Debate Teacher Reacts: Trent Horn vs. Matt Dillahunty

Welcome to another episode of Debate Teacher Reacts! Today, I'm reacting to the debate between Trent Horn and Matt Dillahunty on the topic: Is Belief in the Resurrection Reasonable? Who outdebated the other? Who stumbled badly? Find out in this ep!
Link to the full debate: • Is belief in the Resur...
Get your Wise Disciple merch here: bit.ly/wisedisciple
Want a BETTER way to communicate your Christian faith? Check out my website: www.wisedisciple.org
OR Book me as a speaker at your next event: wisedisciple.org/reserve/​​​
Want to see my reaction to Mike Winger vs. Matt Dillahunty? Check it out here: • Debate Teacher Reacts:...
Got a question in the area of theology, apologetics, or engaging the culture for Christ? Send them to me and I will answer on an upcoming podcast: wisedisciple.org/ask/​

[@el-duderino975]

Matt: "in order for me to believe in a resurrection story i need a doctors note" Luke: "am i a joke to you?"

[@RandyWinn42]

Luke never says that he saw Jesus; in fact the Gospel of Luke is, in its own terms, a compilation of what others have said

[@petri2767]

Irelelvant, but Luke was not written by Luke.

[@taripar4967]

@petri2767 Who in the first or second centuries argued Luke was not written by Luke? Surely you have documented evidence of early disputed authroship.

[@ajamusic7322]

Then how about: Luke, a medical professional that lived when Jesus had lived, received the testimonies of others about the Resurrection, and Luke, a medical physician, believed it and reported about it. As a bonus, the last person in Jesus' time you would think would believe and accept the Resurrection of Jesus is a member of the Sanhedrin that rejected Jesus and actively hunted people who believed in his Resurrection.

[@markhiggins8315]

​

[@FaithRefinedByFire]

The next time someone shows up to debate Matt Dillahunty, they should come wearing a t-shirt that says, "I'm not convinced!"

[@PrenticeBoy1688]

Not that we were in any doubt as to the value of Dillahunty's expert opinion, but we now know that he opines that the man in his late twenties with whom he lives and engages in a sexual relationship, is in fact, a woman.

[@3irdcity902]

If anyone ever needs Trent Horn to be a character in film or television, Miles Teller should play him

[@danielhagans4304]

I have listened to hours of him on the atheist experience and “I’m not convinced” along with a barrage of insults and then hanging up on callers was his tactic the vast majority of the time.

[@user-fq9ij4we4r]

Matt left atheist experience. He has his own show now. Plus, he's a magician.

[@zarfvreex8260]

18:40 Dillahunty believes in "Only the things that can be empirically verified are the things that we should hold onto." This is somewhat ironic and hypocritical considering that he believes that trans-women are real women.

[@shreddedhominid1629]

That's because trans people have been verified by science. Lol how embarrassing for you.

[@ThomWalbranA1]

That has what to do with the topic of this debate? Nothing, is your brain too small to stay on topic?

[@theramblinmahoney2316]

It’s kind of the ultimate counter to any of his arguments.

[@shreddedhominid1629]

That is a bad argument because Matt is using a different definition of woman than you are, one that can be empirically verified by merely asking a person what gender they are, and receiving a sincere answer.

[@theramblinmahoney2316]

@@shreddedhominid1629 Man, woman. You’re the one you were born as. Regardless of whatever language you use.

[@j-psavoie8173]

I'm not even a Christian, and yet I find that the comments on the original video being laudatory of Dillahunty shows how people simply do not know what a debate is...

[@FuddlyDud]

Out of curiosity, why not a Christian? :)

[@j-psavoie8173]

@@FuddlyDud Well, obviously I am culturally a Christian, like everyone in the West, but I can't say that I'm a believer. I'm very sympathetic toward a theistic worldview because of the various philosophical and scientific arguments derived, notably, from the Big Bang and the fine-tuning of the universe, as well as the possible implications of quantum physics. Nevertheless, I find myself unconvinced by the evidence regarding the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. Some of it is fascinating but not quite enough for me, as I find myself rather violently struggling with it. I just can't make the leap of faith despite being thoroughly unimpressed with the debating skills and intellectual prowess of so-called atheist thinkers.

[@FuddlyDud]

@@j-psavoie8173 Well, it sounds like you've really wrestled with all the best arguments so far! Good on you man! :) On the evidence for the ressurection of Jesus, how do you approach the evidence that we do have? I am curious since I have changed how I measure the evidence and would love to chat about it and (hopefully) we can trade perspectives on it! :)

[@j-psavoie8173]

@@FuddlyDud How would you like to chat about it? I agree that it would probably be an interesting conversation.

[@FuddlyDud]

@@j-psavoie8173 I am available via phone, email, or we can just go back and forth here. What works for you? :)

[@kvnboudreaux]

Trent is actually a really good debater, hard working and well prepared, you should definitely do more

[@billgoldberg5459]

Imagine him with Dr. James White. They’d be unstoppable

[@ar2ro969]

​​@@billgoldberg5459White is a heretic

[@MarkMetternichPhotographyLLC]

Matt Dillahunty has been doing this for a long time. I’m so glad someone is finally calling him out on his BS. He never deals with the real questions. He is a master rhetorician!

[@wessbess]

He is not! He is an angry bully and he got his bout whipped!!!

[@MarkMetternichPhotographyLLC]

@@wessbess He is not what?

[@ToelJhute]

@@MarkMetternichPhotographyLLC i think the other dude is saying that Dillahunty is not a master rhetorician

[@mountbrocken]

@@wessbess Bingo he is a pseudo intellectual, and an intellectual bully.

[@matt_h_27]

As Nate said on another debate review, no one should ever debate Dillahunty. Nate was more polite about it but I'll just say it bluntly. Dillahunty is a clown.

[@DenverJohn]

Matt's been doing this for a loooong time. He has a loyal following so he won't change his methods. David Robertson also showed how to handle Matt in a 1 on 1 discussion/debate.

[@robinrobyn1714]

Absolutely. Spot on. Robertson handed Matt Dillahunty his a**. Both debates they engaged in.

[@homedepotindustrialfan936]

As did Andrew Wilson, since he made Matt ragequit a few months ago lol

[@Seanph25]

I’m Agnostic but that last exchange was incredibly frustrating. Matt literally says that what he would need to accept a resurrection is testimonial evidence, but then disguises it as something else. Then he tries to pin Trent by making him admit that he would accept something on testimonial evidence alone, while saying that that is not sufficient, even though that’s literally what Matt just said he would need. That makes absolutely no sense yet he continues to try and just bully Trent into it and take it as a big win. Incredibly confusing and dishonest take by Matt. Honestly pretty embarrassing and incredibly unreasonable on his part there.

[@timothyvenable3336]

Thank you for sharing! I’m glad it’s not just Christian who think Matt was frustrating. 😃

[@who-lo-lolee-oh1079]

Matt isnt concerned with the truth only winning the debate. This is why he has it set up to his advantage. im glad people are finally calling him out on it.

[@pleaseenteraname1103]

And the thing I dislike about him in particular and his brand is his audience, I can’t stand 90% of his audience. And also what annoyed me was in his debate with Tyler Vela,people in the comments were complaining, that Tyler didn’t present evidence for God, he kept asking Matt throughout the entire debate what evidence would convince him, and he couldn’t even make up his mind. And Tyler ask him if God rearranged the stars to spell his name, would he accept that as evidence and he said yes and then literally immediately after he said he would accept that he immediately undermines that, by saying that’s ridiculous and he could never accept that.

[@pleaseenteraname1103]

The biggest issue is just Matt he doesn’t care about the topic he just doesn’t care, I think that is the biggest insult.

[@gabz1026]

I don’t think Matt is intellectually capable for a debate, he’s just a bully pretty pathetic.

[@Zosso-1618]

“Are you willing to accept the resurrection based only on testimonial evidence?” Yes, and you are too, Matt! Very frustrating.

[@richiecabo]

Trent - "What do you mean by physical evidence?" Matt - "I don't know, um, a doctor's report..." Luke was literally a doctor, debate over.

[@ernesto.748]

Love this 😂😂😂

[@Dr.IanPlect]

What a stupid comment.

[@PrismBot]

That's one way to be a dishonest creatard, sure. He was way more specific than just "a doctor's report". But you decided to ignore that nuance to make it sound like any ole doctor's assertions about what happened would be sufficient. Moreover, we don't know who wrote the Gospel of Luke. The Gospels are anonymous, unsigned documents. We have no evidence that Luke was real or was the person who wrote the book of Luke.

[@pleaseenteraname1103]

@@PrismBot Nice psychologizeing, immediately attacking peoples motives and accusing them of being dishonest because I disagree with you. There was no nuance, because they want to use no idea what the hell he’s talking about he hasn’t looked into this issue whatsoever because he doesn’t care too, he’s just throwing out claims he doesn’t know what even constitute as evidence. That’s an assertion and several scholars such as Richard Bachman, Craig Blomberg, Daniel Wallace, Greg Evans, N.T Wright, D.A Carson would beg to differ, there’s a lot of good reasons to believe Luke actually wrote the gospel of Luke. The gospels are formally anonymous, in many scholars were disagreed that’s just an assertion. Another assertion, 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 this is laughably False are you a Christ Myther, we literally know where his gravesite is. We also have him being mentioned by later writers, there are no scholars that dispute that Luke was a real person not even Robert price or Richard Carrier, do you believe Heraclitus, Cicero, democracies, Zeno, or most of the Egyptian pharaohs are real people? Because for a lot of those people have for those people I mentioned Heraclitus and democracies we have absolutely no archaeological evidence of them are we have a fragments of later writers who mentioned them, do you believe they existed? Both of those statements are false we have plenty of evidence he wrote the gospel of Luke and we have plenty of evidence that he exists, we have undeniable proof he existed, but we don’t have undeniable proof that he wrote the gospel that’s debatable and there is a lot of opinions on both sides. I mean if you’re gonna deny that Luke is a real person you might as well just deny that Julius Caesar is a real person or Alexander the Great. We also have the book of acts not just the gospel of Luke.

[@Mayeverycreaturefindhappiness]

1.we actually don't know that.2. Luke never met Jesus or saw the body.3. what it meant to be a doctor back then is not the same.4. We actually have no idea who Luke was.

[@likeahouseonfire]

Really enjoying this channel. I'm learning a lot and it helps to tame my biases and the natural instinct to want "my guy/girl" to win.

[@bystander265]

I like how Matt asks a loaded question at the end. He can't answer yes or no without appearing guilty of something. If he says no, then that proves Matts point that you shouldn't believe solely on testimony. If he says yes, he's going to be saying that yes this is the only thing that will make him believe. When It's not that Trent is saying either of these, he's saying he's going to have a confidence level by accepting these testimonials as a piece of evidence not that this is the ONLY WAY he's going to accept the resurrection. Which is leading into a strawman fallacy. Matt just likes to get hot headed when ever he's against the ropes and always resorts to some type of fallacy. This is the problem when the time belongs to only one person asking questions. Matt however loves to not answer questions when ever he thinks someone is misinterpreting what he's saying but demands the other person to answer the question regardless of what he has to say. This just makes Matt a hypocrite with anger issues.

[@pleaseenteraname1103]

That’s why they call him a Dillahunty dodge he doesn’t even attempt to give a justification for his stance in this debate, and really he doesn’t ever take a position in any debate most of the time, because he says that he doesn’t need to take any position he lacks any and all the burden of proof because atheism is nothing more than a lack of belief and requires no justification and carries no proof proof, I find it hilarious that people say Christian take the burden of proof and there definitely are questions I do shift bonus proof, but a prime example of an atheist who does this especially debate is Dillahunty he will change the subject or he will move the goal post or he will just completely dodge the question altogether just so he doesn’t ever have to defend his own claims and presuppositions, I don’t get why he has such a big fan base I mean I’m sure that he’s a nice guy if I met him in person, but he doesn’t seem to be able to actually engage in any topic dealing with philosophy or Christianity be on the most superficial level possible.

[@untrillbo]

It’s not a loaded question because every piece of evidence Trent has is testimonial. He doesn’t have physical evidence and probability isn’t on his side. Other than hearsay Trent has no way to link his claim to being a real world event.

[@CelticSpiritsCoven]

@@pleaseenteraname1103 The reason why Dillahunty has a large fan base is because Atheism is a cult religion, so his fellow cult members feel they must follow him.

[@pleaseenteraname1103]

@@CelticSpiritsCoven I feel like the appeal also comes with the fact that Dillahunty used to be a Christian fundamentalist, so he speaks to people who also had fundamentalist upbringing who have a resentment towards the Christian faith now. So they cling to people like Dillahunty and etc.

[@christopherianlister5212]

49.00 trent says he believes people come back from the dead as someone says so mate...

[@tam_chris20]

Excellent analysis sir... great... great that I found ur channel randomly

[@matthewmanucci]

In asking Trent the ressurection claim questions, Matt demonstrates that he missed the point. He was so caught up in "getting back" at him that he didn't understand why that question applied to his position and not to his opponents. This is a typical atheist mistake. They sometimes forget the debate and get emotionally caught up in trying to make the highlight reel.

[@chrismabe2661]

@ Wise Disciple: It would be cool to see you review James White vs Trent Horn. They have only had one debate and it’s on KZbin. I believe it is on can a Christian lose their salvation. It seems like it would be edifying to see a review of a well-handled debate from both sides. Love the reviews. They are helpful.

[@WiseDisciple]

Got it on the list, thank you Chris!

[@TheLordismyportion]

As a former LD debater in the NSDA circuit, and as a Christian, I have never found any other resource that effectively intersects both areas. Love the channel Nate!

[@upbnap2119]

Glad I found this channel, great work!

[@realmichaelteo]

Dillahunty's whole argument is a personal incredulity fallacy.

[@shaqyardie8105]

Is it really though? The only evidence Trent has that a ressurection took place is that a book said it happened. That's not good enough.

[@realmichaelteo]

@@shaqyardie8105 It's many books, not "a book". What evidence is there that any historical events happened other than "a book said it happened"? By MD's standard we should deny all things that are outside immediate sensory perception.

[@shaqyardie8105]

@@realmichaelteo It's many books, not "a book".- Wow, really? It's constructed into 1 book, so it's 1 book, not that it's even relevant to whether it's true or not. "What evidence is there that any historical events happened other than "a book said it happened"? " - The problem is that the bible is filled with supernatural claims that have yet to be proven. A virgin giving birth, man moonwalking on water, raising the dead, feeding 5000 people with 7 food items, dying and coming back to life, you just believe all this stuff because a book said it happened? The koran says that the moon split in 2 and mohammad ascended to heaven on a winged horse. Why don't you believe that. Supernatural claims require supernatural evidence. By your logic, the dementors in Harry Potter are real too.

[@Preservestlandry]

​@@realmichaelteo the real life effects. King Edward abdicated and his brother wouldn't have been king otherwise. QEII wouldn't have been queen. Everyone agrees she was, not just her cult followers.

[@realmichaelteo]

​@@Preservestlandry "the real life effects" is not an argument... but let's go with your logic. If Jesus did not exist we could not date his birth. Everyone agrees it's 2023 AD, not just his "cult followers". To be clear... I'm *not* saying that's a good argument. I'm just demonstrating with a parallel example that your argument is fallacious. The fact that QEII was queen does not prove events in the past. It only shows that the received story may possibly explain common perceived reality.

[@NicklasNylander87]

Im very happy Horn us getting praise, he is one of the best in my opinion!

[@calson814]

Agreed.

[@ladillalegos]

Trent DESTROYED Matt, being obtuse and skeptical can just take you so far

[@pleaseenteraname1103]

The biggest issue with Dillahunty is just that he doesn’t care about the topic, that to me is the biggest insult when you just straight up don’t care about the topic at all.

[@borneandayak6725]

​@@pleaseenteraname1103 Matt is just a liar and manipulator.

[@shaqyardie8105]

But Trent's only evidence that a ressuection took place is that a book says it happened. There's literally nothing outside of a book that proves that a man died and came back to life. Christianity isn't even the first religion to have a ressurection story.

[@bellustheshibus638]

@@pleaseenteraname1103can you elaborate on what you mean when you say matt doesn't care about the topic?

[@pleaseenteraname1103]

@@bellustheshibus638 I would be more than glad to. Because the fact that he’s been doing these types of debates on the resurrection for over a decade at this point, and he still isn’t familiar with the basic primary literature from either sides of this topic, despite the fact he’s literally debated Mike Licona, and still completely clueless is sufficient enough evidence to me that he really just doesn’t care about the topic.

[@askbrettmanning]

Matt continuously describes a world that can be interpreted correctly, by individuals using their senses. That by using reason and observation, people can learn to not be fooled. The interesting thing is that he never question himself. He is omniscient, all-knowing, always, his own God. And the arrogance that comes along with these claims is evident every time he speaks.

[@BerishaFatian]

Three questions for Matt: 1. Matt wants physical evidence for Jesus since (according to him) historical records are just claims, and (again according to him) claims are not evidence. In that case how would he know that the physical evidence that he so desperately wants, belonged to Jesus? There would be only historical claims that those physical evidence belonged to Jesus. But (according to Matt) he shouldn't trust claims, which means he shouldn't trust the physical evidence neither. Which means he shouldn't trust anything from history. 2. If Matt is not a historian and he doesn't care what methods historians use, does that mean that because historians agree that Jesus was real, means that there is proof of Jesus, but since he's not a historian, he doesn't know that there is proof of Jesus cause he doesn't recognize it as proof since, again he's not a historian. 3. Yes, the covid vaccine is science, but did he test the vaccine in the lab to see if it works, or does he just trusts the doctors' claims that the vaccine works, and that he should take it?

[@LucianUmbrarescu1994]

I just discovered your channel and I love these reviews that you're putting on. Very instructive! I wish you the best in Christ and much grace, power and energy for the work in general!

[@borneandayak6725]

Trent Horn schooled Mat Dillahunty.

[@shaqyardie8105]

Yes, because saying "a book said a ressurection happened, so therefore it happened" = being schooled. This was a weak debate from Matt, but the point still stands, a god has never revealed themselves to anyone on this planet beyond a reasonable doubt yet expects us to just believe the supernatural claims in the bible or he'll burn us in an unproven afterlife. What an amazing god you've got there lololol.

[@OppressedPotato]

​@shaqyardie8105 what do you mean by "reasonable doubt"? What would be reasonable evidence?

[@qpghostqp9551]

​@@shaqyardie8105is there any physical evidence of anything happened in history with physical evidence he literally said that if there was a doctor's report which is just another testimony so even in his own definition someone could say the doctor is lying. Is there physical evidence that George Washington was real? If so where's the physical evidence

[@shaqyardie8105]

@@OppressedPotato I don't know, but god should know. And "a book says so" isn't exactly reasonable, is it?

[@shaqyardie8105]

@@qpghostqp9551 lol the claims that a man named George Washington existed is reasonable. The claims that a man was born of a virgin, moonwalked on water, raised the dead, fed 5000 people with 7 food items and died and came back to life needs a bit more evidence than the claim that a man named George Washington existed. This shouldn't be difficult. Provide evidence that all this supernatural shit happened or I don't believe you?

[@nickhancock5584]

Addicted to these videos, great stuff

[@LilDizNick]

Matt Dillahunty has always had the skill of using the biggest, most impressive words to say absolutely nothing

[@jd3jefferson556]

He says he's frustrated with Christians denying science... then Matt dates a man, but it's not gay because his boyfriend identifies as a woman... crazy times we live in

[@LilDizNick]

@@jd3jefferson556 Being a former Atheist myself, eyes opened and saved by the grace of God, I can plainly see the mental gymnastics one has to do to deny the existence of God. And it points out another truth of the Bible that God will give people over to a reprobate mind eventually.

[@jd3jefferson556]

@@LilDizNick I was an atheist myself for most of my life until my late 20s. It's amazing how beautiful and clear the world looks when you start following Jesus, and just " whatever He tells you"

[@Derek_Baumgartner]

Keep up the good work!

[@WiseDisciple]

Thank you Derek!

[@Super3face]

"ill take all my hats of in honor of MD" hahahaha actually made my crack up Can you please do Greg Bahnsen vs Gordon Stein? As someone who loves debates but doesn't really understand how someone is winning id love to see this one :)

[@WiseDisciple]

Got it on the list! Thanks for the suggestion (and for watching)!

[@nrg753]

That's an oldie but Bahnsen was a genius and it'd be worth doing even if the recording isn't up to 2021 standards!

[@shawn4888]

@@WiseDisciple it's a rather bad suggestion as it only shows that Stein didn't research the then barely known presupp argument. Bahnsen himself didn't actually make a fully formed argument. The only points he scored were on the issues Stein was unprepared for and so couldn't come up with detailed response. Bahnsen would get "crucified" by anyone who is familiar with the argument as his many followers have been.

[@combatdummy__8081]

So Matt wants medical records for the resurrection but what does a medical record look like in that time and in that geographical area?

[@segheg]

Great video and observations!

[@agoogleuserblootet5111]

Dillahunty is not very bright......

[@hunternichols6273]

He's very intelligent, just obtuse and sucks at debating

[@stephenwilson2292]

I think a big problem with Matt as a debater is he often isn’t taking a hard stance as the majority of his positions in debate are the other side hasn’t provided reasonable evidence to make their claims. And appealing to a historical account to prove non-natural claims isn’t sufficient, unless I’m to accept all of the historical accounts of sea monsters, Norse, Roman, Egyptian, Greek…, gods that also interfered and or resurrected. Which them makes resurrections a fairly common experience and not something that would help to demonstrate a god.

[@AbleAnderson]

That's only a problem if you view debates as yes vs no battles. There's another way to view these types of interactions: as honest conversations where 2 honest people try to converge on what's actually going on in reality. Viewed through this lens, Matt is just honestly conveying his position. Matt is living his life, and people are going around making tons of assertions about the universe that can't be tested or verified, and Matt is genuinely asking from the bottom of his heart "what reason/evidence is there to believe this is the case?" That is an honest position; he's not arbitrarily defending a "side," he's giving his true thoughts on the matter. It's not a problem in any sense for him to ask this, and the fact that the reasons given don't rise to the level of scientific skepticism isn't a problem with Matt either, it's a problem with the claims people are making and the poor evidence for them.

[@zacharyberridge7239]

That's kind of the point, isn't it?

[@AbleAnderson]

@@zacharyberridge7239 What is the point?

[@zacharyberridge7239]

@@AbleAnderson that wasn't in reply to you, but the original commenter. Just saying the whole, "I'm not taking a hard stance, I just don't think you've got sufficient evidence to justify your beliefs". Which is true, and accurate, and keeps the burden of proof where it needs to be.

[@Correactor]

That's not a problem, that's just the position he happens to find himself in. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and the burden of proof is on the claimant, not the refuter. It's not Matt's job to convince everyone why it isn't reasonable, because that isn't the extraordinary claim. It's Trent's job to convince people that it is reasonable, and the only question that matters is did he do that?

[@londonapologetics]

Quickly turning into one of my favorite channels! Love this style.

[@zeroisnine]

It's pretty clear based on some of the comments that people don't know what a formal debate is like (perhaps instead envisioning twitch debate-bros). So perhaps giving a more explict explanation of what a formal debate is like is called for prior to the next review.

[@stcolreplover]

Debate me bro! I yelled more and was more demeaning, therefore I won the debate!

[@terryhebert9012]

new debate teacher reacts...its a good friday!

[@WiseDisciple]

It IS a good Friday 🙃

[@matt_h_27]

Nate, you should produce a compilation video of Matt Dillahunty debating Matt Dillahunty and critique/react to that.

[@quesotaco5103]

Trent: “Do you believe Bigfoot rose from the dead” Matt: “No” Trent: “How many claims of Bigfoot resurrections have you investigated?” Wise Deciple: “Oooh! Right hook! He totally got him!” Every atheist watching this: 🤦

[@sly8926]

Matt made a claim that resurrections didn’t occur. When he was called out on that claim, he had zero evidence. Every atheist should be embarrassed.

[@quesotaco5103]

@@sly8926 Its pretty hard to come up with evidence to disprove a magical claim…especially one that supposedly happened 2,000 years ago. This is why the burden of proof is on the one making the claim about the magic. Otherwise you would be forced to believe every magical claim ever invented by man because you would never be able to provide evidence of Bigfoot, flying dragons, fairies, vampires or any other mythical creature not existing. Please explain to me how you would provide evidence that fairies can’t die and be resurrected. Have you checked the whole world and determined fairies don’t exist? Maybe they only reveal themselves if you truly believe in fairies? Haven’t you heard of the thousands of eye witness testimonies of people seeing fairies? Maybe they existed a long time ago and resurrected 2,000 years ago but don’t anymore? Please provide your evidence to justify your disbelief in this claim. I guess you should be embarrassed if you can’t right? Trent likes to use this argument because then he doesn’t have to defend the absurdity of resurrections and gets to shift the burden of proof onto the person not making the claim. Its Trents claim to defend, HE is the one who has to define what HE means by the word resurrection and what justifications HE has for believing in it.

[@just_joosh]

​@@sly8926what evidence would you need to agree that resurrections don't occur? It's like needing evidence that the sun rises in the east.

[@sly8926]

@@just_joosh Youre begging the question. What evidence do you have that atheism is accurate or correct? Please do not answer with a question.

[@shaqyardie8105]

@@sly8926 Why should atheists be embarressed? This was not Matt's finest debate, but he does not represent all atheists just as Trent does not represent all christians, but the burden of proof is on the one making the claim. You believe a man died and came back to life literally because a book said it happened. What evidence do you have that it actually happened?

[@gatolf2]

You’re wondering how long Matt has gotten away with his terrible debate tactics and I can tell you, a LONG TIME. He started with a radio show where random callers would call and “debate” him on whether God is real or not. Matt was really good at hitting the mute button on his callers. I don’t know exactly how long he’s done actual debates but it hasn’t been very long.

[@roscowbrown3937]

Christian “God is real because a book says so” Matt “a book saying something doesn’t automatically make it true” DEBATE TACTICS

[@OppressedPotato]

​@@roscowbrown3937we don't believe in God Himself because a book says so. We believe it bc it makes the most logical and scientific sense, given our perfectly ordered universe. We believe specifically in a personal, savior God bc the Bible is proved reliable.

[@roscowbrown3937]

@@OppressedPotato Do you believe this God flooded the planet, that he denounces homosexuality, that there was a guy named Jesus who walked on water and turned that water into wine and died just to come back to life three days later? Are you saying all these things make the most logical and scientific sense?

[@SaltyCorpsman]

@@OppressedPotatoI’ll grant you the logic supports intelligent design, or a god possibly even the Christian God. Idk that science can be used to support that, it is super natural and therefore beyond the scope of the scientific method. I do like that you don’t point to the Bible for that assertion too, it becomes regressive because an atheist can just demand proof that the Bible is infallible and that requires pointing to God as a perfect being and then you end up in a circle. I also agree that the Bible can be incredibly reliable, and for a time was sort of the only historical reference point. I suppose I’m a fence sitter. I act like God is real, mostly because I think Christian values are more ethical than secular/humanist ethics, but I remain unconvinced that the dogma is real. It’s rather frustrating for me.

[@OppressedPotato]

@@SaltyCorpsman so would you consider yourself a full agnostic or more of a deist?

[@paulnash6944]

Bart: There is no evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. Homer: No evidence you’ll believe.

[@JTOG94]

Bruh this channel is nice. I’m screenshooting this sub count to remember when this channel breaks 1 million.

[@areweourselves]

I would love to see a debate between you(Wise Disciple) and Matt Dillahunty.

[@pleaseenteraname1103]

It would be the same as every Dillahunty debate, the guy is just a one trick pony, and a total weasel.

[@cygnusustus]

Resurrections have never been confirmed. This is simply a fact. Does Trent provide any support for his claim that at least one resurrection has occurred? No, of course not, and that is his burden of proof. How sad that you teach debate, but understand nothing about critical thinking or epistemology.

[@davidlee4903]

FR. Hinging your credibility on resurrection claims is not only dishonest, it's idiotic.

[@juanisaac5172]

Thoughts cant be confirmed either just mental activity. But here yo u are writing your thoughts.

[@cygnusustus]

@@juanisaac5172 If I am writing them, that confirms they are my thoughts. Do you have any serious rebuttals?

[@juanisaac5172]

@@cygnusustus Where is the science behind that? Chemical reactions exist in your brain. One can see those but can one see the words you are about to write. I mean, if you are married can you see your wife's love? I mean love is said to exist but I have never seen a picture of love. The whole point of Trent is that events occurs that defy science and logic. How many stories have you seen of people dying of terminal cancer only to not have it one day to the next? Same thing with death. Most people who die are gone and never return. But once in a while a person comes back and science can't explain it.

[@cygnusustus]

@@juanisaac5172 "One can see those but can one see the words you are about to write." In fact, yes. Neuroscience has gotten to the point where it can predict the decisions people are going to make before they make them. "I mean, if you are married can you see your wife's love?" I can see expressions of love, and we would also be able to detect increased endorphins or activity in specific areas of her brain. So....yes. "The whole point of Trent is that events occurs that defy science and logic." A. Show me some. B. How would this justify belief in God? In the end, it is a fact that resurrections have never been confirmed. Trent claimed that at least one has occurred. Either provide evidence for that claim in your next reply, or your objections are dismissed.

[@Akhil_Chilukapati]

Wise Disciple, Really loving your videos Can you please look into the Debate between Dr. Bart Ehrman Vs Dr. Micheal Brown On problem of Suffering.

[@josephthomasmusic]

From 23:40 on, Matt gave examples of what would constitute as physical evidence and when Trent rebutted what he said by saying that that's not an example of physical evidence that's an example of testimonial evidence, Matt asked the question again as if to accept Trent's answer. When you don't respond to the answer, that automatically means that you are an agreement with your opponent. So therefore by effectively asking the question again Matt concedes that his own example of what constitutes a physical evidence defeats his argument and therefore is effectually changing his criteria as to what kind of evidence would constitute as physical. I think Trent would have benefited from calling Matt out on that, because he's doing the exact same thing in changing his definition of physical evidence as he is with changing the rules of his role in the debate. He can change the criteria of how he's to conduct himself into the debate and he can also change around his definition as to what constitutes is physical evidence. This just shows effectually that Matt is operating from a double-minded standpoint when he comes into a debate and he will do everything he can to play word games to get out of that double bind. His own verificationism is what keeps him stuck within that dilemma for himself yet no Christian who's debated him has ever pointed this out.

[@pleaseenteraname1103]

Yeah whenever he gets backed into a corner or he’s ever forced to take a position he just doesn’t. He doesn’t ever wanna be pinned down on a specific position or defend a position so he just doesn’t ever take one, it’s a pretty dishonest and foolish strategy if you ask me but somehow he’s seen as a some type of intellectual and a hero by many atheists? I really don’t get it I can see why people like cosmic skeptic, rationality rules, or even some of the new atheists like Sam Harris or Christopher Hitchens. But I genuinely don’t understand why Dillahunty is as popular as he is, he has nothing substantive or profound to bring to the table at all it’s just circular reasoning and foolishness. Dillahunty basically just switches between like five different positions when it’s convenient for him I like how Nate put it he basically goes in with a bunch of hats and tries to each wear one , he did the exact same thing in his debate with Sye, he said that truth is something that exists independent of humans and something is true whether or not humans believe that it is true, and regardless of your own personal feelings or how much you sincerely believe in that thing, but then Sye asked him what does source of truth is? And he said human minds, so he literally contradicted himself, so you’re telling me the truth exist independently of humans yet the source of truth is human minds? Makes sense if you’re an atheist I guess 😜.

[@josephthomasmusic]

@@pleaseenteraname1103 yep and this is why the new atheism has completely lost its cultural grasp on the West in recent years. It's all based on a bunch of aggressive and non-serious tactics involving the belittling of people who have religious views or people who challenged the atheistic views when really the atheists have nothing to back up anything that they claim. In fact it's the new atheism that caused the West to go in the direction of extreme leftism, according to atheist Peter Boghossian, the author of the book A Manuel for Creating Atheists. He actually says that the new atheism is what caused extreme leftism to emerge, in which people don't want it back up anything that they say with evidence, they just want to hold everything purely by emotion. Same thing with the new atheism. It's all shallow emotion and yet no evidence yet they claim to be on the side of evidence. Got to love the hypocritical backwards logic of the secular mind.

[@TheologyUnleashed]

I'd love to hear you analyse my reincarnation debate.

[@sensereference2227]

Someone should show this to Matt. I'm curious about how he would respond to these criticisms of his performance.

[@TheEternalOuroboros]

A copy and paste of another comment here: There wasn’t a punch landed on Matt. Resurrection claims reside outside our understanding of physics. They can be dismissed along with other supernatural claims. Pointing to 3 or 3000 resurrection claims is irrelevant. The mechanism which brings about resurrections must crafted by the scientific method. Resurrections, which would transform physics, doesn’t receive a hall pass when evolution, Big Bang, and other major theories explaining our reality were forged in the fire of the scientific method. Resurrection claims carry the same burden of evidence. They are not true merely by claims. A claim that would transform physics requires more than the claim itself.

[@sweetcell8767]

@@TheEternalOuroboros That is probably the case, but it’s not enough to say that in a debate, where arguments are required to back your assertions.

[@TheEternalOuroboros]

@@sweetcell8767 Unfalsifiable claims are worthless.

[@sweetcell8767]

@@TheEternalOuroboros I can see where you’re coming from dude, but you don’t seem to be considering the specific domain of this debate. In this debate the nature of falsification is under discussion. Questions of what constitutes evidence, and of what justifies our beliefs are under discussion. The unfalsifiable claims argument is a circular one in this particular debate. You seem to be coming from a type of all guns blazing, Richard Dawkins, Aronra point of view, where philosophical questions are posited as having no place in a debate, period. However, I think you will find that these two guys, and others, represent the dogmatic sector of atheist thought. I used to be attracted to this as well, but over time I discovered that it was really missing out on exploring so many fascinating question about our existence. I remain an atheist, but I no longer begin from the reductionist hard line atheist position, even though I’m happy to remain tied to the truths it offers.

[@Hannodb1961]

If he couldnt be bothered to even listen and understand the opening arguments of his oponent _in the debate,_ I doubt he would learn anything by watching this video. Besides, he basically admitted to being a fool: "If I dont believe it, its not reasonable." Thats his criteria, and its shows.

[@benjaminhoffman3848]

Trent lost me when he opens with a criticism of people who question the interpretation of evidence that the universe is billions of years old or that certain "vaccines" do not stop the spread of acquisition of the disease.

[@wessbess]

Trent won. Really like him. Just don’t agree with his Catholicism at all. But he is an excellent debater!

[@barackobama5152]

the bible is literally the testimonial evidence that matt claimed he would accept LMAO

[@roscowbrown3937]

I testify that none of the Biblical stories never happened There, Matt wins by this logic

[@OppressedPotato]

​@@roscowbrown3937expert testimony. Like eyewitnesses. Or medical doctors. Or people that physically walked with Jesus.

[@roscowbrown3937]

@@OppressedPotato Sure, but how do we verify the existence of these people without using the Bible?

[@OppressedPotato]

@@roscowbrown3937 my question is why isn't the Bible that source? Why can't we use the Bible? Even if you don't consider it the Word of God, it is still an incredible historical document, concerning the history of the Jews and their beliefs.

[@izumikitty]

@@OppressedPotato A book and witnesses alone can attest to natural occurences for the most part. For example, we all believe that George washington was in fact the first president of the united states. However, a book and witnesses alone can not stand as evidence for the supernatural. For example, we DONT believe the story about george washington having wooden teeth, or george washington throwing a silver dollar across the potomac

[@introvertedchristian5219]

Do Trent Horn vs. James White next! You said they are both good debaters, so it should. be a good one. It was kind of interesting that Matt would make a sharp distinction between testimony on the one hand, and physical evidence on the other hand. Then, when Trent wanted to know what Matt considered "physical evidence," the example Matt gave turned out to be testimony. I'm personally not a fan of badgering somebody to give a yes/no answer to a question that requires nuance to answer. All history is basically rooted in testimony, so it is true that the case for the resurrection of Jesus is based on testimony. But to answer "yes" to Matt's question is to give the false impression that Trent believes in the resurrection solely because somebody said so. There's obviously more to Trent's case than that. It's a circumstantial case, and the premises in the case are based in testimony. I think badgering somebody to give a yes/no answer to a question that's bound to be misleading is a cheap and unfair tactic.

[@WiseDisciple]

I hear what you're saying! In my opinion, that's what makes cross examin SO INTERESTING! Lol. In every day conversations, people should definitely get more leeway to explain themselves. 😊

[@introvertedchristian5219]

@@WiseDisciple I suppose as far as gamesmanship, it might be useful to force somebody to give a yes/no answer that avoids nuance to avoid misconceptions. But if you look at debates as a tool for getting at the truth, then tactics like that are unhelpful in my opinion.

[@miconis123]

The testimony that Matt mentioned is based on physical evidence that can be examined by someone else. We can check that the doctor is qualified to make the examination. We can check that the doctor actually made the examination. We can check for potential fraud by a 3rd party.

[@joshyouwuhh]

Wise disciple, you hold the interlocutors to standards of form. does the content within the form have varying weight that can make up for their failings on form?

[@WiseDisciple]

That's a good question. Sure! For example, typically speaking, the one who lays a better framework tends to win debates (which goes to show how important laying a framework is in debate). But let's say someone doesn't lay a framework -- doesn't even try -- but their arguments are sound. But their interlocuter lays a framework and doesn't address the opponent's arguments, then the opponent should still win (all these considered).

[@joshyouwuhh]

@@WiseDisciple I hear you. Thank you.

[@c.s.froggis9982]

Have you analyzed Peter Williams' debates -- particularly with James White? You should. Williams tackles tougher tthings in catholicism (marian dictrines, purgatory) and is very good.

[@erocklledo3314]

Always love watching these. Educational and entertaining. You da man!

[@WiseDisciple]

Thank you sir! 👊🏼👊🏼👊🏼

[@gerhardgiedrojc991]

Dishonest biased bullshit is not educational, it’s blinded propaganda. Idiots get a platform for their stupid myth beliefs.

[@itzyourbwoytchybooxuur6475]

@@gerhardgiedrojc991: Lol... That was rather harsh.

[@dave1370]

I think Trent did a really good job. I do, however, think his first statements were problematic when he threw folks under the bus in order to find some common ground with Matt by asserting as absolute fact things that are not necessarily so, such as the age of the universe and a blanket statement regarding vaccines and other "science." Consensus/majority does not equal fact. Otherwise though, very good job.

[@mdace34]

I agree totally.... that being said perhaps Trent was aware of Matt's tendencies to bring such things up as passing statements to bolster his position, and Trent wanted to stop him from the start (although he probably does in fact believe the things he said, whuch is problematic).

[@pl5994]

Challenging the claim that there are no general confirmed resurrections that happened, and actually considered a good tactic? It only happens in theoretical debates.

[@KevinHash]

excellent!

[@WiseDisciple]

Thanks for watching, Kevin! 😊

[@malako777A]

19:46 but how can you "be convinced" if there is a claim that goes against ALL human knowledge to date and nothing that can attest to the claim as being real?? feels to me that the claim that a supernatural event happened (without any proof) is Gobbledygook itself, right?

[@stcolreplover]

Completely misses the point, the debate isn’t about a “supernatural” event, but an unlikely event. Your clear fedora bias is showing and it’s embarrassing

[@malako777A]

@@stcolreplover what is really embarrassing is to believe in unreasonable stuff, like you do! Don’t mind replying I don’t want to hear stupid arguments!

[@stcolreplover]

@@malako777A seethe harder Midwit

[@hunternichols6273]

​@stcolreplover okay, would you say that a baby being born and then put back in the womb would be a "supernatural" occurrence or an "unlikely" occurrence?

[@j.gstudios4576]

I would totally watch the rez files!!! Sounds like a good show

[@WiseDisciple]

LOLOLOLOL

[@briggy4359]

I'm not a catholic but dang, Trent Horn is a great debater and displays so much love and peace.

[@carlpeterson8182]

Matt is a pure skeptic. He almost never gives his opinion and and never says you have proven yours. He never has to debate his side. He only gets to tear down the other. In the end there is not much reason to speak to skeptics such as Matt. There is not upside for anyone else.

[@roscowbrown3937]

Christians are making the claim that the Bible is true… Matt is not making any claim beyond “I don’t believe in the Bible because is hasn’t been proven,” that is his opinion that he has given plenty of times, and this is how any conversation works when somebody makes a claim, you have to prove your claim and Matt explains why it’s wrong because, at the end of the day, there is no proof of the Bible being true

[@nagyadamka]

You can call the scepticism and atheism of Matt an audience member. However, the biblica stories of the resurrection of Christ, is the claim. Without any evidence that supports those claims, a sceptical atheist will not accept them as truth.

[@junkim5853]

how illogical can you truly be? This guy is going to a debate to defend the position that the belief in the Resurrection is unreasonable so he can't appeal himself to be an audience member he must prove his position. If he can't prove his position or if he came to express his unbelief and skepticism of the resurrection of Jesus Christ then he should have not come to debate Trent Horn at all. He clearly did a terrible job and if you can't be objective to save your life that Matt lost against Trent than I don't know what to say.

[@nagyadamka]

@@junkim5853 Why am I illogical?

[@junkim5853]

@@nagyadamka see what I mean lmao. Did you even read what I said?

[@shawn4888]

@@junkim5853 Its actually you being illogical. Matt explained that part of reasonableness involves being skeptical and not accepting claims without evidence sugmfficient to warrant belief. So his explanation that he cannot accept testimonial evidence alone is in line with what he already argued. And he didn't appeal to be an audience member. That was just something silly Nate came up with. And matt actually did a great job. It was Trent who admitted that he would take only testimonial evidence which is unreasonable.

[@junkim5853]

@@shawn4888 You are being insanely stupid and creating something that never occurred. I watched that debate and Matt clearly appealed to himself as an audience member he said it himself many times. He clearly has no idea how to debate, you don't go and debate and suddenly become an audience member. He failed to prove that accepting and believing in testimonial evidence is unreasonable. Like Matt you are clearly engaging in burden of proof. Atheists fail to understand and comprehend that they have to give sufficient evidence to suggest that believing in testimonial evidence is unreasonable. The evidence of existence for Plato and Socrates only consists of testimonial evidence. Are atheist going to suggest that it is unreasonable to believe Plato and Socrates never existed? A lack of evidence isn't evidence to prove anything. All Matt did was claiming that the evidence Trent Horn brought was never convincing for him. That's all he did which wasn't what the debate was about. To win the debate for Matt he had to disprove the evidence Trent Horn brought and bring his own evidence to disprove the resurrection of Jesus which he never did at all. You clearly can't be objective here. Use your head.

[@YovanypadillaJr]

You need to watch Trent's debate with Alex and Watkins

[@WiseDisciple]

Thanks, I'll check it out!

[@Miatpi]

Trent vs Watkins is awesome!

[@howardparkes8787]

something that was missed is that when Trent asked Matt if it was reasonable at 17:04 he got really defensive and answered "no" but this is compeltely contradictory to what matt said direclty to Alex O'Connor outlined in this video by Trent: kzbin.info/www/bejne/emmnn6BsnNZ-etU

[@thomasperez9255]

I just saw Jay Dyer’s video on Matt’s answer. Had me in stitches😂😂😂

[@sonu8034]

If this is one of the top notch atheists out there, then its a shame on the atheists.

[@envy7455]

23:59 A doctors report is a professional unbiased documentation of someone's health. Also Matt not knowing which evidence would convince him of a resurrection is because it goes against everything we know about the natural law. It would need to be [un/super]natural evidence which he couldn't know.

[@junbocao2039]

You have a good observation! But I guess if MD wants a doctor's report, which is a piece of documented testimony that's professional and unbiased, he knows what evidence he wants for the resurrection -- a doctor's report -- which is not supernatural evidence that he couldn't know. I think your observation abt a doctor's report leads us to an interesting question: What about a doctor's report makes it good evidence for the resurrection? Here's what I can gather from your observation abt doctors report: 1) Unbiased: No false testimonies 2) Professional. Professional not just in the sense that you are certified, but that you have the ==relevant capability== to discern whether a certain event truly happened. 3) Documented -- as in recorded and available for investigation. How New Testament account fulfill (or at least reasonably) the above characteristics of testimonies 1*) Learning about the past mostly, if not always, depending on testimonies. Historians agree that testimonies are always biased. That's why historical techniques of drawing facts from testimonies are invented and refined in the field of history. These techniques are used to overcome bias/minimize the impact of bias, or else we would not be able to know much of history. Christians, and TH here, employ the tools to draw out facts from New Testament testimonies, before trying to explain these facts with Inference to the Best Explanation [IBE] (which is a tool scientists use for scientific knowledge). So I think with respect to testimony, the important question to be answered here is really whether the historical method effectively overcomes the limitation of biasness and help us to arrive at some facts in historical accounts. 2*) Although sometimes whether a person is dead may require a professional to pronounce, ordinary persons don't need a doctor to tell us if someone is alive. An ordinary person (living in 1st century Rome) also have the capability to know that someone is mortally injured (if not dead) from crucifixion. What I'm saying is that with regard to the relevant facts, it's not about the profession, but the relevant capability of the eye witness to discern what happened. I think those who gave the testimony had the relevant capability to tell if Jesus was alive (and well, on the third day) after a mortally injuring crucifixion? 3*) This is kind of a given. So if the observation abt doctors' report is right, then the quarrel may be between historians and MH on the reliability of the historical methods in overcoming bias in testimonies. My thoughts, cheers!

[@j.gstudios4576]

True but then again do you have a doctor's report for any crucifixion victim

[@junbocao2039]

@@j.gstudios4576 Hihi, can I clarify why the need for a doctor's report on crucifixion victims?

[@j.gstudios4576]

@@junbocao2039 Because matt in this video requested physical evidence of Jesus such as a medical record but the thing is we just don't have any crucifixion records of any other crucifixion victim. So Matt is special pleading with Jesus saying that he requires a doctor report when there is no other for any other crucifixion victims

[@junbocao2039]

@@j.gstudios4576 Oh! You are responding to Envy's comment haha, I thought you were responding to mine🙈

[@chadthomas6652]

W.D.- Whenever your guy uses a shady debate tactic, you say he did a good move. And when the other guy does the same thing, you say, he's not allowed to do that. This is such a joke.

[@who-lo-lolee-oh1079]

Can you give an example please.

[@chadthomas6652]

@@who-lo-lolee-oh1079 Sure, but that was 8 months ago, so I'll have to go back and re-watch it.

[@chadthomas6652]

@@who-lo-lolee-oh1079 Trent "changes the framework" of the debate by shifting the onus onto whether Matt can personally prove that resurrections don't happen. W.D. calls this a great move. When an extraordinary claim is made that violates everything we empirically know about the natural world, the evidentiary standard is necessarily extremely high in order for a reasonable person to believe that it is true. The burden of proof in this case isn't on Matt to prove that resurrections don't happen. But Trent's tactic of reframing the question to require equal burdens of proof to establish the likelihood of truth or falsity of resurrections is sidestepping the debate question, which is, "is it reasonable to believe in the resurrection of Christ." In W.D.'s opinion, reframing the debate around a false premise is brilliant. But when Matt says that he doesn't find resurrections plausible due to a deep lack of evidence surrounding that extraordinary claim, WD says, "he's talking like an audience member and he isn't allowed to do that. It's not his job, etc." Matt's "I don't find that compelling" distinction is inconsequential, because he could have just as easily said "no, its not reasonable to accept extraordinary claims on insufficient evidence." Matt essentially made that correction when he was asked to clarify if he thinks other people can have reasonable beliefs that he doesn't share. And he said no. Trent does all kinds of work to try to shift the burden, and indeed the question of the debate. If the question was "is it reasonable to believe that an elephant walked on water 2000 years ago?", setting up the premise that your opponent can't go back in time and prove that an elephant didn't walked on water, doesn't justify the belief that it did. And for WD to claim that he's winning debate points by doing that is a biased assessment.

[@chadthomas6652]

@@who-lo-lolee-oh1079 Around -19:30, there is the exchange that WD criticizes where Matt says "I am not convinced...", but quickly afterwards Matt clarifies that he equates what he believes to what is reasonable for others to believe. WD calls the entire exchange a "sneaky tactic that has no place in debates." It was a mere inconsequential slip of the tongue at most. Meanwhile, WD applauds Trent's tactic of shifting the entire premise of the debate around Matt's burden to disprove, instead of around likelihood or reasonableness. WD goes on to include his own commentary around the idea that Matt hasn't personally investigated all sorts of resurrections and therefore can't "claim" they don't happen. This is a false framework that WD is championing both as a tactic and as his own position. Here's why this is false. If I say, "5 cats throughout history have been able to shoot lasers out of their eyes," you don't have the burden of proving that didn't happen. You're not making a claim. It is my job to provide evidence that would be enough to justify a reasonable belief that it is true.

[@chadthomas6652]

@@who-lo-lolee-oh1079 around 17:46, WD criticizes Matt for saying something is unreasonable to believe without evidence if it violates what we know to be true about the natural world. WD says "who is Matt to say what we know to be true." Well, again, if WD is claiming that cats with laser eyes could be well within what science says is possible, then how do I debate anything with a person that doesn't agree about reality as we collectively see it? Shortly after this, Matt re-frames the topic to say that "it's not my job to disprove magical events. It's your job to convince me of the reasonableness of your extraordinary claim." This is the correct framework of the debate, yet WD criticizes this as a shady tactic that is "gobbledygook." When Trent framed it the other way, it was brilliant according to WD. If we are debating whether it is reasonable to believe that leprechauns live in your garden, its your burden to provide evidence that would justify the belief. I don't have to provide "proof" that such a thing is impossible. I am allowed to say that such a claim isn't reasonable on its face, because there is no evidence that such a being exists, until you can provide such evidence.

[@whaddup691]

No physical evidence? Has my mans seen the shroud of Turin?

[@robinrobyn1714]

Matt Dillahunty ( opening speech):' If you are here to hear Trent say' Jesus rose from the dead'... And for me to say-' No...he didn't!!'... Well.. then.. you're at the wrong debate. I am here, to try and explain to you how I went from 25 years a Southern Baptist, to now being pathologically angry, and fixated at something that I don't believe exists. I have been hosting, for years now..a radio call in show-' The I don't believe that something exists Experience'. Sometimes,as part of my pathological anger at something that I don't believe exists, I will insult this non existent being. Indeed I have called something that doesn't exist according to me....I have called it a" thug'. I take great issue, with something that doesn't exist according to me. I am,as well, a member of the " People who don't believe that something exists community', of Austin, Texas. I believe that it is far more rational to spend years, ranting against a non existent entity, than to hold Trent"s position. I mean.. that's it! That right there is the fundamental difference between our epistomologies!! Trent is willing to say that he doesn't believe that something exists and simply walk away... I'M NOT!!! I will pathologically rant, insult, become angry at, host podcasts for years... against a non existent entity. And that... ladies and gentlemen..is why I am here today. Thank you'

[@gadgetstop321]

Perhaps, instead of saying you won't break down anymore debates with Matt D, instead say you won't show anymore of his debates UNTIL he changes his strategy. I love these debate videos. I'm still learning, but they help me articulate my own beliefs.

[@fentonmulley5895]

Off matt is such an issue, why can't you just deal with the facts and leave the personality behind? That's what most scholars do daily at work. What is your particular issue with his strategy?

[@gadgetstop321]

@@fentonmulley5895 I didn't bring up anything about anybody's personality. I think you replied to the wrong comment.

[@fentonmulley5895]

@@gadgetstop321 I'm implying that you have a problem with personality over principles. What particular non vague strategy is he using that must stop?

[@gadgetstop321]

@@fentonmulley5895 I'm not the one who had an issue with Matt's strategy. In the video, Nate said that he was not going to respond to any more of Matt's debates because Matt's only response to his opponent is, "I don't believe that" without countering with any evidence of his own. (I know I've over simplified the issue.) I just suggested that Nate shouldn't permanently avoid responding to Matt D debates.

[@Sean-fo8kg]

@@gadgetstop321, Matt responds with so much more substance than, "I don't believe you." That characterization is wildly dishonest. #lyingforchrist

[@zayprime7861]

If you are willing to believe the laws of the universe were suspended for one person base on testimonial evidence then you are being unreasonable. Trent admit he is being unreasonable when he answered yes. Matt owned that man. I challenge you to do more Matt.

[@billygraves3213]

Thank you

[@blakemoon123]

Dilahunty failed to counter any of Trent Horn’s arguments. Solid win to Trent.

[@ramigilneas9274]

@@blakemoon123 Well, Trent failed to present any evidence for the resurrection… so there wasn’t anything of substance to counter.😂

[@cameronclark8298]

@@ramigilneas9274What would good evidence look like?

[@ramigilneas9274]

@@cameronclark8298 Unverifiable anecdotes and anonymous hearsay definitely isn't good evidence for miracles that contradict everything that we know about how reality works and for which we don't have a single verified example in the entirety of recorded human history. For a miraculous event no amount of unverifiable testimony could be good enough. Instead we would need evidence that could be verified today. For example if every time that someone prays in the name of Jesus for an amputee to regrow a lost limb... it would actually happen... that would be a good first piece of evidence in a cumulative case for Christianity. For the ressurrection itself we would probably need records dated to 33AD from every culture on the planet who claim that Jesus appeared to them and personally dictated his gospel to them. That would be pretty good evidence.

[@mikekelly592]

Sooo the only way Matt could believe in the resurrection is if he were to see it 2000 years ago?😂😂

[@krystallos81]

Trent is always good at being gracious to people he dialogues with while also calling them out as needed. He’s never rude or mean about it. He just sticks to facts and biblical principles. He doesn’t try to make anyone look bad, but it happens when people get on their pedestals.

[@thoughtfulpilgrim1521]

What Matt is doing has been coined as the "Dillahunty dodge" where he's "not convinced" but won't define any specific and consistent criteria that he doesn't rule out a priori.

[@farmercraig6080]

Very surprised Matt now seems to question Jesus’ death. It’s very reasonable to think from the historical records that this happened. Maybe Trent’s only mistake maybe was bringing up the Craig keener resurrection accounts and not knowing the end results of them.

[@WiseDisciple]

Yeah, has anyone read Keener's book? I skimmed it but didn't read the whole thing. Maybe there were no conclusions that Keener drew in the book?

[@stephenwilson2292]

There’s actually no contemporary historical accounts for Jesus, the fact that it’s treated as historical fact that a Jesus existed is because for history it is assumed someone did exist if they’re written about as a historical figure. But the accounts written in the Bible are uncorroborated and hearsay at best as to the actions of the historical Jesus. Essentially Jesus being a historical person doesn’t mean he did anything accounted in the Bible.

[@farmercraig6080]

@@stephenwilson2292 no I would disagree here. There are accounts written by people contemporary to Jesus. Paul, John Mark, Matthew, Luke, John, James, Jude. There’s your contemporary sources and multiple attested to sources. Luke in his intro says of the eyewitness accounts before him, and he uses both Matthew and Mark in his work. The New Testament is a contemporary, multiple attested to historical source. It’s got the whole package.

[@stephenwilson2292]

@@farmercraig6080 The Pauline epistles we’re written the earliest still about 1-2 decades after the events, he also never once mentions a physical Jesus. The other books we don’t know the authors, those are who the early church fathers attributed them to, if you read the notes on the first page of the gospels in a NIV Bible they say we don’t actually know who wrote those, but regardless the earliest anyone dates Mark, the earliest gospel, is about 70AD, 40 years after the events would have taken place. The gospel of Jude is roughly 70-90AD by the most generous estimates, And the gospel of James is estimated around 145AD. So by the best estimates we’re looking at 10-20 years after the events when the first written accounts are coming out, and even then the first ones being written don’t mention Jesus as a actual person. I’m not saying there wasn’t an actual person named Jesus at the time who was preaching things and seditiously got himself executed for inciting a rebellion, but we don’t actually have evidence for that, we have story’s from people decades and even lifetimes after the supposed events, those are what you’re pointing to, not actual historical accounts. So Luke claims Mark and Matthew are eye witnesses but doesn’t identify them, but neither of them claim to be eye witnesses. Luke was written well after Mark and Matthew would likely have died unless they died at age 80+ if that’s the case when did they get martyred? The New Testament isn’t contemporary, it was written decades later, and none of its events are supported by a single historical document. We don’t have a record from anyone in Rome talking about the execution of someone claiming to be god, there wasn’t a custom anywhere on the books about the release of a prisoner at Passover, the gospels don’t read like history and only Luke claims to be trying to write a history but he borrows from two books that don’t claim to be history or from eye witnesses.

[@farmercraig6080]

@@stephenwilson2292 Hey Stephen Yes so Paul did write a few decades after Jesus’ death. He was executed in the 60’s. But does he mention a physical Jesus? The answer is yes. Just in Romans alone he makes reference to a physical Jesus Romans 5:15 15But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! Romans 5:17 For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ! Romans 5:19 19For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous. Romans 1:1-3 1 Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God - 2 the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures 3 regarding his Son, who as to his earthly life [ a ] was a descendant of David, Romans 8:3 3For what the law was powerless to do because it was weakened by the flesh, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man, Romans 9:5 5Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of the Messiah, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen. He makes reference to the man Jesus quite a few times, his death by crucifixion etc. Plus he makes note that he meet Jesus’ brother James. My NIV doesn’t say that, it gives the authors. But we have good evidence for the authors, people such as Polycarp and Papias who are contemporaries of the apostles (Polycarp was a disciple of John, who wrote the Gospel of John). There isn’t any disagreement for the authors for the Gospels among the church fathers. In fact there isn’t any anonymous copies of Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John have ever been found. They do not exist. The letter of Hebrews is a good example of what happens when they didn’t know, the early church fathers put out four names for the author of the letter. Paul (Pantaenus), Barnabas (Tertullian) Clement of Rome, Luke (Origen). This sort diversity is exactly what we do not find in references to the authorship of the Gospels. With James and Jude, they were brother of Jesus. James death was in 62 A.D as its recorded in Josephus. Also James is quoted by Clement of Rome in 95 A.D or earlier and Ignatius in about 107 A.D. James is sometimes dated in the 40’s. So we have eye witness reports to Jesus. Mark is earlier than 70 A.D, because Luke in his intro talks of the eye witness sources before him, and he quotes from Mark. Really the only reason people date it to 70 A.D is because Jesus’ correct prediction of the fall of Jerusalem and the temple. But since Luke doesn’t make any mention of this, in his second book Acts, this isn’t possible. Matthew (who he quotes also) and Mark are all before 70 A.D. Luke doesn’t say who the eye witnesses are, but since he uses Matthew and Mark in his work. They are eye witness sources. I don’t know when Matthew and Mark died. It doesn’t matter than the NT isn’t comtempory, only that it uses eye witness accounts, which it does. There are plenty of events in the NT that are mentioned in outside sources, such as in Josephus, Tacitus, Thallus, Phlegon, and more. Even archaeology backs up the history contained in it. We have a record of Rome talking about Jesus as a God, the emperor Tiberius wanted to make Jesus a roman god, but the senate turned down the proposal. Quite interesting.

[@filchhoff]

Things that would qualify as physical evidence of the resurrection: - Records from the time authenticating the empty tomb, execution, or sightings of Jesus after death. (As is, we have the writings of Paul and James. Paul described his experience as a vision and James was written many years after the fact, and with the risk of loosing his ministry to disagree. Which is all presuming James was a real person and not just a literary character, of which there is little evidence, though it is easy to grant.) - the records of why Jesus was given a tomb rather then thrown in a mass grave like other execution victims in the Roman Empire. - anything written by Jesus himself.

[@BornAgainExJw]

Socrates didn’t personally write anything down, his student did, I don’t think your last description of physical evidence is a valid one.

[@filchhoff]

@@BornAgainExJw are you trying to say that, because we are aware of the existence Socrates through the writings his students, therefore writings signed by an individual isn't evidence that person lived? Assuming you ment that direct writings are not needed to prove someone lived, I would agree. Hence the reason I listed alternative options to direct writings.

[@BornAgainExJw]

@@filchhoff oh cool, thanks for the clarification and sorry for my misunderstanding your original comment.

[@filchhoff]

@@BornAgainExJw no problem! If this were a list of requirements I would have the same objection!

[@sly8926]

-We have records in the eye witness accounts recorded in the gospels. Despite atheist denialism, we know who gave the accounts (and/orwrote them), and two of them were eye-witnesses; Matthew and John. There is zero reason…not a single piece of evidence…to support the claim “we don’t know who wrote the gospels”. Any scholar who claims it is presupposing their own conclusion because there is no evidence, at least that I’ve ever heard, that supports it. -The tomb was given to Jesus by a sympathetic Pharisee and his friend as an act of respect for him as a Jewish man of God. This is recoded in all the gospel accounts. It also doesn’t make sense for the temple Jews to admit the tomb was empty. -You don’t even accept gospels authorship. Why would you believe anything Labeled with Jesus name.

[@adammeade2300]

Off topic, but over a year later, it would be interesting to see an un-skewed debate on this "vaccine" topic. In their brief mention of them, they both blundered the genuinely substantive "conversation" (I put it in quotes because said conversation was never allowed in a public forum in any unstilted fashion) and, rather, appealed to what I presume are the most fringe aspects of any polemic against...erm..."vaccines." If you're gonna say all that, and in the same breath, allude to an affinity for the scientific method, it's perfectly fair to press the matter.

[@weshartman1894]

Dillahunty: I need evidence. Except I need evidence of this evidence to prove its validity as valid evidential evidence. Prove me wrong, because you’re wrong.

[@Whatsisface4]

If there were a confirmed resurrection, we'd all know about it.

[@sly8926]

We all do. You’re one of the small fraction of your society who apparently hasn’t heard.

[@ChristiFuturum]

Well, we all know about Christ, so yeah, that's true.

[@Whatsisface4]

@@ChristiFuturum Sorry, what's true?

[@shaqyardie8105]

@@ChristiFuturum Yeah, that's why only 25% of the population believe it and there are 3000+ religion lol. Your god who is apparently perfect can't ever provide evidence for his own existence, let alone that he pretended to be dead for a couple of days. A very incompetent god indeed.

[@cameronclark8298]

Are you saying if something is true everyone would know about it?

[@thebrotherhoodisdumb]

Classic Dillahunty deflects. He's always frustrating to listen to. Thanks for making this video.

[@pleaseenteraname1103]

He’s OK and just regular discussions, but my god is he awful and debates, The only way he gets the upper hand is rhetoric,And really the only debates he wins is his opponents are supremely weak like Ray comfort, but in my opinion Dillahunty is just the Ray comfort of atheism.

[@andresreal8261]

No, my dude, Matt wasn't saying "I don't accept it" just as an audience member was. Matt was expressing that it is not reasonable to believe that, as he said, "all of physical reality and every law we know about the universe suddenly got suspended for this one person to rise back from the dead" (paraphrasing). This is not "Matt acting as an audience member", this is Matt defining what he considers "reasonable belief" to entail (or not entail, in this case). The fact that such a definition applies to him isn't the point, the point is that Trent has to then argue that "actually, believing that all of physical reality and every law we know about the universe suddenly being suspended IS reasonable". Which... I mean... Good luck with that...? I feel like you're not listening to what Matt is pointing out. His personal opinion is irrelevant to his argument, he's just defining what is or is not reasonable to believe, and that Trent clearly has other standards, so he's trying to make him SAY IT IN THAT WAY in order to point out the absurdity of his standard. That's the point.

[@mountbrocken]

If that is the case, then maybe Matt needs to debate someone like Alvin Plantinga, Michael Rea or some other reformed epistemologist. We are talking about epistemology, not theological or archeo-medical claims, or anything other than what warrants true beliefs.

[@andresreal8261]

@@mountbrocken Yes... Which "all of physical reality and every law we know about the universe suddenly getting suspended for this one person to rise back from the dead" is not. That's the point Matt is making... If Trent wants to argue for the opposite, he's welcomed to. If not, the point is conceded.

[@mountbrocken]

@@andresreal8261 but what is the basis of suspending laws? Where do laws cone from? Matt just assumes regularities pop out of nothing.

[@andresreal8261]

​@@mountbrocken "Laws" are human-made, my dude. They're just concepts WE make to describe how reality seems to operate. There's reality, which is "what is", and then there's laws, which is "HOW WE DESCRIBE what is". Matt just assumes that resurrection is not "a thing that reality allows" (at least as how Trent seems to understand the word) through inductive reasoning (we don't seem to have any scientifically confirmed cases of resurrection, ergo, it has not been proven to be possible yet (in the way the bible describes it, at least).)... TRENT is the one arguing against the point, ergo, TRENT is the one who has to explain WHY "all of physical reality and every law we know about the universe suddenly would or could get suspended for this one person to rise back from the dead". You're running away from the point. Argue against it or don't. If you don't, it's conceded by default. This is how argumentation works.

[@mountbrocken]

@@andresreal8261 that is the point 'just assumes that resurrection is something that reality would not allow.' The question is, why not?

[@frederickanderson1860]

Trent horn cannot confirm any physical evidence either. He is answering a question with another.

[@lawrence1318]

Those who rose up from the grave when Christ was crucified, didn't go to Jerusalem as Matt declares. They went to "the holy city".

[@SimpleCivil]

So instead of Zombies rising up and going to Jerusalem then the Zombies actually went to the holy city. Thanks for clearing that up. This definitely means that it happened.

[@lawrence1318]

@@SimpleCivil No.

[@DanielApologetics]

Well done Nate! One if the best so far.

[@WiseDisciple]

Thank you sir! Appreciate you 👊🏼👊🏼👊🏼

[@estuchedepeluche2212]

Yeah, the upper cut of "How many resurrection claims have you investigate?" sounds like, "How many witches or unicorns have you investigated"? Of course, Matt did a poor job answering, but the question just tries to flip the burden of proof for lack of proof, and Wise Disciple’s "joke" about a science fiction show reveals that it is ok to make fun of unreasonable beliefs, like resurrection.

[@estuchedepeluche2212]

@Boko Cycle So, do you think believing in resurrections, as a matter of verifiable fact, is reasonable? If that is the case, could you explain what good reasons you have to believe so?

[@estuchedepeluche2212]

@Boko Cycle BTW, you say that I am “Criticizing a debate tactic base on the fact that you’ve already decided the position itself is unreasonable…” that might be narrowly right, but my main point is that the example/joke of a science fiction show puts resurrection on the same reality level as fictional beings.

[@estuchedepeluche2212]

@Boko Cycle Oh, see, your comment was not about an open discussion, but about "winning". Well, congratulations, you've won an argument on the internet! Great job, son.

[@estuchedepeluche2212]

@Boko Cycle Is this the only video of Wise Disciple you’ve seen? He doesn’t agree with Matt, his joke was clumsy at best, and if you are correct, he contradicted his own beliefs and intentions. You say I change the subject, but the subject of my comment and of Matts intervention is the irrationally of resurrection, it is not that my writing is unclear, confusing or mistaken. I never wrote that the existence of a joke makes anything fictional, I don’t how you get to that, it is content and nature of the joke that does support Matt’s view on resurrection being similar to fictional beings.

[@estuchedepeluche2212]

@Boko Cycle Sure.

[@paulbishop8119]

James White vs Jake the metaphysician Unless you have already reviewed it?

[@WiseDisciple]

No, I haven't! Got it on the list, thanks very much!

[@bystander265]

Matt made an ad fidentia fallacy by saying that since people can lie and con each other, you shouldn't be so confident in accepting testimonials as evidence. When thats just attacking someones self confidence and making them unsure of their position in place of actually giving any evidence or reason against the argument.

[@malvokaquila6768]

Horn clearly won this one. Unless you think changing Dilihunty's mind and immediate conversion is the point of debate.

[@tugboat2030]

Lol. Changing a debater's mind is not the point of a debate. I think @WiseDisciple would agree with this. It's who has the strongest arguments.

[@malvokaquila6768]

@@tugboat2030 you are correct.

[@tugboat2030]

@@malvokaquila6768 Oh, I get your point here.

[@chucknorris2266]

Hey I love your channel. May I ask what your religion is ?

[@WiseDisciple]

Thank you, sir! I'm Christian 😊

[@t-rizzle0509]

YOU MUST REVIEW MATT VS JAY DYER DEBATE PLEASE!!

[@tugboat2030]

23:06 Wise Disciple watch yourself. You just called out Dillahunty for asking a question during his cross-examination, but Horn just did it and you approve!

[@Zosso-1618]

It is proper to ask clarifying questions when you’re being cross-examined, but it is not proper to ask any other sort of question during that time. Horn asked this sort of question, but Dillahunty did not (his question would fit in his time to cross-examine, not in his time to be cross-examined). As such, the former was praised, and the latter was not.

[@jakewilliams1344]

Your Bias blinds your views on this. I feel it would be more entertaining if it was from a neutral standpoint. But it's clear you are pushing an agenda rather than being fair and reporting on debate tactics.

[@trapG0LD710]

THANK YOU

[@stcolreplover]

Midwit Alert!!!

[@j.gstudios4576]

I would love to see inspiring philosophy vs kent hovind on Genisis

[@SomeoneYouMayKnow]

Lol! I would totally pay to see that happen! Though, I'm afraid it won't be a fair fight. Michael clearly has a better grasp of the intricacies of the scriptural text than Ken. Ken would probably play the same limp game he did with Bill Nye.

[@j.gstudios4576]

@@SomeoneYouMayKnow True but it would still be entertaining lol I lost it when he said God wrote genisis one and Adam probably wrote genisis 2 😂

[@gospelfreak5828]

I’m pretty sure it’s already happened

[@WiseDisciple]

Thanks! Got it on the list :)

[@mesafamily5830]

Wow this debate didn’t age well with the shots and cough talk. 😂

[@shawn4888]

btw, you really need to approach these reviews with less bias. Trent failed to follow his own criteria.

[@johnferrandino4666]

I agree. I watched the actual debate. This analysis is not relevant to the topic

[@shawn4888]

@@johnferrandino4666 indeed

[@pleaseenteraname1103]

@@johnferrandino4666 says you buddy. Also his criterium for how he judges these debates applies to both sides so explain how he’s not applying to criterium consistently and how his bias is preventing him from doing that? 🤣🤣🤣🤣 are you kidding me? It’s Trent that needs to follow his own criteria? Matt literally contradicts himself constantly he says that the persuasiveness of an argument has nothing to do with the soundness of it, but then he proceeds to object to Trent’s position by saying he’s not convinced by it instead of attacking the soundness or validity of it so which one is it? He also contradicts himself when he asked Trent if he would believe in the resurrection without any physical evidence, and Trent ask him to clarify what he means by physical evidence and he said some thing like a doctors report and then Trent showed that the doctors report wouldn’t be physical evidence it would be testimonial evidence, and then he forced Trent intosaying he would except the resurrection based on nothing but testimonial evidence, when Trent demonstrated that his example of what evidence he would accept what is testimonial evidence. So who exactly is being inconsistent with their criteria?

[@pleaseenteraname1103]

@@johnferrandino4666 what are you talking about? Care to explain.

[@delbert372]

I wonder if Matt is aware of the fallacy of the Complex Question. Often an unqualified "Yes" or "No" is simply insufficient, like the classic example "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?"

[@haveablessedday3005]

well done sir i watched this comment at the beginning and caught what you meant at 28:10-20 thankyou sir

[@chadthomas6652]

This wasn't a complex or loaded question, as far as I can tell. Please explain, I'm just not seeing it. This appears to be a straight forward question that cuts to the heart of their differences. Are you suggesting that belief in the resurrection relies on more than testimony? Even so, that wouldnt be a loaded question, he could simply say no. And to be clear, "I just feel it in my heart" is not evidence.

[@jdizle1178]

I used to respect Matt …until I watched him cuss out a 70 yr old military vet for telling his life experiences and saying he couldn’t explain them. Straight cussed him out. Lost all respect

[@davidryan8547]

I also notice that Matt never gave a simple Yes to a question even when Trents questions were also yes/no questions. Such as "do you think it is unreasonable for historians to believe Christ was crucified under Pontius Pilate?"

[@johnvar3900]

Matt took him apart with ease. Funny to see people trying desperately to look for winnings on the other side here.

[@FuddlyDud]

Desperately look for winnings? Can you name specifically how Matt won? :/

[@josephthomasmusic]

​@@FuddlyDudI wouldn't expect a response from him. This is just one of those atheist who does what's called a hit-and-run comment. They post a comment and then ignore everyone who responds to them who challenges what they say. Why? Because they lack belief in God so therefore they apparently don't have to meet a burden of proof whenever they make claims.

[@FuddlyDud]

@@josephthomasmusic True, although I think it's more just its easier to be content in his comfortable worldview than to push himself into being genuinely uncomfortable. :/ I also say this not as an insult, but as genuine sadness since I had to do the same thing to fully have faith in God. My hardened heart made (and still makes) it hard to even accept the clear wisdom God offers in the Bible. :/

[@pleaseenteraname1103]

@@josephthomasmusic yeah pretty much. If an anti-theist asked me to prove God exists, I usually just tell them I don’t have to because I just have a lack of belief in their atheism I don’t actually believe in God I just like the belief that there is no God 🤣. Also I’ve came across this guy in other comment sections before if I remember correctly and he leaves the same typical trollish comments you would expect from atheists to just just a waste of time.

[@cameronclark8298]

How did Matt take him apart with ease?