@@TheRedRaven_ actually not : purgatory isn't a big deal to me and certainly I believe in the Atonement so how could that trigger me ! You're very misinformed!
@@davidjanbaz7728 No I wasn't misinformed, I simply took the upload time and correlated it to your comment. It has nothing to do with the extra details you described.
Three hundred years from now, when we are long dead and buried, people will be studying the works of St. Thomas Aquinas, St Augustine, St Teresa of Avila, and..............Trent Horn!!! 👍
@@tony1685 The Bible is a Catholic book and sola scriptura is self-refuting. Protestant "churches" have 10,000 denominations and 20,000 contradicting interpretations on key doctrines, all claiming to be guided by the Holy Spirit. The Catholic Church is the church instituted by Jesus Christ himself. You follow a man made religion started in the the 16th century and do not follow what was taught by the first Christians and ancient Christianity.
@@tony1685 Tony - cut the rhetoric and actually attempt to answer the below questions without bias, and with intellect - 1) Where does it say to follow the Bible ALONE in the Bible and not oral tradition? Prove it. 2) Where in the Bible does it say what books make up the Bible? 3) Which Church decided which books were divinely inspired and to be included in the New Testament? 4) How did the Apostle's and first disciples teach and spread the teachings and traditions of Christianity - which Bible did they use? (hint, how were they teaching before the gospels were even written?) 5) Which Protestant denomination has the correct interpretation of justification, salvation, the real presence, baptism, predestination? They contradict each other and all claim to be guided by the Holy Spirit. Calvanists tell me I was pre-destined to write this? But Anglican's disagree. The pastor down the street tells me "once saved always saved", another tells me I need a living faith - God is not a God of confusion which is why there is ONE Church with divine authority - not your man made traditions.
@@tony1685 Absolutely fail, I see you aren't able to have an intellectual conversation, you haven't answered a single question properly with a source. Not wasting any more time with you as I don't think you have studied enough to even respond, you have come to sprout stereotyped rhetoric. Unfortunately you are trapped in man made 17th century Christianity that looks nothing like the ancient Christianity taught by the Apostles, disciples and Early Church Fathers (who were Catholic by the way, Catholic means universal, and there was only one universal Church until the 10th century.) It's time to start reading and learning about the first 500 years of Christianity Tony, you'll soon realise your man made traditions look nothing like the early Church, it's almost blasphemous what you have done with the real presence and the Eucharist (John 6:53), changing doctrines taught by the Apostolic churches for 1700 years, removing books from Holy Scripture that doesn't agree with man made Protestanitism etc. - all the best for the new year and Merry Christmas!
@@mugsofmirth8101 Not particularly, the Orthodox churches don't follow Sola Scriptura and are also Apostolic churches that follow most teachings of ancient Christianity (real presence of the Eucharist, communion of the saints, infant baptism etc), I'd say it's a brother of Catholicism with smaller disputes, for example papal infallibility. Merry Christmas!
Another fantastic video Trent. We really hope that as New Atheism declines, we see a more informed and philosophical Atheism take its place. We also really appreciate your project in tackling more sophisticated forms of Atheism. As Christian Philosopher Douglas Groethius notes: _"whatever the popularity of atheism, the real question is whether Atheism is true. The New Atheists mostly failed to give significant philosophical arguments. However formidable philosophical Atheists need to be confronted."_ We're glad to see you take on the best of the Atheist tradition and we look forward to more projects/work that you do in this area. Hopefully, you can inspire your fellow Catholics to raise the level of debate in this area as well.
"more sophisticated forms of Atheism" How many "forms of Atheism" do you purport there to be, and how do they differ? I am often told by those who defend atheism that "atheism is merely a lack of belief, nothing more" This would imply there is only one form of atheism (which you capitalize for some undisclosed reason) and yet the very same "atheists" will also say that there are two "branches" if you will, thereof - agnostic-atheism and gnostic-atheism and will almost invariably claim to be the former. Funny thing is - I usually only hear the claim that there are two distinct branches when the "atheist" is reminded of the fact that they cannot prove unequivocally that no deities exist, which is quite telling, to say the least.
@@mugsofmirth8101 When I mention "forms of Atheism" I'm not talking about a strict typology. What I refer to as "more sophisticated forms of Atheism" simply denotes the work of Atheist Philosophers of Religion and those informed about Analytic Philosophy. I do not see Atheism as a "lack of belief" and the branches of "agnostic-atheism and gnostic-atheism" are simply confused labels based on misunderstandings about knowledge of belief. You will find nothing about Atheism being a "lack of belief" or "agnostic/gnostic-atheism" in the philosophical literature on this subject. We take Atheism to be a belief (which simply means that it's more probable than not that God doesn't exist/the best explanation of reality) as it is held this way by the majority of Atheist Philosophers of Religion. It seems to me that your experience with Atheism is limited to online/internet Atheists. I'd advise you to actually seek the best literature on this subject and read the works of people like Graham Oppy, J.H. Sobel, Paul Draper, J.L. Mackie, Evan Fales, and others who generally know what they are talking about as opposed to Atheists online.
@@RealAtheology As a Catholic I really do hope that new atheism declines. However, I have to ask, do you then see Atheism as a religion? Perhaps a religion with many sects, similar to that of Christianity?
@@dylanfernandez3910 I don't. Perhaps one could make the argument that some Atheists do behave in similar ways to how religious people do, but based on the standard definitions of Atheism and Religion, I don't think Atheism can be seen as a religion. I'd recommend Dr. Graham Oppy's work "Naturalism and Religion" for a more detailed approach to this issue.
lolol that proves nothing. You theists are so bigoted. Christmas is racist. As atheists, we know that anybody who celebrates Christmas or even pays taxes in country where Christmas is celebrated is racist.
Bahahahahahah! As an Australian who grew up in NZ. I have to say that accent was hilariously and unequivocally terrible. 🤣👌❤️ Still get a like though. Thanks for the humility and wisdom. You draw God's people closer to himself.
@@RealAtheology I think the OP said exactly what he was trying to say. There appear to be no grammatical or spelling errors in his statement that would indicate that he failed to say what it is he intended.
@@RealAtheology Also, assuming you're atheist (or at the very least defend the atheist position), your presence here on this particular channel is a case in point. Essentially, it corroborates the OP's statement.
@@mugsofmirth8101 I was aware of what he said, however, I just wanted to make sure my initial/possible interpretation was correct, and give the individual a chance to possibly clarify himself because the sentiment they expressed is just so misinformed and contradictory that it's hard to believe any person that engages seriously in the nature of religious disputes would make it. But since you confirmed my initial interpretation, I will go ahead and explain why it's such a silly comment to make. For one thing, I don't see any reason why Atheists should not be fascinated or at least interested in questions of God's existence and religion, given the massive impact that they have had on human civilization for better or worse. While Atheists may not believe in God, it's still something that impacts them in a lot of ways (for example many Atheists still face discrimination or prejudice for their views) and thus I see nothing surprising or contradictory about the fact that Atheists are interested in the question of God and religion. Secondly, I recall G.K. Chesterton used to always note the paradoxical nature of the complaints that people had against Christianity, and I think the same thing applies here. On one hand, Theists always complain that Atheists have not taken the time to truly study/engage and understand the Christianity or Theism they reject and I constantly see recommendations about how Atheists need to engage Aquinas, Augustine, Chesterton, Lewis, and other Catholic and Christian thinkers. And then on the other hand, I see the sentiment expressed above, namely this idea that Atheists are obsessed or fascinated by religion, as it somehow points to your self-deception on the matter. It seems no matter what the Atheist does, Theists will always have something to complain about. As for your final comment about our presence, maybe if you paid close attention to the video, you may have perhaps heard Trent mention a group by the name of "Real Atheology" that he interacts with and dialogues with, and respects in terms of the work they do on Atheism and so I don't see how my statement or presence here corroborates OP's poorly informed point.
Great video! And as a coincidence, I just recently started a new series on my channel called "Questions and Comments for Skeptics." The first two videos involve questions and comment for atheists -- and as a former "new atheist" myself for over 10 years, I hope to use my knowledge in the "trenches" to help fellow Catholics learn how to answer the tough questions that skeptics may ask. Here is an example: ruclips.net/video/BiaoU6Mg3Gw/видео.html And, of course, to Trent Horn: We should set up a dialogue sometime regarding dialoguing with atheists :-)
Perhaps one tip I suggest would be to actually engage with the best of Atheist Philosophers like Graham Oppy, Paul Draper, Erik Wielenberg, Stephen Maitzen, and others, as if you show Atheists just how high the level of discourse can go on these issues, perhaps it can foster more epistemic humility on both sides.
Atheism was a religion started by Luther and solidified in the enlightenment period. Luther was the first man that fell in love with his own ability to understand and interpret God and the Bible. This is the same vein as the enlightenment period where the new God became reason and the human intellect.
lolol atheism isn't a religion you irrational theist. Stop spreading anti-science conspiracy theories. You theists are always spreading racist antisemitic conspiracy theories like flat earth and Epstein not killing himself.
Wasn´t atheism started by Marx, Freud, Huxley and Haeckel in the 19th century? People in the Enlightenment (Newton, Voltaire etc) were at the very least deists, not atheists. Sure, there were people like Faustus and Marlow, but they did not have any metaphysical commitments ties to it. They were only volitional.
@@xstatic-ow5mz Stop and think for a second, it will do you good. First of all, you're generalising, which is irrational...see the irony? Secondly, who are all the science deniers in the present day? What about all the atheist wokies that deny biological science and the inherent differences between men and women. That believe a man can be born in a woman's body? And yet they need HRT to 'transition'. That also believe gender is a social construct. Tell me, if gender is a social construct, how can a man be born in a woman's body? You haven't thought any of this through. All of the above beliefs are a natural progression of the atheist religion. Human reason is the new God, and their ability to understand trump's not only God's law but also scientific laws too. Now tell me that that is not a religion? Science denying backwards beliefs that could only come out of the atheist mindset and values.
@@mugsofmirth8101 No, I do not. But the wokeness in the new movie was minimal, and I failed to see how it ruined it. Can you give me an example of how the wokeness ruined the movie for you?
@@mugsofmirth8101 i believe he did a great job in encouraging all christians to defend the faith. Even doe I do not follow him as much as I did before, I have still great respect for him.
@@tony1685 ruclips.net/video/_F2jKcXtF6M/видео.html If you are so confident about the fact that none is able to prove you wrong, why don't you check also this video out? This guy makes the same accusation.
@@tony1685 You affirm to know very well the Bible and yet you are judging my intentions and knowledge without even knowing me, something any christian know they shouldn't do. If you really think that what you said is an argument you must be really deluded. Artaxerxes and Nebuchadnezzar were called King of Kings and Lord of Lords. does this mean that jesus who is called like that was an impostor? Who give you the bible? Which interpretation of scripture is authoritative? Mine? Yours? Mormons? Jehovah's witnesses? Muslims? Calvinists? You don't even have an objective criteria to know the meaning of scriptures or to know what scriptures are inspired. How can you prove that the bible wasn't changed as muslims say, without appealing to the church or ecumenical councils?
He does quite a lot of those. Atheism on it's own is quite a boring topic. I'm more interested in seeing videos on atheism's inseparable association with Marxism and socialist/communist dictatorships.
@@elgatofelix8917 Atheism is just a lack of belief in a God. Marxism and socialist/communist dictatorships are not driven by just not believing in any God.
@@johnhammond6423 "Marx being influenced by Feuerbach, the League of Militant Godless and the militant and murderous anticlericalism and atheism of the Maoists, Soviets, Khmer Rouge and Plutarco Calles was just all a lack of belief bro" I hope you're convincing yourself at least.
@@glof2553 I was talking about atheists, not just one or two atheists that just happen to also be evil despot dictators as well. What do you not understand about that? I child would see the difference here.
We , Believers , Christians, Catholics need people like Trent and Matt to adress and make it rational and atached to reality the faith we live. The challenge its só huge that we don't realise.thers só many ideias, concepts, fhilosofhies ,that create só many different World views in peoples minds. But we Catholics know that our World view is the only right one...do we? Apologétics today are more needed than ever. Please guys, never give up. Im trying to learn and live the Christian faith more and more. If Our faith is the thrue faith lets humbly pray that the Father God, Creator of all things Open and iluminate Our minds.the Blessed Holly Spirit. AMEN
Gualberto , the more I listen to apologetics , the more confused it becomes . It simply opens up many more questions that cannot be answered. It is forever adjusting long held beliefs to neutralize the facts to maintain belief that there is a god , but science is forever reducing the gaps that believers use to justify god . Science does not need a super creator as evolution simply provides the steps from one cell to many cells to tissue to organs and finally the DNA that produces the man . God did not cause an apple to fall on Newton's head but gravity was the cause for the apple to fall.
@@peterj6740 you just showed me amor of ignorance and só simplistic basic thinking like the God of the capa argument. You ve got a long way to go mate. Don't give up. God IS. And Jesus is Who HeSaid HE was. May GodBless you with finding the Truth, like i did after many years of study and doubts.
Have you ever thought about addressing atheists such as Sam Harris? He has done a number of videos and or debates with Jordan Peterson, Douglass Murray and Ben Shapiro.
Trent, I don't think you did the ontological argument correctly. I think it should be, "1. God is defined as the greatest thing. 2. Existence is greater than non-existence. 3. Whatever God is, it has to be something that exists." The difficulty is figuring out how to prove the other properties of God and defining what exactly existence means.
No, 3 is referring to something outside of the definition of the category. So, the greatest being in existence _could_ be God but that wouldn't serve the ontological argument because the reason why he's the greatest has to be "being God", not fulfilling a condition apart from God's existence
I don’t think this quite captures Anselm’s OA either. This is my own representation of Anselm’s first OA (he had either two or three). At its heart it’s a disjunctive syllogism _Summary: God exists, because the assertion "God does not exist" is logically incoherent._ *Premises* 1. Defined: God is the Greatest Conceivable Being (GCB) 2. The GCB exists in our understanding. *Disjunctive syllogism* 1. Either A or A’: * A : The GCB exists _only_ in our understanding. * A’ : The GCB exists _both_ in our understanding _and_ in reality. 2. Not A (by _reductio ad absurdum)._ 1. To exist in the mind and in reality is greater than to exist in the mind alone. 2. So to _conceive_ a GCB that exists only in the mind is to conceive a GCB that is not a GCB. 3. Therefore, A is logically incoherent. 3. Therefore, A’ *Conclusion* 1. Therefore, the GCB exists in reality. 2. Therefore, God exists. Note the nuance here: Anselm does not define God as the "greatest being" but as the greatest _conceivable_ being. The distinction is subtle but crucial. Anselm is not saying God must exist because existing is greater than not existing. He is simply saying that the very idea of a Greatest Conceivable Being that includes the idea _doesn’t exist in reality_ is logically contradictory and hence cannot be true. He is also not saying that our intellects must be able to fully grasp God. Whatever the limits of our conception of God are, if that conception doesn’t include _exists in reality_ then it is not the greatest being we can conceive.
@@nathanaelculver5308 I like the way you articulated that in syllogistic form. To take it a step further however we could identify the Greatest Conceivable Being. Nothing is greater than the Universe. Therefore the Universe is synonymous with God: hence Pantheism.
As a Biola University Graduate: Great WLC reference : you should embrace Molinism even if the RCC hasn't formally accepted it as official church doctrine. That is one Catholic theology that I agree with as a Protestant.
I tend towards rejecting it because it seems to me middle knowledge is ad hoc, also I don't see how we could avoid the conclusion that God is conditioned by the free will of his creatures. As in, the lion can do as he pleases every day but he will always act like a lion, but a person is different because his actions aren't a feature of the world, they in fact determine the world and that's the key, it would seem God is in need of the will of the creature in order to create which fair enough I may be misinterpreting it but I don't know how to avoid the conclusion either. That of course is separate from cooperating with Grace which is not a matter of explaining the world but explaining justification
@@Qwerty-jy9mj sorry: I don't believe we can increase God's justification through our works ! We either have it or we don't. The Holy Spirit will motivate us to do good works if we are justified by God's Spirit.
@@EduardoRodriguez-du2vd He knows every possible choice: even the ones that don't happen. Or what is called counterfactuals. David asked God should he stay in a certain city because Saul was coming and GOD said if you stay they will hand you over to Saul : so David left and that never happened ; but it would have if David had stayed.
A atheist whatever that label denotes,is more honest and humble enough to admit they dont understand you guys whose opinions are just as confusing like all scholar's or apologist's who create another tower of Babel of difference in their biased opinions.
Surely people can't repent in hell because hell is separation from God, hence also everything that is good, and repentence and faith is good and requires the grace of God so they cannot repent or have faith?
@@atanas-nikolov The separation is personal, not ontological. Of course nothing exists apart from God, but complete removal of grace and interactability are still possible.
@@mugsofmirth8101 Well, basically every classical theist holds that nothing exists apart from God. Is it possible that you fall more in line with panentheism, in which God isn't equivalent to reality, but reality is internal to the "mind" of God? An analogy would be a computer simulation inside a computer. Nothing exists apart from the computer, but the computer exists apart from the simulation. Typically pantheism is the view that God and reality are interchangeable. In the analogy, the simulation doesn't exist apart from the computer and the computer doesn't exist apart from the simulation. They are one and the same. Just wondering.
Every debate with William Drone Craig ever: WDC opening statements: Kalaam Hitchens: *sigh* You've been told a million times Craig that Kalaam is moot, it only gets you as far as Deism, god created the universe and left. You have exactly the same amount of work to prove there is a personal god and that god is the one in the Bible with or without Kalaam. WDC: Kalaam Hitchens: whatever WDC: Resurrection Hitchens: You've been told a million times Craig that the Bible is not accepted as evidence by the non-Bible community. The resurrection stories in the Bible don't agree and they are not first hand. Zombies? really? WDC: Drones on about 5 points. WDC interview after: I won, Hitchens didn't address my arguments. Rational person: Stars fill every corner of the galaxy, there are trillions of them, they are the most common object in the universe, therefore if the universe is designed and fined tuned it is fine tuned for Stars. Religious person: The universe is fine tuned for the outlier, the least common thing, us. But, that's not why I came here. I came here to post HItchens' epic take down of Catholicism: ruclips.net/video/cRsaxXrjk3w/видео.html
The Christian understanding of God is not that He is a man who exists in the sky or universe, as has been depicted in some artwork, but that He is the cause of existence itself. Therefore he cannot be found in the existent universe. As Bishop Barron would say, “He is the very act of to be!” Hope this can clarify the skydaddy misunderstanding of God a bit
This man is disoriented, the professionals of no subject can prove that an atheist is wrong. An atheist is a person who does not have the idea that God exists. It is not coherent or sensible for someone to argue that I have an idea that I do not. (not even if that person wrote a book)
Wrong. An atheist has the idea, belief, or philosophy that God does not exist. Lacking an idea, belief or philosophy is "a-ism." "Theos" is specifically listed within atheism, which indicates that a position on God (i.e. a belief that God is x) is fundamental to atheism. Atheism is "the belief that God is not in existence" or "the belief that there is no God". This definition has been used throughout history for millennia and contemporarily in an academic context, plus it is inherent to the etymology of the word.
It doesn't take a "professional" to disprove atheism. The existence of my God is proof that atheism is false. If you deny my God exists then it follows logically that you deny the universe exists.
18:11 not sure that making the reverse argument is a good idea, since "smarter" people (i.e. scientists, academic philosophers, societies with higher average levels of education etc) tend to have significantly lower rates of religious belief than the general public. So apparently the arguments for atheism (or against theism) are pretty convincing.
As Christians we are more than willing to say religious belief is not a matter of intelligence, I would hope that all people even the slow ones like the average atheist, would be a Christian instead. You people fundamentally misunderstand the point of "not believing", this is why atheism is the scourge of the marginally educated.
@@Qwerty-jy9mj Not sure if you watching from the timestamp I included, but I was replying to a hypothetical argument raised by Trent which asked why smart people aren't all atheists. My comment was an explanation of why that argument would fail, not a statement about my personal opinions on intelligence and religion. I think someone can be extremely intelligent and religious, and many people are, such as Trent. I am sorry you don't extend the same courtesy to the nonreligious.
@@dohpam1ne This is not a question of manners, I know _some_ smart people are atheists but that isn't the issue in this case, the issue is whether you could rationally defend the reasons why you're an atheist. You think the average atheist (let's feed the conceit and pretend the average atheist is above average IQ and is 105 instead of 100) knows enough to know how to do this? In fact if it's true that six sigma percentile tier intelligence is required to reasonably justify atheism that would simply imply most atheists _don't_ have good reasons to be atheists to begin with and they don't know how to explain that fact. Also Trent did address your exact point, he said it was simply bigotry. Good work, bigot.
@@dohpam1ne you do have to recognize that rejecting God is not a purely intellectual activity and the Bible states that people have a nature that has been corrupted by sin which is why people are inclined to not want God around them. There are extremely smart people on both sides of the God Hypothesis but we are more than intellectual beings and feelings/ emotions are quite evident in humanity and even in animals with different temperaments within the same species. Obviously IQ levels don't have break of say at the 150 mark. Education itself isn't devoid of biased instruction and rejection of religion ideas as All official teaching about God was removed in the sixties from public high schools in the US. It's hard to be infavor of something you know nothing about or only know about the fundamentalists type of Christianity that many ex- Christians atheists came from.
When Matt Dillahunty got Trent to admit that he went on anecdotal evidence I thought Trent would fade away. But no, he is still here with his bad arguments for his God.
@@glof2553 Thank you for correcting me. But my point still stands, it was embarrassing to watch Trent try to avoid answering Dillahunty. I being an atheist am obviously as biased as you are as a Christion. But in my opinion Dillahunty destroyed him.
@@johnhammond6423 the consensus seems that Trent won, so you're alone in that regard. Trent's point was that if atheists applied the same historical standard they apply to Jesus to other historical figures, we would have treated Hannibal crossing the Alps as mere hearsay and not a historical fact (and that is one of many examples). There's nothing wrong with testimonial evidence.
@@glof2553 _'the consensus seems that Trent won, so you're alone in that regard'_ You mean the coment section of a Christion apologists video? ruclips.net/video/mHY6tqdi8pY/видео.html The story of Hannibal crossing the Alps is made up of the natural. We know the alps exist, we know elephants exist. Now compare that with a supernatural story of a man dying, rotting for a few days and then coming to life again found in an old religious book thousands of years old. _'There's nothing wrong with testimonial evidence'_ I was abducted by aliens last week and they experimented on me and then took me home again. There you go, testimonial evidence. Do you believe my testimonial evidence? Or, I went shopping this morning. There you go, more testimonial evidence. Do you believe this testimony?
@@johnhammond6423 those aren't testimonies. Those are lies. Stop lying. Do you have proof that Hannibal crossing the Alps was a purely natural event? The issue with you is you define everything that happens as definitionally "natural".
"Here is my ontological argument for why my wife is awesome" is the most Trent Horn sentence ever.
If his wife were merely "awesome" then wouldn't she still fall short of being a "maximally great wife" as WLC might say?
@@mugsofmirth8101 technically yes, but don't say that in front of Trent Horn or he'll smash your face. With the apocrypha.
Trent: "Other secondary issues... like the atonement"
Protestants: triggered
LOL 😆 We're not triggered: but you do need purgatory for "bad "reasons : we( Just)ified don't !
God: exists
atheists: triggered
@@davidjanbaz7728 The fact you're here within the upload time frame confirms that you're triggered.
@@TheRedRaven_ actually not : purgatory isn't a big deal to me and certainly I believe in the Atonement so how could that trigger me ! You're very misinformed!
@@davidjanbaz7728 No I wasn't misinformed, I simply took the upload time and correlated it to your comment. It has nothing to do with the extra details you described.
Three hundred years from now, when we are long dead and buried, people will be studying the works of St. Thomas Aquinas, St Augustine, St Teresa of Avila, and..............Trent Horn!!! 👍
@@tony1685 The Bible is a Catholic book and sola scriptura is self-refuting. Protestant "churches" have 10,000 denominations and 20,000 contradicting interpretations on key doctrines, all claiming to be guided by the Holy Spirit. The Catholic Church is the church instituted by Jesus Christ himself. You follow a man made religion started in the the 16th century and do not follow what was taught by the first Christians and ancient Christianity.
@@tony1685
Tony - cut the rhetoric and actually attempt to answer the below questions without bias, and with intellect -
1) Where does it say to follow the Bible ALONE in the Bible and not oral tradition? Prove it.
2) Where in the Bible does it say what books make up the Bible?
3) Which Church decided which books were divinely inspired and to be included in the New Testament?
4) How did the Apostle's and first disciples teach and spread the teachings and traditions of Christianity - which Bible did they use? (hint, how were they teaching before the gospels were even written?)
5) Which Protestant denomination has the correct interpretation of justification, salvation, the real presence, baptism, predestination? They contradict each other and all claim to be guided by the Holy Spirit. Calvanists tell me I was pre-destined to write this? But Anglican's disagree. The pastor down the street tells me "once saved always saved", another tells me I need a living faith - God is not a God of confusion which is why there is ONE Church with divine authority - not your man made traditions.
@@SteveC-Aus do you have similar criticisms against Christian Orthodoxy? If so, I'd like to hear them.
@@tony1685 Absolutely fail, I see you aren't able to have an intellectual conversation, you haven't answered a single question properly with a source. Not wasting any more time with you as I don't think you have studied enough to even respond, you have come to sprout stereotyped rhetoric. Unfortunately you are trapped in man made 17th century Christianity that looks nothing like the ancient Christianity taught by the Apostles, disciples and Early Church Fathers (who were Catholic by the way, Catholic means universal, and there was only one universal Church until the 10th century.)
It's time to start reading and learning about the first 500 years of Christianity Tony, you'll soon realise your man made traditions look nothing like the early Church, it's almost blasphemous what you have done with the real presence and the Eucharist (John 6:53), changing doctrines taught by the Apostolic churches for 1700 years, removing books from Holy Scripture that doesn't agree with man made Protestanitism etc. - all the best for the new year and Merry Christmas!
@@mugsofmirth8101 Not particularly, the Orthodox churches don't follow Sola Scriptura and are also Apostolic churches that follow most teachings of ancient Christianity (real presence of the Eucharist, communion of the saints, infant baptism etc), I'd say it's a brother of Catholicism with smaller disputes, for example papal infallibility. Merry Christmas!
Another fantastic video Trent. We really hope that as New Atheism declines, we see a more informed and philosophical Atheism take its place. We also really appreciate your project in tackling more sophisticated forms of Atheism. As Christian Philosopher Douglas Groethius notes: _"whatever the popularity of atheism, the real question is whether Atheism is true. The New Atheists mostly failed to give significant philosophical arguments. However formidable philosophical Atheists need to be confronted."_
We're glad to see you take on the best of the Atheist tradition and we look forward to more projects/work that you do in this area. Hopefully, you can inspire your fellow Catholics to raise the level of debate in this area as well.
"more sophisticated forms of Atheism"
How many "forms of Atheism" do you purport there to be, and how do they differ?
I am often told by those who defend atheism that "atheism is merely a lack of belief, nothing more"
This would imply there is only one form of atheism (which you capitalize for some undisclosed reason) and yet the very same "atheists" will also say that there are two "branches" if you will, thereof - agnostic-atheism and gnostic-atheism and will almost invariably claim to be the former. Funny thing is - I usually only hear the claim that there are two distinct branches when the "atheist" is reminded of the fact that they cannot prove unequivocally that no deities exist, which is quite telling, to say the least.
@@mugsofmirth8101 When I mention "forms of Atheism" I'm not talking about a strict typology. What I refer to as "more sophisticated forms of Atheism" simply denotes the work of Atheist Philosophers of Religion and those informed about Analytic Philosophy. I do not see Atheism as a "lack of belief" and the branches of "agnostic-atheism and gnostic-atheism" are simply confused labels based on misunderstandings about knowledge of belief. You will find nothing about Atheism being a "lack of belief" or "agnostic/gnostic-atheism" in the philosophical literature on this subject.
We take Atheism to be a belief (which simply means that it's more probable than not that God doesn't exist/the best explanation of reality) as it is held this way by the majority of Atheist Philosophers of Religion. It seems to me that your experience with Atheism is limited to online/internet Atheists. I'd advise you to actually seek the best literature on this subject and read the works of people like Graham Oppy, J.H. Sobel, Paul Draper, J.L. Mackie, Evan Fales, and others who generally know what they are talking about as opposed to Atheists online.
@@RealAtheology As a Catholic I really do hope that new atheism declines. However, I have to ask, do you then see Atheism as a religion? Perhaps a religion with many sects, similar to that of Christianity?
@@dylanfernandez3910 I don't. Perhaps one could make the argument that some Atheists do behave in similar ways to how religious people do, but based on the standard definitions of Atheism and Religion, I don't think Atheism can be seen as a religion. I'd recommend Dr. Graham Oppy's work "Naturalism and Religion" for a more detailed approach to this issue.
@@RealAtheology so how would you define "New Atheism" and how is it different from the atheism you espouse?
The fact that atheists are going to comment on this video proves that atheism is not, in fact, a lack of belief.
Merry Christmas
lolol that proves nothing. You theists are so bigoted. Christmas is racist. As atheists, we know that anybody who celebrates Christmas or even pays taxes in country where Christmas is celebrated is racist.
@@xstatic-ow5mz bad satire. Try harder
If u don't laugh at female comedian, thou art bigot
@@JohnCenaFan6298 true
@UCJxwkq-Wv9xClQhRDoxBj0Q
A person of determinate bodyparts
Trent: they can’t access that without a warrant
NSA: laughs
Bahahahahahah! As an Australian who grew up in NZ. I have to say that accent was hilariously and unequivocally terrible. 🤣👌❤️
Still get a like though. Thanks for the humility and wisdom. You draw God's people closer to himself.
Love you boys down under, terrible to see what is going on politically, I pray for you all on the daily.
@@TheRedRaven_ I think they like what's going on politically for the most part anyway.
Last time I was this early, it was still "only two weeks to flatten muh curve"
Few people are more fascinated with God and religion than atheists.
What are you trying to say?
^
@@RealAtheology I think the OP said exactly what he was trying to say. There appear to be no grammatical or spelling errors in his statement that would indicate that he failed to say what it is he intended.
@@RealAtheology Also, assuming you're atheist (or at the very least defend the atheist position), your presence here on this particular channel is a case in point. Essentially, it corroborates the OP's statement.
@@mugsofmirth8101 I was aware of what he said, however, I just wanted to make sure my initial/possible interpretation was correct, and give the individual a chance to possibly clarify himself because the sentiment they expressed is just so misinformed and contradictory that it's hard to believe any person that engages seriously in the nature of religious disputes would make it.
But since you confirmed my initial interpretation, I will go ahead and explain why it's such a silly comment to make. For one thing, I don't see any reason why Atheists should not be fascinated or at least interested in questions of God's existence and religion, given the massive impact that they have had on human civilization for better or worse. While Atheists may not believe in God, it's still something that impacts them in a lot of ways (for example many Atheists still face discrimination or prejudice for their views) and thus I see nothing surprising or contradictory about the fact that Atheists are interested in the question of God and religion.
Secondly, I recall G.K. Chesterton used to always note the paradoxical nature of the complaints that people had against Christianity, and I think the same thing applies here.
On one hand, Theists always complain that Atheists have not taken the time to truly study/engage and understand the Christianity or Theism they reject and I constantly see recommendations about how Atheists need to engage Aquinas, Augustine, Chesterton, Lewis, and other Catholic and Christian thinkers.
And then on the other hand, I see the sentiment expressed above, namely this idea that Atheists are obsessed or fascinated by religion, as it somehow points to your self-deception on the matter.
It seems no matter what the Atheist does, Theists will always have something to complain about. As for your final comment about our presence, maybe if you paid close attention to the video, you may have perhaps heard Trent mention a group by the name of "Real Atheology" that he interacts with and dialogues with, and respects in terms of the work they do on Atheism and so I don't see how my statement or presence here corroborates OP's poorly informed point.
I'm getting The Case for Catholicism for Christmas. :)
@@tony1685 maybe he's already Catholic?
@@tony1685 read what? Are you saying the version of the Bible you adhere to says that Catholicism is evil?
@@tony1685 Tell us the the real Church then, oh enlightened one.
@@RockGTA which do you think is "the real church" ?
@@mugsofmirth8101 The one that Christ founded upon Peter.
Great video! And as a coincidence, I just recently started a new series on my channel called "Questions and Comments for Skeptics." The first two videos involve questions and comment for atheists -- and as a former "new atheist" myself for over 10 years, I hope to use my knowledge in the "trenches" to help fellow Catholics learn how to answer the tough questions that skeptics may ask. Here is an example: ruclips.net/video/BiaoU6Mg3Gw/видео.html And, of course, to Trent Horn: We should set up a dialogue sometime regarding dialoguing with atheists :-)
Perhaps one tip I suggest would be to actually engage with the best of Atheist Philosophers like Graham Oppy, Paul Draper, Erik Wielenberg, Stephen Maitzen, and others, as if you show Atheists just how high the level of discourse can go on these issues, perhaps it can foster more epistemic humility on both sides.
Atheism was a religion started by Luther and solidified in the enlightenment period.
Luther was the first man that fell in love with his own ability to understand and interpret God and the Bible. This is the same vein as the enlightenment period where the new God became reason and the human intellect.
lolol atheism isn't a religion you irrational theist. Stop spreading anti-science conspiracy theories. You theists are always spreading racist antisemitic conspiracy theories like flat earth and Epstein not killing himself.
Wasn´t atheism started by Marx, Freud, Huxley and Haeckel in the 19th century?
People in the Enlightenment (Newton, Voltaire etc) were at the very least deists, not atheists.
Sure, there were people like Faustus and Marlow, but they did not have any metaphysical commitments ties to it. They were only volitional.
@@xstatic-ow5mz Stop and think for a second, it will do you good.
First of all, you're generalising, which is irrational...see the irony?
Secondly, who are all the science deniers in the present day? What about all the atheist wokies that deny biological science and the inherent differences between men and women.
That believe a man can be born in a woman's body? And yet they need HRT to 'transition'. That also believe gender is a social construct. Tell me, if gender is a social construct, how can a man be born in a woman's body?
You haven't thought any of this through. All of the above beliefs are a natural progression of the atheist religion. Human reason is the new God, and their ability to understand trump's not only God's law but also scientific laws too.
Now tell me that that is not a religion? Science denying backwards beliefs that could only come out of the atheist mindset and values.
@@hhstark8663 Feuerbach was the father of modern atheism and a huge influence on Marx
@@glof2553 I did not know that. I thought Marx was the big cheese of atheism.
Though the fideism of Kant did not exactly make things better.
This is a better collab than the newest spiderman movie imo
Spiderman and anything Marvel is woke now and therefore is trash
@@mugsofmirth8101 I thought the most recent movie was great.
@@lukehayner3202 so you enjoy wokeness in entertainment? OK then.
@@mugsofmirth8101 No, I do not. But the wokeness in the new movie was minimal, and I failed to see how it ruined it. Can you give me an example of how the wokeness ruined the movie for you?
@@mugsofmirth8101 can I have some examples of wokeness in the new Spider-Man film?
Dr Craig is the starting point in apologetics of most of us.
Even for Catholics? Why is that?
@@mugsofmirth8101 i believe he did a great job in encouraging all christians to defend the faith. Even doe I do not follow him as much as I did before, I have still great respect for him.
@@tony1685 ruclips.net/video/QDwhfVQWdVM/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/FLM-SHupgeA/видео.html
@@tony1685 ruclips.net/video/_F2jKcXtF6M/видео.html If you are so confident about the fact that none is able to prove you wrong, why don't you check also this video out? This guy makes the same accusation.
@@tony1685 You affirm to know very well the Bible and yet you are judging my intentions and knowledge without even knowing me, something any christian know they shouldn't do. If you really think that what you said is an argument you must be really deluded. Artaxerxes and Nebuchadnezzar were called King of Kings and Lord of Lords. does this mean that jesus who is called like that was an impostor? Who give you the bible? Which interpretation of scripture is authoritative? Mine? Yours? Mormons? Jehovah's witnesses? Muslims? Calvinists? You don't even have an objective criteria to know the meaning of scriptures or to know what scriptures are inspired. How can you prove that the bible wasn't changed as muslims say, without appealing to the church or ecumenical councils?
W L Craig defends theistic personalism and as such is antithetical to the classical theism of Augustine and Thomas Aquinas.
I feel that one liner joke
The weak Catholic apologist
"i Dont have a physics degree"
The chad Saint Paul.
"Nature declares"
Please more videos on atheism !!!
He does quite a lot of those. Atheism on it's own is quite a boring topic. I'm more interested in seeing videos on atheism's inseparable association with Marxism and socialist/communist dictatorships.
@@elgatofelix8917 that would be an interesting topic
@@elgatofelix8917
Atheism is just a lack of belief in a God.
Marxism and socialist/communist dictatorships are not driven by just not believing in any God.
@@johnhammond6423 "Marx being influenced by Feuerbach, the League of Militant Godless and the militant and murderous anticlericalism and atheism of the Maoists, Soviets, Khmer Rouge and Plutarco Calles was just all a lack of belief bro"
I hope you're convincing yourself at least.
@@glof2553
I was talking about atheists, not just one or two atheists that just happen to also be evil despot dictators as well.
What do you not understand about that? I child would see the difference here.
We , Believers , Christians, Catholics need people like Trent and Matt to adress and make it rational and atached to reality the faith we live. The challenge its só huge that we don't realise.thers só many ideias, concepts, fhilosofhies ,that create só many different World views in peoples minds. But we Catholics know that our World view is the only right one...do we? Apologétics today are more needed than ever. Please guys, never give up. Im trying to learn and live the Christian faith more and more. If Our faith is the thrue faith lets humbly pray that the Father God, Creator of all things Open and iluminate Our minds.the Blessed Holly Spirit. AMEN
Gualberto , the more I listen to apologetics , the more confused it becomes . It simply opens up many more questions that cannot be answered.
It is forever adjusting long held beliefs to neutralize the facts to maintain belief that there is a god , but science is forever reducing the gaps that believers use to justify god . Science does not need a super creator as evolution simply provides the steps from one cell to many cells to tissue to organs and finally the DNA that produces the man . God did not cause an apple to fall on Newton's head but gravity was the cause for the apple to fall.
@@peterj6740 you just showed me amor of ignorance and só simplistic basic thinking like the God of the capa argument. You ve got a long way to go mate. Don't give up. God IS. And Jesus is Who HeSaid HE was. May GodBless you with finding the Truth, like i did after many years of study and doubts.
Have you ever thought about addressing atheists such as Sam Harris? He has done a number of videos and or debates with Jordan Peterson, Douglass Murray and Ben Shapiro.
Trent, I don't think you did the ontological argument correctly. I think it should be, "1. God is defined as the greatest thing. 2. Existence is greater than non-existence. 3. Whatever God is, it has to be something that exists."
The difficulty is figuring out how to prove the other properties of God and defining what exactly existence means.
No, 3 is referring to something outside of the definition of the category. So, the greatest being in existence _could_ be God but that wouldn't serve the ontological argument because the reason why he's the greatest has to be "being God", not fulfilling a condition apart from God's existence
I don’t think this quite captures Anselm’s OA either.
This is my own representation of Anselm’s first OA (he had either two or three). At its heart it’s a disjunctive syllogism
_Summary: God exists, because the assertion "God does not exist" is logically incoherent._
*Premises*
1. Defined: God is the Greatest Conceivable Being (GCB)
2. The GCB exists in our understanding.
*Disjunctive syllogism*
1. Either A or A’:
* A : The GCB exists _only_ in our understanding.
* A’ : The GCB exists _both_ in our understanding _and_ in reality.
2. Not A (by _reductio ad absurdum)._
1. To exist in the mind and in reality is greater than to exist in the mind alone.
2. So to _conceive_ a GCB that exists only in the mind is to conceive a GCB that is not a GCB.
3. Therefore, A is logically incoherent.
3. Therefore, A’
*Conclusion*
1. Therefore, the GCB exists in reality.
2. Therefore, God exists.
Note the nuance here: Anselm does not define God as the "greatest being" but as the greatest _conceivable_ being. The distinction is subtle but crucial. Anselm is not saying God must exist because existing is greater than not existing. He is simply saying that the very idea of a Greatest Conceivable Being that includes the idea _doesn’t exist in reality_ is logically contradictory and hence cannot be true. He is also not saying that our intellects must be able to fully grasp God. Whatever the limits of our conception of God are, if that conception doesn’t include _exists in reality_ then it is not the greatest being we can conceive.
@@nathanaelculver5308 I like the way you articulated that in syllogistic form. To take it a step further however we could identify the Greatest Conceivable Being. Nothing is greater than the Universe. Therefore the Universe is synonymous with God: hence Pantheism.
@@mugsofmirth8101 Why would the universe be the greatest conceivable being? That seems facially wrong.
@@nathanaelculver5308 "facially" ?
As a Biola University Graduate: Great WLC reference : you should embrace Molinism even if the RCC hasn't formally accepted it as official church doctrine.
That is one Catholic theology that I agree with as a Protestant.
I tend towards rejecting it because it seems to me middle knowledge is ad hoc, also I don't see how we could avoid the conclusion that God is conditioned by the free will of his creatures. As in, the lion can do as he pleases every day but he will always act like a lion, but a person is different because his actions aren't a feature of the world, they in fact determine the world and that's the key, it would seem God is in need of the will of the creature in order to create which fair enough I may be misinterpreting it but I don't know how to avoid the conclusion either.
That of course is separate from cooperating with Grace which is not a matter of explaining the world but explaining justification
But does god know what the choice will be?
@@Qwerty-jy9mj sorry: I don't believe we can increase God's justification through our works ! We either have it or we don't.
The Holy Spirit will motivate us to do good works if we are justified by God's Spirit.
@@EduardoRodriguez-du2vd He knows every possible choice: even the ones that don't happen. Or what is called counterfactuals.
David asked God should he stay in a certain city because Saul was coming and GOD said if you stay they will hand you over to Saul : so David left and that never happened ; but it would have if David had stayed.
@@davidjanbaz7728 In other words, God knows which of the souls that he creates will deny him and yet he creates them the same?
I feel smart until I see your videos lol. I'm dumb!
@@tony1685 there's literally nothing contradictory about those two passages
@@tony1685 Yes
@@tony1685 seventh day Adventist begone. Roman Catholicism does not violate any of the 10 commandments
@@tony1685 begone 7th Day Adventist
@@tony1685 the Catholic Church was founded by Christ. Repent.
A atheist whatever that label denotes,is more honest and humble enough to admit they dont understand you guys whose opinions are just as confusing like all scholar's or apologist's who create another tower of Babel of difference in their biased opinions.
Surely people can't repent in hell because hell is separation from God, hence also everything that is good, and repentence and faith is good and requires the grace of God so they cannot repent or have faith?
How can anything be absolutely separate from God? That would limit God.
@@atanas-nikolov The separation is personal, not ontological. Of course nothing exists apart from God, but complete removal of grace and interactability are still possible.
@@josephmoya5098 "nothing exists apart from God" I agree with that statement. This is why I'm a Pantheist.
@@mugsofmirth8101 Well, basically every classical theist holds that nothing exists apart from God. Is it possible that you fall more in line with panentheism, in which God isn't equivalent to reality, but reality is internal to the "mind" of God? An analogy would be a computer simulation inside a computer. Nothing exists apart from the computer, but the computer exists apart from the simulation. Typically pantheism is the view that God and reality are interchangeable. In the analogy, the simulation doesn't exist apart from the computer and the computer doesn't exist apart from the simulation. They are one and the same. Just wondering.
@@josephmoya5098 I'm not sure what you mean by "classical theist"
Every debate with William Drone Craig ever:
WDC opening statements: Kalaam
Hitchens: *sigh* You've been told a million times Craig that Kalaam is moot, it only gets you as far as Deism, god created the universe and left. You have exactly the same amount of work to prove there is a personal god and that god is the one in the Bible with or without Kalaam.
WDC: Kalaam
Hitchens: whatever
WDC: Resurrection
Hitchens: You've been told a million times Craig that the Bible is not accepted as evidence by the non-Bible community. The resurrection stories in the Bible don't agree and they are not first hand. Zombies? really?
WDC: Drones on about 5 points.
WDC interview after: I won, Hitchens didn't address my arguments.
Rational person: Stars fill every corner of the galaxy, there are trillions of them, they are the most common object in the universe, therefore if the universe is designed and fined tuned it is fine tuned for Stars.
Religious person: The universe is fine tuned for the outlier, the least common thing, us.
But, that's not why I came here. I came here to post HItchens' epic take down of Catholicism:
ruclips.net/video/cRsaxXrjk3w/видео.html
As atheists, we can logically disprove theism with a single word: skydaddy
You forgot about the devastating counter argument: Fedora Tipper
The Christian understanding of God is not that He is a man who exists in the sky or universe, as has been depicted in some artwork, but that He is the cause of existence itself. Therefore he cannot be found in the existent universe. As Bishop Barron would say, “He is the very act of to be!” Hope this can clarify the skydaddy misunderstanding of God a bit
The Proletariat is a troll.
Indeed, all we need to do to show the inaccuracy of the Bible is to call it a fairy tale
That was a funny joke. haha. Good one. :)
Edit: You aren´t serious, are you?
This man is disoriented, the professionals of no subject can prove that an atheist is wrong. An atheist is a person who does not have the idea that God exists. It is not coherent or sensible for someone to argue that I have an idea that I do not. (not even if that person wrote a book)
Wrong. An atheist has the idea, belief, or philosophy that God does not exist.
Lacking an idea, belief or philosophy is "a-ism." "Theos" is specifically listed within atheism, which indicates that a position on God (i.e. a belief that God is x) is fundamental to atheism.
Atheism is "the belief that God is not in existence" or "the belief that there is no God".
This definition has been used throughout history for millennia and contemporarily in an academic context, plus it is inherent to the etymology of the word.
The question is whether atheism is rational (which it isn't). You can call yourself whatever you want, nobody will care.
It doesn't take a "professional" to disprove atheism. The existence of my God is proof that atheism is false.
If you deny my God exists then it follows logically that you deny the universe exists.
@@glof2553 Apparently you do not know the properties of Non-existence.
@@Qwerty-jy9mj To say that atheism is irrational does not seem like a compelling argument. It's just a hollow statement.
18:11 not sure that making the reverse argument is a good idea, since "smarter" people (i.e. scientists, academic philosophers, societies with higher average levels of education etc) tend to have significantly lower rates of religious belief than the general public. So apparently the arguments for atheism (or against theism) are pretty convincing.
As Christians we are more than willing to say religious belief is not a matter of intelligence, I would hope that all people even the slow ones like the average atheist, would be a Christian instead.
You people fundamentally misunderstand the point of "not believing", this is why atheism is the scourge of the marginally educated.
@@Qwerty-jy9mj Not sure if you watching from the timestamp I included, but I was replying to a hypothetical argument raised by Trent which asked why smart people aren't all atheists. My comment was an explanation of why that argument would fail, not a statement about my personal opinions on intelligence and religion.
I think someone can be extremely intelligent and religious, and many people are, such as Trent. I am sorry you don't extend the same courtesy to the nonreligious.
@@dohpam1ne
This is not a question of manners, I know _some_ smart people are atheists but that isn't the issue in this case, the issue is whether you could rationally defend the reasons why you're an atheist. You think the average atheist (let's feed the conceit and pretend the average atheist is above average IQ and is 105 instead of 100) knows enough to know how to do this?
In fact if it's true that six sigma percentile tier intelligence is required to reasonably justify atheism that would simply imply most atheists _don't_ have good reasons to be atheists to begin with and they don't know how to explain that fact.
Also Trent did address your exact point, he said it was simply bigotry. Good work, bigot.
@@dohpam1ne you do have to recognize that rejecting God is not a purely intellectual activity and the Bible states that people have a nature that has been corrupted by sin which is why people are inclined to not want God around them.
There are extremely smart people on both sides of the God Hypothesis but we are more than intellectual beings and feelings/ emotions are quite evident in humanity and even in animals with different temperaments within the same species. Obviously IQ levels don't have break of say at the 150 mark.
Education itself isn't devoid of biased instruction and rejection of religion ideas as All official teaching about God was removed in the sixties from public high schools in the US.
It's hard to be infavor of something you know nothing about or only know about the fundamentalists type of Christianity that many ex- Christians atheists came from.
@@dohpam1ne that's a bold claim. What evidence can you show to support it?
When Matt Dillahunty got Trent to admit that he went on anecdotal evidence I thought Trent would fade away. But no, he is still here with his bad arguments for his God.
Anecdotal or testimonial? I thought Trent won that debate
@@glof2553
Thank you for correcting me.
But my point still stands, it was embarrassing to watch Trent try to avoid answering Dillahunty.
I being an atheist am obviously as biased as you are as a Christion. But in my opinion Dillahunty destroyed him.
@@johnhammond6423 the consensus seems that Trent won, so you're alone in that regard.
Trent's point was that if atheists applied the same historical standard they apply to Jesus to other historical figures, we would have treated Hannibal crossing the Alps as mere hearsay and not a historical fact (and that is one of many examples). There's nothing wrong with testimonial evidence.
@@glof2553
_'the consensus seems that Trent won, so you're alone in that regard'_
You mean the coment section of a Christion apologists video?
ruclips.net/video/mHY6tqdi8pY/видео.html
The story of Hannibal crossing the Alps is made up of the natural. We know the alps exist, we know elephants exist.
Now compare that with a supernatural story of a man dying, rotting for a few days and then coming to life again found in an old religious book thousands of years old.
_'There's nothing wrong with testimonial evidence'_
I was abducted by aliens last week and they experimented on me and then took me home again.
There you go, testimonial evidence. Do you believe my testimonial evidence?
Or, I went shopping this morning. There you go, more testimonial evidence.
Do you believe this testimony?
@@johnhammond6423 those aren't testimonies. Those are lies. Stop lying.
Do you have proof that Hannibal crossing the Alps was a purely natural event? The issue with you is you define everything that happens as definitionally "natural".