DOES GOD EXIST? Trent Horn vs. Ben Watkins (live, in-person debate)

On August 27, 2021 at 7pm Central, Benjamin Blake Speed Watkins will be debating Trent Horn ( @The Counsel of Trent ) on the topic of whether God exists. This is a live, in-person, formal debate happening only at the CCv1 Conference.
CCv1 tickets: capturingchris...
DEBATE FORMAT
15-min Openings
7-min First Rebuttal
4-min Second Rebuttal
30-min Moderated Dialogue
30-min Q&A (2 min response/1 min counter-response)
5-min Closings
------------------------------- GIVING -------------------------------
Patreon (monthly giving): / capturingchristianity
Become a CC Member on KZbin: / @capturingchristianity
One-time Donations: donorbox.org/c...
Special thanks to all of my supporters for your continued support as I transition into full-time ministry with Capturing Christianity! You guys and gals have no idea how much you mean to me.
--------------------------------- LINKS ---------------------------------
Website: capturingchrist...
Free Christian Apologetics Resources: capturingchris...
The Ultimate List of Apologetics Terms for Beginners (with explanations): capturingchris...
--------------------------------- SOCIAL ---------------------------------
Facebook: / capturingchristianity
Twitter: / capturingchrist
Instagram: / capturingchristianity
SoundCloud: / capturingchristianity
-------------------------------- MY GEAR ---------------------------------
I get a lot of questions about what gear I use, so here's a list of everything I have for streaming and recording. The links below are affiliate (thank you for clicking on them!).
Camera (Nikon Z6): amzn.to/364M1QE
Lens (Nikon 35mm f/1.4G): amzn.to/35WdyDQ
HDMI Adapter (Cam Link 4K): amzn.to/340mUwu
Microphone (Shure SM7B): amzn.to/2VC4rpg
Audio Interface (midiplus Studio 2): amzn.to/33U5u4G
Lights (Neewer 660's with softboxes): amzn.to/2W87tjk
Color Back Lighting (Hue Smart Lights): amzn.to/2MH2L8W
-------------------------------- CONTACT --------------------------------
Email: capturingchrist...
#Apologetics #God #Debate

[@RealAtheology]

We'd like to thank Cameron and Capturing Christianity for inviting us to take part in this awesome event. It was truly an honor to participate and have a discussion with one of the most formidable Theistic thinkers out there today. Trent Horn is living proof of the fact that Theism is a reasonable and powerful worldview that should be taken seriously and that Theists can be rational and epistemically justified in their beliefs. People will have different views on who won or lost, but I hope we came together to show that Philosophical Atheism and Classical Theism are intellectually respectable, rigorous, and rational worldviews and that the question of God's existence is one worth taking seriously. We hope both Theists and Atheists will continue with their respective exploration of these deep and beautiful truths.

[@davidlopez-flores1147]

This really brings joy to my soul and I hope the theist-atheist dialogue continues in this manner.

[@educationalporpoises9592]

I love you for this sort of thing Ben. I don't know your channel well, but thank you for this statement of charity, which I think reflects well on your character and er... participation in God, hehe But in all seriousness, this is good

[@Backwardsman95]

I'm so glad I came to Houston to see this in person. Great debate guys!

[@John_Fisher]

Maybe I'm being premature in asking, having not watched the entire debate yet: Trying to follow premise(s) s,t,u,v and reaching conclusions y, aa, etc... Can/has either/both the debaters made their source notes/slideshows available for further reflection/study?

[@glof2553]

Ben you're a sharp dude and a class act. Subbed to your podcast. From a theist

[@gregorsamsa5251]

0:05 - Mr. Cameron Bertuzzi & Dr. Phil Tallon: Introduction & HBU Sponsor spot 5:58 - Mr. Trent Horn (Affirmative): Opening Speech 21:43 - Mr. Ben Watkins (Negative): Opening Speech 36:42 - Horn: First Rebuttal 44:05 - Watkins: First Rebuttal 51:37 - Horn: Second Rebuttal 57:08 - Watkins: Second Rebuttal 1:01:58 - Horn & Watkins: Dialogue (Cross Examination moderated by Bertuzzi) 1:34:44 - Horn & Watkins: Q&A w/ Audience 2:08:23 - Horn: Closing Speech 2:12:02 - Watkins: Closing Speech HORN'S MAIN ARGUMENTS 1. Change and Motion 2. Causal Finitism 3. Theistic Foundations of Morality WATKINS' MAIN ARGUMENTS 1. Higher Intrinsic Probability of Naturalism 2. Imperfections (Hiddenness & Evil) 3. Incompatibility of Immutability and Divine Freedom An impressive and graceful showing by Horn, eloquently explaining and defending not just a model of theism but a corresponding metaphysical framework needed to support said theism. Thomism in my opinion is somewhat underrated in Christian philosophy of religion, hopefully this performance by him establishes it as a force to be reckoned with in the public eye. It's no surprise then that Watkins surpasses even his previous debate performances with eminent conservatives and theists like Pine, Hsiao and Crummett. Most notably Horn had some trouble here responding to Watkin's inference to the best explanation (with one or two "objections" merely being an [admittedly quite useful] explanation of the implications of Bayesian reasoning), "rebutted" points that weren't even made in the debate (particularly around moral epistemology and meta-ethics), and ended up muddling his response to the purported complications with Thomism and Classical Theism (such as Existential Inertia - see Steven Nemes' videos or blog posts by Feser for a more organized defense). Some commenters here consider Horn a candidate for the next WLC; but with superior organization and preparation, Watkins deftly expounded upon complications with his opponent's arguments while not letting a single response to his own get away without a clear and elegant response.Sound like anyone we know? Of course, Horn's performance starts to catch up to Watkins during the cross examination and Q&A, providing us with a great overall back and forth. After the debate at the end of this video you can overhear him saying that this will be one that people return to, time and time again, to analyse and discuss the points on show. I hope he's right - this debate wasn't just lively and entertaining, it's a great jumping off point for understanding more about these two worldviews.

[@gregorsamsa5251]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/Y5OXi5ytadqNkNk Joe Schmid ("Majesty of Reason") has posted a video on Trent's parts of the debate - haven't checked it out yet but I'm excited to hear what he has to say

[@rezgaid622]

Thanks for these time stamps!

[@glof2553]

The person I primarily agree with won the debate.

[@bman5257]

No he didn’t.

[@tonywallens217]

Stop

[@glof2553]

@@bman5257 I disagree and offer you philosophical argumentation followed by passive aggressive insults if this exchange carries on longer than I would like

[@bman5257]

@@glof2553 That’s fair. I’ll just keep repeating my point, ignore what you’re saying, and leave when I get bored.

[@MrAndyStenz]

😂😂👏🏻👏🏻

[@calebp6114]

Best theistic - atheistic debate I’ve seen all year! Well done Cameron.

[@jonahkane7027]

A stellar and charitable debate that has given me a renewed desire in going deeper with these arguments. Thanks Cameron and may God bless you and keep you.

[@tabithaoncoffee]

I think this was the most cordial and charitable debate I’ve ever seen. Very well done!

[@introvertedchristian5219]

You should check out the one between William Lane Craig and Peter Millican. They didn't hug or anything, but it was every bit as cordial and engaging.

[@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns]

Rosenberg actually hugged Craig at the end of their debate lol

[@les2997]

@@HarryNicNicholas Penrose is the fool for not recognizing the implications of his work. Carroll ofc badly lost the debate with WLC.

[@mattd259]

I love the idea that they knew each other's statements before the debate started.Their rebuttals had so much more substance than other debates.

[@billj6109]

Trent is getting up there with WLC in quality of debate performances. Great job.

[@glof2553]

@@JohnSmith-bq6nf and Feser has counters to Schmid's counters. What's your point?

[@glof2553]

@@JohnSmith-bq6nf do you read Feser's blog?

[@billj6109]

@@JohnSmith-bq6nf but are they good counters or those spray on marble kind

[@trevoradams3702]

@@JohnSmith-bq6nf I really like Joe and agree with most of his criticisms to classical theism. However as a non classical theist, I still think the argument from motion is very good!

[@billj6109]

@@HarryNicNicholas as a matter of fact more and more people see the Kalam as stronger than they used to believe. Just watch Cosmic skeptic discussion with Lane Craig or take Robert Koons who, as a Thomist, was skeptical of it but came around due to the more powerful arguments in its favor like the grim reaper scenarios. As for debate acumen, even many atheists think Craig has never lost a debate, with maybe or or two toss ups.

[@JohnDeRosa1990]

This was a very good debate with some solid philosophical engagement. Much credit to both debaters and to Cameron for organizing an outstanding event!

[@ButterCupLetsgoColts]

I still havent watched it i just fcame fort he commmetntystrst

[@esauponce9759]

Amazing how this channel has grown. I love Capturing Christianity!

[@RedVelvetBlackleather]

Inspiring philosophy is another great channel. I know a lot of Christian have a hard time debating atheist because they tend to lean more on the “intellectual” side of the debate but inspiring philosophy has actually help me in that regard with some things he’s mention like panpsychism, ontological reasoning and much more.

[@AheadOfTheCurveVideos]

Cross Examination Period (1:02:00) It’s my favourite part of a debate, thought i’d timestamp it for anyone who agrees😎

[@JCW7100]

Thanks!

[@jasonwolfe2991]

You’re ahead of the curve.

[@esauponce9759]

Exactly. Whenever you want to have a quick check of a debate, go to the cross examination part. Awesome!

[@Kaden-dd9vm]

Is this james I see here?

[@AheadOfTheCurveVideos]

@@Kaden-dd9vm Haha, yep!

[@A.J.920]

Very good debate, I'm here for Trent. But Ben was very good and respectful, both made good points and used logic.

[@PresbyterianPaladin]

Man I hear Ben's case and think "oh man Trent's in trouble". Then Trent comes back and I'm just like "damn, Trent be spitting hot Fire 🔥🔥🔥!" And then Ben comes back stronger, and Trent does as well. This was just an incredible debate, thank you both for bringing your A games. 😁

[@Hbmd3E]

concerning your comment it looks like I would like to listen this

[@shadowlink26]

Thanks buddy! We miss you on facebook btw! Love you dude!

[@Hbmd3E]

Did thou. Listen. And watched too. But maybe didnt pay attention enough still to make that conclution,. Outside Brent looked more convincing.That other fellow looked littlebit like he has something to hide,. or shame,. This is just apalling to all philosphers as only facts mean something. Instead in Islam its all about outside looks so the Christian guy would win in their chart.

[@decluesviews2740]

Trent made more sense. In a desire to extend his argumentation, I'd like to offer some comments. First, regarding divine hiddeness, he didn't mention the Fall as a component to that. Our defective reason as a result of our fallen state is not inconsequential. Similarly, the best of all possible worlds presupposes a world in which all persons freely choose to not sin, which isn't possible if God doesn't predetermine the choice. Even some angels chose not to serve. In short, Ben's arguments ignore what the world ought or could be like without the choice to sin, which can't be precluded by God by definition.

[@decluesviews2740]

Ben thinks it would be better if we were directly created into heaven. But that doesn't make sense. Heaven can't actually obtain without the perfection of the nature through free acceptance of the offer of the supernatural.

[@decluesviews2740]

I also often wonder if exorcisms should be addressed in these debates. There are recorded incidents that defy naturalism.

[@jaredwilliams1031]

Because free will is a metaphysically necessary component of morality and morality is necessary for conscious beings, which are the only kind that experience heaven

[@decluesviews2740]

@John Paul Untrue. They're real and no joke.

[@decluesviews2740]

@John Paul Begging the question and equating negative adjectives with argumentation in one post. Impressive.

[@Gentry.H.P.]

Well done Cameron, well done.

[@mattboyer7466]

Sitting here acting like I understand what's going on... When I limped my way through high school a decade ago...

[@thankyoulord8281]

Haha same I just like to pretend like I know what there talking about 😅

[@mattboyer7466]

@@thankyoulord8281 Haha exactly - Makes us feel better about ourselves.

[@RedVelvetBlackleather]

All people are flawed there’s no point in pretending we know what’s going on, but in my personal experience just watching these debates puts you on the right track. With agnostics who tend to not be atheist I’ve done rather well with preaching, with fellow Christians I’m often able to strengthen their faith with my knowledge on the New Testament and Christ the man, and with atheist it tends to be the hardest but watching these philosophical debates gives credence to the faith and logical reasoning. I guess what I’m trying to say is sometimes you don’t have to know 100% what you’re talking about just enough to place doubt in the mind of atheist or agnostics and help make the case for Christ and for redemption.

[@mattboyer7466]

@@RedVelvetBlackleather Wonderfully put, I couldn't agree more! My comment was more in jest, rather than making a real statement.

[@RedVelvetBlackleather]

@@mattboyer7466 Yeah I understand and I feel similar. In truth I’m 19 and love hearing about philosophy but I’m more geared towards urban development as a way to make a more direct affect on society. With urban development I’ll be able to probably help more people as I eventually want to gear towards building more socially conservative Christian towns but that unfortunately means I probably will never be able to truly understand philosophical positions, but if you learn just enough you might be able to convince another that “hey if God can exist philosophical and it’s more probable he exist over not... than maybe I’ll believe God exist” simply doing that puts them on a path to redemption. I can’t say I’m truly “merciful” or that I feel any true deep love for a lot of mankind but even so it’s important we put aside our personal shortcomings for the will of God. Even though many people call me smart (and it being my personal best attribute) atheist constantly call me dumb for my faith and it hurts me a lot on a personal level but I know on a personal level I’ve made a strong case to a least 2-3 athlete over the last 3 years, and for me personally even if all my 3 years of apologetics saves even 1 person it’s all worth it. If I was sinking and freezing in the water and someone took my hand and saved me even if 2 others unfortunately froze it’s still better to save 1 life than to see all 3 perish and that’s what Christians are to the world.

[@whatsinaname691]

My only problem with this debate is that the debaters blew up the number of arguments being made in their rebuttals preventing them from going very deep back and forth in their actual rebuttals because they were racing the clock to get as much out as possible, but compared to most formal debates this is incredibly well-done

[@gg2008yayo]

Who would you say made a better case?

[@whatsinaname691]

@@gg2008yayo Ben

[@reetgoodministries1273]

Up there with one of the best debates I’ve ever seen, so much substance. Colluding with the opening statements is so much more productive. Praise God. Thank you CC for the model of what every debate should be like.

[@Miatpi]

This debate is everything! Two charitable, intelligent gentlemen giving a masterclass of a debate. How I wish this could be the case more often. Thank you everyone involved! It's really welcome that it was done live as well. Plus, those chairs look super comfortable.

[@GumbyJumpOff]

1:37:10 Ben says an "evidential chip" that would cause him to change his mind is for him to have "a cogent religious experience." I think it's awesome that he is open to that. But wouldn't he then have to take my religious experiences, your religious experiences, and the countless other religious experiences (some well recollected) as evidence pointing towards a God? Because there are a lot of them, and they're happening every day.

[@username-yn5yo]

Indeed I think so as well. If we believe religious experiences come from God, then we must believe in God since theres a billions of them. The only consistent way to be an atheist is to remain atheist even if God presents himself to you, because an atheist mantains that all such revelations are mere illusions with no correspondence to reality. Thus one has to claim that one should deny the evidence of ones own eyes should such a thing happen, because this is what is implied in atheism.

[@introvertedchristian5219]

Debates like this make me question whether I should really be involved in apologetics at all. I mean I've been doing apologetics for longer than Trent, but he is worlds ahead of me. He's a lot smarter, and he knows a lot more. I will probably never reach that level. But if arguments have to be examine with that kind of depth and sophistication to determine whether they are good arguments are not, and if I'm unable to do that because of the limits of my own intellectual abilities, then what good does it do anybody for me to argue about God's existence? My arguments are amateurish, basic, shallow, uninformed, etc. They may seem convincing to some people (myself included), but that may just be because we lack the sophistication to delve deeper into the details.

[@SavedSkeptic]

There are ways to help a cause at all levels. Don’t discount your purpose based on someone else’s achievements. Just be thankful there are people like Trent that you can still learn from. God bless!

[@zekdom]

I can understand that feeling, but we’re not going to be at the same level. Just keep an open mind to new approaches and arguments, when made accessible. For example, whenever you see a “down to earth” video that explains why popular arguments are lacking - that another argument should be used - then learn from it! (Example: KZbin Trent Horn on pro-life abortion arguments) In the meantime, keep growing (2 Peter 3:18). Don’t feel overwhelmed or disappointed. Are you serving God? Are you defending Him and your faith? If yes, then keep going out of gratitude.

[@zekdom]

The fact that you’re *involved* in defense of God says much, in my view anyway. I encourage you to keep going, in humility! May God give you strength.

[@zekdom]

You know what may help you? Voddie Baucham’s approach to apologetics is most helpful for guys like us. Title of video: E3 2017 | GS1 | “Expository Apologetics: Part 1” | Voddie Baucham It’s on KZbin; here are the time-stamps on that video to give you a glimpse… 48:07 - “What about expository apologetics? This is not about preparing yourself to defeat Christopher Hitchens in a formal debate, right?” 48:27 - Voddie’s take on formal debates, “… but those types of things don’t come around very often and, quite honestly, tend to have limited impact. That’s not what this is about. This is about *YOU* taking seriously your duty and your responsibility as a Christian to know what you believe and why you believe it, and to be able to communicate that to others in a winsome and effective way.” 48:55 - “And so, with expository apologetics, there is three key characteristics. This: needs to be biblical needs to be simple it needs to be conversational.” 50:45 - “That’s the great benefit of this approach to apologetics. It’s not, you need to know everything about everything, okay?” 52:01 - “I am not responsible for defending what I do not believe.” 52:55 - How to respond to “Inquisition” or similar arguments from history… Voddie says, “Yeah, I wasn’t there. Wasn’t me, wasn’t my people, right?”

[@jonathansmith4712]

G.K. Chesterton said something along the lines of “if a thing is worth doing, it’s worth doing badly.” :)

[@YovanypadillaJr]

What a masterclass debate!

[@ceceroxy2227]

trent horn is a genius

[@vincentparrella272]

Wow,If we had more debates like this,I think we would make serious headway.

[@bman5257]

Anyone who’s saying X got destroyed is lying. In order to know that someone got destroyed, I feel like someone would need some sort of PhD because that was seriously high level.

[@Apanblod]

I don't know.. I'm an atheist and I think Ben's arguments are almost universally indefensible. Trent certainly came off better in this debate I think, although they both strayed away from the actual topic a lot.

[@bman5257]

I actually think they were generally on topic, but things can get deep in the weeds at the particularities of Thomistic thought with Trent or robust and exhaustive arguments Watkins used with a lot of academic terminology. It’s always funny to me as a Catholic when non-Thomists say that Actus Purus leads to modal collapse because it’s a popular claim on the internet that few put out in an argument and any Thomist or neo-Scholastic apologist can defend against.

[@irenecastelino8827]

Thank you. loved this Show. Love Trent

[@Dialogos1989]

Hey this is a first. I’m sure this was painstaking to put together. Well done!

[@Saribex]

Great debate, but the camera team should have done some 'cut-ins' to show the powerpoint/overhead when it fits the talking.

[@allisonwatkins8312]

Great job sweetie!!!

[@mnmmnm925]

Trent won. Stop being overly charitable and suggesting both sides did equally good.

[@flyingphoenix113]

I like Ben, and I seriously admire his work, but Trent cornered him on epistemology every. single. time. Ben had incredibly sound objections, but he routinely overstated their forcefulness (i.e. "if X is true, does it make Y IMPOSSIBLE, or does it merely diminish its probability.")

[@AsixA6]

Trent lost.

[@CatholicFaithGuardian]

Trent Horn won the debate!

[@chriscorkern8487]

Best atheist to have a beer with? I think so.

[@christianlacroix5430]

Apart from the fact that he condones infanticide ?

[@IWasOnceAFetus]

@@christianlacroix5430 Yeah, that's a logical consequence of his position on abortion unfortunately. I mean, all major defenses of abortion do that which is absurd. Although I'm willing to believe that he wouldn't really condone infanticide as a practical option.

[@joecheffo5942]

@@christianlacroix5430 Is it trolling to comment that God did a lot of that?

[@hillstrong715]

The fundamental flaw with Ben's arguments revolve around who determines what is good and what is evil. He raised that pain is evil and yet pain is a warning that one is heading towards problems and that one should stop doing what one is doing. In this case such pain is good. I agree that pain can be evil but it can also be good. As always, the atheist argument of the problem of evil requires first answering how one determines what is good and what is evil.

[@bennyredpilled5455]

There's no such thing as "evil" in Ben's worldview

[@hillstrong715]

@@bennyredpilled5455 If that is true then there is no "problem of evil". But as he argued that there is evil (the pain example is one such evil) then he has to specify who determines whose standard defines wheat is and what is not evil. This is one of the problems faced by atheists. I certainly agree that there is evil in the world, but from perspective, one has to have some "absolute" standard by which one can measure whether something is evil or not evil. I have yet to see any atheist provide such a standard that can actually work.

[@mcplesk8765]

@@hillstrong715 evil doesnt exist “actually” its basically a label we give to things that we feel certain way about And problem of evil is based on both unified view (disease, catastrophes, ) and the christian one (homosexuality, non-believers, etc.)... in the end it doesnt really matter.. you agree there is evil, so “problem of evil” is valid

[@hillstrong715]

@@mcplesk8765 You miss the point of the "problem of evil" argument that is raised by atheists. The argument requires an objective definition of what evil is. Since atheists can only define a subjective definition for what evil is, the argument fails. If you (@McPlesk) are of the opinion that [evil doesnt exist “actually”] then this specific argument cannot be used by you. As for myself, evil is that which goes against the Nature of God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) and since we are free-will agents who can choose to go against the Nature of God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit), we can choose to do that which is evil. We (all humans) have been given a nature that can choose different courses of action and this is what gives rise to evil in this world. We want to control our own destiny and as such we do not want any external entity to interfere with our choices (except when someone does something to us or ours that we don't like). In this, we want to have our cake and also eat it. Not possible.

[@mcplesk8765]

@@hillstrong715 it doesnt matter whether i perciesve that there is actual evil in the world, you think there is but you also (most likely) believe in a good that is so good he’d definitely wanted to stop it and powerful enough to do so And that free will stuff is garbage... If god cannot create a world where there is no evil and free will, then he’s not omnipotent If god doesnt want to create world where there is no evil and free will, then he’s not omnibenevolent If god doesnt know how to create a world where there is no evil and free will, then he’s not omniscient If god wants, knows how to and has the ability to create a world with no evil and free will, then why didnt he? If he’s neither willing, knowlegeble enough and/or willing to create a world with no evil and free will, then why call him God? This is the problem of evil, suited for your argument Problem of evil shows the cognitive disonance within monotheists, i could believe that evil isnt possible and everything is perfect living in a constant state of euphoria and i’d still be able to use this argument

[@eristonmansambu8225]

They're both gentlemen. They're smart, respectful and well-possessed in themselves. I wanna grow as a man and be rigorously as either of them. Good job, guys!

[@mattsmith1440]

I think it's so great the way you can just discover the origin of the Universe without ever having to leave the comfort of your own armchair. It's also great that it just happens to neatly dovetail with the claims of the most popular religion in the time/place of your birth. I would never suggest you to go look at what actual cosmologists say, with all their data and math, and complicated stuff like that. I also wouldn't bother too much with the historian's view of certain old books either, with their penchant for using multiple sources and attempts at checking facts.

[@vincentiormetti3048]

"It's also great that it just happens to neatly dovetail with the claims of the most popular religion in the time/place of your birth" I think the first point is good but this one isn't much of a coincidence, it isn't prima facie unexpected at all that the religion that convinced the majority of people across human history and is the most dominant in your time and country also happens to be correct.

[@mattsmith1440]

@@vincentiormetti3048 The number of people convinced of a certain thing doesn't really influence me much at all. And unless it was unclear, I don't think any religions are correct about the fundamental nature of reality either. My point was really about contrasting 'the religious method' versus more empirical ones (which tend to be more reliable on my view). I think the Bible in particular, since that's the religious text I'm most familiar with, doesn't actually comport too well with reality.

[@Jacob-hr2vf]

Cameron you should visit Our Lady’s Maronite Catholic Church in Austin. It’s not too far of a drive 😆

[@TheBookgeek7]

OK, now I want to see William Lane Craig debate Trent Horn!

[@sillybearss]

Not gonna even try to evaluate this debate due to lack of brain capacity. But glad to know that it went well. Hope to see any post-debate interview or something.

[@Stoiction]

Ben should win the debate but it’s kind a weak landscape on his side compare to great debaters like great Sam Harris or Matt Dillahunty

[@futilitarian3809]

Congrats on realising your first conference, C.C. Good debate pairing.

[@lendrestapas2505]

Why does Ben talk as if he was an analytic philosophy article

[@shadowlink26]

So that people can engage my arguments premise by premise.

[@zekdom]

1:20:53 - Trent speaking, “If you were to create a perfect world, there are certain goods that would not obtain. I allude to this earlier, that you would have certain goods. You might have moral goods, like forgiveness. Forgiveness which can’t exist without betrayal; courage which can’t exist without danger; compassion which can’t exist without suffering.” 1:21:18 - “I was just watching Back to the Future…” 1:21:32 - “And you know, Doc Brown always says to Marty, ‘Marty, you’ve got to think fourth-dimensionally.’” 1:21:36 - “And I think, sometimes with the problem of evil, we fail to think fourth-dimensionally. We think of the world as a snap-shot the way it is right now. But the world… is a four-dimensional block.” 1:21:48 - “And so, what if the perfect world is one that you have perfection, but part of the block is imperfect? And it goes from imperfect to perfect. So you have all the goods of perfection. And then some goods in the imperfect part, you don’t have in the perfect part. Why couldn’t a perfect Creator do that?” 1:22:23 - 1:23:16 - 1:23:35 - 1:24:15 - Trent responds to the “loving parent” analogy

[@TheologyUnleashed]

49:20 if moral truths are true in all possible worlds and their truth is grounded in theistic facts then it follows that God exists in all possible worlds.

[@shadowlink26]

I'm objecting to the claim that moral truths are "grounded in theistic facts."

[@He.knows.nothing]

I've been speculating this since I delved into actus purus... if god is devoid of potentiality, then wouldn't multiverse theory be a necessary truth if he existed? This just opens up so many philosophical doors for me

[@gor764]

The idea that the first mover would be singular stems from the notion that it's pure act, devoid of potentiality. Multiplicity implies potentiality. For instance, the snow in the Alps is different than the snow in my backyard because potentially it could be elsewhere but it is actually on the alps, and the other could be potentially elsewhere but is actually in my backyard.

[@ob4161]

The snow example is illuminating, but the question is why is this a general or universal fact. The standard Feserian argument says that if A and B are distinct, there must be some feature F which is actual in one and merely potential in the other (and hence, what has no potential is unique). But, why? The mere fact that F is not actual in one does not entail that it is potential in it. For example, the feature of "having whiskers" is not actual in me; but that does not entail (and nor is it true) that it exists _potentially_ in me, either. It is in fact beyond my nature. So, the question comes down to this: why can A and B not be distinguished in virtue of A having F, and B lacking F, where B lacks F both actually and potentially? In this case, nothing in the analysis entails that either one has potentialities. Yet, if this is possible, then it is also possible for there to be a multiplicity of purely actual beings. And hence the argument would not arrive at monotheism.

[@gor764]

@@ob4161 This is an interesting consideration. I'm not settled on the matter myself but I'll engage as a good Thomist here. Potential doesn't always necessarily imply there's a natural impetus towards a specific actualization. Instead we could be talking about act and potency as principles of a composite whole. Potential can also just be a limiting principle, a lack of actuality. I'm having trouble figuring out a way to properly explain this, but I'll give it a shot. Potentiality carves up being. If something lacks some actuality in some respect we naturally ask "why?" and this "why" points to some metaphysical intelligibility - - why is there a lack? Why isn't there actuality here? For instance you gave the example of you not having whiskers being a lack of actuality. You don't have a natural potential for whiskers, but you do lack the actuality of it. But this lack introduces the limiting principle of potentiality regardless of whether or not there's some natural potential yet to be fulfilled. So why are you actually composed in such a way that you don't have whiskers? Well your lack of whiskers could be explained by your cellular make up which is actualized and stabilized by your genetic makeup, the environmental conditions you're currently under, so and and so forth - - a beautiful network of potentials being actualized. So a potential for a particular actual state is still in play and it explains why you are this being in space time instead of another. Would we not be in the same metaphysical boat with regards to a purely actual prime mover? How could something be purely actual and lack actuality in some respect? Wouldn't this actuality, if we take reality to be intelligible, demand some causal explanation? Some reason why its being is actual or actualized in such a way instead of another? If this is the case then our alleged purely actual mover isn't purely actual and the causal chain still needs to be scaled.

[@gor764]

Wow Ben Watkins actually knows the terminology of per se causation and existential inertia. Smart dude.

[@diyaroso3806]

I just opened the video to give it a like for Cameron

[@JCW7100]

I gotta say I'm really surprised that Ben said a cogent religious experience would do it for him. Couldn't he just say that the experience is explainable in material terms (synapses firing and so on)?

[@shadowlink26]

Perhaps, but I want to be open to changing my mind. I’m a philosopher of religion, and I want to be moved by arguments on either side.

[@wet-read]

That is a valid point, and why I think a miracle global in scope would be ideal for God to reveal Itself.

[@TheologyUnleashed]

Was this debate written ahead of time?

[@shadowlink26]

We exchanged rough drafts of our opening statements. We were working together on our writing processes much of the time beforehand, though. We wanted to put forward arguments we could both give robust defenses of while not also talking past one another during exchanges.

[@davethebrahman9870]

Good to see this Cameron fellow following the commands of Jesus. Apparently he’s too poor to afford a patch on his jeans, poor chap.

[@mnmmnm925]

@@creatinechris where u hear that?

[@Nick_fb]

I don't think a non-resistant non-believer has excluded the belief in God by his own terms. I would say he has answered 'maybe' to the existence of God and stuck to it. To say God doesn't exist because he doesn't believe is probably the same as opposing God in his total removal of belief. The 'non-resistant non-believer' is maybe open to a belief in God and a relationship with a loving God, otherwise he is in opposition with belief and therefore God, breaking his own rules. If he denies belief (and therefore God), he opposes God and he is no longer non-resistant. If he does not resist belief and therefore God he is at best agnostic, apathetic or unsure, which opens the possibility of being perfectly loved and there for God exists as an un-utilized resource. How can he be both non-resistant and non-believing? He can't really.

[@vincentiormetti3048]

This was really good

[@r.e.d.docena5957]

Watkins' laugh gave me a bit of Seth Rogen vibe

[@shadowlink26]

I can live with that 😝

[@jendoe9436]

Me up to 1:37:50 : Man, these guys sure are fun to listen to and I’m learning quite a bit. Though haven’t gotten to much of Trent’s humor aside from one or two things. Ah well, it is a heavy topic. Questioner: “What do you say to the dyslexic atheist who lies awake at night thinking if ‘dog’ exists?” Me after Trent and Ben’s answers: 🤣🤣 ah, there it is! So Trent isn’t a pet person and Ben is a cat person. Why does that make so much sense?

[@joecheffo5942]

These religious phrases like "learning truths". What does that mean? I can learn as I get older to talk a little less and listen more in a conversation, that is better for relationships, for getting your point across, repsect, etc. It's a technique, a good habit, a good way of being an effective communicator. I don't know if its a Truth. Same thing when a cop stops you, if you start off rude or defensive that won't be too effective. We can get better at communicating, better at math, better at being a good spouse, better at speaking another language, better at training your dog - but are these Truths? Like calling people "wicked". That is just not a term used in psychology or human behavior. Even serial killers, they seem to be abnormal, deranged, dangerous - they do terrible things. But what does "wicked" add to the conversation? And if they are wicked but can repent at the last minute, what good did that desciption even do? If wicked can be erased like a dry erase board, what's the point? Look at your life, how any people are "wicked". I agree some people seem so horrible and destructive it's amazing, but wicked just seems like a lazy term. It's like a tautolgy. Are they wicked on purpose or do they have sociopath brains, victims of exreme abusive, so addicted they lost all control. etc. Why do they act so horribly? Are they just junk humans with screwed up brains? Then why are they here? Do they enjoy being wicked or are they tormented by it?

[@shawnchristophermalig4339]

Hello cam! Can you do the long-awaited crossover of Jordan Peterson and John lennox

[@Oskar1000]

Theism is defined as "there is at least a god" Theism's comes from theos (God) so theism is god-ism. If naturalism is circular when defined as "natural reality exhaust causal reality" Then theism/god-ism is equally circular when defined as the belief that "there is at least one god" Of course we can expand both definitions but let's not have a double standard.

[@floydthomas4195]

Cope

[@JP-rf8rr]

I don't exactly see that. I get why naturalism "natural reality exhausts causal reality" is circular because of the "exhaust" point, but I don't see how "there is x" is circular.

[@Oskar1000]

@@JP-rf8rr Think about someone who doesn't know the world theos or God. And you say, I am a theist. They say, hmm what does that mean. You say, that means I believe in theos/God. They would still have no idea. This isn't a big problem of course, you can just then explain what God means. In the same way, if someone doesn't know what natural means and you say "that means that natural reality exhaust causal reality" they would similarly still don't know what you mean. Again, no problem because you can then explain what natural means. If the naturalist cannot expand then there is a symmetry breaker of course but I think both definitions and their first expansions are similar.

[@JP-rf8rr]

@@Oskar1000 But that's not an issue of circularity but of unclear terms. It is only circular if you define the term in your claim. That's why I can see why defining naturalism as all of causal reality is circular. The closest definition of God that would be somewhat similar is Aquinas' "ipsum esse subsistens" (subsistant act of being itself). But even that doesn't define God into existence anymore than defining flimflam as Will Smith's third eyeball. You can use that definition of flimflam and still coherently argue whether flimflam exists. And if you only define God as a being with the 3 omni's then it most definitely isn't circular.

[@Oskar1000]

@@JP-rf8rr I don't think either of them is circular just to be clear, I am just saying that if you think naturalism is circular because natural appears in the definition then theism is equally circular in that respect. But if your interlocutor fails to expand on what natural means then it is circular. But if, when asked, they simply expand on what natural means then I don't see what the problem is. Act of being itself is a really narrow view of God, I fail to see how that would cover greek God's for example. Theism is a very broad group descriptor of a bunch of disparate views. It's hard to say what all God concepts have in common. Yet we have a folk-notion of what counts as a god and not. Similarly it may be hard to say what all naturalists have in common. But we have a folk notion of what natural means. No witches, magic, gods, mythical creatures etc.

[@joelmontero9439]

¡Viva Cristo Rey!

[@luizr.5599]

By all means a high-level debate. Thanks to both speakers. I believe Ben made more sense, but it got me thinking.

[@radmcbad1576]

Ben Watkins is probably the most 'open minded' atheist philosopher I have ever heard of. He didn't say that he needed god to come to earth and do something wild to believe, instead, he said, something like 'if I had a meaningful religious experience, I would believe in god.' This idea of having a 'meaningful religious experience' and converting to Christianity is down right normal if you think about it because it is this very thing that honestly, usually converts an atheists. It is usually, difficult to convince someone, that is set in their ways to become a Christian unless they have one of these experiences. I had a few thoughts on his arguments that I might of missed somehow or need more explaining. His problem of evil argument, that if god existed, he would make things less evil seems to break Ockham's Razor because things could always be infinitely better or infinitely worse . In other words, the limitations that Ben Gives to god, seems to be, God can only create god living in a place of god or god can't exist. I missed why this proposition needs to be true. Also, the problem of pain doesn't lead to any kind of objective morality but lets say it did for a second, pain is not actually complex enough to encapsulate all objective morality. Ben Horn also snuck in, free will as being a well accepted fact, without explanation. All in all, I really enjoyed this debate and feel that I learned something from it.

[@whatwecalllife7034]

"Meaningful religious experience" is just about as vague as one can get. I wouldn't say it's open-minded but rather unhealthy skepticism. Plenty of people from various exclusive religious backgrounds have experiences they would describe as "meaningfully religious". All religions can't be true, but they CAN all be wrong. For some reason (because they're mythology) it's only in stories that gods are running about dpimg things directly in front of people or after being requested. However, when asked for these same things in a time when we have better ways of examining, investigation, and thinking, ALL gods are mysteriously absent.

[@radmcbad1576]

@@whatwecalllife7034 Well, when you say, "but they CAN all be wrong.", this kind of claim tends to exceed our limitations of knowledge. So, what I am saying, it might actually be impossible for all religious claims to possibly be wrong. There isn't actually a way of determining if all claims, 'could' all actually be wrong, however, when someone has some kind of mystical experience, that helps them improve their life and the lives of those around them, this black and white terminology of right and wrong isn't necessarily the way that I understand it. Also, I don't really support your use of 'unhealthy skepticism' normatively, unhealthy skepticism, would be total skepticism in the face of empirical facts and valid reasoning. There is another problem I am seeing, ok like, say that once upon a time, that you believed that drought was caused by god and you find, that the precipitation has something to do with the cumuli and humidity and so you have a solution that did not invoke god. From this solution, you determine things should be solved with exhaustive study and you should study the things as if god doesn't exist, with that in mind, you find non mystical solutions. This proposition, doesn't actually account for the people, who never blamed drought on 'god' being upset or rain being magic. Instead, they never shared your perspective about the rain and thought, that god created a universe with law and order, that if we should, study and exhaust the possibilities, as if god actually existed, we should find a reason that is right as rain. So I guess, my problem with the other perspective is, you would have to believe, that an invisible man in the sky, used a magic wand, and things there for occurred spontaneously, with no rhyme or reason, to only then see natural causes, instead of magic ones. With god being natural, god would work through natural means, so looking for magical means, would of actually always been out of the question for the non deluded. Searching for order and reasoning, is the same as searching for god, when it comes to the people who believe.

[@whatwecalllife7034]

@@radmcbad1576 @noob radmcbad Having a "meaningful religious experience", whatever that means and entails, then somehow concluding that a god exists is not healthy skepticism. This is what I have contention with. What you said and what I said aren't mutually exclusive. Are you saying that it is? Yes every religious claim COULD be wrong, as in it has the potential to be false. EVERY claim has the potential to be false, regardless of our ability to investigate those claims. One of the problems with religious claims is the fact that so many exist, some of which are mutually exclusive. This alone brings into question the veracity of said claims. I don't understand why you take issue with any of that. I don't know what your last long paragraph addressing. Of I took a guess I'd say it was because I said that gods only ever directly do things in mythical stories and not in reality? I mean that's just the case though isn't it, or at least by all appearances it seems that way? Why WOULDN'T you expect the same type of things mentioned in various myths if they were actually true? Why settle for vague "meaningful experiences" which can easily be misattributed or better explained by known phenomena?

[@radmcbad1576]

@@whatwecalllife7034 So, the framework of how I am defining unhealthy skepticism is normative, so classically, the usual qualities of unhealthy skepticism pertains to being skeptical, when presented with an overwhelming amount of data that suggests that your belief is not true, yet you maintain skepticism. Lets say, you are schizophrenic and you think for some reason that the government implanted a chip in your body. Despite getting an x-ray, you still maintain that it is true with out reason, and doubt your friends and family, this would be considered 'unhealthy skepticism'. Essentially, Unhealthy skepticism is nothing but paranoia. So when it comes to a 'meaningful religious experience' and someone thinks they see Jesus in their English muffin or something like that, I wouldn't refer to them as unhealthy skeptics, I would just call them stupid and maybe just write it off as pareidolia. My problem, with saying every claim could be potentially false is, we lack of evidence that the claims 'could' potentially be false, specially when we have an incomplete set of information, these things are obviously unknown. Lets just say, the universe is contingent on god, then the claim, god exists couldn't possibly be false. However, the criterion for its possibility to be false is conspicuously absent. Ok, like, if god is true, then it couldn't possibly have this potential to be a false claim, so, since the body of evidence is not available, it seems better to say that, I am not sure if all of the claims could possibly be false, given the lack of evidence, I am enshrouded by the fog of indifference, regarding factual claims either direction. My last concern is the mythos leading to identical experiences. You seem to be creating some type of attribute that requires experiences about the mythos to be similar in nature, though individuals have a wide variety of perceptions. This narrative seems plainly wrong to me. Forget about the mythology for a second and just take facts into consideration, our perceptions widely vary on facts, with this in mind why would the interpretations of the schema of facts widely vary, but not the mythos? Why would the mythos change our nature to be completely aligned despite a priory biases? More over, 'meaningful experiences' is actually vague and so my assumption was a 'meaningful experience' that has potentiality to convert a highly intelligent atheist philosopher and not something like a potato that looks like Buddha. you are guilty of the same thing but to a worse degree, by having the assumption that it can be better explained by known phenomena or misattributed, given no attributes, you are already questioning the integrity of the experience and giving it characteristics, though, the experience doesn't exist.

[@whatwecalllife7034]

@@radmcbad1576 The fact that we have an incomplete set of information is PRECISELY why I said every claim can potentially be false. If you want to have an accurate view of reality, you have to operate under this basis because otherwise you'd have to accept everything or be immune to belief revision. I'm not sure how everything else after that answers what I asked. It seems like you are making unwarranted assumptions about me. Can you rephrase what you think I'm asking?

[@theologicalintrospection]

I'd just like to say, there are people who actually enjoy having pain inflicted of them, pain isn't always evil, this is a claim that is just false.

[@morlewen7218]

One big problem I have with cosmological arguments and related ones is the fact hat they only take phenomena present in space time into account. Things like minds, space, time , energy, abstract things etc. Phenomena that can only exist in absence of space time are excluded a priori. Minds are transposed to the absence of space tiem without evidence that is possible. Since we can not examine phenomena and beings in absence of space time we can not conclude that the state of nothing can exist at all.

[@whatsinaname691]

What do you suppose than is the real problem being made then? That they’re trying to use the best inference?

[@AsixA6]

@@whatsinaname691 It's not the best inference. The best inference is naturalism since, that's ALWAYS been the best inference and theism has NEVER succeeded as the best inference.

[@whatsinaname691]

@@AsixA6 That’s just completely backwards. Naturalism makes less assumptions on face, but the existence of a brute fact is always going to make the inference drop to >.0000000000000000000001. Whereas theism can never drop below .5 no matter how hard you try.

[@AsixA6]

@@whatsinaname691 Dude, wtf are you rambling about? EVERY phenomena EVER explained has had a natural explanation. ZERO phenomena have EVER been explained supernaturally. This fact makes naturalism the best inference.

[@morlewen7218]

@@whatsinaname691 First we have to admit that we have no idea what and what not can exist in absence of space time. Could be billions of things or only very few things. We have no idea which laws rule in absence of space time.

[@Hbmd3E]

Cameron was based not taking sides

[@ortegafilms4575]

Does Trent have a yt channel or does he just pop up on debates at random?

[@MiszuFiszu]

Yes he does, his channel is called "Counsel of Trent"

[@EstudioVoitheia]

kzbin.info

[@ELxSEVEN]

KZbin channel; The Council of Trent

[@basicin4mationvlog293]

Yes he have "counsel of Trent" yt channel

[@jendoe9436]

Along with his KZbin and Podcasts, Trent also contributes to Catholic Answers with articles and radio shows, recently worked with a homeschool network for some material, and is an associate (?) professor at a university (can’t remember which one).

[@tann_man]

2:10:40 “we should always respect the people but not necessarily the opinions they hold” Always is strong position. Should we respect people who hold and disseminate objectively evil ideas? Should we respect those who believe and actively facilitate genocide? Or infanticide?

[@DeusEx_Machina]

respect is earned, not given. That said, one should be charitable enough to hear out the opinion in the first place.

[@anteodedi8937]

The question raised by the guy at 2:00:40 is spot on! As Graham Oppy says, the theory is prior to arguments but some theists don't want to accept/recognize that because their entire project of natural theology crumbles.

[@wet-read]

Theology is Ontology *ON BLACK ICE*

[@geraldpchuagmail]

We are blessed of your ministry. Sorry can't come there. Greetings from the Philippines

[@Lordpraisethe]

This was very good.

[@trevoradams3702]

Idk why, but Ben’s first rebuttal felt like 70 minutes, not 7 lol.

[@robb7855]

Trent crushed it.

[@AsixA6]

Oops! It's spelled, "got crushed".

[@robb7855]

@@AsixA6 Zing! Lol. But really, to my lights Trent crushed all objections and made the better case.

[@AsixA6]

@@robb7855 Trent's 'case' was nonsensical, "actualized", linguistic gymnastics. Do you really think someone not theist would find that gibberish even slightly convincing enough to award Trent the debate win? Of course not!!! Trent is there to convince the already convinced.

[@robb7855]

@@AsixA6 I've yet to find a person more skeptical than I was. Sorry, friend, but I'm just following facts and logic.

[@AsixA6]

@@robb7855 Sorry, but you’re not at all skeptical, following facts nor using logic, if you believe invisible magicians exist.

[@brendansheehan6180]

I never realized how the best objections against theism don't work, even when presented in the best possible way. But now I do.

[@mcplesk8765]

Care to elaborate?

[@brendansheehan6180]

@@mcplesk8765 Watch the debate.

[@DeusEx_Machina]

what makes you think these are the best objections?

[@brendansheehan6180]

@@DeusEx_Machina because I have seen the objections for some time, and these are the best on offer.

[@DeusEx_Machina]

@@brendansheehan6180 Ah I see. Well, that is subjective after all. It's also the case that it still doesn't get us to god. We must continue the search, brother!

[@Hbmd3E]

Dwayne Burke ( Is Jesus God? Jay Dyer / Bob the Builder ) What made me decide that the God of Christianity was the true God- 1.Discovering lucifer was real via occultism 2. Discovering that no other religion is connected to the supernatural via lucifer other than Abrahamic religions. There is no secondary supernatural!! 3.Discovering that no other religion has a verifiable counterpart than that of Christianity. 4. Discovering that the supernatural and mankinds true origins was kept secret from mankind for thousands of years. In secret societies. 5.understanding that the bible was being followed by those in these secret societies. 6. That history lines up with the path of the bible and confirms Jesus Christ’s death as explained in the bible 7.the knowledge it revealed before that knowledge was known before science. 8.the future phrophecies. 9.the archeological discoveries that are connected to the bible 10.the Giants spoken of in the bible 11. The bible codes 12. Shroud of Turin of the resurrection. Dwayne Burke How do we check to see if Jesus Christ is who he claimed to be 1. He would have to have knowledge unknown to man 2. Be able to predict the future 3. There has to be a supernatural 4. The bible has to play out the way he said it would 5. His word has to always survive and spread far and wide.

[@YTuser874]

This is awesome!

[@hopelessstrlstfan181]

Great debate & I'm on Trent's side, but I have a question regarding his opening argument. Maybe, there is a way to argue against a single final cause. Granted, the absurdity of infinite regress prevents anything in our experience from having an infinite chain of causes. So yes, there must be a "final" cause whose ability to cause change in what we experience is eternally fully actualized. However, what prevents that cause from having a potential to become something in addition to being the final cause of all that we experience? Yes, that means the "final cause" for what we experience isn't the actual final "final" cause, but that's my point. We would never know, provided the final cause of what we experience was eternally actualized as our final cause. Why can't that which functions as our "final" cause (& thereby ensure there is no infinite regress of causal links) itself be moved provided its function of "final" cause of our experience is maintained?

[@Qwerty-jy9mj]

that would imply potential in the final cause which would contradict it's own finality. The final cause of the things that explains the being of all other things is to be itself, therefore it's finality is identical to it's essence

[@hopelessstrlstfan181]

@@Qwerty-jy9mj , yes. But, we can't assume what we are trying to establish. I don't think the fallacy of infinite regress establishes anything more than the eternal actuality of a "final cause" of all that >we< experience. What prevents that "final cause" (let's call it "apparent final cause" or "afc") from having a potential to change into being something in addition to being the "afc" provided it is eternally actual in its capacity to cause all that we experience. Why can't the "afc" multitask & Do something, in addition to being the "afc"? Why can't it Go from state A1 (eternal cause of all we experience) to state A2 (eternal cause of all we experience plus something else)? Yes, that would mean that "afc" isn't actually the Final Cause Trent (&others) tried to establish. As long as "afc" has eternal actualityof its ability to cause all that we experience, then the fallacy of infinite regress isn't violated. Yes, "afc" would then not be changeless in all respects and apparently it isn't a true final cause, but it still functions in a way that avoids infinite regress. The key I guess is that we would never know if "afc" begins to multitask while causing the changes we experience. Still, I don't think we can say this argument from change alone establishes anything beyond the eternal actuality of the "afc" of all change we experience.

[@Qwerty-jy9mj]

@@hopelessstrlstfan181 The argument isn't dependent on what you experience, it's not limited to what we know or conceive, it explains rationally all that _is,_ by adding stipulations all you're doing is attributing potential to the final cause, which is purely actual meaning that either: it's metaphysically impossible or, the final cause is the explanation of the additional potential.

[@sittingbull7445]

@@Qwerty-jy9mj from what I understand, in orthodox Christian theology the essence-energy distinction states that God is both actuality and “potential” or potentiality meaning that your latter statement is true; God is by definition the cause of any additional actualised potentiality

[@hopelessstrlstfan181]

@@Qwerty-jy9mj , yes. My limiting it to what we experience was a false start. Obviously, an unmoved cause by definition wouldn't need to be limited to what can be experienced. Duh. I guess I was just thinking that the argument from motion does attempt to establish the pure actuality of the unmoved mover from the fact that motion from potential to actuality is observed in the universe and that the fallacy of infinite regress demonstra tes that there must be at least one mover that it fully actualized in its capacity to move all other things, but why can't that actualized mover not have potential in its other capacities? I will give some more thought to want you wrote.

[@naparzanieklawiatury4908]

2:09:17 "I also don't think his evidential case for god not existing did not work" I agree, Ben's evidential case works very well. As to Trent's response -- pointing to the possibility of God having some reasons does nothing to undermine the argument. You'd have to show it's plausible, not just possible

[@miltonwetherbee5489]

just because minds interact in the physical universe via brains, doesn't mean that minds are dependent on the physical. I drive a car, my existence and decisions that direct the car aren't dependent on the car. It's possible the mind directs our bodies via the brain.

[@AWalkOnDirt]

The problem of evil is such a highly hurdle. There’s not a satisfactory answer. The answers seem to almost praise suffering which includes the most cruel.

[@thewalruswasjason101]

The question of evil is a terrible one on atheism. On atheism, there have been and will be millions of evil deeds done with the perpetrators never being punished for them. On theism, they may escape earthly judgement, but they will be punished for the sin. That promise alone makes theism FAR more agreeable imo.

[@jacoblee5796]

I agree, the problem of evil is a HUGE issue for Christians. They never deal with it in any meaningful way and often just point their finger at the atheist and say "NaHA, tHatS a PrOBleM fOR AtHEiSM"....Which is a childish and strawman rebuttal, atheists don't claim to have a PERFECT being who is PERFECTLY good and PERFECTLY loving.

[@jimothynimajneb622]

@@thewalruswasjason101 you’d expect that under atheism though so I don’t see how that’s a problem. Under classical theism you often claim for god to be all knowing and all good. I know there’s that “morally sufficient reasoning” bull crap but that doesn’t convince me; I remember cosmic skeptic making the point about COVID that we operated perfectly fine for millennia without it, so inductively we can reasonably doubt that there’s morally sufficient justification for allowing hundreds of thousands of people to die to Covid

[@friendly_user1233]

@@thewalruswasjason101 That’s an interesting thought

[@jonphinguyen]

Its simple as per Aquinas. (Paraphrasing) The problem of evil only exists if one does not believe God can bring about a greater good from such things.

[@davidfabien7220]

This life or the next would be absolutely miserable and unbearable if there were no love and no hope in God. If so desired, God's grace is at work to restore fallen men just as creation itself will also be freed from its bondage to decay. Pain which is an outcome of sin, its root cause, motivates a loving God to respond quickly in a rapid outflow of goodness, mercy and grace to bring genuine repentance and contrition in fallen man - if he so desires - for his restoration in this life or the next. Heaven is freedom from sin and death and thus enabling us to enjoy true life to the fullest. I think that our freedom from sin and death starts here on earth, is sped up in purgatory and finally ends in heaven. Romans 5:20b where sin increased, grace overflowed all the more.

[@reverendgordontubbs]

I'll see myself out.

[@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns]

Naturalism does *not* “imply that there’s no life after death.”

[@Firewall-q7x]

Why is Ben talking to the audience during moderated dialogue? 🤣🤣🤣

[@AsixA6]

Because there's no law against it.

[@heycolombia7977]

It's nice to finally watch an atheist that doesn't have the resentful and sarcastic tone of most famous atheists..... He's still wrong about God mind you, but at least he's wrong with a pleasant tone.

[@AsixA6]

No, he's right about invisible magicians.

[@arbaentertainment315]

No, you are wrong about reality.

[@blondboozebaron]

If we Sacrifice the argument and look at the Words Whole middle way to measure why do we need brands?

[@timjohnson2186]

John 3:16

[@DeusEx_Machina]

it'd be nice if Trent would let Ben finish before chiming in. Kinda disingenuous and illustrates he isn't really listening, just waiting to speak.

[@miltonwetherbee5489]

If there's no reason things should have a single cause to explain everything, what is all the hype over evolution where all life has a common ancester?

[@theoskeptomai2535]

Are you asserting that the fact that biological lifeforms have common ancestry mean that biological evolution can be boiled down to a _single_ cause?

[@miltonwetherbee5489]

@@theoskeptomai2535 No. I'm pointing light that in one instance people are arguing for a single thing as an origin, and then for something else they are quite happy to accept that lots of stuff just exists without a cause. This is something that could cause people to at least question how sound their reasoning is. Incidentally, I find the scientific explanation of evolution to be lacking. That's not to say evolution is definitely wrong, but the current conception of it doesn't fully add up and this should leave open the possibility that it is, in fact, wrong rather than trusting (having faith) that science will someday provide the answers to how it is actually right.

[@wet-read]

I don't see what the problem is supposed to be. Life seems to be an emergent phenomenon. Biology is emergent from chemistry, which is in turn emergent from physics. Photosynthesis is another such example, too. I'm not sure we can do that with everything though. Maybe physics is the most we can hope to do, at least with purely empirical explanations.

[@ThePettiestOfficer_Juan117]

I thought Cameron would be taller.

[@matthieulavagna]

@Caleb Baierl how tall is Rasmussen?

[@danglingondivineladders3994]

@@matthieulavagna 6 10 and a half

[@vincentiormetti3048]

I thought Rasmussen would be shorter

[@Tommy01_XO]

@@danglingondivineladders3994 get that man on a basketball court

[@brendansheehan6180]

Before even entering into Trents rebuttal: Responding to Ben 1. It would be leaner to exclude Abraham Lincoln from world history. That wouldn't make it a better theory in regards to world history. 2. If you can only define what God is not, and what God must be in some way like, you cannot establish a contradiction in what God is, being, in principle, you will never establish how God *is*. (These objections are obnoxious and point missing). 3. How do you make an "all things considered" argument against evil when by defintion you could not possibly consider all things? 4. If there is something more than life, and we mean a qualitatively different life, not like a continuation in any way like this one, and a reality which is eternal, litterally any experience in this life would be ultimately worth it given the latter could be had whatsoever.

[@Hbmd3E]

Sitting down in Memphis instead of Walking in Memphis

[@Ali124hdkflc]

I'm glad I watched this video. This just reassures me that atheistic argument are very weak. So much fallacies in Ben's arguments...

[@billj6109]

Does anyone actually believe that living things experience more suffering than joy in their being? Seems highly unlikely.

[@flyingphoenix113]

Agreed. Shelly Kagan's argument for suicide (for instance) would be much more forceful if the totality of one's sorrow/suffering inarguably eclipsed the totality of one's joy.

[@vincentiormetti3048]

yeah, antinatalism is a growing movement unfortunately

[@billj6109]

@@flyingphoenix113 Right, and although we can't get into the minds of animals they seem to me to be all abuzz having a pretty grand time despite having to die eventually. Human suffering is the deepest kind and yet the incidence of suicide is comparatively miniscule and broadly evokes revulsion, shock and disapproval from an average person, even where joined with sympathy.

[@demergent_deist]

It depends on what you take to be suffering already in the first place. The father of philosophical pessimism, Arthur Schopenhauer, applies the concept of suffering in living beings, who are constantly willing beings, very early on ontologically: "However, willing itself is closely intertwined with suffering in another way. First, willing could not spring from a state of total sufficiency and contentment. A being strives only if it experiences a lack or deficiency, and experiencing a lack is already a form of suffering. Secondly, in the course of events one does not attain some of the ends for which one strives. If one does not achieve an end, one's original lack is prolonged, which, together with the consciousness of not achieving one's end, is further suffering." (Christopher Janaway - Schopenhauer: A Very Short Introduction) If an awareness is added to it, as with man, then the suffering would be greater. I don't want to say that this view is completely convincing, but the whole problem cannot be solved objectively in my opinion, because what concerns suffering implies a question of value, and questions of value can hardly be solved objectively.

[@demergent_deist]

@@flyingphoenix113 Exactly, the question is whether one would or could agree with the following quote by Schopenhauer: "But as far as the life of the individual is concerned, every life history is a history of suffering, because the course of each life is for the most part a continuous series of accidents both great and small; [...] perhaps there will never be a man who, clear-headed and sincere at the end of his life, would want to do it all again - he would much rather choose complete non-existence instead." (Arthur Schopenhauer - The World as Will and Representation)

[@johncook19]

This debate was for who's benefit obviously Trent Horn and the holy Roman Catholic world institution of Mensonges and fantasy. How bad and sickly can a debate get.

[@willyounotthink3903]

73. O people! A parable is presented, so listen to it: Those you invoke besides God will never create a fly, even if they banded together for that purpose. And if the fly steals anything from them, they cannot recover it from it. Weak are the pursuer and the pursued. 74. They do not value God as He should be valued. God is Strong and Powerful. 75. God chooses messengers from among the angels, and from among the people. God is Hearing and Seeing. 76. He knows what is before them, and what is behind them. To God all matters are referred. 77. O you who believe! Kneel, and prostrate, and worship your Lord, and do good deeds, so that you may succeed. 78. And strive for God, with the striving due to Him. He has chosen you, and has not burdened you in religion-the faith of your father Abraham. It is he who named you Muslims before, and in this. So that the Messenger may be a witness over you, and you may be witnesses over the people. So pray regularly, and give regular charity, and cleave to God. He is your Protector. What an excellent Protector, and what an excellent Helper. Quran.22

[@mitromney]

Imagine all of this effort and money going into evangelisation of simple people who do not care about philosophy, just need Christ and would accept him if they heard about him. Many christians in the comments here applaud these kinds of pointless neverending philosophical debates but I'll just never understand how is that in any way Biblical or useful. You take all ofthis from ONE VERSE about being ready to give an anwser? Apologetics are not scriptural nor useful for the Kingdom. I've never met a person who converted because they were given a good philosophical argument in my life. The scripture says that if gospel is not received we should shrug the dust and move on. Not sit down and endlessly debate. People aren't atheists because they lack logical reasons to believe. They are atheists because they love their sin. That's all there is for it.

[@tiffanybryant8911]

I was an atheist who lacked logical reasons to believe. I converted largely because of Trent’s apologetics book Why We’re Catholic and other apologetics resources. You’re correct in that it’s not the only piece of the puzzle, but it shouldn’t be tossed aside. These kinds of debates are extremely important. That one piece of scripture is also extremely important because any verse from scripture is the Word of God. If you don’t personally care for this method of evangelization, that’s okay... there are others. But I just wanted to testify that this one has value too. God bless!

[@Kehvo_exe]

@@tiffanybryant8911 Well said!

[@demergent_deist]

I refer to the penultimate question from the audience. Trent's proof of God from motion presupposes the concepts of act and potency as fundamental to elucidate motion. For me these concepts are rather secondary and veil in their crudeness what is actually going on with movement. They, that is the concepts act and potency, cannot explain movement at all, because they already assume the very idea of movement. Actuality and potentiality are less primitive than motion itself, and indeed need to be defined through it. Movement always has an aspect of spontaneity, that is, of acting on one's own or acting out of oneself. That this is no nonsense is shown by the philosophy of subjectivity since Kant. Whoever does not understand the stream of consciousness as a phenomenon of spontaneity is, in my opinion, on the wrong track. Trent's understanding of act and potency with respect to movement always seems to imply a relation of things that are different from each other, always an external relation, not a self-relation. Spontaneity should also be assumed for the quantum domain. For "normal" causality does not take place there. Therefore a physicist must say the following: "At the deepest level we currently know about, the basic notions are things like “spacetime,” “quantum fields,” “equations of motion,” and “interactions.” No causes, whether material, formal, efficient, or final."(Carroll, Sean - The big picture) Furthermore, Trent's notion of potency seems to be closely related to the Aristotelian idea of prime matter. This is problematic in itself. In my understanding potency is also always something effectual. Prime matter, on the other hand, seems to be something completely passive, which ontically or ontologically very probably does not exist at all. To me, the more subtle terms of tendency, coercion, and spontaneity are much better terms for describing movement than the cruder terms of act and potency.

[@catholickirby]

There are serious physicists who argue that uncollapsed wave functions - fundamental to all material being - are best described as pure potency, or prime matter. Werner Heisenberg himself said: "All the elementary particles are made of the same substance, which we may call energy or universal matter; they are just different forms in which matter can appear. If we compare this situation with the Aristotelian concepts of matter and form, we can say that the matter of Aristotle, which is mere "potentia," should be compared to our concept of energy, which gets into 'actuality' by means of the forms, when the elementary particle is created."

[@whatsinaname691]

Carroll can claim them to be separate, but in his own debate with WLC he seemed to be relying on the concepts himself to argue his positions.

[@brendansheehan6180]

If you want to escape the notion of potential being and actual being when describing a change in being.... You might be experiencing motivated reasoning.

[@demergent_deist]

​@@brendansheehan6180 I only want to escape the Aristotelian interpretation of these notions, because under this interpretation they are too simplistic, limited in application and ultimately secondary to the explanation of motion. My point is not to escape them completely. I mean, I could describe and explain a movement very well without using act and potency, and this description of mine could be paraphrased again with act and potency. But act and potency would then not be identical with Aristotelian act and potency here.

[@brendansheehan6180]

@@demergent_deist They aren't too simplistic. Rather, they are essential. That's why they are what they are. When you cannot take away these features and still have what is being described? That's when you have something that must be true. And that is why it is a reliable pillar to build up from.

[@damirmiranda9248]

Trent is actually talking to a demon.

[@estuchedepeluche2212]

So, God created humans, gave them free will, but expected them to obey His will, not act of their own. When they didn't obey, He had no option, -though He is omnipotent and free-, but to become a human -granted, a divine human- to die crucified and atone for the sins -disobedience- of His own creation. That makes sense, doesn't it?

[@alimpolosify]

It doesn't. The love of God for sinful humans doesn't make sense.

[@estuchedepeluche2212]

@@alimpolosify Sure, if you call that “love”.

[@jacoblee5796]

Lol no it doesn't make sense at all. Married bachelors don't make sense either.

[@estuchedepeluche2212]

@@jacoblee5796 What do you mean "married bachelors don't make sense"? If you are married, the day of your wedding you were a bachelor up to the second you said “yes”, then you became a married person, all in the same day, yet you exist! Besides marriage is underpinned by a speech act, that is, a verbal expression under circumstances of sincerity among the participants, and authority for the officer. But going from bachelor to married does not change the fact that you exist, it doesn't even affect a cell of you body, -other than the ones that were already changing-. The analogy is risable at best, there are better examples of impossible objects. Good day.

[@jacoblee5796]

@@estuchedepeluche2212 Dude i was agreeing with you.

[@billj6109]

God is simpler than nature, but even if He were not, simplicity alone is not decisive. Explanatory power is just as important for setting a prior probability

[@AsixA6]

"God" has ZERO explanatory power.

[@billj6109]

@@AsixA6 God has 100% explanatory power. I think what you mean is theism just has low plausibility. But as a hypothesis it's explanatory power for everything else in reality is massive. Naturalism on the other hand has a grave lack of explanatory power.

[@AsixA6]

@@billj6109 _"God has 100% explanatory power"_ *False, a 'god' has ZERO explanatory power.* _"Naturalism on the other hand has a grave lack of explanatory power."_ *Except for EVERY phenomena EVER explained in human history! lol*

[@billj6109]

@@AsixA6 your caps lock have convinced me.

[@AsixA6]

@@billj6109 Ahahaha!!! Too funny. YOU are claiming your invisible magician has explanatory power. So, explain something. The starting point is zero explanatory power, until something is explained. I think what you’re failing to grasp, is that explanatory power means the power to explain. So far, in human history, every phenomena that has ever been explained, has not required invisible magicians.*

[@miltonwetherbee5489]

I also don't get why he's talking about evil? Evil presumes morality, but what is his basis for morality? Why are the things he claims to be evil, evil? How do you get morality from naturalism to complain about the evil in the universe being a reason God can't exist, or probably doesn't exist?

[@theoskeptomai2535]

Are you asserting that belief in god is _necessary_ to make moral assesments of evil?

[@miltonwetherbee5489]

@@theoskeptomai2535 if you are standing on the ground, you don't have to believe that ground exists in order to prevent you from falling through space, the ground will support you regardless of your belief. But if you don't believe the ground exists, you need some justification for why you aren't falling through space. Similarly, if God is in fact the source of morality, you could be a moral person even if you don't believe in Him. Just like the existence of the ground is a fact and will do what it does regardless of your belief or lack thereof, morality is a fact and does what it does regardless of our belief or lack thereof in where it comes from. The question therefore isn't whether or not belief in God makes people moral, the question is why is there morality. So far, the only explanation I've heard for that which makes sense is God. The various explanations for morality from the non-religious seem to be subjective or relative moralities that make morals little more than opinions rather than facts. If morality is subjective or relativistic, then how can we say what Hitler did is actually wrong, or evil?

[@theoskeptomai2535]

@@miltonwetherbee5489 Was that a 'yes' or a 'no'?

[@miltonwetherbee5489]

@@theoskeptomai2535 it should be obvious by both but original comment and the reply that not only am I not asserting that a belief in God is not necessary to make moral assessments, but that the ability to make moral assessments is irrelevant to the argument at hand. My argument is that if evil is real and objective, then morality is real and objective, and for morality to be real and objective God exists necessarily. If that is the case, trying to use evil to disprove God doesn't work because if it did work then God didn't exist and then there's no basis for objective morality, which means evil doesn't exist to disprove the existence of God. This means that the problem of evil is tied to arguments from morality. So, I'm stating that I have not been presented with a good way of grounding morality as objective other than God. Granted, the problem of evil can be treated as a purely internal critique of Christianity, however, doing so strikes me as pretentious as when you are done arguing as an intellectual exercise, you have to live in a world where evil is either subjective, which many people, including atheists are disinclined to grant due to the implications, or objective, which most people probably hold to be true but which also requires some foundation that a naturalistic explanation seems incapable of which brings us back to the question of God's existence.

[@theoskeptomai2535]

@@miltonwetherbee5489 Evil is an _assessment_ and therefore, not _objective._ Sorry, not you will have to sneak your god on elsewhere.

[@stevenvelez1717]

Bro this is awesome I start Monday at hbu 😅

[@defeatingdefeaters]

My first impression is that Cameron sounds like Gavin Newsom.