DIALOGUE: What would prove God exists? (with Counter Apologist)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 29 сен 2024
- In this episode Trent sits down with John an atheistic “Counter Apologist” to discuss miracles and other evidence that would (or should) convince us that God exists.
To support this channel: / counseloftrent
Counter Apologist's channel: / @counterapologist
Really like your guest. He has a very persuasive communication style. Great video keep up the good work. May God bless you and your family ✝✝✝
If atheism is a “lack of believe in God” then theism is a “lack of believe in Godless realities.”
It has been said, atheism is three people arguing about the reality of triangles.
I just think "lack of x" is a weasel-phrase by people too chickenshit to admit they're taking positivistic positions
Why would God not give Thomas-level evidence to everyone? Why would He give it to some and not others? I don't know. But what pops into my mind is, if I was gonna have to die for believing, I might need more evidence than I have now. I have enough evidence now to believe the way I believe in my current circumstance. If I was given any more than what there is available to me now, I might not cherish it--as I currently do (i.e. not cherish) with a lot of things that I don't think take a lot of effort, talent, or skill. I'd rather answer the question than be given the answer. Then it feels like mine. When someone else has to give me the answer, or explain the joke, I might get it then, but I'll also forget it eventually. When I have figured it out on my own, it's mine. Thank God He didn't give us constant irrefutable evidence or we'd start taking Him for granted and ignoring him as if He was a camera on Big Brother!
The kind of choices I have to make based on whether I believe in God are: Should I go to church or sleep in? Should I give money to the church and to the poor or should I spend it on myself? Should I forgive those who tresspass against me or should I hold grudges? The choice Thomas had to make is: Should I say "nevermind, I'm not really sure He rose from the dead." ? or should I die a violent death at the hands of these people in front of me with spears? Should I bow down and confess my belief in the sun god? Or should I be true to the faith and die for it?
Peter, Paul, James, everyone but John died horrible deaths that they could have avoided by merely retracting their testimony. But they believed strongly enough so that we can believe, even weakly, but enough.
“Miracles tend to be a one off”
😂
John is a very pleasant guy. I really enjoyed this conversation!
You'll notice that the counter apologist and many other atheists rely on verification to prove things. The verification principle described by the logical positivist philosophers was stated as "a proposition can be true only if it can be verified by sensory observation." The problem with this is that the verification principle itself cannot be verified by sensory observation and therefore would prove itself to be not true. I hope everyone realizes this.
Can we empirically verify the assassination of Julius Ceasar (or any other historical event for that matter)?
No, we cannot. Historical events only happen once.
@@hhstark8663 Yes we don't have a time machine to use to go back and investigate historical events.
It's a good thing I did not and do not espouse logical positivism, and the discussion I had with Trent didn't hinge on that whatsoever. If it did Trent would point out the fact that such a statement is self defeating. Just because I'm espousing verifiability in terms of certain miracles to justify accepting ones we can't verify doesn't mean I am forced to embrace logical positivism.
@@CounterApologist Johnathan never said you embrace logical positivism, but you do invoke the verification principle and what he said indeed follows.
@@markfrideres284 I don’t think that sensory observation is the only way to to prove a proposition to be wrong or false. What about the mathematical proof of a theorem?
I also don’t think that in general, requiring evidence for or against a claim is self refuting.
At @20.00 minutes, John was most likely referencing our discussion. It should be noted
1. I was making reference to humans evolving rather than being created de novo in body and with an immaterial soul, without common descent from prior evolved organisms. I'm still an old earth creationist and regard non-human animals as evolving.
2. I have other reasons for my anti-realism about science, it's not an ad hoc hypothesis to get out of this difficulty.
Good to see you here. We gotta do a another discussion some time too.
@@RealAtheology I'm currently reworking my views on moral naturalism away from Divine command ethics. I'd love to revisit the topic when I have it worked out.
God speaking to me was pretty much all it took, my atheism was obliterated in nanoseconds.
But why is god not doing this with everyone?
@@maxmaximus2608 "God works in mysterious ways"
@@maxmaximus2608 Simple, because not everyone would believe even if God spoke to them.
Honestly, this refutes any variation of "Why doesn't God do X to get people to believe?"
@@maxmaximus2608 because not everyone would believe, God is not a god of futility. His actions bear fruit, an action that would not bear fruit, is simply left undone.
I’ll elaborate a bit about where I was at mentally, I wanted to believe the things in the Bible were true, but couldn’t bring myself to believe, thus God stepped in.
@@maxmaximus2608 why should he? God searches the depths of men’s hearts and answers to those who truly seek him with an open heart with humbleness.
John's one of my favorite atheists, great that you had him on.
He isn't an atheist, that much is evident. Hes lying to himself
@@jonathansoko1085 why?
@@jonathansoko1085 How is he lying to himself?
@@DryApologist
Perhaps Jonathan mean that he is an agnostic?
Now you've gone and made me blush.
Miracles are not best way to argue for God, people can always just reject those out of hand, the philosophical arguments and rational reasoning is the best way to argue for God, you will never convince someone who doesnt want to be.
As Christians we should also not forget that miracles doesnt simply mean some sort of event that is hard to explain, but rather the term miracle means it is a rare occurrence, and also AFAIK though we translate it as miracles, a closer term would be signs. Signs from God. And generally those signs arent meant to glorify God, but to help his chosen people.
Thank you for sharing this insight.
Why are miracles as signs from God not meant to glorify God?
Helping His chosen people *is* the glorification of God
It's just not the claim of the resurrection or the supernatural the method in why we believe Jesus and not other supernatural beliefs because the Bible claim that they're supernatural forces at work the Bible says they're evil ones. So how do we know Jesus wasn't evil ? Well by simply knowing what he claimed about Himself that he was God the creator and that by his name evil spirits will subjugate to his authority and that is something we can testify through personal testimonies, people being delivered from false beliefs, demons, witchcraft, etc.
I am a huge Trent Horn fan, but I don't think Trent did very well in this particular conversation.
Very charitable discussion! Well done guys.
Thanks for sharing this! Trent, I had a question inspired by this discussion. The discussion was focused on having an atheist answer what would convince them that God exists. What if the question was flipped? How would you answer a similar question from atheists: "what would convince you that God does not exist?" I could imagine Catholics getting asked that as well.
An important consideration, the inversion.
Many may find they have no thought out position.
Just thinking out loud:
1. Proof that the universe is eternal
2. Proof that the universe was not created
3. Proof that life can be created by purely natural methods in a random universe
All of these would make me doubt there is any Truth because there is no creator and thus life is meaningless and there is no morality except as a socially constructed idea. Which means it is not absolute and so no idea is better than any other.
For me it would be the revelation of aliens with technology beyond anything we're capable of, especially if it were revealed that they've been among us for some time.
At that point I'd probably believe that everything the Bible describes happened from them.
But...I don't think such beings exist.
rick and morty and the light of the god emperor of mankind opened the crack in my atheism. it was a wild ride.
That sounds interesting. Care to elaborate a bit?
Are you talking about war hammer 40k or some Rick and Morty episode with a god emperor?
I don't speak for him, but if I had to take a guess.
He's probably talking about the absurd nihilism and cynicism that's in the writing that Dan Harmon has injected into Rick and Morty. To the point where it just comes off as pretentious nonsense.
I imagine that even though 40k takes jabs at Catholicism. The God Emperor of Mankind is the single figure in the Imperium that not only unifies the Imperium and humanity, but also protects them against the literal physical manifestations of sin, Chaos. Despite the sub-par writing; 40k surprisingly has some pretty Catholic themes in it that weren't intended.
@@Cklert I’ve watched some Rick and morty, mainly old seasons that get on RUclips, but I haven’t watched any in like four to five years, I was just curious if there was some episode I missed that he was referring to.
I kinda figured he was referring to war hammer though with the God emperor reference.
@@michaelibach9063 From season 3 onward, there's a complete shift in everyone's character. Basically everyone becomes more cynical and mean spirited. Everyone becomes Rick and not as a joke. Furthering that, there's a whole bunch of meta episode of the characters making fun of fans that there won't be a big storyline. Despite them actually doing that later.
Dan Harmon is an actual nihilist and you can tell that Rick basically became his self-insert later on.
19:14 "Well beliefs can't do that. It violates everything we know about science" ---- this is a assumption only and one not validated by either science, philosophy, or human experience. This assumption suggests one possess knowledge of how physical phenomena are indeed actualized. On the contrary:
"It is clear that these physical-only processes somehow on the one hand give us the right answers, but on the other hand that they are controlled by another world of ideas somehow; they’re coming from somewhere else.”
(Professor Nima Arkani-Hamed--- Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton, and director of The Center for Future High Energy Physics)
"The mystery is not that there are three worlds, although each is a mystery in itself. The worlds are there: the physical, the mental, and the abstract. Rather, the mystery is in how they connect" (Roger Penrose)
I was raised LDS and I've recently gotten more interesting in faith, I've always been interested in theology, but this is about lifestyle change...these videos are always very mentally engaging, thank you for sharing these.
How cool. I’m also a Latter-Day Saint. (Not sure if you still are or if you left.)
I’m related to a family of LDS Lowe’s. Not sure if you’re related, probably not. I’ve heard there’s multiple unrelated groups of Lowe’s.
What do you find interesting about the Church of Jesus Christ?
@@KnuttyEntertainment I suppose I'm what's called 'inactive' 😅
As for my interest, that's a tough one to answer concisely... I'm in a sort of transitionary phase of my life where I'm deciding the direction I want to take, and I haven't been happy in a long time. I've always struggled trying to balance intellect and faith because I don't think science and religion need to be diametrically opposed. I bumped into some roaming sisters, recognized what they were since I've got buddies out on missions or just barely coming back, and they talked me into setting up a meeting... I have the basis for faith, but belief doesn't really matter unless it motivates your lifestyle, and it's safe to say that my lifestyle isn't currently in line with a 'model' member's... I'm a bit hesitant to fully commit to coming back in full force for a variety of reasons, kinda trying to ease back in, feel it out... slow process, but I occasionally find myself researching other religions, goes back to my interest in theology. I hope this made sense enough... I've said a lot, but didn't go into much detail. That would require a different medium than a youtube comment section 😂
(as for my relation to your Lowes, it could be possible, would have to bust out the ol genealogy sheets to figure it out tho 😉🤙)
@@JazzyUnderscoreTrumpeter Got’cha. Totally understand what you’re getting at.
If you have any questions, I’m rather well versed in LDS apologetics and the gospel in general.
I've been down this road as well. I was a member of the LDS church, enthusiastically serving a mission, and ultimately wound up as a Catholic. I highly recommend the Catholic church, if nothing else for the philosophical and theological tradition that really is second to none. I am always available for a chat as well.
@@KnuttyEntertainment
Uh oh, look like we have competing interests. :P
Thanks for always having such civil dialogues! Great testimony!
Seeking a miraculous sign... Imagine you threatened your wife with divorce unless and until she 'proved' that she loved you. Would she acquiesce or throw you out on your ear?
"A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas. And He left them, and departed" (Matthew 16)
So often these discussions devolve into name calling. The civility is refreshing.
I think repeatability is too strong a condition even from a scientific lens, there's lots of science which isn't repeatable in the way that many atheists are expecting; field work for example, as opposed to lab work; one can employ the same method (e.g. tagging animals or such like), but the results aren't guaranteed to be as precisely the same as in a lab setting, since not as much is controlled; same with astronomical observations, you can observe a supernova repeatably but you can't 'cause' the repetition, as you can 'cause' the lab setting experiment to repeat. So the 'turning the water into wine' thing may be a good reason to believe if it occurred, but if that or some other repeatable supernatural event is what is required for us to have confident belief in the supernatural, then why shouldn't we put that same rule for the natural, and so eliminate all confidence in astronomy and a good bit of scientific field work?
If, on the other hand, we are okay with less repeatable cases, like supernovae (or other, significantly more rare astronomical events); then it seems to me that things like the Eucharistic miracles are example of 'repeatable' observations in the astronomical sense; for while we cannot personally 'cause' the repetition of the miracle, as we cannot personally 'cause' the supernova to repeat, none the less it is an event that we have come to expect to occur with some frequency; as we've had Eucharistic miracles since 'at least' Aquinas time (as he seems to comment on them) and perhaps for longer.
As for demons; I think that 'any' supernatural event automatically implies that the God of philosophers exists, because otherwise we might have to allow Descartes Evil Deciever to be the cause of the supernatural event, which would eliminate the possibility of all knowledge; thus in order for knowledge to exist in a world with supernatural events, it is neccesery for their to be a supernatural being which can prevent any other supernatural being from playing the evil deciever to such a degree that knowledge becomes impossible for us; knowledge can perhaps be inhibited to some degree, but not to such a degree that we couldn't even know the supernatural event occured in the first place; naturally, a being with the power to perfectly control a being as powerful as Descartes evil deceiver is effectively what we'd call God; thus the probability of a supernatural event occurring (even if it's not caused by God) is directly proportional to the probability of God existing; thus if it is probable that a supernatural event has occured, it follows that it's probable that God exists, and if it's certain that a supernatural event occurs, then it follows that it's certain that God exists; otherwise we couldn't be justified in having that level of probability or certainty in the supernatural event occurring in the first place.
With this in place, we can use other factors to assess the probability of a given supernatural event being a miracle (i.e. caused by God) or being a non-miraculuous supernatural event. Say, does the narrative behind and surrounding the event conform to the traits we would expect God to have? We expect this God who censors demons to be perfectly true, neither lying nor erring, as that would just make him another deciever, so we might expect a kind of confluence truth we know by other means.
Knowledge of mathematics seems analogous to the supposed "hiddeness" of God. We are all born with an intuitive sense of number, position, degree, trajectory, etc... Yet we must cultivate this innate awareness if we are to apprehend and make use of formal mathematics. So too, God is not hidden in the sense of being unavailable. We are all graced with an intuitive awareness of Him. We can cultivate this awareness, or allow it to wither.
Great conversation. May God bless you both ~ from Brazil
Trent, if you didn't have your religious experiences, would you still believe the resurrection happened? That's where atheists are. It took how many miracles for the original 12 apostles to believe Jesus was God? If it took miracles for the original apostles to believe, why would it take less for someone else to believe? Trent, you already got your "miracles". Just give others the same courtesy. Personally, the moon being split is better attested than the resurrection.
I take exception with the whole "why doesn't God give me direct evidence" approach by atheists. How do you know that if God performed some miracle for you that you would actually know, love, and serve Him? Faith in God is an issue of the heart and soul as much the head.
It assumes that you could understand the reasons why well enough to justify God explaining it, on top of just expressing entitlement.
I think that a lot of these atheists who are frustrated that they don't get personal revelations should open the door and give God the opportunity. If you're avoiding someone, it's not their fault when there's no communication. Seek and you will find.
A lot of us have been seeking for a long time. We know many Atheists have spent time in adoration and in front of the blessed sacrament during the eucharistic adoration and they still were not given communication.
@@RealAtheology Just because someone is present to the Blessed Sacrament, doesn't mean that they are there adoring Him. Look at the Apostles and the people of Israel. They were physically there with Him as we are with the Eucharist, and yet many did not believe. The Apostles also had to get to know Jesus 3 years before He gifted them the Eucharist. Nothing happens on our time, it all happens on God's time.
It's also worth mentioning that if you still haven't answered the question, "Who do you say that I am?" with you mind, body, and soul, it's likely you're not READY to receive any kind of communication.
@@RealAtheology I'm not sure it's reasonable to expect any kind answer at any point if you are testing God. I think even when we are fully convinced we have no ulterior motive most of us have many of them. I pray that you are brought into the faith, please continue to seek.
How are you *not* over 100k subscribers? I'm legitimately confused.
He deserves a million!
@@grosty2353 And then some, given the calibre of the discussions, and the broad topics covered.
Wow. I wish I could’ve been here when it was live! What if someone could prove there is another side, even if it is evil? And what if while sitting in front of the crucifix in church one experienced evil “falling” off his/her self as if covered in mosquitos and suddenly mosquitoes’ wings collapse and began hanging off feeling would u say they’re crazy? So would I until it happened to me.
Interesting isn't it, that people often complain that evil shows that God doesn't exist, yet it is that very evil that draws many many people to God!?! Fascinating story & glad you are free from that now!! 💕
How did Nathaniel know Jesus was the Messiah and others , philosophical reasoning or apologist's view's. Nonsense Jesus Condemned hypocritical Pharisees not atheists.
There's nothing wrong with being an agnostic atheist. They're not mutually exclusive. One involves knowledge and the other concerns belief.
If there is a Good God, then he would have the authority to cast out evil spirits. So how do we know which is which? Well I believe that we must have a built in intuition between Good and Evil and we have the possibility to discern okay this is good and this is evil. Jesus bringing peace, love, restoration are good things ! Evil, destruction, death is not.
Meager Moral Fruits down here in the comments. Shame.
"god no real because christians rude to me" has to be the most hilarious atheist argument ever. Hahahaha. Gets me every time.
@@Chrysostomus_17 on the subject of straw manning arguments, "god real cause book says so".
See? It's dumb both ways.
@@p00tis Oh it's a strawman? Okay, explain the MMF argument.
Essentially, the moral fruits of theism are meager at best: theists do not seem to live more moral lives than atheists. Neither church history nor my personal experience support the claim that theists are morally superior to atheists. On the assumption that theism is true, one has reason to believe that theistic belief has significant moral fruits, that worshipping God is a source of moral strength. Thus, on the assumption of theism, the fact that theists do not seem to live more moral lives than atheists is surprising. On the assumption that atheism is true, however, this is not surprising. On atheism, believing in God would not make people morally better.
@@p00tis " theists do not seem to live more moral lives than atheists."
Completely false in every way. It's been statistically proven over and over again that Christians donate more to charities, devote more of their time to volunteer work and they adopt TWICE as much as every other group combined.
"Neither church history nor my personal experience support the claim that theists are morally superior to atheists."
So churches have been leading the way in charitable work for over 2000 years. The Catholic church is the world's biggest charity. What have atheists been doing? Having orgies, doing drugs and aborting babies.
"On the assumption that theism is true, one has reason to believe that theistic belief has significant moral fruits, that worshipping God is a source of moral strength."
And it is true. When has atheism produced someone of the moral caliber of St Francis of Assisi? There are countless stories of Christian saints and non-saints who have given up the worldly possessions and dedicated their lives to the poor. Fr. Pedro Opeka is a recent example. Living over 30 years with the people who inhabit the trash heaps of Madagascar. Atheists just don't do these kinds of things.
"On the assumption that atheism is true, however, this is not surprising."
On the assumption that atheism is true, it would not even matter if Christians are saints to you or killed your family. Morality would be completely subjective. Oh so Christians are rude to you? Well, that's bad only according to you. Nobody else has to agree or care about it. Free will and reason are illusions under atheism too.
Proving there is a generic God without context of the nature of that God is a platform for people to create idols and then use that idol to bludgeon those they disagree with.
Trent you make an excellent connection in that God IS Being itself and Goodness. The superlative 'omnis' are often cited to mistakenly include logical absurdities. For one to argue that freedom or some other good is not a good is simply to argue that something which is, is not. This is the equivalent of an absurdity such as 'existence is not.'
"He cannot deny Himself" (2 Timothy)
Great talk! I'm pondering over the discussion about Thomas and sufficient vs overabundant evidence. Would it be accurate to say that God does not give everybody sufficient evidence directly, but rather that He does judge us fairly respecting the evidence that was given to us?
This goes to the Second Vatican Council which taught that those who have not been able to know God (think of some tribe on an island in the Pacific) can still follow God through the hidden dictates of conscience.
Because Biblically speaking, it tends to be God working through his people Israel and now the Church to go out and bring that Good News or evidence to people.
Then it is evident also Biblically that hardness of heart can be a reality when the evidence is sufficient but the truth is rejected. Think of Pharaoh and the Ten Plagues. Christ Himself said that if they won't listen to Moses and the Prophets, they won't be persuaded if one should rise from the dead.
"sufficient evidence" ---
Is existence itself and our conscious sentient participation in existence not sufficient and repeatable evidence?
Peace be with you!
God is the master of life and death. Demons can't bring people back to life cmon!
Hey trent can you talk about the Codex Gigas.....
Trent, debate Kent Hovind about evolution, if there is evidence of it.
Great discussion guys. Thanks for having John on. One thing that's really interesting to see is how many Theists start behaving like the New Atheists when confronted with more informed arguments for Atheism. All the ad-hominem and strawman present in the comments are eerily reminiscent of how the New Atheists used to respond to Aquinas. Hopefully, folks can have greater amounts of epistemic humility on these matters.
Agreed, it's a reactionary response to a reactionary movement. This will continue ad nauseum. You can see the same thing happening in politics currently. It'll lead to the same thing if it hasn't already: Tribalism.
This is how online discourse is going to be for the foreseeable future. It's not really an indictment of a particular movement or position but by how the medium of the social web is handled and what garners view/interaction/growth.
One can look at the birth of new atheism to its fragmentation and start of the "anti-sjw" crowd and "skeptictm" to then the alt right and breadtube,etc
In a short time, some new movement is going to gain traction, and I can bet my money that if it grows, they're going to act in a similar way.
You should not say "theists" but ordinary people. Atheism is the abnormality here, most people throughout known existence have been of some soft of "theistic" belief. Rather say atheist vs ordinary person. It will also ring better for those ordinary atheists or agnostics who just go about their own business rather than promote nihilistic ideologies which inevitably follow from atheism if one is consistent. Thank you.
The evidence is strong enough that someone who wants to believe can have justification for believing, and the evidence against is strong enough that someone who wants not to believe can have justification not to believe. This seems to fit well with the idea that a god exists that wants free creatures to have the widest possible degree of epistemic liberty. This also fits nicely with what the God of the Bible wants, which is people who love him and love cannot be coerced.
I don’t agree with this. If God made both sides basically equal, then how can one search for truth? It’s basically a coin flip for what you want to believe and nobody can say you’re unjustified
I would like to believe but can’t.
ruclips.net/video/Ass9l1GxDh4/видео.html
@@clintonsmith8215 been there, now I believe
@@matthewandrous the problem typically isn’t with those that go strongly one way or the other. You could go full speed ahead into atheism and hit a wall which turns you around and makes you a theist. You might do the opposite as well.
The real problem are those that just don’t care either way, the majority of people. They simply don’t care what the truth is.
Pick a side and just do a deep dive on it.
I think they bring up very good points about Joseph Smith. As a Latter-Day Saint of the Church of Jesus Christ myself, (I’m a mormon) I think people tend to just overlook the evidence without realizing just how much substance there is.
FYI, The evidence for the LDS miracles wouldn't hold up to the scrutiny the RCC puts on miracles. Nothing remotely close to the physical examination of (for examples) the shroud of Turin has been done to the gold plates, cave, glasses etc. Belief in their realness of these seems necessary to maintain a rational basis for Mormonism. Unfortunately any physical evidence expected by the testimonies are not there. Nothing remotely close to the scrutiny of testimony of miracles at Lourdes or Fatima has been done to the testimonies of LDS miracles. For example, by 1854 every surviving witnesses to the gold plates had left the faith. I don't discount a spiritual experience/ vision by these men, but I am highly skeptical they were willing to be martyred for their belief as the apostles were. There is profoundly less substance to the claims, which might be why they are overlooked.
Burning of the bosom doesn't count as objective evidence. Appeals to subjective and emotional evidence are, IMO, the lowest value of evidence one can rely on to justify a belief. Skeptics use the POE in the same exact tactic to believe in atheism. It's not that it has no value, but very low on the epistomological certainty scale.
I think you need to put more scrutiny into your evaluation of the evidence.
There have been several miracles recorded very well in the history of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. All of them well attested to by eye-witnesses. There’s even been movies made for some of them. “17 miracles” is one of the more famous ones.
And the early Latter-Day Saints were very much willing to be martyred for their beliefs, and many of them were, including witnesses to the gold plates. They were constantly attacked by mobs, fled from state to state, and eventually crossed the Oregon trail in winter in order to build their own country in the desert in order to escape persecution. (And that was just the beginning.) Look up the Mormon extermination order for a taste of the persecution they were willing to go through. The fact that people didn’t leave the church en masse is a miracle in its own right.
You mention the Gold plates. Indeed it’s a very important part of our religion. And the witnesses’ testimony of them is iron clad. You mention how the three main witnesses (not all the witnesses) had left the church, mostly over disagreements with Joseph Smith about organizational decisions and church drama. (And they were excommunicated, two of them later rejoining. They didn’t leave because they lost faith.)
Despite this falling out, they never recanted their testimonies of seeing the Gold Plates and an angel, often going out of their way to reaffirm their testimonies. In fact, reaffirmation of their testimonies were their last words (or close to it) and two of them had their testimony of the plates written on their grave stones. Considering the constant persecution and threat of death by mobs which would immediately cease if they recanted, this is very telling.
Even Peter denied Christ three times, and Judas betrayed him. But the Latter-Day Saints never betrayed Joseph Smith (and there was a lot more than 12 of them) even when they disagreed with him or left the faith.
Of course there were much more than just 3 witnesses. There were at least 20. And 21 if you include Joseph Smith himself. Many of them witnessing the plates independent of each other, but all giving consistent physical descriptions of the plates.
Here’s a video going over 19 of those witnesses in detail:
m.ruclips.net/video/hknAF4f83fc/видео.html
Here’s a shorter 8 minute video:
m.ruclips.net/video/Mm-AXJNXiB8/видео.html
People have made studying this topic into their life’s work and have written books about it. If they affirm the witnesses testimony as legitimate, I have no reason to doubt it.
You say there are no physical artifacts available for examination. If that’s what you want, I would suggest looking into Bruce Porter’s work on the facsimiles of the Book of Abraham. The papyrus fragments still exist today. And Joseph Smith’s interpretation and restoration of the fragments have been proven correct.
Although I would dispute that there is a physical remnant of the gold plates available for examination. That being the translation contained within the Book of Mormon. Analysis of the text provides overwhelming evidence of its authenticity, and the process of translation makes it impossible that Joseph could have produced it by any other means.
@@KnuttyEntertainment No offense, you need to put more scrutiny into your evaluation. I listed a very well attested miracles like Fatima which was observed by tens of thousands including testimony from skeptics. The event was published in a secular newpaper "O Seculo" because it was prophesied to happen at a certain time and witnessed by many a non-Catholic, including religious skeptics and Protestants that would prefer not to witness Mary's miracle. I talk about the scientific scrutiny of the Shroud of Turin and the Sudarium of Oviedo that have been independently evaluated by non-Catholic scientists of many disciplines. Carbon dating, metallurgical testing, textile experts, forensic pathologist, hematologist, etc. This level of scrutiny has not been done to the seer stones, glasses, gold plates etc. It's just not. There is no such thing as "reformed Egyptian" outside of believers. No non-Mormon linguist believes this language exists. Additionally the book of Nephi contained translation errors found uniquely in the KJV. Why? Because it is not an ancient text or God revealed the same errors to JS that were found in the KJV. I don't wish to go on, but I would appreciate you not insulting my intelligence by maintaining that the scrutiny of Mormon miracles by Mormons holds up to non-Mormon scrutiny. If you cite a paper published by an academic at BYU, I would expect any peer review by a professor at Notre Dame or Oxford to be able to independent evaluate that same data and come to the conclusions. (and vis versa) So please don't ask me to put more scrutiny into the evaluation of the evidence of Mormonism if you're not willing to do the same. Evidence has more credibility when it is independently evaluated by people that don't belong to the faith. It is hard to expect someone not of the faith to accept evidence only available to people of the faith. If I have to have faith for something to become true I call that begging the question and it is an irrational belief. Even if it is true you got there by accident. If you asked for non-Catholic evidence for a claim I think that is fair. This is where the symmetry of miracle claims are not the same thus your opinion that they are "recorded very well" or "very well attested" is fine, but not as well recorded or as well attested to as Catholic miracles. In fact if you see from the link below, the Catholic church would not have validated the miracle of the golden tablets solely based upon the translation errors contained within Nephi. But all this is mute because you believe the real Church fell into apostasy after the death of the last Apostle.
miraclehunter.com/marian_apparitions/discernment/
@@markfrideres284 To start I’ll say I really don’t care whether the miracles you mentioned happened or not. I know the story behind Fatima, if it happened, good for you, it doesn’t make a difference to me regardless.
You mention the various methods used to test Catholic claims such as forensics. I assure you similar analysis has been performed on LDS claims where ever possible. The things I mentioned in my last comment were just the tip of the iceberg. There’s a mountain of several forms of evidence for the Church of Jesus Christ. And I assure you the methods are purely scientific and acknowledged by non-Latter Day Saints.
Case in point, you said there’s no such thing as reformed Egyptian. While I could just make the snarky remark that you need look no further than the letter “M” to see an example of reformed Egyptian, I have something far more substantial than that. Brian Stubbs, one of the foremost experts on Uto-Aztecan, (Native American language family) has made it his life’s work to document the relationship between Uto-Aztecan and Egyptian/Semitic languages. Finding 2,700 cognates and estimating it to be 30-40% Egyptian/Semitic in origin. I would also suggest looking into analysis done on the caractors document, which is a page of symbols that Joseph copied off of the gold plates.
You mention the infamous translation error in Nephi. Namely that the word “Seraphims” is used when Seraphim is already the plural form of Seraph. First I think it’s important to note that the translation was divinely inspired, and not produced by natural means. It’s certainly not a literal translation or transliteration. (Most likely Joseph read words that appeared on the seer stone like reading a book.) Although there are places that seem to be more literal than others to preserve Semitic literary conventions such as Chiasmus. (Explain Alma 36 why don’t you.) Because of this, there are many stylistic decisions made (by God) in the translation to make it more accessible to Joseph’s audience, as well as other reasons we don’t fully understand. One good way to demonstrate this is by pointing out the Book of Mormon was written in perfect 16th century English. The only contemporary 19th century word that occurs is “heft” which occurs in the testimony of the 8 witnesses, which is not part of the translation. With this in mind, it’s not hard to argue that God intentionally kept the King James errors. Afterall, what 19th century yokel knows that Seraphim is already plural? Seraphims, while technically incorrect, is innocuous and more easily understood. Those errors could also have been the fault of Joseph’s scribe mishearing him.
For textual criticism of the Book of Mormon, I point you to Royal Skousen. Here’s one video: m.ruclips.net/video/sMwlVjUjDyM/видео.html
I don’t have time to go through all the evidence, as there’s far too much. But this playlist of short videos is a good place to start: m.ruclips.net/p/PLify9A8x-4Qq_d_dpN4falUFCha2sKP0j
The “FAIR Mormon” organization does a lot of apologetic work. You can address their website and RUclips channel for more specific or obscure forms of evidence.
@@KnuttyEntertainment "To start I'll say I really don't care whether the miracles you mentioned happened or not." I think you agree miracles are a way God reveals himself. If you don't care about them then you shouldn't care about the miracles of Mormonism either. Unlike you, I do care if the miracles of Mormonism occurred. I'm not going to take an epistemic approach that doubts reports of miracles because they don't belong to my religion. That is unsavory because it is irrational to beg the question of the truth of only miracles of your own religion. As an act of good faith I did read the rest of your response but I can see you're only here to pontificate so you may have the last word after I critique the above.
In regards to what you offered above in defense of Mormonism:
When I asked for non-LDS scholars that supported Reformed Egyptian you gave a Mormon linguist; Brian Stubbs. Here is a Nawatl linguist expert's analysis of the work of Stubbs work. I'm sure you're also aware of Roger's criticism. But I stand by my assertion that no linguist outside of the Mormon faith believes in the existence of the Egyptian reformed language. The caractors document carries a series of evidential problems. I'm surprised you referenced it. Then you also know that Anthon, the Colombian professor originally asked to study the document maintained that the document is part of a hoax. The handwriting analysis of it has been shown to be Wittmers. No Egyptologist has found the characters to resemble anything near hieroglyphics.
nahuatlstudies.blogspot.com/2019/09/an-evaluation-of-nahuatl-data-in-brian.html
There is more than the two seraphim translation error in Nephi. The CES letter shows 14. I'll grant you that it is a reasonable belief to say that Nephi contained the eventual same English translation errors of the KJV so that those who knew the KJV would *think that Nephi was revelation. So God's revelation here is errant with a purpose, because he knew that English which wasn't even a language when the gold plates were made would eventually have translation errors in the KJV. But it takes less mental gymnastics if God just revealed non-errant revelation.
cesletter.org/1769-kjv-errors/
Pax Tecum -An actual ancient language :)
Trent do not fret over mystical experience. The greatest celebrations may occur when a prodigal returns home, yet the constancy of the faithful is of equal or greater value, though it be less attended by emotion in this life.
"And he said to him, son, you are always with me, and all that is mine is yours, but it was fitting to celebrate and be glad, for this your brother was dead, and is alive; he was lost, and is found" (Luke 15)
Imagine the dread for a philosopher when confronted with Truth. He studies and understands that all knowledge and certainty is relative and yet understanding this lack of certainty he has made definitive choices to believe some things and not others.
"Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee" (Luke 19)
Lord Jesus, you who died for the sins of the whole world, have mercy. Amen.
I mean I think at some point you can apply Occam’s razor against ridiculous explanations,
but a male monotheistic all-powerful personal being described in most religions seems definitely like a God of the gaps when there are so many other things that could be happening. There’s no reason to believe “God” is anything like religions describe Him or would even be called God in any sense of the word
Talking about reality from different frameworks using different linguistic categorizations and conceptualizations of reality usually leads us nowhere. The main problem I see in Christian apologetics is trying to make the faith about something that falls into the categorization systems of modern science or atheistic philosophy, you will lose every single time because the Christian faith and the cosmology of the Bible and the church is very different. I recommend you to read the Book "the language of creation by Matthieu Pageau" to stop mixing categories and avoid having conversations that tend to not be fruitful. Much love and thanks for the passion.
ruclips.net/video/Ass9l1GxDh4/видео.html
one third of the angels rebelled against God and they knew God existed, what do you think humans are going to do, who dont know for a fact God exists and have all these temptations and desires in front of them, humans are going to do the exact same thing, many of them.
This was a good talk.
Humility to accept the truth. A personal relationship with Jesus will prove the existence of God
What we require for evidentiary claims is based on how far the claim is from our priors (Bayes).
Overall I regret listening to this video -- it was a waste of time. It was just two friends chatting, topics kept changing, they ignored each other's points, they didn't focus on any concrete fact claims with citation. I suppose it wasn't a total waste of time: We learn that John ignores arguments when it suits him, overgeneralizes, and mistakenly thinks the scientific method is the way to prove God; that Trent gets flattered by atheists who are more reasonable than their peers if they are sufficiently articulate, and that productive debates require focusing on a single question until the ground truth is reached, whether that be agreement or ultimate disagreement about what the facts are -- and there progress is made, because it indicates where further study is needed.
But I assume that's why he chose to title it as merely a dialogue not a debate. God Bless.
Miracles are held to a particular standard and judged by the Church under certain criteria.
Equal amounts of testimony of the miraculous claims in other religions??? Uhhh….which in particular and how many direct accounts do you have?? There’s more documentation for Christianity than any other religion that’s ever existed
One of the examples he mentioned was Joseph Smith, the first leader of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.
Now counter-apologist is an atheist that isn’t all that interested in Mormonism, and he still recognizes the formidable evidence in favor of his miracle claims.
On the flip-side, I am a Latter-Day Saint, and somewhat of an apologist for the Church of Jesus Christ. So I’m a bit more familiar with the evidence.
You asked how many accounts we have. Luckily for us, the history of the Church of Jesus Christ is rather well documented. (Not as well as I’d like, but more than well enough. I suppose the evidence can’t be *too* overwhelming.) As far as direct testimony of the gold plates goes, there are at minimum 20 witnesses, 21 including Joseph Smith himself, and likely more. Many of these accounts are independent of each other and Joseph Smith.
There are several other miracles in church history with countless witnesses. Many long after Joseph Smith’s death. There have been many movies made because of all the incredible stories. “17 Miracles” is one of the more famous ones.
Here’s a video going over 19 of those witnesses of the gold plates in detail:
m.ruclips.net/video/hknAF4f83fc/видео.html
Here’s a shorter 8-minute video about the witnesses:
m.ruclips.net/video/Mm-AXJNXiB8/видео.html
50:25 UGH why are we back to this canard of priests turning water into wine? Again, God is a free agent, not a material force. Categorical error John is making here, and Trent just blindly goes along for the ride.
That's just a hypothetical scenario where God is happy to do that repeatedly. Not saying that we should expect this in general.
How refreshing to find a (Catholic) theist & (protestant) atheist able to dialogue with honesty, respect & curtesy. Dawkins & Hitchens etc would benefit from your exemplary approach to this most important of topics.
Thanks for the comment! John is actually an ex-Catholic technically.
There are no protestant atheists
@@RealAtheology at 1:17:10 he said he was an ex Protestant
Do you see the Words Whole middle way?
Click bait is permissible on April 1
The answer is, hacking the simulation or a glitch in the simulation.
“A system of finite resources cannot simulate itself; it will of necessity be incomplete” (Seth Lloyd)
pausing at 36:29 to comment:
Too much self-pat-on-the-back going on in this video. God is a free agent so we cannot expect any miracle to be repeatable upon demand, full stop. Moreover, God even rejects this line of thinking in the Bible "do not put the Lord your God to the test" (and, God saying he is not a man so we cannot expect God to reason as a man would). With these observations that matter is resolved and some 20 minutes of this video are a waste of time. This also explains why some prayer studies show benefit and some do not: God refuses to permit Himself to be a rat in a cage for scientific study.
This conversation is also too undisciplined, lacking in careful procession, as Trent allows John to hand-wave his argument "if you admit God does miracles on behalf of prayer to other deities then you give up the Resurrection showing Jesus' divinity": No, you look at *other evidence*, primarily from the Jewish faith and history, to connect these dots to show that Jesus is God. Very frustrating to watch Trent waltz with John all over the place for the sake of philosophical wanking rather than focus on one argument at a time until you reach the ground truth of it.
Also, no, the priest turning water into wine upon demand does not prove God or Christianity: The atheist could argue aliens are secretly monitoring every priest and tricking us with advanced technology because they want us to be Christian. It is impossible for us to know that something is physically impossible -- such knowledge would require omniscience (we would have to know literally every detail of the universe).
In 140 BC Epicurus said: "Either god is unable to stop natural disasters, or he doesn't care to, or he doesn't exist. Therefore god is either impotent, evil, or non-existant." Therefore there is no god and there has never been a god. QED.
"If... therefore" ----
The Epicurean constraints upon superlatives negate their meaning and suggest logical absurdities. If God cannot create free creatures then the same absurdities apply. That God cannot deny Himself (2 Timothy) answers the Epicurean objection.
Peace be with you.
@@andrewferg8737 Religion makes people stupid. Always. No exceptions. The Epicurean constraints upon superlatives DO NOT negate their meaning. And they DO NOT suggest logical absurdities. If god cannot create free creatures DOES NOT apply to the same absurdities. That god cannot deny himself is irrelevent in this context. So your answer fails on several levels. peace be upon you and your loved ones. have a nice day.
@@larryfulkerson4505 The Epicurean bases his philosophy on the premise that a good god's purpose would be to maximize pleasure and minimize pain. This is an unwarranted assumption.
Peace be with you.
@@andrewferg8737 Totally Irrelevant. It misses the point completely. Try again. Have a nice day.
@@larryfulkerson4505 "Totally Irrelevant. It misses the point completely"-----
Please clarify.
Peace be with you.
As a Christian I don't have an issue with the theory of evolution, since I don't take Genesis 1+2 as literal description of how the world came to be.
As a scientist, I think the theory of evolution still has huge gaps.
E.g. where does C19 come from?
How do we get from the abiogenesis experiment to the DNA?
How do we get from cells to bugs, to animals (reptile, amphibians, mammals)?
Yeah. The fossil record clearly shows an evolution, but the mechanisms proposed are wrong.
Also despite the experiments where the do thousands of generations of a bacteria or small insect they still haven't created a new specie, just an optimized organism.
And we don't see single cell organisms becoming complex multicell organisms.
@@JJ-zr6fu I have to disagree with the fossil record showing evolution. I watched a nova episode, I believe it was nova, it’s been quite a few years ago, where they basically openly forged “evidence”.
They took a fossilized hip bone, cast it in plaster to make a mold, made a duplicate and then proceeded to cut their duplicate into pieces, reformed it into a hip that would allow upright articulation, as the original did not, glued it all together and then proceeded to explain why this was credible evidence of evolution.
It’s all a shame, it’s anti-theists creating a cover story for atheists to use as an excuse not to believe. It’s all myth, with an elaborate cover up and if you don’t go with the narrative, you don’t get funding.
@@michaelibach9063 just like a bad argument for God doesn't disprove God, bad science doesn't disprove the fossil record showing evolution.
@@JJ-zr6fu except for when the only proof of evolution is actually just bad science.
No, JJ is correct. One bad move by some self-centered greedy scientist wanting fame and fortune does not disprove a theory. I would not say that the entire theory of evolution is based upon faked evidence.
Hey John, how much do you think your argument against miracles relies on the Hiddenness argument? As in, if the Hiddenness argument had several responses that poked somewhat significant holes in it, how much would it impact your argument against Miracles? Would these hypothetical criticisms of Hiddenness argument be equally applicable to your argument against miracles, or is your argument distinct enough from it that your argument could work even if Hiddenness failed?
The most obvious miracle is that everything came from nothing, which is a scientific impossibility, since it cannot be naturally repeated.
the counter apologist is setting the bar for what he wants God to do and not open to God and blames God hmmmm
The law and principle of symmetry proves God's existence , there must be right and left , there must be positive and negative , there must be up and down , there must be truth and falsehood , there must be good and evil , medial and lateral , natural and artificial , there must be maker of artificial things ( human being) and maker of natural things ( Almighty God)
You don't make any sense.
Of course there's a sense and nonsense , it is all about the principle of symmetry , nature is symmetrical!
@@JJ-zr6fu even prophesies can be symmetrical , Isaiah 9;6 -7 , it is about Jesus and his mother
@@ivanniyeha4229 Your original post is gibberish. Your equivalences aren't the same level either and makes a lot of assumptions. Your use of might doesn't make sense for your argument you are trying to make.
You're getting into typology which might convince a Jewish person of Jesus, but not an atheist who doesn't believe in the bible. But your whole list isn't a typological list. Not even creator and created works because that's an argument from contingency.
@@JJ-zr6fu the point is, just replace might and must , still you haven't showed me any illogical relevance , show me any or just go ahead and disprove by logic that's how we argue scientifically not just by mere words ,
Why does every Atheist argument seemingly boil down to: If I don't know how something is, then I can't know that something is.
That is obviously false. You should prefer the clear from the unclear. If contingency gets you a fully actual being, then you got *that* something is. You don't know how? OK. Why would you think you could know that?
Also, in regards to finding what would be convincing always being person dependent--isnt that everything?
He’s looking at it completely backward. Wtf? Since when do we automatically discount something just because it’s an eyewitness account?? Direct evidence? Boy I hope he doesn’t read Aristotle or Plato!
At least he admitted he's an amateur but his arguments on that discounted all of history.
Yeah that was a weird bit for me as well. While eye witness accounts aren’t always accurate due to varying reasons, that doesn’t mean they aren’t truthful.
Newton claims seeing an apple falling gave him the idea about natural forces. Should we believe Newton? How many other witnesses need to be present for it to ‘count?’
Let’s not forget that eye witness and verbal exchange were the only testimony people pre-photography. No phones, no cameras, no recorders, zip.
Which is why one’s word was regarded highly. A person wouldn’t risk a blow to their reputation if they could help it, and we know the arguments about a woman’s testimony vs man’s. It makes little sense why certain people who had a lot to lose (like Saul and other powerful leaders/persons) would simply take the word of a bunch of backwards, illiterate disciples of another failed prophet.
Applying modern standards of evidence to the past is a slippery slope I know Trent has mentioned before. Just because something is eye witnessed doesn’t mean there can’t be anything to it.
@@jendoe9436 The argument is that it is ONLY eye witness evidence, which has comparatively low evidentiary value because people lie or misremember things all the time. Also, our decisions about the trustworthiness of eyewitness testimony are intrinsically linked to whether the testimony contradicts commonly accepted notions about the nature of reality. If I told you I saw a ghost or a dragon in my bedroom last night, I bet you would probably dismiss my claim out of hand.
very interesting. What about the," I believe that I might understand", faith component? We first are "prepared" to reach out to God, (as if trying to walk on water possibly), and He then rewards our faith by "reaching out to catch us."
ruclips.net/video/Ass9l1GxDh4/видео.html
I believe the prophecy over hundreds of years provides great support for the evidence for Jesus, especially when discussing/ comparing other world religions…
Except there is an atheist argument now that the entire New Testament was fabricated to create a Jewish messiah from the Jewish texts. Basically a nonexistent completely fabricated Jesus, created by the Roman Empire.
Caesar's Messiah
Book by Joseph Atwill
There’s videos on RUclips about as well
@@michaelibach9063
Haha. You are joking, right?! :)
Noone can be that stupid to accept that... right?
Emperor Nero wanted the Christians dead!!!
@@hhstark8663 it’s there man, the New Testament, according to this theory, was a complete fabrication forced on Roman citizens by the Roman Empire. It’s garbage, but people are buying it.
@@michaelibach9063 People are buying anything that gives them the easy answers that allow them to live as they see fit, without the consequences of their rebelling against God. Hence why they all deny Jesus' divinity, or His existence entirely.
What would prove God exists? That's so easy. The Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Anything else is plain old human reasoning. All I need is the Resurrection.
1. Jesus’s Death Caused the Disciples to Despair and Lose Hope, Believing That He Was Dead.
2. Jesus’s Tomb Was Empty a Few Days Later.
3. Jesus appeared to more than 500 different eyewitnesses in various settings.
4. He appeared on at least ten occasions during the forty days after his resurrection.
5. The transformation of the disciples resulted from their experiences with the risen Lord. They went from doubters to fearless proclaimers of Jesus’s resurrection. They even died for their faith.
But remember the Resurrection is an act of God. If you already have good reason to believe in God before you consider the argument for the resurrection, then you can reasonably say that God is the cause. If you don't believe in God, then you could always say that something else caused the resurrection. You could say that some sorcerer used magic to resurrect Jesus. But someone who doesn't believe in sorcery could not think this was the cause. There are other arguments for God's existence. Once you know that God is real, then you can see that God is the cause of the resurrection.
@@Klee99zeno
Most people are agnostics (not atheists). They are open to miracles/the supernatural, even if they do not have an explicit metaphysical framework.
Thus, they could use god as an inference.
Even the *jewish* scholar Pinchas Lapide *accepted* the resurrection!
Even atheist scholars accept the empty tomb and proclamations of risen Jesus and martyrdoms. Atheist scholars do NOT have a valid alterantive explanation that can account for those.
Note ~1:24:00
You can never statistically rule out that positive effects from prayer were due to chance alone. Even if the statistics were 100% in favor of prayer (all those who were prayed for were healed and all those who were not were not) there would still be a very small chance that it was all due to random chance.
Yeah, but that chance would be statistically equal to zero. As statistics largely has no way of accounting for zero (except in situations were all possible outcomes are known,) small numbers are considered to be effectively equivalent. Most science uses a 5% chance of randomness having caused the observation as being equivalent to zero.
@@josephmoya5098 No, a p value cutoff of .05 is used as a cutoff for statistical significance. Essentially saying, "This is unlikely to be due to chance alone". That "unlikely" plainly means that it is less than a 5% chance, but it is not just assumed to be zero. A p-value of 0 is not possible using statistics. You can get values in chemical studies like 10^-12, which is ridiculously close to zero, but you can never get 0.
Any opinions on the Eucharist miracles? There are many and very scientifically verified
I think repeatability. It would have to happen every time for science to be convinced.
There are hardly "many very scientifically verified" eucharistic miracles. There are plenty of claims though.
Taking John's standards for what we need in order to believe something, imagine all of the things he doesn't believe in!
I wonder if he asks his mom for a dna test every time he visits her.
This guy reminds me of the rich man from Luke 16 who was told, "If they don't listen to Moses and the prophets, they will not be persuaded if someone rises from the dead."
For the most obstinate deniers... Death
"Does God exist?" is a non sequitur for God is existence. Aquinas demonstrated the logic of this premise and Moses certainly understood it well, millennia before Aquinas.
I never believe atheists, I find this to be so volitional and psychological for many. There are many reasons why we may not want God to exist. We dont want an authority above us, we dont want to humble ourselves, we dont want to give up our desires. Thomas Nagle was one of the few honest atheists who actually admitted and said he just didnt want it to be true.
Exactly... It is a matter of the heart to willfully not believe.
You realize that an Atheist could make the exact same argument against Theism you're making right? In fact, many Theists have admitted that they don't want Atheism to be true, and they could not imagine their life as an Atheist. How about we stop this psychologizing and focus on the arguments offered.
@@RealAtheology I agree, and have said that myself, but I would say its much stronger for many in atheism. Psychology plays a part for many of us. If the arguments didnt actually lead to Gods existence, then I really wouldnt have much need to say that, thats precisely why I said that, is the arguments lead in one direction and the atheists go in the other.
@@ceceroxy2227 I disagree that it is *much stronger* in Atheism. In fact, I'd say that the cognitive science of religion greatly tells against Theism (see God Naturalized by Halvor Kvandal). As for the arguments, I'd love to hear your explanation for why the objections to arguments for God's existence put forward by people like Joe Schmid, Graham Oppy, J.L. Mackie, J.H. Sobel, Gregory Dawes, Michael Martin, and other sophisticated Atheist Philosophers don't work?
@@RealAtheology I am sure there are plenty of sophisticated objections, not that there arent smart atheists, and not that anyone cant make objections. I actually think you can make objections to God's goodness, things such as hell, not having a choice in our existence, suffering. Even you are a smart guy Ben, who did a very good job in your debate with Trent. Well I think there is obviously something necessary and non contingent as we cant go infinitely backwards into the past. I think there is the obvious design of living organisms not just into one being but seperate sexes in each mammal I think if the universe began it obviously needs a cause. I think things like moral values and obligations make no sense on atheism, and I think rationality and reason make no sense on atheistm, also things like fine tuning, uniformity of nature, why anything exists at all. All these point in one direction for me. As a former non believer, I think its close to a 100% God exists.
Bad dialog. John “Counter Apologist” does not seem to be present. He does not reply to what is being proposed by Trent.
Often ppl think someone that replies to questions to be smart. Same way that ppl think sophists are smart. But that is the bottom of the barrel in rhetorical diversion. Not saying John is a sophist. Just wondering how the cow ended up in the light pole, if you know the expression. It is also normal for ppl, that do not have the same intellectual/natural capacity, to emulate ppl that do, so they have space in the society. If that is you, don't. There is a place in the world for you the way you are. Check Saint Joseph of Cupertino.
This was an enjoyable conversation. The only problem is the guest and trent claim he's part of a newer wave of atheists and while he is less arrogant and open to discussion his arguments are the same arguments with a different tone.
I think you need to substantiate this claim. John provided reasoned and civil arguments. If you want more sophisticated works, we'd recommend J.H. Sobel, J.L. Mackie, and Evan Fales, specifically their works on Miracles.
Pleasant conversation. If John is reading this then, I urge him to reach out to and have a conversation with Jonathan Pageau. Not only do I think that it would greatly benefit each listener and watcher. I also think that it would benefit John, himself, immensely, as it has for me.
And after that, a little K.o.F. 98 match, thank you.
I've done something good today!
I prefer SVC chaos!
@@players02 I was so hyped when that was released, but it's just a mess of a game. All these years later and I'd rather play CvS2.
@@CounterApologist Either Chaos or the 3d ones...meh. Now, I don't know how much this pertains to our Lord's existence, but 98 is a proof that He sends gifts :D
@@CounterApologist secret bosses were epic though. Nothing beats the feeling of doing it all with one token when played in the arcade.
Pausing at 49:20 to observe that John's thinking is too all-over-the-place and generic and vague and prone to exaggeration. Like saying "a lot of Josephus was tampered with". No, only one section was inserted, and Josephus' testimony about Jesus' historicity is still established -- even omitting that doubtful section -- demonstrating that Jesus lived, was crucified, and later his disciples claimed he had risen. Yet his unreasonable skepticism is prompting him to speak as if nothing Josephus says can be trusted because Christians may have inserted a sentence or two. Instead of trying to argue from broad generalities John needs to look at details.
I think people might be trying to say when they accuse someone of just being an apologists is that the person seems more interested in defending a view than searching for the right view.
Like a defense lawyer is trying to defend his client, even if the defense lawyer were to (in the middle of the trial) think that the prosecutor made a terrific point, it would be uncouth of the defense lawyer to say "hey, that is a great point, it actually makes me doubt if my client is innocent". They are expected to act as though the prosecutor isn't making good points.
If you get that accusation alot it might be because you come across as the kind of person that values the defense more than the exploration of truth. That it is more important to win the debate than to honestly find out if you are right.
I'm not saying that you aren't after the truth, only that this is probably the picture people have of you when they call you "just" an apologist.
how many people got persecuted for the crucifixion and resurrection if it was only a "story" or miracle
I think a better conversation would've been explaining how he became atheist which arguments worked for him. I was really confused when he brought up what could cause miracles since he was assuming a super natural power meaning he assumed a the miracle is true. This is why as Trent and others say its important to know what you're arguing and talking about and where the two sides stand. A catholic talking to a non catholic theists is very different than talking to an atheist. Talking about whether a miracle was divine or demonic doesn't make sense in a catholic/atheist discussion.
booooooooriiiiiiiiing
We can discern from Nature that if God exists he must be Good.
The main problem of the "god hypothesis" is that it explains in some sense everything and consequently nothing. I don't think there could be somehow "objectively" convincing arguments for it. Arguments which would "force" a rational person, even an atheist, to engage with them. And this is a reason I think for the lack-theist "movement" lately. Apologist are trying to persuade us that a rational, open minded person should evaluate their arguments to be philosophically honest, but for me personally the god explanation is equal to the "brute fact" explanation. I don't see anything to engage with. Everything we know can be explained by "it just is so" the same way as "god did it".
The distinction theism vs. naturalism is IMO incoherent and so is the question of "miracles". We are able to experience a growing set of phenomena in our cosmos, for many of them we now have "explanations", meaning some technical insight of the conditions which lead to their occurrences, which proves to be consistent and useful. Given proper scientific explanations (models) we are even able to predict phenomena which we didn't experienced yet. Given the scale of our perceivable universe and the possibility of even larger cosmos, there are probably many more phenomena we aren't able to perceive and maybe never will be. In this sense everything is natural and I see the exclusion of "supernatural" to be misleading, even if god would exist, he would in this sense be part of the natural - existing phenomena we can or cannot explain. A miracle in this view is just a phenomena we cannot explain, or it goes against our current understanding, which doesn't IMO say anything about the existence of some god. And the priests who would consistently change water with words is just another natural "law" we would try to explain, not the reason to assume some omnipotent supernatural entity.
1:16:51 "you do think God responds in a mechanistic way to your religious invocations" false -- God chooses to respond; we don't believe we *make* God respond. Trent says "Right." No! Wrong! John's arguing we *make* God confect the Eucharist every Sunday, and we don't. God chooses to do so. Here is an example of where Trent is lulled by a feeling of friendship into giving incorrect answers. EDIT: Then Trent does clarify this reality, and John just ignores, literally completely disregards, Trent's response...
I agreed with his clarification, god promised he would act faithfully in transforming the eucharist when certain conditions are met by the priest. That's all my thought experiment requires as well and Trent agreed.
Would God do miracles in a testing lab setting to prove to people He exist?
Anyone else find it funny the new wave atheist movement fell apart so quickly?
Could you explain to us how are you are defining "New Wave Atheism"? And if you're referring to more sophisticated and philosophically-informed forms of Atheism, then you are clearly incorrect. The only thing that could reasonably be said to be "falling apart" is false triumphalism of many popular apologists when confronted by philosophical Atheist arguments. The fact that a reputable apologist like Trent Horn has devoted a whole project to philosophical Atheism already speaks to its growing influence and importance.
@@RealAtheology The big atheist conventions there was a sense of a movement. Now it's all fractured as they said. Yes the ideas are still there but there isn't a movement like there was. It was quickly replaced by relativism (I'm all right you're all right). I do think Hitchens dying had a big part of it because he had a good personality and was fun to listen to compared to other atheists at the time.
I wasn't making a statement on who won the arguments at all. Just that there isn't much of a movement anymore.
He probably means Dawkins and the bunch. Though I've yet to find convincing philosophical arguments against God. I wouldn't say that the growth of philosophical atheism means that it is somehow correct or dangerous.
Thanks to feminism and gamergate. It pushed atheists into a conservative and libertarian stance. And the atheists ate their own.
@@JJ-zr6fu Okay, you seem to understand "New Wave" differently than how Trent does, as he is referring to the growth of sophisticated philosophical Atheism, the group that which John belongs towards.
@1:02:52 THAT's the best argument for atheism? What a relief..
Yeah that's a very weak argument. He claims to have evolved from the old new wave atheist arguments but that's the type of dumb stuff they'd used to say all the time.
Have you read Graham Oppy's exposition of the argument? It's taken very seriously by many Theists who recognize the issues it poses.
@@RealAtheology No, thank you for the suggestion. Where can I find it?
The miracles at Lourdes (the spring, the cures, the candle, the phrase "immaculate conception") do not depend on testimonial attestation alone.
ruclips.net/video/Ass9l1GxDh4/видео.html
First!
20:00 ish mins, the counter apologist makes a great point. It is not the veracity of the claims that forces people to believe things, it's the pressure applied by society that does, and when they act "not well" toward those people, killing them because they refuse to accept the dogma, and he posits this as a GOOD thing. It's almost self aware, but not quite.
There's absolutely a huge difference between socially disfavoring things we see as fringe and bad and actively killing those people. No where in the video did I espouse that we should actually kill, jail, or even limit the freedom of speech of those who hold crazy views like YEC, Flat Earth, or even Anti-Vaxxers.
@@CounterApologist oh you are vaccinated? Well that's it then, no reason to give your views any credence.
@@CounterApologist And yet your view will naturally lead to that, as it has done many, many times (see, e.g., the atheistic regimes of the USSR, China, Cambodia, Germany, Ancient Rome, ancient Greece, etc.) in history.
So you might not have said it, but you don't have to say it for the implication to be there, and the understanding that _this is how people behave when faced with people who don't agree with them in the absence of a grounded morality that unites all of humanity_.
And even if you are against it, which I'm not even, in some sense, doubting, you have no in principle way of defending that position, and the same thing that happened to hundreds of millions of others will continue to happen, and it will be a mystery (at least to some, such as yourself), as to why the system keeps failing so badly.
I just found it nice that you were able to say the quiet part out loud. It's helpful.
@@VACatholic
Heck, people *today* are getting deplatformed, cancelled and censored for having the "wrong" viewpoint.
@@CounterApologist I hope when you talk about anti-vaxxers, you mean actual anti-vaxxers and not this convoluted term the media/establishment uses to denounce even those who voice their scepticism about the efficacy of the covid shots but are vaxxed against anything else, but also those who are vaxxed but against vax mandates, etc.
I wonder why most Catholics don't take St Paul's argument seriously about theism. Maybe too low brow for them.
I don’t think I’ve heard this argument. Could you elaborate on it? Thank you
@@aaronthompson5633
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are *without excuse* " (Romans 1:20)
Whenever I see this argument made, people like Trent Horn will call this merely
presuppositionalism.
I find this very strange.
Or Psalm 19 that says nature reveals God. Now I know Trent believes this but I think Catholics have conceded way too much to atheists or philosophers in general for fear of sounding dumb.
Or Psalm 14 which declares that the fool hath said in his heart there is no God. And although this can be understood to be a mere practical atheism, as in people not acting moral because they neglect God. I don't agree with the general approach taken by our intellectual elite.
That's what I mean. I don't really feel the need to be as strong on philosophy as on history. Although, I would not disparage philosophy at all as it is at the foundation of our study of history, but the fact remains that there is a resistance to grace out there. I would usually prompt an atheist on a few things like, of there is a direct revelation from Our Lord, if he would bow the knee and worship. If he says no, or makes a mocking remark. I know I am dealing with a resistant person who is probably not even worth the time. Sure, I will defend the faith but won't waste too much on such people.
If we are confirmed in our faith we all would heed
Colossians 2:8 Be careful not to allow anyone to captivate you through an empty, deceitful philosophy that is according to human traditions and the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.
I can't think of a more human tradition than this.
1 Corinthians 3:19-20 For the wisdom of this world is *foolishness with God* , since it is written: He catches the wise in their craftiness; and again, The Lord knows that the reasonings of the wise are *meaningless* .
People resist grace
2 Thessalonians 2:10-12 and every type of evil to deceive those who are dying, those who refused to love the truth that would save them. For this reason, God will send them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie. Then all who have not believed the truth but have taken pleasure in unrighteousness will be condemned
Psalm 53 reiterates the idea that "Fools say to themselves there is no God"
Or
Psalm 10:4-7 With haughty arrogance, the wicked “God will not seek justice. He always presumes “ *There is no God* . Their ways always seem prosperous.
From these passages and some others and as someone who is 100% convinced in my faith. Taking these passages seriously I cannot really take atheists seriously at all.
@@jackdaw6359 Because like Trent says it presupposes. Taken as one verse its saying God's invisible divine power and eternal nature prove he exists. You have to presuppose you see his invisible power and nature. But if you keep reading Paul tells you people corrupted their view and says the people that don't believe in God can't see or interpret God's presence in their lives.
This works with someone that's on their way to conversion and they need that last little kick. They already see his divine power and eternal nature and are convinced by it, before this works.
@@JJ-zr6fu St Paul and the Psalms declare this of all humanity. Even pagans. Not just people that have encountered more truth.
@@JJ-zr6fu St Paul didn't mean this of all humanity, (that no one believes in God as he even testified to pagans of their "unkown god") he meant this of the most wicked people and probably didn't have the lowest of the low in mind (ie atheists) as the Psalms mock them. The Pagan Romans mocked them (even called Christians atheists as an insult)
And I find the atheists just as lackluster as the ancients did.
Dear Trent,
You have made some dangerous concessions in effort of being "reasonable"; two of which are: claiming that Darwinian evolution is "well established", and that God answers pagan prayers made to demons. If you hold such positions, then what advantage is there to being a Christian?
The advantage to being Christian is everlasting life in the kingdom of God after death.
@@AetheriusLamia Well, if the Christians' God saves life through pagan prayers (as Trent claims,) then pagans will also have access to everlasting life in the kingdom of God after death.
Trent might have meant something like: "if a muslim kid in Saudi Arabia prays for God to be merciful to him, God will hear this prayer and offer him (as anyone) the opportunity to be saved by Christ"
@@affel6559 That is true; however, his reference was to the football team in Thailand that was rescued from being trapped in a cave for nearly three weeks, where all survived... Trent claimed that the Buddhist prayers are what may have saved them. So my question is: If Buddhist superstition is efficacious, then why not just remain a Buddhist? Why become a Christian?
@@Troy-Moses Thank you I hadn't heard that part.
Yes, you are right. Still, I would give Trent the benefit of the doubt. I don't think that he thinks that sacrilegious prayers are efficacious. He might want to clarify.
Somebody needs to tell Counter Apologist about modern day Eucharistic Miracles.
ruclips.net/video/Ass9l1GxDh4/видео.html
@1:02 According to Classical Theism, God is not a moral agent. Catholics, like Trent, don't believe in that God. That is what is called theistic personalism, a relatively recent way to think about God by Protestants. So theodicy is necessary for defense of this belief. Belief in atheism based upon the POE (or it's offspring divine hiddeness) is an argument from passion and a not a rationally objectively way to arrive at atheism. It has the same currency that the "burning of the bosom" theistic argument has, an appeal to your emotional intuition. Also Catholics don't believe that God has a obligation to create a "less evil world". Could he have created such a world without evil? Sure, but there would also be no free will (ability to choose evil) so it undercuts it's own epistemic perspective.
Do all Catholics believe in the classical theism model of God? Also, doesn't the Catholic God have properties like love and compassion? Can't atheists just appeal to God's compassion when it comes to the PoE?
Sorry if the questions are elementary, but I know very little philosophy and even less about Catholicism (I'm a former Muslim)
The more and more science progresses, the more it seems God made it so that the world was as self-reliant as it possibly could be since the only thing stopping true free will is He Himself. It's really something amazing to ponder upon.
@@t.d.2016 Catholics believe all sorts of things, but the teaching arm of the Church, aka the Magisterium, explicitly teaches the God of CT. The 4th Council of Lateran defines God as the "Primo Principio" / the first principle. Giving God anthropomorphic qualities helps human to develop a relationship with God, but it isn't always analogically correct concepts as God is simple (Divine simple means his essence is existence). Theistic personalism, where God is given human properties like compassion or anger mostly comes out of fundamentalist Protestant Christianity, where a "plain reading" of the Bible is emphasized. A good metaphor would be to say, quantum physics is to classic theism what newtonian physics is to theistic personalism.
The "plain reading" of the language and poetry of the Bible doesn't always properly give best explanation of the concept; especially the OT, where the author's genre is particular to Bronze age Hebrew writings. So the very developed analogical language of Aristotle/Thomistic philosophical tradition wouldn't say (your example) "God loves us" rather God is love itself. Love being defined as "to will the good of others". When I love my wife, I will the good of her (heaven, motherhood, etc.) nature. When God loves my wife he wills the good/being of her (heaven, motherhood) in an analogical way to how I love her. That is to say God wills her creaturely goodness, but is not a moral agent.
But God also wills our will; this secondary will is free to choose "not goodness/God". The problem of Evil isn't a problem because God isn't a moral agent like my wife. Evil is a privation of Good. You can't appeal to of a privation of goodness to deny goodness itself without redefining what classic theism means by evil. Also POE requires God to be a moral agent. Nowhere in the Bible does it say, "God is good because God does good things".
My understanding, while a little nuanced from the Catholic/Orthodox position, that essentials of Muslim and Jewish traditions believe in the Abrahamic God of classic theism. When Moses asks for Gods name the response is "Ehyeh asher ehyeh" / I am who am. That is to say, "I am being itself". "Properties like love and compassion" is a very loaded philosophical question, so forgive me for not responding with a yes or no.
@@markfrideres284
Thank you for taking the time to provide such a nuanced reply. To be honest, I did not understand much of it on first reading, so I intend to sit down and read it more thoroughly.
I always dismissed CT because philosophers like Plantinga and WLC dismissed it, but there's clearly more to it than I thought there is.
One more question: do you know where I can get started on such topics like CT, divine simplicity, thomism, etc? Any books or websites that you recommend? I'd greatly appreciate that.
@@t.d.2016 *plantinga doesn't dismiss it per se.
Brian Davies, Richard Swinburne, Ed Feser are among today's most well known. There are others. Feser has a blog that is athiest friendly and filled with CT thinkers from every walk. (Unless youre a new atheist which is intellectually void) you're not, so don't be afraid to post serious intellectual questions or peruse his vast posts of fantastic gray matter stimulation. Davies "The Philosophy of Religion" is an excellent book for Religious Studies irt CT. If you want an atheist perspective Ben Watkins or the folks @ "Real Atheology" address CT in a meh, but intellectual honest way.
We're all in this together.
Admittedly I wish I could offer better Muslim theistic (CT) philosophy but imo fundamentalism has warped the historical genius that Avicenno as well as others in the Muslim intellectual tradition.
I think all atheists, even the best like Ben Watkins suffer from Midwittery. John is no exception as he delves heavily into Midwit takes. One of the most embarrassing ones was his DnD take on 4d chess demon factionalism. Understanding the fundamentals on Christianity and it’s evil as corruption or decay easily refutes this but John can’t be bothered to dig beneath the surface layer.
Yeah the miracle discussion didn't make sense.
I think it's really interesting to see how many Theists start behaving like New Atheists when confronted with sophisticated arguments for Atheism. I see no difference between your comment and how the New Atheists respond to Aquinas.
@@RealAtheology lol, I’m surprised at your response, originally I was going to say Real Atheology instead of Ben Watkins but didn’t want to look up its spelling… I apologize for any heat in my statement but I think the term “Midwit” correctly describes the Conservative hypothesis. Sir Roger Scruton’s Conservatism vs Liberalism, Bill Whittle’s Highway 61, Mao’s Masters Graduates and the Bell Curve meme all criticize the liberal mindset. If not pithy and a bit rude. In regards to Christians being New Atheists in regards to more sophisticated Atheist arguments. Perhaps they can be boorish, simple, and unrefined, “dumb”, but my case is that they aren’t “midwits”. That is, falling into the liberal framework. I have no doubt you are highly intelligent and I can see many of your virtues, but I think ultimately you fall into that trap. This isn’t to say debate and sophistication aren’t important. I think they are fruitful. Only that your ultimately cutting yourself off from the bigger picture (The Great Tradition aka the Catholic Faith).
@@stcolreplover Thank you for the clarification for your comments, but I don't see how any of it justifies your initial comment about John and other sophisticated Atheists suffering from "midwittery" and we've read most of the relevant conservative works on the subject such as that of Roger Scruton, Edmund Burke, Russell Kirk, William F Buckley, etc. We're happy to rejoin what you would call "the Great Tradition" as we believe Theism is reasonable and want to follow the evidence where it leads. However, after reading scripture, many of the Church Fathers such as St. Gregory of Nyssa, Origen, St. Augustine, St. Jerome, many of the scholastics such as St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Bonaventure, many more modern defenders such as G.K. Chesterton, C.S. Lewis, Fulton Sheen, St. John Henry Newman, and many contemporary folks like Ed Feser, Robert Koons, Trent Horn, Fr. Gregory Pine, Patrick Madrid, Matt Fradd, Peter Kreeft, Bishop Barron and a lot more, we find the arguments for Catholicism to be flawed and not yet convincing. We have provided evidence for our reasons in many different forums, and we invite you to perhaps "dig beneath the surface layer" as you advised John to and investigate the case for Atheism as defended by people like Graham Oppy, J.H. Sobel, Evan Fales, J.L. Mackie, Gregory Dawes, and other members of the Atheist Analytic Tradition.