No wonder Craig wont waste his time here

God exists in the thoughts and imagination of man. God does not objectively exist the way the universe or atoms objectively exist.

Saying 'I don't know if objective morality exist' is an objective statement..

How is Raphael a teaching fellow?! His understanding of philosophy is embarrassingly terrible.

Raphael was so arrogant throughout the debate, and yet was absolutely decimated by Trent, who was far more modest.

So.... Trent debated a retard. Very charitable of him

Raphael is a mess. Looking for other debates.

I can't watch this.

I'm not sure why Trent argued with this fellow. There are so many fallacies in Raphael's 'arguments' (quotes intended). He has no arguments, just statements and 'identifying' issues with opponent's REAL arguments. I am really looking for a good argument against God's existence and all I find is arrogant rebuttals (not arguments).

Raphael you Won Hands down!.

"I want to believe in God, but he hasn't convinced me." Proceeds to get smoked in a debate about God's existence. God's trying to convince him. Raphael just won't listen.

They tolerate sex because its needed for procreation. If it wasn't needed for procreation the church would have tried to ban it.

I think Raphael won this one.

Trent is obviously gay and delusional. And so are his many "intellectually honest" champions. Just set up the glory hole and be done with it. PS - anyone who thinks Freud was wrong is a pseudo intellectual d bag. Grow a pair, morons.

Humans should habe a right at the very core ..to live or die by choice! No reasons need be given. Its a human right.

God claims are lies

God of the gaps was trents entire opening statement. Why am I not surprised

Lol 'we don't know that, so we'll move along' Okay well we also can't fully prove God does or doesn't exist, so we'll move right passed your opinions and forget the debate then. What in the Valley of Hinnom was this dumpster fire? This was a waste of time for Trent.

trent hates the idea of a universe having an inifinite past - his god on the other hand no problem. SPECIAL PLEADING again

wow first reason - special pleading......second reason.... special pleading...

This guy came to a "does God exist?" debate to take the negative position, but he thinks he has no responsibility to make any arguments, and he eventually became angry because he was being forced to debate about the topic of the debate. This was not a debate about pantheism or whatever this guy kept trying to shift the debate to. Really poor performance.

Fantastic debate. Is there a round 2?

Raphael won

Gish galloping

Christian apologists are so cringe to watch. They always engage in lying, arm waving, and false conclusions that they can't demonstrate as true.

In response to all those who complained that Raphael supposedly "did not respond" to the arguments or "dismissed" them. For starters, he did respond to them in his initial statement. He talked about the contingency argument, first cause argument, substance dualism argument, fine tuning argument, moral argument, etc. As to why Raphael would supposedly "dismiss" these arguments is because they are already worn out. They have been extensively analyzed and there is a lot of literature on the subject, so Trent brought nothing new to the table. They follow a deductive approach with highly debatable premises. Believers and apologists therefore suffer from confirmation bias by forcing premises towards the conclusion they desire, while ignoring that better or equally plausible alternatives exist. Raphael on the other hand presented a probabilistic approach where he regards Trent's theism as a subset of supernaturalism. He argues that even if supernaturalism is granted, within it there are isms that have better prior probability or general probability than the specific theism of Trent's (who defends the Catholic version of Christianity, but conveniently hides it). Trent for his part did not make a probabilistic analysis at all, although he dared to use the word "probably" loosely as a figure of speech in 10:10. Nor did he dare to respond to the challenges posed by Raphael from a probabilistic point of view. The fact that the critics of Raphael's exposition have overlooked this speaks volumes about their current knowledge of Christian apologetics. Raphael even mentioned a few apologists who are using probabilistic approaches in their debates, something that Trent clearly suffers from. Raphael not only debated with Trent, but also with other apologists at the same time.

🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 04:19 🧠 Trent Horn presents three possible answers to the question "Does God exist?": yes, probably yes, no or probably no, or I don't know. He takes the affirmative position, arguing for the existence of God based on philosophical reasoning. 06:09 🌌 Trent Horn introduces the principle of sufficient reason, arguing that if something exists and doesn't have to, there must be a reason for its existence. He applies this principle to the universe, asserting the need for a necessary and unlimited being, which he identifies as God. 08:37 🔄 Trent Horn presents the argument that if the universe began to exist, it requires a cause. He contends that the cause must be immaterial, eternal, all-powerful, and personal, resembling the attributes of God. 11:37 🎚️ Trent Horn discusses the predictability and order in the universe, emphasizing the finely-tuned constants necessary for life. He argues that the complexity and order suggest an intelligent designer, which he identifies as God. 13:26 🤔 Trent Horn asserts that certain moral facts, such as human equality and intrinsic evils, cannot be explained without God. He argues that objective morality requires a foundation in a perfectly good God. 18:54 🔍 Raphael Lataster responds by challenging the contingency argument, emphasizing uncertainties about the universe's contingency and God's necessity. He questions deductive arguments and the assumption of substance dualism. 21:01 🌌 Raphael Lataster critiques the fine-tuning argument, pointing out issues with the three options presented (necessity, chance, intelligent design) and argues for the possibility of an eternal universe. 22:25 🚫 Raphael Lataster challenges the moral argument, questioning the existence of objective morality and its connection to God. He notes issues with appealing to subjective emotions to establish objective morality. 23:48 🎭 Raphael Lataster argues against the deductive nature of the presented arguments, stating the need for uncontroversial premises and rejecting the burden of proving premises false. He suggests the need for a probabilistic case for God's existence. 24:16 🤔 Key focus on the need for a probabilistic case, considering evidence against God, alternative explanations, and supernaturalistic alternatives. 25:11 🔄 Arguments against God, like divine hiddenness and the problem of evil, can be flipped and used as probabilistic points for naturalism. 27:04 🌐 Wide range of supernaturalistic alternatives, challenging theism, including polytheism, deism, and pantheism. 28:42 🤷 Challenges presented for monotheism, arguing for the plausibility of alternative monotheisms like the evil God or morally indifferent God. 29:53 🔄 Pantheisms, including panentheism and pandeism, are proposed as less ad hoc, more plausible alternatives to theism, with infinite possibilities. 36:48 🔄 The argument for objective morality is presented, emphasizing that moral facts exist, contrasting with the subjective view of morality. 37:44 🚫 Refutation of competing deities presented, highlighting the universal order and predictability as evidence for theism. 38:53 💡 The contingency argument asserts that the cause of reality cannot be limited; any ultimate explanation must be free from deficiencies, flaws, or limits. 39:13 🛑 Arguments against theism are dismissed as hand-waving, with the claim that the evidence remains strong for theism. 42:43 🔄 Pantheism is defended as less ad hoc, simpler, and coherent, working with various evidence, while theism's assumptions lack empirical support. 45:17 🤖 Raphael Lataster argues that Trent Horn has advocated for supernaturalism, not theism, as he hasn't provided calculations or considered alternatives. 46:31 🛡️ Trent Horn responds to Raphael's argument from evil and hiddenness, placing the burden of proof on Raphael to show that non-belief is incompatible with God's existence. 47:15 💼 Trent Horn defends theism against alternatives, citing the contingency argument and moral argument as evidence for a necessary, morally perfect, and personal God. 48:37 🚀 Trent Horn claims Raphael hasn't addressed evidence for the contingency argument, moral argument, and fine-tuning, asserting a reasonable belief in God's existence. 49:06 📜 Trent Horn argues that moral facts' existence implies a cosmic planner, challenging the atheistic idea of a purposeless universe. 50:57 🤔 Raphael Lataster questions Trent Horn's reliance on deductive arguments, urging him to embrace probabilistic reasoning and make a case specifically for theism. 51:40 🔄 Raphael Lataster identifies as an agnostic and challenges Trent Horn to elevate theism over other supernaturalisms, emphasizing the need for probabilistic analysis. 54:23 🧐 Trent Horn questions Raphael Lataster's argument about divine hiddenness, asking for evidence supporting the premise that God's existence would lead to no reasonable non-belief. 55:04 🔄 Raphael Lataster argues that naturalism, deism, and theism are equally likely in the absence of direct evidence, emphasizing the lack of observable divine intervention. 56:32 🤷 Raphael Lataster expresses uncertaintyabout what evidence for God's existence would look like, highlighting the difficulty of proving a negative and the need for specific scenarios. 57:02 🔄 Raphael Lataster explains that witnessing a limb regrowing could impress him, but he emphasizes the importance of contextual details, like praying in the name of Jesus, to differentiate divine action. 58:43 💭 Raphael Lataster challenges Trent Horn's reliance on deductive arguments, questioning why he resists probabilistic reasoning and urges a specific case for theism instead of generic supernaturalism. 01:05:24 🔍 Trent Horn defends his use of deductive reasoning, emphasizing the need for uncontroversial premises, and rejects the idea of probabilistic reasoning for his arguments. 01:06:20 🌌 Trent argues that infinities are impossible in the real world, but qualities for God can be infinite in a different sense, such as God's knowledge, existence, and power. 01:08:07 🔄 The debate touches on the concept of the universe being timeless, with a discussion on eternal God versus an eternal universe, considering possibilities like multiverses and pantheism. 01:09:34 ⚖️ The conversation delves into moral ontology and epistemology, questioning the basis for claiming an objective standard of morality and highlighting challenges related to moral truths in religious texts. 01:20:00 🌌 A question challenges the efficiency and design of the universe, questioning why God would create a vast universe over billions of years with seemingly indifferent periods before intervening. 01:24:19 🤔 Raphael suggests that deism might serve as a stepping stone in spiritual journeys, acknowledging its appeal but pointing out that it may not address the broader questions about ultimate reality. 01:27:10 🎲 A question challenges the necessity of attributing the existence of the universe to God, proposing that randomness or chance could be sufficient explanations without invoking a divine creator. 01:28:07 🌌 Trent argues that the fine-tuning of the universe makes it fantastically more likely that God exists, citing odds and invoking John Leslie's counter-example. 01:29:33 🔄 Raphael finds the fine-tuning argument interesting but notes that we only know one universe and several philosophers have turned fine-tuning into an argument against God's existence. 01:30:01 🧠 Raphael suggests that the relationship between evidence and hypothesis fits 100% with naturalism and fine-tuning, making it an argument against God's existence. 01:31:20 🤔 Raphael acknowledges the possibility that God might have revealed Himself to someone closed to that revelation but asserts that a loving, all-knowing God would find a way to convince him. 01:34:44 🕰️ Trent explains that theologians argue God's timelessness means simultaneous existence of all knowledge and will, allowing actions without temporal sequence. 01:36:35 🤔 Raphael questions the necessity of God's timelessness and suggests our view of time is shaped by our localized universe, leaving room for uncertainties. 01:37:41 🔀 Raphael admits that if convinced of God's existence, he would follow and accept God, even referencing Abraham's extreme test as an example of consistency. 01:40:32 🤝 Trent summarizes the debate, emphasizing the concession of supernaturalism by Raphael and the focus on "which God" rather than "if God." 01:41:56 🌐 Trent argues that his deductive arguments, fine-tuning, and moral values point towards theism, specifically a necessary, unlimited reality, countering alternative supernaturalisms. 01:45:27 🔗 Raphael criticizes Trent's arguments as not exclusive to theism and highlights the complexity of defining atheism, stressing the importance of considering alternative supernaturalisms in the debate.

So much for Trent and his statement sounds a lot like special pleading.

PERSONAL NOTES (from @thivan2000) 0:00 Moderator's speech 3:58 Trent's opening statement Trent's philosophical arguments of the existence of God 6:04 Reason #1: The Universe exists. 8:30 Reason #2: The Universe began to exist. 11:28 Reason #3: The Universe contains predictable order. 13:22 Reason #4: The Universe contains extrinsic dignity and extrinsic evils. 17:45 Trent's opening conclusion 18:26 Rafael's opening statement "I'm sorry, I think he's a good guy, I don't have anything against him, I'm not being biased but help me here. I didn't clearly get his point of argument. He was all over the place." -@thivan2000 32:00 Trent's 1st affirmative rebuttal. 39:10 Rafael's 1st negative rebuttal 46:15 Trent's 2nd affirmative rebuttal 50:40 Rafael's 2nd negative rebuttal 53:48 Cross examination * 55:48 Trent asks: "What would constitute evidence for God's existence?" 1:10:40 Q&A from the audition 1:40:00 Trent's closing statement 1:44:05 Rafael's closing statement 1:48:30 Debate concludes. Speech by Francis Tamer, President, Sydney University Catholic Society.

Hi can I send you some files to look in to them please !?

Raphael says that William Lane Craig "refused" to debate him? I want to see the proof of that! The coward Richard Dawkins is the one who refused to debate WLC!

atheism is silly toddler-tantrumish nonsense.

Is infinity the God of Atheism? infinate time, infinate universes, Yet nobody has ever demonstrated a real infinity in the real world ever. Speaking as an agnostic it is just as speculative as God himself.

they stop yapping at 18:23 and the debate starts

Debate Topic: Does God Exist? Affirmative: Trent Horn Negative:

I am an agnostic and think Trent utterly embarrassed this dude.

jesus soul had numerous life incarnations! The is only one god! The Creator created god! Jesus is not god! Jesus soul is just that a soul! If you have a soul you go to heaven!This is not larry! This is the senior foundation angel!

Imagine jesus doing this or apostle Paul. Mr Trent is no match with jesus & Paul.

Wonderful education. I converted to be Catholic from Episcopalianism in 1994, at 43. I did it because my original church could not tell me what happened to my loved ones after they died. And I had a lot of dead loved ones! Also, much I learned for my 1962 confirmation was wrong, for example: there is no Satan, they said! So I did on my own this migration. And it is the best thing that I ever did!

.

Why should one race decide who they want to live in other races? We know someone from WW11 who made similar decisions.

Trent is right. Nothing can come from nothing.

Ralph is a tad condecending here, but his opening statement was on point and ended this "debate" right then and there. But I guess given the channel's name, people chose their "winner" and just went with it. For example: 1:03:41 No Trent, you don't argue what we observe "logically to the conclusion". We haven't observed something coming from nothing. But, you're absolutely right, a deductive argument is fine as long as you can show the premises are true. You haven't shown the premises are true, ergo you have no (deductive) argument. Likewise 1:12:09 Trent, you make an argument, that "the past is made succesfully day by day" and since you can't count an infinite number of days in the past, ergo the universe had a beginning. But again, you have not shown your premise to be true, namely, that the past can only be made by counting the number of days which must be finite in the past. Again, you are not reasoning "logically to the conclusion" but reasoning backwards; starting with a conclusion (universe must have a beginning) and coming up with a false premise (the past is made by adding finite days). Also, 57:21 is just pure gold.

Interesting debate. I watched an old Craig vs Hitchens debate in the last few days, and preferred this one because it was more philosophical - and Trent is so on point. I will say however that I don’t know why theists accept any part of the premise of the “inefficiency of creation” question. God is outside of time, so there is no inefficiency. A billion years is the same as an instant to God. It is only our limited minds that views time expanses as long, or the size of the universe as so large. Our understanding of these is shaped by our own lifespan and our own size relative to the rest of the universe.

Catholics protect pedos

We know that the universe is finite from Science, the big bang theory.

1:11:28 If you shoot an arrow at a target, it must first travel half the distance… but it must travel half *that* distance as well… etc. etc. etc. Ad Infinitum. Therefore, one can never hit a target with an arrow! Mr. Horn’s argument for the impossibility of progression within an infinite set of divisions was disproven 2,000 years ago in Classical Antiquity.

Just join the Anglican Ordinariate

Praise be to God. Amen 🙏

No body say's that imagination is nightmare fuel, vision is resemblance for energy of soul use. Why people so protective then someone say's "You stupid!?". It determined by mind and body reaction to stimulus, but not soul aura or future path predetermined from last reincarnation. Eye's don't see shit body and soul do.