own actions and making conclusions. He guides this process through his Word, but does not take over. As a good parent would.
Pain and suffering is exactly proportional to mans disobedience.
The suffering and pain increases as mankind gets further and further from Gods rules. The suffering and pain caused by all the issues we chose to create for ourselves is exactly proportional to the distance we put between us and God. The further we are from his rules and guidance, the more pain and suffering there will be, as more things will become disfunctional and broken. So the only way to reduce pain and suffering, is to strive to listen to and follow the one who Created all of it, and knows exactly how to achieve the best possible good. He gave us an instruction manual. The further we are from the instructions in that manual, the more problems, hazzards, dangers we create for ourselves causing more pain and suffering. You can't blame a product manufacturer if you did everything against their manual and ended up harming yourself and or others. That will be on you, weather you like it, or not.
I hope this explanation helped someone.
How does man break any rules if a tree falls on him? He’s minding his own business and your “all-loving, all-knowing god” just casually lets that tree fall on him. If I were god, I’d never let that tree fall on him, so either god must not be absolutely moral, not omniscient, or not all-powerful. Thank goodness there are actually good beings in this world who help others rather than let people become victims and endure suffering they don’t deserve
@@drageoksllechtim2078 That goes back to the world as fallen and it also is undercut by the fact that death is infinitely preferable to life for a Christian, but we continue living out of a moral duty to God.
VVhat if, I don’t even know your real name. I was longing for this explanation for a long time. I’ve taken screenshots of it all for my reference to help others understand it. If you’re the one who has given this from your intellect, I thank you for it. If you have learned it from someone or any source, please be kind enough to let me know. I wish to go through it and get in-depth knowledge.
@@CanisDei Im glad this explanation helped at least one. This is the truth God has been slowly revealing to me. Over time the pieces of the puzzle begin to fit. My dream is to write a book on systematic theology, which really is just a huge book that shows how all truths work and fit together. Most of these things come from me sitting, praying and reasoning. Im sure there are many others with similar explanations, afterall, God doesnt reveal his truths to any one person. Any who seek truth, will find it.
There are things that really bother people about God. Unfortunately, many dont realize that its not God who is wrong, but our understanding of Him, and how things are. Pain and suffering, as well as the idea of hell, cause many to look past God before they even look into these subjects. If the idea of hell bothers you also, as I assume it does, I would point you to
rethinkinghell.com/
As they are a good resource to start. Hell is not eternal torment. It is a place justice is met. Eternal punishing would not be just. God is justice Himself, and has given us a sense of justice. Even we understand, that it is not just, or even reasonable that for a temporal sin, the punishing lasts an eternity. Hell is a place one gets wiped out of existence. The gift of God to those who choose good by their own free will, is eternal life. The fruitless trees, are disposed of.
If you have any questions, feel free to ask!
Such an amazing exchange between these two! I’ve come back to this debate many times now, Trent and Alex both have been important voices in my journey to embrace God (ultimately Catholicism). I have a ton of respect for Alex, he’s a genuine skeptic leaving very little off the table usually always engaging with an open mind and a truly impressive intellectual flair and hunger. Matt please get these two back together for another talk! God bless!
The biggest problem for Alex in his attempt to rebut the contingency argument was that he kept assuming, without argument, that if P explains Q, then P necessitates Q. But this is a controversial assumption at best, and there are serious difficulties with it at worst (see Alex Pruss's discussion in his book on the PSR). But even if he can avoid that, the PSR can be interpreted in terms of dependence, viz. all contingent things are dependent on (temporally and / or ontologically) prior conditions. But that X depends on Y simply doesn't give us any reason to think X is _demanded_ by Y, or that Y _necessitates_ X. We can see this with the phenomena from QM he kept wanting to bring up: even if you want to say QM events aren't necessitated by some prior causal factors, they are still _dependent_ on the earlier states of energy from which they emerge. Likewise with free will (understood in the libertarian sense).
Blake McAllister has a paper called _"The Principle of Sufficient Reason and
Free Will"_ in which he notes that the version of the PSR that would indeed lead to determinism is the Leibnizian version. Peter van Inwagen made a pretty influential argument that the PSR and free will are incompatible (I think this is where Alex drew his argument from) and McAlister responds to that argument in his paper. Basically, McAlister made the (I think powerful) case that we don't need to commit to the Leibnizian PSR in order to keep the arguments from contingency and free will simultaneously.
Ethan M. Agreed. What we need is a non contrastive PSR which denies the difference principle: that a difference in the effect presupposes a difference in the cause. As Blake pointed out, there’s no reason to think that P explaining Q means it must necessitate it
Yeah, his reasoning goes something like this: “If x is a truck driver, x has a red hat.” The ‘if’ gives a sufficient condition for having a red hat (being a truck driver), whereas having a red hat is a necessary condition for being a truck driver (though note that as a necessary condition it’s fallacious to infer from x having a red hat to x being a truck driver). This sort of conception of the PSR is thought to lead to modal collapse, as PVI has argued, since a sufficient condition necessarily entails the other condition. As a result, some have instead formulated the PSR to being directed at giving an explanation for the *existence* of contingent things, as opposed to an explanation for *every* contingent fact. This formulation of the PSR doesn’t entail modal collapse, as things can cause each other indeterministically or out of free will.
@@user-or3fi7ls5y if he has a red hat he is incapable of reason anyway 😜
@@caseyspaos448 MAGA
Both Alex and Trent were awesome. Thanks Matt for hosting them. God bless.
Thought provoking stuff. Absolutely loving this debate half way through.
Alex O'Connor has some points, but the problem of animal evil is explained by natural (physical and biological) laws. If animals don't suffer, they will not react to being attacked: you wouldn't go the doctor if you didn't feel uncomfortable. Extending the same explanation to human beings is quite problematic. Covid 19 was very bad, but some good came out of it: demonstrations of solidarity amongst people, improved care for the elders, development of m-RNA vaccine.
But point isn't why animals suffering exist, but why animals suffering exist, if there is all-loving God.
What animals did in Eden to receive the same punishment and fate as we had?
Man you got to love the civility and the ability talk seeking for truth, not to win the argument. God bless Alex, Matt and Trent.
I agree with Trent, that a Holocaust in heaven would be impossible, mainly because everyone there is dead already and I guess you can't die in your afterlife.
Alex you have a beautiful mind. I'm a catholic and I thoroughly enjoyed this debate. Trent your work is fantastic 👏 I applaud you.
This was awesome, at some point during that cross-examination each new response put a new smile on my face.
I love how they made the exact same expression at the very end. 😂 I could listen to them for several hours (days).
Matt, thank you so much for putting this together.
Hello
Take a look at this video. It explains what happened to the Catholic Church after Vatican II.
ruclips.net/video/VB_hUdRKi4o/видео.html
Also, see vaticancatholic.com, it contains critical information on the Traditional Catholic Faith, which is necessary for salvation.
Suffering? Catholics in Philippines suffer a harder life than most US or EU Catholics, few are atheists. I've Catholic friends from Middle East who hold fast to the Faith despite its daily and deadly implications. Its hard to explain suffering if you believe in God, but without God its hard to understand anything. No reason to understand anything, why? For what?
Imagine us Catholics in India.
On the topic of suffering, theists and atheists have 99% overlap. Theists are atheists of every other faith but their own, after all.
You need religion to want to understand anything? Absurd. Humans are a curious and cooperative species and will always seek to understand the world. Science has demonstrated its usefulness to the species again and again.
Amount of suffering does not mean you hold true beliefs. Muslims are persecuted too in certain places. Doesn’t mean Islam is true.
I hope this doesn't come off the wrong way but it seems there may be some correlation between higher standards of well being and lower levels of religiosity. Perhaps when people's needs are being met by society and they have opportunities, good healthcare, access to higher education etc. their focus on the next life gives way to a greater focus on this one.
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
04:55 🌌 Trent Horn presents nine yes-no questions leading to a cause of the universe with divine attributes.
07:46 🔄 The cause of the universe must be changeless due to potential and actuality; temporal if not material.
09:56 🕰️ The finite past of the universe implies an uncaused cause for its existence.
12:58 💡 The cause of the universe is unbounded and all-powerful, its causal power not limited.
14:52 🤖 The cause of the universe must be personal, as it explains both material and abstract objects.
16:37 ⚖️ Objective moral truths suggest the existence of an all-powerful God.
18:58 💔 The problem of animal suffering is a significant challenge to Christian theism.
21:40 🕒 Alex presents the problem of evil and suffering as a challenge to theism, focusing on both moral and natural evil.
22:53 🌍 Alex discusses the difficulty theists face in justifying natural evil, such as earthquakes and diseases, which are not caused by human actions but still result in suffering.
24:17 ⚖️ Alex questions whether a loving god could allow any unnecessary suffering in the world and challenges the concept of the "best of all possible worlds."
26:39 🦌 Alex raises concerns about animal suffering and questions why animals experience such intense and widespread pain if a loving god exists.
28:47 🆓 Alex challenges the concept of free will as it relates to theodicy, asking if there is free will in heaven and how it impacts the suffering-free state.
32:19 🔎 Alex questions the principle of sufficient reason, arguing that accepting it could undermine scientific assumptions and suggesting that it conflicts with free will.
35:19 ✝️ Trent responds by pointing out that Alex didn't present logical arguments against God's existence, only probabilistic ones, and addresses weaknesses in those arguments.
37:01 🔀 Trent counters Alex's objection to free will by explaining that humans can cause themselves to choose freely and defends the compatibility of free will with a theistic worldview.
38:25 🌍 Trent argues that natural evils can be seen as privations of goodness and suggests that they serve purposes such as allowing complex organisms to function and promoting goods like courage and compassion.
40:46 🦁 Trent counters Alex's objection to animal suffering by proposing that the existence of animals and their experiences could be part of greater goods that humans may not fully comprehend.
41:46 ⚖️ Trent highlights the challenge of atheistic ethics to explain moral duties and preferences regarding humans and animals, suggesting that theism can provide a coherent explanation.
00:00 🤔 Trent argues that the principle of sufficient reason (PSR) applies to why things exist, not necessarily why events occur.
05:17 🌍 Trent argues that the universe's existence demands an uncaused cause, a necessary being with divine attributes.
08:55 🤝 Alex challenges the assumption that a necessary being must be a divine being and raises issues about PSR and the nature of causality.
14:03 🛡️ Trent contends that the causal chain requires a necessary cause, and the existence of contingent beings is an indicator of this cause.
19:25 🌄 Alex questions why the uncaused cause must be a divine being, and whether this cause is subject to PSR.
25:10 🤔 The dialogue shifts to free will and determinism, with Trent explaining how free will is compatible with God's existence.
28:55 🤔 Alex counters that God's foreknowledge and free will could be incompatible, and explores the nature of time.
32:05 🤝 Trent distinguishes between God's knowledge of events and his causing of events, suggesting God's knowledge doesn't necessarily cause events.
37:30 📖 Alex delves into quantum mechanics and questions the deterministic nature of causality in light of probabilistic explanations.
44:20 🌌 Alex raises issues about quantum mechanics, locality, and the interpretations that retain PSR while challenging causation.
49:15 🧠 Trent engages with the challenges to free will posed by Alex and discusses why the principle of sufficient reason might not undermine it.
52:05 🐷 The debate transitions to the moral worth of animals, factory farming, and utilitarian perspectives on the value of life.
57:50 🔒 Alex challenges Trent's assertion about the difference between killing animals and killing humans for survival.
59:01 🛋️ The cross-examination phase begins, with Trent questioning Alex's assertion about the intrinsic moral worth of humans and animals.
01:02:45 🐟 Animals' suffering in historical cases of shipwrecks and cannibalism discussed.
01:03:41 🫀 Ethical scenario involving heart transplant and justifiability of killing.
01:04:36 🤔 Differing opinions on terminal illness organ harvesting and shipwreck cannibalism comparison.
01:05:32 🚢 Historical context of maritime cannibalism and societal norms discussed.
01:07:53 💡 Trent's theistic perspective on evil, suffering, and moral justifications presented.
01:08:37 🔀 Alex probes Trent on ontological foundations of moral duties and realism.
01:11:11 🤔 Discussion about pressing hypothetical buttons to reduce animal suffering.
01:13:47 🌎 Trent defends animal suffering as part of the natural order.
01:20:12 🔄 Alex questions the principle of sufficient reason and its application to contingent explanations.
01:22:06 🤖 Alex questions the principle of sufficient reason (PSR) as needing all-encompassing explanations, arguing it assumes brute facts without explaining them.
01:23:16 🛡️ Trent asserts that sufficient explanations need not be complete, using the example of cookies to illustrate different levels of explanation.
01:23:46 💼 Alex challenges the distinction between scientific and personal explanations, asserting that mental intent could be explained scientifically.
01:24:14 🛡️ Trent counters, explaining that reducing mental states to materialist explanations ignores crucial aspects like intention and aboutness.
01:28:07 🤖 Alex remains uncertain about consciousness, stating it's plausible there's a natural explanation, but he lacks a strong opinion on the matter.
01:29:42 🛡️ Trent argues that minimizing evil might not be the right moral principle, citing the example of preventing all suffering by destroying the universe.
01:32:46 🛡️ Trent and Alex discuss the moral implications of eating animals. Trent believes animals don't have the same moral status as humans, while Alex advocates for veganism to minimize unnecessary suffering.
01:38:07 🛡️ Trent and Alex acknowledge respectful exchanges with theistic philosophers have enriched their understanding and respect for each other's arguments.
01:40:56 🛡️ Trent explains how randomness and chance still fit within the principle of sufficient reason by relying on predictable laws and explanations.
01:42:20 📚 Alex recommends Alex Press's book on the principle of sufficient reason to understand reliable predictability and trustworthiness of events.
01:42:35 🤔 Alex challenges the idea of randomness, arguing that randomness can be explained by understanding all relevant variables and factors in a situation.
01:43:05 🌌 The historical belief in determinism and predictable laws in the universe, and how certain seemingly random events could still be explained if all variables were known.
01:43:48 ⚛️ The concept of true randomness in quantum mechanics, where events are not just seemingly random but fundamentally unpredictable.
01:44:14 ❓ Discussion about whether quantum randomness implies a limitation of knowledge of outcomes and how God's role in this limitation is questioned.
01:44:57 💭 Quantum mechanics experiments show true randomness, and even a divine creator could not predict certain outcomes due to inherent unpredictability.
01:45:39 🧠 Alex's challenge regarding the existence of knowledge beyond human discovery and its limitations, discussing divine knowledge and human comprehension.
01:46:06 🤝 Trent and Alex reflect on the limitations of their personal beliefs and the balance between rational and non-rational elements in belief formation.
01:47:16 📚 Book recommendations related to animal theology and the problem of animal suffering from the audience.
01:48:12 🔍 Trent emphasizes the importance of considering all evidence and arguments in evaluating the case for or against the existence of God.
01:48:57 🙏 Closing remarks by Trent, encouraging viewers to engage deeply with their beliefs and explore different perspectives.
01:59:26 🗣️ Alex's closing statements, highlighting the importance of exploring the implications and compatibility of beliefs, and remaining open to growth in understanding.
02:01:41 🤝 Closing remarks emphasizing the importance of respectful discussions and leaving questions open for further exploration.
02:02:11 🎙️ Suggesting the need for longer-form conversations to delve deeper into the topics discussed beyond the limitations of a debate format.
02:02:25 🎙️ Expressing gratitude to participants and audience for a fruitful exchange and hinting at the potential for future discussions.
02:02:52 👥 Providing links to Trent's and Alex's online platforms for further engagement and learning.
02:03:06 💻 Sharing ways to connect with Trent Horn, including his website, podcast, and RUclips channel.
02:03:48 🌍 Alex O'Connor's online presence, podcast, and discussions on animal ethics are accessible through various platforms.
Damn as an atheist, Alex really did poorly in this one. Alex, you need back your edge or I will become a theist or something 😅😂
Benjamin D from his response to my question he seems open minded!
Demelza Konoplyanka my question was at 1:40:03
Again as a Christian I almost feel Alex has questions so deeply metaphysical and complex that there is often not really any simple answer to give, I would personally sometimes just answer him with that's a bloody good question and I'm glad your thinking about it.
Alex also seems to be very kind hearted and deeply empathetic towards animaks especially and its not an uncommon reason for struggling with God, from this same dilemma regarding the suffering of humans I wrestled and lashed out at God for years..
I eventually came to an understanding of what I believe that satisfied my Humanitarian desires..
But thank you Alex for you questions..
Excuses,excuses....
He is NOT struggling. Why do you people do that crap?
@@morbidmanmusic opposition, opposition. What are you taking on here? Lighten up.
Well done format. Enjoyed the cross examination the most.
I loved this debate...Alex and Trent were both very respectful, and Alex was very open minded, which in my opinion made him look very intelligent, and opened to questions, which made a great debate!
Trent’s expression at 1:04:37 made me laugh. What a great debate, both Alex and Trent are excellent debaters with sharp intellects!
Yeah, likewise. And the following statement by Alex is a perfect example of why you never want an atheist (or committed skeptic if you will) at the helm of the levers of governmental powers
ironymatt yeah how bout we continue to elect world leaders who still believe every fairy tale their parents told them, who can’t think critically, who won’t change their mind even when presented with the facts, well great thats what we’ve had for the last 10,000 years and great we still have wars and destroy the planet. Yep lets keep it going
@@NobleVagabond2552 Centuries of capitalism and wars in the secular age we are living through now have caused more death and destruction to nature than any religious conflict.
As an atheist, I think Trent argued his apologetics incredibly well - perhaps better than anyone else I've seen.
I already knew Trent Horn was a smart guy, but this was a very impressive performance by him!
Trent has a very good presentation of bad ideas.
Alex, and atheists in general, don't seem to be able to consider that the universe isn't how it appears. The issue with quantum mechanics, for instance, doesn't break our understanding of causation if you consider that time isn't actually linear and we only perceive it as linear. This is mirrored by the common atheist question of "who made God?" Which completely ignores the reality that for a being to create the universe where time is a physical property of space, that necessarily means that said being would be outside what we consider time and would therefor not require a creator.
Why are you telling us that you don't understand quantum mechanics? We don't care about the level of your intellectual failure. :-)