Debate: Does God Exist? - Fr Gregory Pine Vs. Ben Watkins

In this LIVE debate Fr. Gregory Pine and Ben Watkins debate the existence of God.
Debate format below.
🔴 LEARN MORE
🙏 Become a Patron of Pints With Aquinas: / mattfradd
💻 Learn more about Pints With Aquinas: pintswithaquin...
🔴 APOLOGETICS CONFERENCE
www.virtualcat......
🔴 DEBATE FORMAT
Opening Statements
Affirmative Opening Statement (15 minutes)
Negative Opening Statement (15 minutes)
First Rebuttals
Affirmative First Rebuttal (7 minutes)
Negative First Rebuttal (7 minutes)
Second Rebuttals
Affirmative Second Rebuttal (4 minutes)
Negative Second Rebuttal (4 minutes)
Cross Examination
The cross examiner is allowed to interrupt and move the flow of the argument as he sees fit.
Affirmative cross examines negative (12 minutes)
Negative cross examines affirmative (12 minutes)
Audience Questions (30 minutes)
Each person gets 2 minutes to answer a question addressed to them and their opponent gets 1 minute to respond
Closing Statements
Affirmative Closing Statement (5 minutes)
Negative Closing Statement (5 minutes)

[@PintsWithAquinas]

Who won and why?

[@otropaisy]

I won, God does not exist

[@otropaisy]

Matt, did you read Isaiah 43:10, it clearly says that there was a before god and that there will be an after him, it means that God has a beginning, the bible says that he was formed.

[@otropaisy]

@Classical Theist00 they never answered my question about god's free will, if god cannot do evil, is he really free? are we freer than him?

[@thenetchatefakatherapture7538]

@@otropaisy Actually, he (anthropomorphically) does exist! *The Meaning of the Names* "YHWH is a proper noun referring to the God of Israel. It is often translated "LORD" (with either all caps or with small caps to keep it distinct from occurrences of "adonai"). Elohim is the generic term for god or gods that only later became a proper name. As such, YHWH is used whenever the Bible stresses God's personal relationship with His people and the ethical nature of His character. Elohim refers to God's power, His creating all things, and how He is the ruler of all life and all things. Psalm 19 is one of the best examples of how these names are used. The first 6 verses speak of Elohim and His relation to the material world. However, beginning in verse 7, YHWH appears and the focus of the Psalm shifts to the law, precepts, and His relationship with humans who know Him. The name YHWH is used to show the personal nature of God and how He relates to human beings. On the other hand, Elohim refers to the transcendent creator of the universe, who shaped it. YHWH is appropriate when emphasizing the relationship with Him in personal and ethical matters. Elohim connects deity with existence and humanity. Accordingly, Genesis 1 uses Elohim to show God's power in creating all things. Genesis 2:4-3:23 uses YHWH-Elohim to show the very intimate and detailed relationship between God and Adam and Eve. Both names are used to show that the same Elohim who created all things maintains a personal relationship with those who walk in His ways. Note that in the very first "J passage," (who is supposed to know God as YHWH) the name is YHWH-Elohim." Luke, Frank. Master of Arts in Theological Studies and Master of Divinity - Assemblies of God Theological Seminary. Springfield, Missouri. hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/1461/why-does-god-say-he-only-revealed-his-name-yahweh-to-moses Now… consider the following: "Panentheism (from Greek πᾶν (pân) "all"; ἐν (en) "in"; and θεός (Theós) "God"; "all-in-God") is a belief system which posits that God exists and interpenetrates every part of nature, and timelessly extends beyond as well. Panentheism is distinguished from pantheism, which holds that God is synonymous with the material universe. In panentheism, God is not exactly viewed as the creator or demiurge but the eternal animating force behind the universe, with the universe as nothing more than the manifest part of God. The cosmos exists within God, who in turn "pervades" or is "in" the cosmos. While pantheism asserts that God and the universe are coextensive, panentheism claims that God is greater than the universe and that the universe is contained within God. Panentheism holds that God is the "supreme affect and effect" of the universe." www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Panentheism [This definition was removed by Reference dot com] For further inquiry into the concept of panentheism and how it relates to Judeo-Christian theology visit the following web page: plato.stanford.edu/entries/panentheism/ Furthermore, understanding the true nature of the "inner" personal YHWH that the Ancient Hebrews communicated with and that the biblical writers described visit the following web page: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_unconscious

[@otropaisy]

@@arturobuco I beat god more than once. Why is he free if he cannot do evil? are we freer than him?

[@lukacasey9087]

Fr Gregory won because he is based, redpilled, epic, and is an alpha male.

[@otropaisy]

That is just a fallacy

[@stupickles3714]

@@otropaisy Ur existance is a fallacy.

[@throughaglassanalytically1679]

This is basically a "New Atheist" level comment. Surely you can be better?

[@javiermariscal5712]

Could it be that this is in fact a joke that is not meant to be taken seriously🤔

[@joshuaphilip7601]

@@throughaglassanalytically1679 difference is, this is clearly a joke and meant satirically. I'm sure all the theists here (me included) were delighted to see Ben invited on and we were certainly glad to see him distance himself from new Atheism. The problem with new Atheism is often they think their satire is argument enough, often treating theism as a laughable position.

[@wilhufftarkin8543]

It's so refreshing to see a respectful debate without strawmen and ad hominem attacks these days! I thank all three of you for that!

[@matthewantero5960]

Here are some of my on-the-spot, post-debate thoughts: - Seeing Fr. Pine debate and how he articulated his position (especially on how he "combined" the first 3 ways of Aquinas into a single "argument") is the final straw for me: I WILL enter the Dominican order. That's an irreversible decision now (at least it seems to me at this time) - I appreciate the fact that Ben Watkins argued for the apparent incoherence of Classical Theism (i.e. how it poses problems with Divine Freedom/modal collapse and Divine Knowledge) against Fr. Pine's position. It's very rare for "KZbin Atheists" to do that. Ben's argumentation is a breath of fresh air for the Atheist internet movement, after many years of New Atheist dominance. - I just want to express a minor dissatisfaction I had with Fr. Pine's position: his failure to address Ben's objection that there is still a gap problem between an "unactualized actualizer" and a "purely actual actualizer". I would've loved to hear Fr. Pine's thoughts on that one. Which brings me to my next point... - Gaven Kerr should debate (or at least have a dialogue with) Ben Watkins on the De Ente Argument. I think Ben's concern on the gap problem can be properly addressed once we focus on the Thomist conception of esse as an actualizing principle. - I think Ben should've pressed upon his objection that neither a per se nor a per accidens series of causes imply a need for a first cause and that both causal series can be infinite (another point that, I think, Fr. Pine also failed to address properly/adequately). If this objection is correct, then it would bring Thomism (and even Theism in general) to its knees, because Thomism says that God is the first cause of created reality. If there need not be a first cause, then we need not posit an entity like God (Ben can then argue, like Graham Oppy would, that Naturalism/Atheism should be preferred to Theism given the former's simplicity as a theory over the former, but I don't know: probably Oppy's anti-Theism is different from Ben's) - Fr. Pine is correct in reiterating that God cannot be a subject to anthropomorphizing, and that He transcends creaturely classification. If God cannot be a moral agent like us, then the apparent problem of evil and suffering that we have as creatures cannot be applied to things about God. - Fr. Pine could've also phrased better his view on morality, I think: given his commitment to the natural law, he could've just said first that moral goodness is just a special case of what metaphysical/transcendental goodness is, in general. He touched upon this idea, of course (when he used the examlle of how we naturally would want to take care of our teeth) but he could've made it clearer still. - Overall, I'd say this: the debate is a 9.8/10! It isn't a "super perfect" debate, of course, given the time constraints and all that, but the debaters have articulated their views in a very intellectually engaging fashion. I thank them both because of it. Also, Matt Fradd is right: this is a breath of fresh air after all the stress we received from political discussions and the like which tend to be toxic. I hope debates like this can be more regular in the future. - I think that Ben Watkins won simply for 2 reasons: (1) the 2 objections that Fr. Pine failed to address (or at least address properly) that I noted above, and (2) because Thomism, the philosophical system that Fr. Pine adheres to, is such a huge system that it won't do justice for it to be simply represented in a limited/time-constrained debate. It is expected that, even if Fr. Pine answers many questions in this debate, his presentations will raise more questions that he unfortunately can never address in this debate. With regards to this, the fun will always be found in books and academic papers. I pray that some day, Ben Watkins will finally come to acknowledge the existence of God who lovingly and mercifully sustains him in being and is absolutely worthy of his worship!!!

[@kylexinye1990]

I appreciate all of your thoughts. I agree, Ben is a breath of fresh air (unlike the first reply to you) in the toxic system of internet atheism. If only more people could be like him.

[@icanfartloud]

@Nigel Butt "mustard seed's worth of empirical evidence that a multicellular eukaryote bodily came back to life after rotting for a couple days in the heat" Provide a description of what would be acceptable

[@MeisterBeefington]

@@icanfartloud He seems to go around rewriting that phrase in all the comments, as though he invented empiricism and is letting the world know at long last. I sincerely hope he types it out each time and doesn't use copy and paste.

[@journeyfiveonesix]

The infinitude of a per se causal series does not explain itself, given that none of the members contain their own causal power. The whole series requires a source of actuality, since it's always derived.

[@LogosTheos]

@Nigel Butt Seems like you have been brainwashed by Tom Jump's nonsense.

[@Maskedlapis64]

I enjoyed listening to Ben Watkins. Very intelligent and kind individual. There was no animosity on either side, just smart and charitable people having a real conversation. God bless him and guide him

[@countfoster8406]

Why does everyone say this. Is being vaguely nice not expected in every debate?

[@Deathwish026]

god needs to go bless those kids in hospital that he gave cancer as part of his divine plan. first.

[@delbertclement2115]

@@countfoster8406 because often times these debates are not charitable.

[@CedanyTheAlaskan]

@@Deathwish026 Someone has some pent up anger combined with bad theology also combined to an emotional appeal.

[@ironymatt]

Fr Pine is definitely one to look up to.

[@Augustinianismus]

No doubt!

[@IPea99]

He does seem quite tall ;)

[@MarkJBosse]

Lol. I don't know if you meant this as a joke or not, but I took it as such and found it hilarious. He definitely looks way different from this angle.

[@ironymatt]

@@MarkJBosse lol, my intention was both sincere regarding the respect Fr Pine is well due and very much light-hearted with respect to his chosen camera angle!

[@TheJewishCatholic]

Fr. Gregory is one of the most amazing thinkers I’ve ever seen in my generation.

[@peppy619]

I still have a hard time listening to him without my brain having a burndown, Thomism is very dense and in this debate you could tell that the limited time made it difficult for him to get the points across. I still have to watch the entire series of Thomism 101

[@borneandayak6725]

Amen for that. Jesus bless him, amen 🙏🙏🙏

[@cosmopoliteme]

I almost think that Fr Gregory’s strategy here is not so much to win the debate. As in his focus here is not to debunk Ben but rather to to help the audience (us) understand Ben’s stand and his concepts so that we can derive the conclusion on our own. Strategic! Also, Fr seems to in a boxing match. Lol. Downing tons of water at every down time.

[@delys754]

I agree!

[@angagkacarmelita4363]

True.

[@brandonbenitez9746]

He’s a big tall man. Probably takes a huge amount of water to keep him hydrated as he spits out all these words. He’s very long winded 😮‍💨 genius.

[@darkduck-qg2so]

Ben Watkins... seems likeable, not ridiculously aggressive, not accusatory or cruel or uncharitable, this is just... the total opposite of the Atheists I've dealt with in my life, and he did a very good job. As a Theist, as strange as this may sound, I'm almost giddy with happiness, this might be the first time I've walked away from seeing an argument without feeling too sore at the Atheist.

[@shadowlink26]

#bowsrespectively

[@trainedmoose]

Great debate. Very respectful and both made great points. I would give the nod to Father Gregory but I'm biased. I appreciated how Mr. Watkins came across open-minded and also did his homework. More like this! Also, cheers to Mr. Watkins on his beer choice. Well done!

[@michaelorsini9695]

Ben Watkins' demeanor in this debate is to be praised...much better than the late Hitchen's approach and I actually like the late Christopher Hitchens. Much more is accomplished with less personal animus and vitriol.Cheers from Canada!!!

[@iqgustavo]

🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:00 🍻 Introduction to the debate between Father Gregory Pine and Ben Watkins. 01:12 🙏 Format of the debate: opening statements, rebuttals, cross-examination, audience questions, closing statements. 01:54 🤝 Encouragement for charitable and respectful discourse between atheists and Christians. 03:05 🎙️ Introduction of the debaters: Father Gregory Pine and Ben Watkins. 04:41 🌌 Father Pine's approach: Presuming and proving God's existence, acknowledging challenges. 09:22 🤝 Recognizing varying levels of access to belief in God based on education, personal disposition, and circumstances. 11:14 💡 God's existence accessible to all thinking persons; obstacles due to human limitations, sin, personal and societal formations. 12:55 🌍 The metaphysics of creation and the act-potency distinction as a basis for reasoning. 15:13 🧠 The cosmological arguments: motion, efficient causality, contingency, and their connection to God as the ultimate cause. 18:36 🌟 Believing in God: Revelation and natural reason intertwine; existence of God as a necessary explanation for reality's coherence and intelligibility. 19:44 🙌 Ben Watkins expresses gratitude, acknowledges the importance of the discussion, and introduces his opening statement. 20:32 🤖 Atheism distinction: New atheism vs. contemporary philosophical atheism, aligning with analytic philosophy tradition. 21:00 🛡️ Goal: Present three arguments for philosophical atheism over Friar Gregory's Thomism. 21:28 💼 Distinction between classical theism and theistic personalism, affecting the perception of God. 23:34 🤨 Bayesian argument from evolutionary evil: Evolution's suffering challenges classical theism's goodness. 27:49 🤔 Argument from freedom: Classical theism's God lacks perfect freedom, contrasting traditional belief. 29:40 🧐 Argument from changing knowledge: Classical theism's unchanging God incompatible with changing knowledge. 33:38 🤨 Summing up arguments: Philosophical atheism more likely due to evolutionary evil, divine freedom, and changing knowledge. 43:44 🤔 In discussing the possibility of a beginningless causal series, each link in the series might have a concurrent cause, suggesting no unique initial cause. 45:10 🌐 An example of a conceivable beginningless causal series: a gunky physical object made up of smaller parts, creating a regress that may never terminate. 46:13 🧠 Consideration of a contested Aristotelian metaphysics at the core of arguments for the existence of an unactualized actualizer. 47:12 🛐 Arguments don't inherently lead to a being worthy of worship or perfectly good, necessitating further argumentation to fill this gap. 47:43 💡 Questioning the justification for existential inertia, the idea that something needs continuous actuation to sustain its existence. 49:23 📖 Engagement with the problem of evil, considering different perspectives and acknowledging human suffering. 50:05 🧐 Exploring the notion that God's nature surpasses human understanding and human-like criteria. 51:02 🧘‍♂️ Reflecting on the mystery of God in relation to human suffering, emphasizing a deeper understanding rather than definitive answers. 51:17 🤝 Seeking a perspective that avoids anthropomorphizing God and acknowledges human limitations in understanding divine nature. 52:00 📚 Exploring the interplay of moral principles derived from reason (ethical non-naturalism), including Kantian, consequentialist, and contractualist perspectives. 55:17 ⚖️ Contemplating the criteria for determining types of consequences and discussing various moral principles that guide human actions. 57:08 🌐 Analyzing the implications of different moral principles, including the potential convergence of deontological and consequentialist perspectives. 57:25 🤝 Cross-examination focused on understanding moral principles, the nature of reason, and the potential compatibility of different ethical theories. 01:07:50 🤖 Heaven as a possible world with no animal suffering is discussed. 01:08:15 🌎 The nature of non-physical souls in relation to heaven is explored. 01:08:56 💡 Different possible worlds, including a world of disembodied minds, are considered. 01:09:12 💕 The potential for loving relationships and an infinite loving relationship with God in heaven is discussed. 01:09:54 🌌 The possibility of matter's presence in heaven and the nature of goodness are explored. 01:14:18 🎭 Discussion on God's goodness, metaphysics of evil, and theological perspective on evil's nature. 01:18:06 🕰️ Ben's argument about changing knowledge and determinism, and reconciling the implication for divine attributes. 01:24:58 ⏳ The nature of time and changing knowledge's relation to time in Ben's argument is clarified. 01:28:40 🛠️ Creation and sustenance: When discussing God's creation, it's not about making something from existing materials, but about making something out of nothing (ex nihilo). The creative act imparts the very act of "to be" without relying on intrinsic properties. 01:30:08 🧠 Existential inertia: The debate explores whether God sustains everything in existence constantly or if things have inherent existence (existential inertia). The idea of existential inertia challenges the need for continuous divine sustenance. 01:31:47 🤝 Objective moral values: Cosmic Skeptic argues that morality is objective but not grounded in God, comparing moral truths to mathematical truths. Moral principles are seen as necessary truths, independent of a divine source. 01:34:06 💔 Purpose of suffering: Suffering can reveal depths of love, call forth moral integrity, and lead to greater meaning. Ben questions the compatibility of a loving God with the existence of gratuitous suffering and languishing. 01:37:18 💡 Evaluating suffering: Distinguishing between pointless and non-pointless suffering is complex. Ben discusses using moral principles (Kantian, contractualist, consequentialist) to systematically evaluate suffering's justifiability. 01:43:11 🕊️ Epistemic and metaphysical: Ben justifies inferring that suffering is gratuitous based on phenomenological impressions and moral principles. The question of God's moral standards and the objectivity of moral judgments arises. 01:47:12 🌟 God and morality: Cosmic Skeptic argues that God should be subject to moral standards. He leans toward theistic personalism, emphasizing that God's goodness must align with human moral intuitions. 01:49:35 ☀️ Parallels in religion: Father Pine acknowledges parallels between Christianity and pagan religions and suggests that Christianity often adopts similar themes for evangelistic purposes, recognizing shared human inclinations toward certain beliefs and values. 01:50:59 📚 Father Gregory Pine highlights how God's revelation is communicated through scripture, transcending human experiences. 01:51:13 🌍 Creation accounts reveal God as one, good, and able to use human choices to bring about beauty despite evil. 01:51:42 🌞 Interpersonal relationships reflect the triune God's nature, and the concept of love aligns with familial terms in various cultures. 01:52:21 💔 Ben Watkins argues religious disagreement is a significant challenge to the existence of a perfectly loving God. 01:52:49 🌅 Sun god parallels aren't the main focus; the debate centers on the question of God's existence. 01:53:30 💬 Both debaters discuss the best argument from the opposing side and why they think it fails. 01:58:25 📜 Father Pine explains the argument of divine hiddenness, discussing God's subtle revelation through history. 02:03:38 🧠 Ben Watkins reviews his three arguments: evil, freedom, and changing knowledge, challenging traditional theistic concepts. 02:07:10 🤝 The debaters emphasize the value of genuine philosophical discourse for personal growth and understanding. Made with HARPA AI

[@samuelunderwood5286]

Fr. Gregory "As it were" Pine

[@connorcurts7101]

This is an underrated comment 😂 “Cheers.”

[@melaniesweeney4665]

*Fr. Gregory "Swaggering Punk Kid Thomist" Pine 😂

[@Hyumifu]

@@melaniesweeney4665 😂😂😂

[@dylanrunner2001]

(in an Australian accent)

[@navsquid32]

Because it, in fact, was.

[@charlieanderson5952]

This shouldn’t be one and done here. There is more than enough for both Ben and Fr Pine to review the debate and their notes, mutually agree on points for further discussion, and drill down into those in another debate sooner rather than later. I don’t like that these debates seem to end right when they get interesting. This happened on a daily basis with the philosophers of the recent past, let alone the ancients. Do another one with these two ASAP, Matt!

[@kiwicoproductions2828]

Ben Watkins is very respectful, well spoken, articulate, reasonable, and, I think, had a great Southern Accent. If more Atheists were like this in the Internet the world would be a better place. Lol

[@The_Lord_Of_Confusion]

as an agnostic I have to say I like these talks with this Pine dude a lot

[@LIZMAC27]

Both debaters were quite well reasoned and nicely charitable and seem like genuine nice and decent people. A nice and welcome change for internet debate.

[@tomgreene1843]

That in itself is a victory!

[@frrichardstonier2634]

Wow. Fr Gregory's closing statement was awesome! O.P. charism shining through

[@dfhyland]

1:16:45 One of the best moments of the debate, lighthearted and mutually charitable. Thank you, Matt, for organizing this, and thank you to Ben and Fr. Gregory for such a good debate!

[@andychurray9671]

Fr. Gregory Pine, you are a saint. Miss you man. Fr. Gregory needs no notes. Ben seemed to stumble and rely only on his notes during the rebuttals and opening statements, and yielded his time because he had nothing to say a few times .

[@shadowlink26]

Is the objection that I prepared my opening and rebuttals and said what I needed to say in less time than allotted? Lol

[@borneandayak6725]

Fr. Gregory will be a saint, one day...

[@chrisbourland6613]

1st watch: Wow this is great they are so nice 2nd watch: Wow Fr Pine is very kind and eloquent 3rd watch: Fr Pine has some pretty cool looking eyebrows 4th watch: I think I have a bro crush on Fr Pine...

[@Augustinianismus]

This was probably the first KZbin debate that I've seen where the Atheist actually presented arguments for his position.

[@ignacio4159]

@Nigel Butt shroud of Turin?

[@icanfartloud]

Not very logical ones. Saying "people once did not exist, therefore God didn't have knowledge of their existence. Upon existing, God then "obtained knowledge not previously known" is a laughable chain of reasoning. It was pointed out this contradicts how God is defined, an obvious straw man.

[@tryhardf844]

@Nigel Butt It beats the panspermian theory.

[@Augustinianismus]

@@icanfartloud Yeah, but that's a lot better than the typical response in these debates of "Where's the evidence bro?"

[@tryhardf844]

@Nigel Butt Of course no one bothers to ask who made the spaceship.

[@robforney9252]

Matt - I love the fact you have the two participants try to frame their counterpart's best argument for their position. It brings civility to a potentially contentious conversation. Keep this is all of your debates. Thanks for putting this together!

[@christiansilva6004]

Why can’t atheist be like Ben Watkins or Alex (CosmicSkeptic), which is not rude and militant to argue their skepticism of God’s existence? Comments below are evident that many atheists are not eager but angry to want to take down God’s existence. I’m glad, Ben Watkins is a figure in the atheist group. I sure hope the field of atheist learn from him.

[@Deflate2020]

Check this out pls: kzbin.info/www/bejne/mnSahnSDrLGZp6c

[@russellward4624]

Why cant theists be like Father Pine and not rude and militant arguing that were all lying and really believe but we just want to sin? Or that we have to be necessarily depressed without a god?

[@borneandayak6725]

Atheism always false

[@russellward4624]

@@borneandayak6725 How can it be false? Youre saying i actually believe in a god? thats the only way it can be false, if you claim Im lying.

[@de4nn1e]

I think you just like them because they both have bad arguments that are easy to take down so it makes your position look good.

[@meusisto]

As a former atheist, I must say I liked this a lot.

[@stuckmannen3876]

Based

[@borneandayak6725]

@@stuckmannen3876 me too, ex-atheist now Catholic.

[@Macluny]

full disclosure: I'm not convinced there is a god, but what changed for you?

[@saintd_ii]

holy based

[@ianjaybronola1604]

I mean technically every theist was once an atheist, coz nobody is born a theist.. The only question is, what were the reasons that made you an atheist?

[@eugengolubic2186]

Ben Watkins was a great oponent. It was really cordial and respectful debate.

[@cjrogers961]

you should link their info in the description! Great debate Matt, good job hosting!

[@Deflate2020]

Check this out pls: kzbin.info/www/bejne/mnSahnSDrLGZp6c

[@anthonysejda4129]

In the argument about evil, it was begging the answer of The Brothers Karamasoff, where Aloysius the younger brother stated all the moral evils in the world to say there can be no God, when the example of the saintly Fr. Zosimo, who selflessly ministers to all, w/o cost is the moral equivalence of God in the world. ( Fedor Dostoyevsky)

[@backwoodsman]

I wish I had the intelligence level to understand what either of these guys were talking about 😂 😂

[@ImTiredOfThisChurch]

That’s why you need to read more my dear

[@spacedoohicky]

It's not that hard. For any terms you don't know, or don't know in this context just search google for those terms. Then read what comes up. If you're worried about getting bad info just choose academic sources like university websites, or philosophy encyclopedias from the links in the search results. You may also have to search terms on the pages you find, and then you're down the rabbit hole.

[@backwoodsman]

@@ImTiredOfThisChurch I agree.

[@rebeccavanderheiden4099]

@backwoodsman I agree. Very hard to even understand what they were talking about because of all the things they referenced and how fast they said them

[@saberstorm3575]

honestly thats kind of how i felt too

[@TheGeneralGrievous19]

Great debate, both sides were very respectful! I would say that Fr. Gregory Pine won (no doubt, really). Good night and God bless You all! ✝️ 💜

[@throughaglassanalytically1679]

Could you elaborate on why you thought Fr. Pine won?

[@Justrob34]

For. Gregory just so quick but so in depth. 🙏 ✝️

[@borneandayak6725]

Agree. Fr. Gregory WON ❤❤❤

[@adamcraig5232]

Fr. Pine is becoming one of my favorite Catholics to listen to!!

[@comedy-dolman3753]

Try Fr. Chad Ripperger ! . . . God bless.

[@Deflate2020]

@@comedy-dolman3753 Check this out pls: kzbin.info/www/bejne/mnSahnSDrLGZp6c

[@masterchief8179]

Fr. Gregory was more versed in my opinion. Ben did a great job though. Both were civil. But to be truly sincere, I see Ben’s misconceiving about God’s knowledge and many more topics (ex: the metaphysics of time) more demanding of explanation (and not so basic ones) so that hardly could be posed as a benefit to his side as far as a “debate” goes, due to the fact that Fr Gregory Pine had to deal and maybe correct those misconceptions. I sincerely think Fr. Gregory won it overall (and won it clearly: both in possessing more profound knowledge on the matters discussed and in its transmission, all difficulties already taken into account), even though he probably would have needed much more time to this than what he specifically had in this kind of format. He probably is a greater lecturer than a debater, but from that in NO WAY it follows that he has lost it or his opponent fared better.

[@throughaglassanalytically1679]

Thank you for the comment. _"I see Ben’s misconceiving about God’s knowledge and many more topics (ex: the metaphysics of time) more demanding of explanation (and not so basic ones"_ Could you clarify on this point? What misconceptions did Ben make on this issue? He was literally making the arguments linked in the videos below: kzbin.info/www/bejne/g3yXZ4qdhN15Z80 kzbin.info/www/bejne/aZmmg3qtg9mKbpI Which are standard arguments in the literature. Fr. Pine may have been the better speaker, but in terms of substance Ben definitely had the edge.

[@masterchief8179]

Through a Glass, Analytically He seemed to not understand that prescience of events differs from what theologians call “double predestination” (what Calvinism teaches) consequences so as to recognize where human free will (or even secondary causation) fits in the equation. Calvinism, no need to say, is metaphysically absurd, but that’s not what Catholics think and teach about God’s planning, let me put this way. Besides, there is always the need to clarify eternity ‘stricto sensu’ and what the temporal expression of eternity means (due to the necessity we have to make infinite intelligible). The first one is much better described as timelessness rather than an infinite expression of temporal dimension and an undefeated quantity of time, so the eternity of God means the uncaused necessary cause is out of time, so it rather should be expressed that all recognition of time (and it also applies to foreknowledge of events) when related to God is only analogically expressed as an infinite sequence of past, present and future, but ontologically it needs to be expressed in terms of actualization or making “present” any event taken into consideration because the constraint of time isn’t able to apply to what is not contingent by definition (being time contingent itself). So the way Ben represented “future” in his intervention when it concerns to theist arguments was roughly inaccurate: it would be better to call it a wrong depiction of the theistic (Catholic at least) position. And more, of course, with all due respect to Ben.

[@AprendeMovimiento]

YES!!! this is exactly how I felt! Ben had a lot of misconceptions, he should study a bit more about Traditional Catholic Theology and Thomism in order to debate without falling into the mistakes he fell thus making Fr. Gregory have to use his time to constantly correct him instead of focusing on the important topics. I pray for Ben so he gets to know and love God.

[@borneandayak6725]

God bless Fr. Gregory ❤❤❤

[@williamcrawford7621]

Probably the most philosophically competent atheist, and the most respectful one I've ever seen too! Good on Ben

[@josephpatrick8121]

Thanks for the good debate to both. We won. The best part of the debate is that everyone was respectful and polite and thoughtful.

[@vinniecox874]

Fr Pine won, but only if you understand the premises that his arguments are based on. To the average viewer, the other guy seemed to address logical human complaints based in a worldly view of existence. Fr Pine addressed these concerns with a presumptive understanding of transcendent realities. This was less a debate as it was two guys, who aren’t on the same page at all, taking turns talking.

[@vinniecox874]

First: the tired and boring argument from evil. The materialist will never relinquish this argument and those who understand the truth can nary put into words the complexities of Gods allowance for suffering. Furthermore, an atheist has no belief in the truth of creation (in this case the atheist wouldn’t stop referencing Darwinian evolution which, itself, has very valid skeptics despite holding a nearly cultish following within “scientism”). An understanding of creation begets one an understanding of the fall- which accounts for nature’s brokenness. Secondly: his argument from freedom lacks an understanding of the nature of God. We say God “could have done otherwise” simply because we draw from human experience where we have either/or choices. Gods nature as pure act speaks to a perfection of decisiveness that makes it neither necessary or proper to even contemplate him “changing his mind” or “deciding this or that.” Third: the argument from changing knowledge completely disregards an appropriate understanding of Gods existence outside of time.

[@IvanLovroTomac]

@@vinniecox874 Exactly! I wish they would drop the PoE argument or keep it for a separate debate because it requires soo much exposition from the thomistic side and it distracts from the rest of the debate (and anyway it can at best argue against a certain kind of "god"). I also agree that once you understand what evil is and why God permits it it is such a profound insight! The existence of evil could probably be made into a powerful agrument for God, but not one that could be used in a debate such as this.

[@power50001562]

@@IvanLovroTomac Hmm, turning the existence of evil into an argument for God kind of sounds like the moral argument

[@Possibleep]

It's a trap: both are theists, but only one of them knows it.

[@Miatpi]

Good one

[@reliefbelief]

Exactly!

[@Jesserocks1975]

This was a very pleasant debate. It was so refreshing to see two men so diametrically opposed engage each other intelligently and respectfully. The avoidance of polemics and presence of charity was a breath of fresh air.

[@Jesserocks1975]

One critique that stands out to me of Mr. Watkins’ presentation of the problem of evil is that he relies heavily on the theory of evolution which many contest as highly problematic. I’m not sure why Fr. Pine did not address this.

[@onclesam1463]

​@@Jesserocks1975 The theory of evolution is accepted by all biologists, all over the world. To suggest that this theory is unscientific is ludicrous !

[@connorcurts7101]

Odd that many here in the comments are saying that Fr. Gregory is more well-versed and responded well to the objections he was able to respond to, but lost because he was not able to respond to all of the objections. How does that make any sense? No you cannot assume he would have refuted the other objections as well as the ones he was able to get to, but to judge the winner of a debate based on what was left unsaid does not make much sense. I would say Fr. Gregory very clearly won - Ben certainly knows his stuff better than the average "atheist" you may encounter on the street, but he has critical misunderstandings of God's knowledge, which Fr. explained and Ben still seemed to not comprehend, and God's relation to time. God, as Being itself, is not bound by time, and you could say all of time is present to Him always (in that, He knows time as time only has existence because of Him... additionally, as Fr. mentioned, time is simply how we measure change in this world). This also provides answer to how God could hear and answer millions of prayers being offer simultaneously. As He is not a secretary sitting at a desk receiving emails containing prayer requests which He must then sort through and deal with accordingly, His answering of prayer does not work this way. This assumption would be anthropomorphic as other assumptions in this debate were, which Fr. also pointed out.

[@LogosTheos]

Yea I don't understand that. Also I don't like, "Does God exist?" debates for that very reason. The focus should be on one argument.

[@delys754]

totally agree!

[@Anyone690]

I was thinking this as well

[@timpwj]

@@Anyone690 and all I believe the technique is called a Gish Gallop, named after a debater named Gish in which he would present so many objections to his opponents position that there would be no way his opponent could respond to them all in the time frame.

[@jamesms4]

As Ed Feser notes one of the many mistakes critics of Classic Theism (this goes for both Atheist Critics like Ben & even Theistic Personalist critics like William Lane Craig) is treating timeless as if it was a point in time just outside the graph. Time is the measure of change and timelessness for God is simply the absence of essential and substantive change. Also God Knows things because the is the source and cause of them and He knows them by knowing himself. He doesn't observe anything and He doesn't acquire knowledge. He is the source & cause of things known and only knows them by knowing Himself as the cause of said things.

[@nickchasse1281]

Fantastic debate! @MattFradd, could there be a future debate on Mary and the Immaculate Conception?

[@paulywauly6063]

It was a very pleasant debate to listen to . I have a lot of respect and admiration to both debaters who engaged in such a a civil way with each other . Fr Gregory was a surprise for me tbh .. .. Matt Fradd , you have definitely set up a great civil debating platform that is often missing in other platforms .. Good job my fellow Aussie

[@juliepuhr9806]

Of course I am biased towards the belief in God because I am a Christian. Hands down for the argument\ explanations for God.However both sides were over my head for sure. Well done to both Father and Ben. And of course Matt. I appreciate the desire for dialogue .

[@cristinamusat5711]

Hearing Father Pine speak is always spiritually uplifting!

[@terratremuit4757]

Great debate guys!

[@oldpariah]

Such a satisfying discussion, one of real substance, where interlocutors carefully listen and concisely speak.

[@edwardchandler9139]

Most atheists I've met seem to have a chip on their shoulder, but Ben seems like a super chill dude. Definitely a guy I'd have a beer with (and I don't even like beer!). Always a fan of Fr. Gregory. Great debate!

[@andrewjohn2124]

Maybe you are confusing "a chip on their shoulder" with confidence in their position and belief in their ability to defend it. Many atheists love that they don't have to contort a holy book to see that science works and that evolution is real. Many of them now see a contradiction between faith and science. Just ask yourself: "Do I believe that Noah and the Ark story is literally true and if it was does it make any sense?" Many Christians now realize that a literal belief in Noah's flood, the ark story is fiction according to science and even say it's a metaphor to tell a story. BTW believing in literal Noah's ark story and Young Earth Creationism go hand and hand.

[@edwardchandler9139]

@@andrewjohn2124 eh. I'm in a doctoral program for chemical engineering. I know plenty of atheists who are extremely confident but don't even have the basic philosophical lingo. I've had good conversations with two of them and they would say everything but the words "I'm angry at God." grew up Catholic, family member had something happen, now are on meds for anxiety/depression, and every time the topic comes up outside of our good convos, it's very clear they are throwing bombs with no real substance. The others, it looks the exact same from the outside, but yes, technically I can't say with 100% certainty that their mentality is the same. But they act the same. And yea the flood I'm not sure about. My dad is an ancient semitics expert and I know he's said that given that most mesopotamian cultures seem to have a flood narrative in their mythology. That combined with some sparse evidence for a flood in that region at some time, I'm cool with some local flood. But no. I think 1) a global flood and 2) Noah himself may be from middle Eastern epic narrative genre and exaggerated. That is one theory as to why methusela was 900+ years old: ancient myths of kings denoted the greater kings with a longer reign. You'd see some 50,000 year reigns. It wasn't a historical description as much as a description of greatness. All that to say, yes I'm aware of ancient mesopotamian genre, I'm a professional scientist, and I'm capable of reading between the lines on stuff.

[@Lmerosne]

Amazing debate! Great job, Matt!

[@defeatingdefeaters]

Hearing Fr. Pine was like drinking from a fire hydrant. I should stick to pop-apologetics.

[@dasvau267]

hahaha couldnt have said it better. listening to him is a good exercise in humility :D

[@g4p5l6]

Laughed out loud at this... describes the experience perfectly. I'd say I was impressed with the debate but that would imply that I could actually comprehend the torrent.

[@eniszita7353]

he has a torrent of sophistry, but all of his sophistry is circular reasoning since it assumes not only the existence of a god, but the existence of the specific god he defines. In history there are many gods - why does he only cover information about one of them?

[@defeatingdefeaters]

@@eniszita7353 that there are “many gods” is an assertion. Fr defends the one he believes exists. What’s the problem?

[@eniszita7353]

@@defeatingdefeaters The logical issue is that his arguments include assumptions about the subject of the argument so are just in essence restating the assumptions.

[@journeyfiveonesix]

Was blown away at the quality of the argumentation here. Loved the debate. A suggestion for Fr. Gregory that he work on finding a way to expound the monolith of thomism more concisely (I'm not even sure how it can be done, but it seems possible prima facie). I believe it's healthy for beginners to see good philosophy fly above their heads, but even for the sake of interested intermediates, it would be beneficial if Fr. Gregory could cover more content of the objections.

[@WhosInABunker94]

I can usually follow most Christian/Atheist debates but what Fr Gregory Pine is saying is mostly flying over my head, and I'm Catholic. Where do I get a start on Thomism without prior philosophical training?

[@brunot2481]

kzbin.info

[@joshuaphilip7601]

I would recommend Ed feser. At least for me he has served as good door to this area of philosophy.

[@throughaglassanalytically1679]

You should watch the Aquinas 101 series of the Thomistic Institute. Ed Feser has an excellent introductory work on this issue called "Aquinas: A Beginners Guide"

[@JP-rf8rr]

If you have no philosophical training then Matt Fradd's book on the five ways is a great place to start. www.amazon.com/Does-God-Exist-Socratic-Dialogue/dp/0999667076 After that you should read Edward feser's books, either "the last superstition" which is partially a history of philosophical development and a refutation of atheism against Thomism, or "Five proofs for the existence of God" which in my opinion is his magnum opus. www.amazon.com/Last-Superstition-Refutation-New-Atheism/dp/1587314525 www.amazon.com/Five-Proofs-Existence-Edward-Feser/dp/1621641333 Just to be clear of the reading level First you should read Matt Fradd's book since it is the easiest introduction Then you should read the Last Superstition which compares this view with others. Next Read the Five Proofs since it is in my opinion one of the best books arguing that God is logically necessary. If you want free resources then I recommend a KZbinr named Mathoma who made several videos explainthing this stuff in detail. kzbin.info/aero/PLpzmRsG7u_gpMogZpIcZnS0BsD3z8_x3n This is a video which is basically a dumbed down or simplified version of one of Mathoma's video's explaining the Argument from Change to prove God. kzbin.info/www/bejne/roa7natmn62HqLc If you want something super light to read you can read "Aquinas in 50 pages" which is a extremely BASIC introduction to how Aquinas thinks. newsaintthomas.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Thomas-Aquinas-in-50-Pages-Final.pdf You can also Read Aquinas yourself. www3.nd.edu/~afreddos/summa-translation/TOC-part1.htm Please let me know if I was of any help.

[@bballaguy298]

I got started with Aquinas by Ed Feser (it’s like an introduction series, very basic) A more fun intro to Thomism and why it is so important (with basic jargon stuff) is the Last Superstition

[@melissapotts1434]

Fr. Pine for the win. He knows his stuff. I was not impressed with Ben Watkins. But both were very respectful. Thanks to all involved.

[@throughaglassanalytically1679]

Could you elaborate a bit on your comment?

[@joshuaphilip7601]

As a theist I have to disagree. Fr seems to come off better because of his responses and I definitely think he corrected Ben in a few key areas. However you need to take a step back and analyze the whole debate. Fr spend very little time on his own case and spent the rest attacking Ben's arguments which he did not have enough time to get through. Had this just been a discussion I might have said pine seemed more convincing but debate format wise, judging by the topic "does God exist" he definitely did not win.

[@borneandayak6725]

Fr. Pine clearly won ❤❤❤🙏🙏🙏

[@johnw.loftus7866]

Fr. Pine partially reminded me of Marc Greisbach, my former professor at Marquette University, and past president of the American Catholic Philosophical Association. I wonder if he knows of, or remembers him?

[@CristianaCatólica]

GOD BLESS HIS ONE AND ONLY CATHOLIC CHURCH! :)

[@SamSamSamSameSamSamSam]

Very enjoyable debate from both men. Thanks to Matt for hosting. I left with plenty of notes! (I just wish both participants had double time - though I'm sure that would have made a marginal difference)

[@patricpeters7911]

Animal pain is a cop out. We can’t even know how animals experience “suffering.” Suffering includes experience of time, fear of death, etc, etc. Animals certainly don’t experience pain in this way, to the degree of human beings. I wish more time was focused on the cosmology and metaphysics.

[@shadowlink26]

"Cop out" is probably too strong. I would concede animals probably do not experience pain is the same way we experience pain, but I would also insist they experience pain in ways that matter. That is what is relevant to the problem of evil.

[@Foodtube469]

true. You should check out Roy Schoeman series on Faith and Science here on YT. He touches on the relationship of evolution and faith. Its supper well done!

[@patricpeters7911]

shadowlink26 yeah my reaction was probably a little too, well, reactive. About the third time I heard animal pain I sighed and commented. I agree it poses a mystery, since animal suffering does not seemingly contribute to their “happiness” as it does for us. Yet the problem of animal pain assumes much.

[@a.sobolewski1646]

We anthropomorphise the animal suffering. They feel pain, but they don’t suffer

[@reggiestickleback7794]

Yes, I was hoping atheists would talk more about ontological arguments but then they sway into the problem of evil! Catholicism is the best system which most well explains the problem of evil. Animals suffering just doesn’t convince me that God doesn’t exist, and the “If God real why bad happen” argument is really too simplistic.

[@forgednotcast612]

We all make mistakes in life in which some are simple financial mistakes, some are tragic outcomes such as war injuries and other physical injuries due to our decisions. However, if you are wrong about the existence of God , you have made the ultimate mistake in that you could suffer for eternity. Wow, I'm not willing to make such an eternal mistake. Give up your sinful behaviour which will ultimately get you nowhere.

[@celticwinter]

"..God is immutable [and can't change]. ..but God *can* acquire something new and change: namely knowledge." But if God exists outside of time, he doesn't need to acquire anything, because he already possesses that knowledge, no? I may have missed something here though. His opening statement was very packed and I'll therefore probably listen to this discussion more than once. Thanks for hosting this high quality types of discussions. I'm especially happy that a priest stepped forward. I'm imagining they have a lot on their plate already and fear misrepresenting the Church. If a priest is explaining his honest fire for God, raising the Eucharist like this might be the last time, I'm always touched in a special way. Can't tell exactly how, but it can't be denied. Thanks for continually offering prayer for all of us father Pine.

[@pdworld3421]

Ben Watkins offers the same superficial beliefs as most atheists. Father Gregory Pine taught me a lot and deepened my faith. Thank you. I do btw- appreciate the respect on both sides. IT was very Christian on Mr Watkins

[@TheGeneralGrievous19]

In case of modern Christian Apologetics I really recommend G.K. Chesterton, Feliks Koneczny, C.S. Lewis, Edward Faser, Thomas E. Woods, Fr. Thomas Joseph White OP. and Wolfgang Smith among others. :-) ✝️ 💜

[@aldrichemrys]

Please tell each magnum opus/must read for each author. It would be a great help.

[@firstname7856]

@@aldrichemrys Speaking only apologetic works. C.K Chesterton: Orthodoxy. Lewis: Mere Christianity. Feser: The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism. Woods: How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization. Smith: Theistic Evolution: The Teilhardian Heresy.

[@aldrichemrys]

Tony Kleem Thank you so much, man. Such a great help.

[@firstname7856]

@@aldrichemrys You are very welcome.

[@joshuaphilip7601]

@@aldrichemrys 5 proofs for God by feser is also really good

[@chisomchinwero4121]

19:10 Matt asking Ben what beer he’s drinking and Fr Gregory is seriously drinking his water

[@spacecommie7447]

Beautiful and effectively moderated debate! Both participants were respectful and well-spoken, making clear and pertinent arguments. I would however say, probably because I myself am Christian, that the case for God's existence was more convincing.

[@jcawalton]

Thoroughly enjoyed this. Win-win. Thanks. Praise God.

[@bluedude9567]

Proposition for next debate topic: Sedevacantism

[@contraryv1044]

Tbh, I don't understand what keeping Ben from embracing Theism.

[@Deflate2020]

Check this out pls: kzbin.info/www/bejne/mnSahnSDrLGZp6c

[@borneandayak6725]

Because : *"Without God Everything is Permitted"* (The Brothers Karamazov). They love sin than God.

[@paix1234]

We love Fr. Pine. He’s wonderful.

[@marcmanera9140]

Awesome, thank you so much for hosting these debates.

[@bluedude9567]

Honest atheists (like this one and the one in the former debate) seem largely to either not understand the theistic arguments well enough or they have questions about theism which they do not (yet) know the answer to. Seldomly do they really have an argument for which there is no theistic answer, whether they 'like' that answer or not.

[@dsha2006]

Matt, I'm curious...your guests appear to be recording with higher quality mics, but you are only using the audio from their headphones or computer speaker on the stream..it appears. Why is that? Are you using their HQ audio later on for a podcast release because it's too hard to use their HQ audio live (assuming you are using ecamm)? or some other reason? thanx

[@missyblu4983]

Praying for Mr. Watkins...God will get him...Just wonder if God does not exist why does it matter to Mr. Watkins....How am I hurting him....I would rather be wrong with my belief than to not believe at all...

[@LIZMAC27]

He seems like someone genuinely seeking Truth and working out his arguments to me. I don't think he's trying to change our beliefs. I think explicitly distancing himself and his group from the New Atheists also speaks to that. That strikes me more as an anti-thiest anti-religous movement compared to many Atheists I know. I always felt like they were largely responding to fundamentalist Evangelicals that were out "witnessing" and very aggressively and awkwardly trying to convert peope in the 90s and spawned a bunch of followers who could often be equally fundamentalist and trying to force their beliefs on others. I don't get that from Ben at all! I've known a lot of both these camps growing up and heard debates between those 2 groups a lot.and both sides would often accuse the other of forcing their beliefs down the others throat and then immediatelyforce theirs instead! 😂 I'm so delighted this debate was not like that. It gets boring and tiresome very quickly.

[@eniszita7353]

this is like debate club where both are religious and one is chosen to represent the other point of view. a real debater would be challenging the underlying assumptions; he doesn't do that.

[@user-fk8rb8ue5h]

I am an atheist but I must admit that people with a religious faith seem a lot more content than the ardent atheist.

[@karend582]

Well done fellows! I am so impressed at how this remained a true debate, rather than argumentative. A lot of this went way over my head, however, based on what I did understand I believe Fr. Gregory won.

[@SeigenGaming]

If God exists, atheists lose. If God didn't exist they will also lose. What will they earn if they win this argument?

[@Deflate2020]

Check this out pls: kzbin.info/www/bejne/mnSahnSDrLGZp6c

[@kylemyers971]

Truth?

[@borneandayak6725]

Atheist always loose. No point to be atheist.

[@equinoxproject2284]

Why are these debates still happening, that fact alone is a bit of an obstacle for the affirmative side. If they want an easy win, they should debate.."Is it possible to convince yourself a God exists". That's a win every time.

[@phoult37]

Perhaps the theist sees the debate as a form of evangelization.

[@equinoxproject2284]

@@phoult37 Yes I suppose they do.

[@johnjumper7066]

Based on their stated background I think the priest had an edge. Needless to say that God is on his side.

[@patricpeters7911]

The irony of exalting “Reason” that somehow is not based in rationality itself-but mindless processes that just happened to produce organisms with the ability to reason. Absurd!

[@richardlopez6226]

The opposite of reason

[@trishcrosswait4171]

Great job Father Pine ! Nice to see you ! We miss you in Louisville at St Louis Bertrand. We are the Tricia Crosswait family and Susan and Pat kenny family. We pray for you and all priests and religious🙏✌️✝️🇺🇲

[@Deflate2020]

Check this out pls: kzbin.info/www/bejne/mnSahnSDrLGZp6c

[@stevedoetsch]

Atheist: Prove God exists! Theist: Describe an existential proof. Atheist: I don't understand. Theist: Exactly. Atheists demand existential proofs yet have no idea what one would even look like. Instead of the existence of God, let's start with something easy, let's say, your keyboard. Prove to me that something obvious exists exists and we'll see if you have the capacity to understand existential proofs, first. After that we can talk about God.

[@prostagma7234]

@Nigel Butt If you're trying to find God with a microscope, you're doomed from the start. Give me physical evidence that 2 + 2 = 4, for instance. you can't - such absolute universals cannot be proven empirically. Likewise, the science of metaphysics, operates more like mathematics, than say biology where claims have to be empirically justified. You should rather seek to understand metaphysical arguments on their own terms before committing to atheism. Kindly watch this playlist - kzbin.info/aero/PLpzmRsG7u_gpMogZpIcZnS0BsD3z8_x3n

[@prostagma7234]

@Nigel Butt 1. Metaphysics is a necessary precondition for mathematics, logic, and morality (because these are immaterial, yet real universals). 2. People depend upon mathematics, logic, and morality, showing that they depend upon the universal, immaterial, and abstract realities which could not exist in a materialist universe but presupposes (presumes) the existence of a Metaphysical Reality. 3. Therefore, Metaphysical Reality exists. If it didn't, we could not rely upon logic, reason, morality, and other absolute universals (which are required and assumed to live in this universe, let alone to debate), and could not exist in a materialist universe where there are no absolute standards. Notice how we are not talking about anything physical, like roads or traffic - we are talking about a Transcendent Reality, or Absolute Reality upon which the physical reality of our day to day experience depends on. So to cross a busy road, you don't need to think about Metaphysics, but you do have to presuppose Metaphysics in order to employ the reason (logic) necessary to successfully get to the other side without getting hit. Metaphysics, meta-ethics, second-order logic, etc., requires acts of further abstraction [e.g. Thinking about thinking]. The inability to grasp these abstractions is suggestive of autism.

[@prostagma7234]

@Nigel Butt Ok dude, thank for proving Duke's point :)

[@prostagma7234]

@Nigel Butt Ok ... so you're either not understanding my point or being willfully ignorant. Let me make it really simple. God (Absolute Reality) is transcendent to material nature, therefore the question of having material evidence for the immaterial is nonsensical. This is why I said that you can't find God using a microscope. Furthermore, mathematics like metaphysics falls under the category of 'a priori' knowledge meaning that there is no question of even having physical proof for their existence in the first place. A priori: knowledge, justifications, or arguments that exist independently from experience. Examples include mathematics (e.g. 3 + 2 = 5); tautologies (e.g. "all bachelors are unmarried"); and deduction from pure reason (e.g., ontological proofs). A posteriori: knowledge, justifications, or arguments that depend on experience or empirical evidence. Examples include most aspects of science and personal knowledge. Every single scientific (a posteriori) experiment conducted ever, has to presuppose the validity of 'a priori' knowledge like that of mathematics, logic, and metaphysics - as it can never justify their validity using its own method. Metaphysics and mathematics on the other hand are true in themselves, 2 + 2 = 4, is true in itself with no need for physical evidence (as it would be impossible to provide such evidence). Or to put it as simply as I possibly can, you're asking an impossible question. The question itself is incoherent, therefore there can be no coherent answer :)

[@weirdwilliam8500]

@@prostagma7234 Nigel, very good points so far. And I agree, I don't see any use for metaphysics. It seems like a very old branch of study when we didn't have methods for determining the real from the imaginary, and so pretentious men would sit around imagining and speculating to no productive end. None of metaphysics can be shown to be true or even likely true, and so while it is interesting to speculate, it certain cannot be used to describe reality. And Mario, I second what Nigel said about we atheists just asking for sufficient evidence. I don't need "proof" or "certainty" and I don't need "to know" that god exists. I just want some good evidence, pulled from some demonstrable aspect of reality, that provides positive support for your specific claims about god, to show that the set of things in reality likely includes your god. As a helpful guide: 1. Saying we can't explain something yet, but you can imagine a god that if it existed would be sufficient to explain it, is not evidence. 2. Anonymous hearsay testimony arising out of decades of oral tradition is not evidence. 3. Your wonderful feelings when you contemplate your beliefs being true is not evidence. 4. Mysterious coincidences or experiences are not evidence. 5. Faith is not evidence. 6. Definitions offered without a tie-in to observable reality is not evidence. (See your "God (Absolute Reality) is transcendent to material nature." What reasons could I seriously have to believe this? And you're essentially defining god as a thing that is incapable of being shown to exist, which is hilarious. And if we're playing that game, I'll say "Thorgenob is a transcendent stone that immediately annihilates any gods that attempt to exist in any metaphysical context." There. Now gods can't exist, right?) All of those things are demonstrably unreliable tools for distinguishing real things from imaginary things. What we are asking for is the sort of evidence that we use to believe things exist in literally ever other instance, and which you also use to form existential beliefs for everything except your god. Finally, if you contemplate responding to this post, try to examine your train of thought. I'm going to predict that you'll try to focus in on how I'm using words, or what you suspect about my character or level of education, or how insulted you feel by something I've said. Furthermore, I predict that you won't actually entertain the idea of providing any actual evidence. No one ever has, and only rarely in my experience do theists even seem to try. This truly is remarkable, since all atheists ever ask for is reliable, specific evidence that your god exists.

[@DualFrodo]

A swaggering, punk-kid Thomist? Now I've heard everything

[@matthewtortorich7052]

I did thoroughly enjoy this. Hearing the perspective from Ben’s position (and those that are less aggressive towards faith) was encouraging and a conversation I believe to be more fruitful than what is possible with the “new atheists.” I am biased...but Fr. Gregory Pine is a beast!

[@matthewtortorich7052]

@Nick Jones Hi Nick. "Tinniest scrap of credible evidence"? Let's not be more honest in an assessment of the debate. It would be a reasonable position to state that both Fr. Pine & Ben presented well-stated positions - both of which had philosophical "evidence." And each of those positions had areas the other effectively challenged. I can respect one honestly walking away scratching their head or concluding one person won over the other. But to state Fr. Pine "couldn't provide EVEN the tinniest scrap of credible evidence" indicates you either didn't actually watch the debate (at least with an open mind considering both positions) or you're simply choosing to speak with hyperbolic language which helps neither yourself nor anyone with whom you attempt to engage in dialogue.

[@matthewtortorich7052]

@Nick Jones Oh I see. So you're real question is why won't God sit still under a microscope like the rest of the specimens we learn about in the material universe? Your very question screams your misunderstanding of what a Christian claims God to be. It also happens to again affirm that you either didn't listen to the entire debate we're commenting on or weren't open-minded enough to consider various perspectives. The God we profess to exist is something different entirely from the world we encounter by empirical evidence. So your claim that there's no physical (you're not using this word, but you might as well because it is all you would accept) falls dramatically short of even understanding what we mean ontologically when we say God. I'm not asking you to believe - but your dismissiveness is not helping anyone, especially yourself. Arrogantly claiming that philosophy cannot aid in arriving at truth is both arrogant & ignorant.

[@matthewtortorich7052]

@Nick Jones Nick, a few last comments. First, yes "my" God (foolish to assign pronouns in this way, but whatever) has a physical effect on the universe. It is the universe's very existence - the most fundamental effect. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, this was clearly articulated in the debate. The fact that there is something rather than nothing requires an explanation. And I'm open to what that explanation may be - but I have not heard an explanation I personally find compelling other than something called God. Second, we're now debating the existence of God - which was not my intention in responding to your initial comment of Fr. Pine's inability to provide "EVEN the tinniest scrap of credible evidence of your God." If you want to truly be intellectually honest - even while remaining an atheist - it's necessary to listen to both sides & recognize valid points. Recognizing valid points does not equate with agreeing. But to state that Aquinas' positions (and by extension Fr. Pine's) is not compelling or at least something that demands attention highlights your inability to listen to alternative perspectives or your insistence to speak in hyperbole about a side with which you disagree. Philosophy may not be a physical science, but it would be arrogant & ridiculous to dismiss it as not having the ability to lead to truth.

[@matthewtortorich7052]

@Nick Jones Here's the test: Is there something and not nothing? You have yet to offer an explanation for why there is something and not nothing.

[@matthewtortorich7052]

@Nick Jones This conversation is over. It was a polite discourse until you became threatened, combative & angry. Nothing further to discuss.

[@delys754]

Finally watched the entire debate. In my opinion, Ben has so many misconceptions about God, and it takes a lot of time to make someone understand the nature of God in Catholic perspective. Fr. Pine needed a lot of explanation to debunk Ben's proofs cuz they are derived from misbeliefs abt God. I think if Ben truly understand God and takes time understanding Catholic Theology, it would break down a lot of atheists view that God doesn't exist.

[@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns]

Should have been Ed Feser

[@markpaul2114]

Sorry Ben, you seem like a very smart and pleasant fellow, but you were completely outclassed in this debate.

[@throughaglassanalytically1679]

Could you elaborate?

[@markpaul2114]

Through a Glass, Analytically, yes, I will elaborate, but I want to be brief and not get into a blow by blow analysis. My wife coaches HS debate, so I have judged several debate events; and many of these HS debaters could hold their own with either Fr. Pine or Mr. Watkins. Furthermore, I have just finished my masters in Theology, so I have had my share of both philosophy and theology course work. From a technique perspective, Ben did not seem very comfortable with some of his assertions. He may have just been nervous, or not as prepared as he would have liked to be, but his delivery lacked confidence and thus undermined his credibility. Factually, I believe he misrepresented (unintentionally) Aquinas a number of times or simply does not really understand his arguments/theory. This too did not impress me. Fr. Pine was tremendously gracious by not embarrassing Mr Watkins over his logical fallacies. Furthermore, Fr. Pine was tremendously smooth in his delivery, questions and answers - demonstrating a real command of the topic - very convincing. Full disclosure, I am Catholic, so yes, I have my bias. However, just as when I judge a Lincoln - Douglas, or Public Forum debate session, I try to check my personal opinions at the door.

[@masterchief8179]

Fr. Gregory was more versed in my opinion. Ben did a great job though. Both were civil. But to be truly sincere, I see Ben’s misconceiving about God’s knowledge and many more topics (ex: the metaphysics of time) more demanding of explanation (and not so basic ones) so that hardly could be posed as a benefit to his side as far as a “debate” goes, due to the fact that Fr Gregory Pine had to deal and maybe correct those misconceptions. I sincerely think Fr. Gregory won it overall (and won it clearly: both in possessing more profound knowledge on the matters discussed and in its transmission, all difficulties already taken into account), even though he probably would have needed much more time to this than what he specifically had in this kind of format. He probably is a greater lecturer than a debater, but from that in NO WAY it follows that he has lost it or his opponent fared better. Greetings from 🇧🇷 Brazil.

[@throughaglassanalytically1679]

​@@markpaul2114 Thank you for the extended response. Now I will completely agree with you that in terms of speaking ethos, Fr. Pine was the clear winner. He has a true pastoral gift when it comes to explaining these topics (just watch his Aquinas 101 series videos). However as you know debates are based on substance and the force of argument, not on who simply sounds good. On this matter, I think Watkins won the debate by a slight margin. Let me explain why. Now as a Debate Coach, you must be familiar with the concept of a "flow" in debate. And so let's do a brief flow here: Fr. Pine's Opening: 1. Aquinas First Way 2. Aquinas Second Way 3. Aquinas Third Way Ben's Opening: 1. Argument from Divine Hiddenness 2. The Bayesian Argument from Evolutionary Evil 3. The Modal Collapse Argument 4. The Argument from Knowledge. Fr. Pine's First Rebuttal: 1. He first responded to Ben's Knowledge Argument, but he seems to have missed the mark since his rebuttal does not clearly work on a metaphysics of time like presentism or growing block theory. It cannot be presently true that God’s knowledge of the past existence of humans consists in his causing, or orchestrating, the past if the past does not exist. The past is not still around for God to be causing it. 2. He then responded to Ben's Modal Collapse argument, by simply clarifying the real distinctions between God's freedom, but he didn't really show why Divine Simplicity doesn't lead to the problems that Ben showed it did. 3. He "dropped" as they say in debate, the Bayesian Argument from Evil, meaning he didn't respond to it. Ben's First Rebuttal: Given that Fr. Pine grouped the first 3 ways together. Ben did so as well in his response. He utilized the objections from Existential Interia, Quantifier Shift Fallacy, the gap between the unactualized actualizer to purely actual actualizer, the possibility of beginningless per se and per accidens causal series and a few others one I am not remembering. While Fr. Pine did touch on EI in the Q and A, he did not ever come back or deal with Ben's objections to his arguments. In this note, it means that Ben was able to successfully refute Fr. Pine's case in the context of the debate. In the Second Rebuttals, both mainly had a discussion on the problem of evil. Fr. Pine reiterated the Brian Davies and Herbert McCabe approach to the issue, that God is not a moral agent, however I thought Ben responded pretty well in showing how "radically other" this makes God. Likewise, how can we speak of God loving anybody, aside from "loving" as an intellectual exercise of willing the good of the other, and it seems painfully obvious that God does not will everyone's good completely all the time. The image of God as Father is a woeful misstatement of God's relationship to man in terms of reality and philosophical argument if we take this approach to the issue. I will pause here, but I hope you can see why from a substantive perspective it seems that Ben Watkins won this debate even if Fr. Pine was the more commanding speaker.

[@borneandayak6725]

True, Fr. Pine clearly won.

[@rebeccavanderheiden4099]

I really wanted to enjoy the debate but I literally had no idea what they were saying like 80% of the time. I feel like this knowledge that both of these guys have isn’t accessible to like 99% of ppl just because of their vocabulary.

[@fernandoyunes5910]

It surprises me how people accept Darwin´s theory of evolution, almost without hesitation. Darwin´s theory has been proven wrong by paleontology, genetics, philosophy. I think that if that obstacle is remove, many people would have an easy way to accept God´s existence

[@kylemyers971]

Sources?

[@fernandoyunes5910]

@@kylemyers971 kzbin.info/www/bejne/q5_ScpZ6f7Cng7M. Sorry it´s in spanish. I´ll try to give you a brief view. Darwin´s theory implies that all the species derive from one unique being and throughout many centuries and thousands of years by natural selection and alleatory mutation. So, all living beings are conected to one and only first living being, and each specie appeared after many many years of evolution. Paleontology found evidence that most species appeared at the same period of time. Genetics found that a fly which mutates very quickly is exactly alike the ones petrified thousands years ago. Philosophy shows , for instance, that the intermediate stages between a reptil which becames a bird are incapable of survival. And so on. I apologize for my english, I am not native speaker

[@fernandoyunes5910]

@TL DR kzbin.info/www/bejne/q5_ScpZ6f7Cng7M. Sorry it´s in spanish. I´ll try to give you a brief view. Darwin´s theory implies that all the species derive from one unique being and throughout many centuries and thousands of years by natural selection and alleatory mutation. So, all living beings are conected to one and only first living being, and each specie appeared after many many years of evolution. Paleontology found evidence that most species appeared at the same period of time. Genetics found that a fly which mutates very quickly is exactly alike the ones petrified thousands years ago. Philosophy shows , for instance, that the intermediate stages between a reptil which becames a bird are incapable of survival. And so on. I apologize for my english, I am not native speaker

[@joekey8464]

For God to exist. Ben Watkins needs a heaven on earth, - a world of no suffering, - no disease, no natural calamities, no accidents, no wars, no murders, no species going extinct. All humans will live to a ripe old age of 100 years old....A utopia. A utopia would mean that humans must be constraint to not harm other humans and animals. This would be a limit into our freewill, human will not be allowed to do evil. - no murder, no abortions, no illicit sex, no adultery, no stealing, no pride, etc. all of this harms other persons. This is what precisely what true Christianity teaches - to love God above all things and to love our neighbor as we love ourselves. - if this teaching is perfectly lived, a utopia on earth can be possible...even if a fraction of it be lived then the world would be a better place...This is what God commands us, for our own sake and our societies betterment.

[@peppy619]

I still fail to see how you can start with "suffering is real" and lead to "everything came into existence out of nothing." At best, the problem of evil could be a rebuttal against God's compassion or against a specific God... but that's only if we want to debate against the Christian God, but atheism postulates that no God, no intelligent being is behind existence. Even if you could go as far as saying that God is a psycho who enjoys suffering, that still wouldn't count as an argument for atheism. The more I ponder on the argument of evil, the more it seems like an emotional argument: -Suffering is real -Suffering seems pointless and unnecessary -If God is real, He could/should stop it -Suffering is still real and unncessary -God doesn't care about our suffering or either enjoys it -God is a total jerk -I can't cope with such a God existing -Hence: God is not real (????)

[@Deflate2020]

@Trolltician Check this out pls: kzbin.info/www/bejne/mnSahnSDrLGZp6c

[@jansson007]

It's not an emotional argument, it is a moral argument and it is just one of many arguments against the god of traditional theism...which is the god this friar here believes in and was arguing for. Fr. Pine did not argue for some vague notion of deism or Spinoza's pantheism. If he had done that, I guess the question would then be; why would you call something impersonal, something that can be and given all the evidence is a natural phenomenon, God? The god of traditional theism has certain attributes, or nature...and none of them is compatible with a psychopathic monster.

[@jansson007]

It's not an emotional argument, it is a moral argument and it is just one of many arguments against the god of traditional theism...which is the god this friar here believes in and was arguing for. Fr. Pine did not argue for some vague notion of deism or Spinoza's pantheism. If he had done that, I guess the question would then be; why would you call something impersonal, something that can be and given all the evidence is a natural phenomenon, God? The god of traditional theism has certain attributes, or nature...and none of them is compatible with a psychopathic monster.

[@jansson007]

@Trolltician Well, he wasn't arguing for Spinoza's God and it's not quite clear Spinoza had committed a category error either. Some try to rehabilitate him through so-called panantheistic interpretation, whereby Nature i.e. natural world is merely a subset of God, but I agree. It is a category error and I'd never call that God.

[@consciousphilosophy-ericva5564]

Hi Matt, For your podcast, how do you do it? I want to start a podcast, but I don’t know how to make one! If you could help out, I’d appreciate it!

[@saurabhjani9466]

I found Ben Watkins only recently and now am a big fan!

[@frrichardstonier2634]

So if the metaphysical ideas caught your interest but went over your head, a fellow priest and I are working through Daniel J. Sullivan's introduction to Classical Realism on the Amateur Philosophers' Club podcast www.buzzsprout.com/883282

[@bluedude9567]

Watkins: "A fawn burning to death in a forest fire ... is not biologically or morally useful". Euhm, yes it is morally useful because you just used in as a moral argument against the existence of God. And it could also be biologically useful because darwinistically speaking that particular fawn was just not adapted well enough to it's environment to escape the danger quickly enough, thereby removing him from the gene pool.

[@steves8580]

Have we reached the Darwinism of the gaps point yet?

[@sovereignindividual2625]

Or every woman he slept with had there uterus removed by the devil.

[@IPea99]

@@sovereignindividual2625 huh?

[@johnjon1823]

Personally I think that since something does not come from nothing then that requires an eternal uncreated entity who is all powerful.

[@donnadeau7619]

Before one ask what is the purpose of life, one must ask what is Life? To that I say that it is not what life is, but what life does, that give us its meaning and purpose.

[@evansmith2018]

I had my atheist friend watch this. He concluded that the debate was a tie, but Fr. Pine was the better orator. Either way, we both loved it!

[@allisonwatkins8312]

Ben! But I’m a little biased 🥰

[@peppy619]

Hmmmmm your surname is also Watkins....SUSPICIOUS!!!!

[@allisonwatkins8312]

Benjamin gutierrez oriol guilty 😂

[@peppy619]

@@allisonwatkins8312 so, you guys related or something? :DDDD

[@allisonwatkins8312]

Benjamin gutierrez oriol mightttt have married him 🥰

[@MeisterBeefington]

This type of support is unavailable to Fr Pine

[@phoult37]

Best comments on this video are the ones arrogantly dismissing the debate topic and the intellect of the debaters

[@ChristopherWanha]

1:42:23 what's the problem? For instance when one considers their past it is "pre determined" in so far as that it already happened and you don't have the free will to change it. The only domain where freewill exists within the infinity of time is this thin slice less than a nanosecond called now.

[@myronmercado]

If you have faith, no proof is necessary. If you don't, no proof is enough.

[@crystald3346]

Father Pine is SO handsome!

[@RK-dk5vt]

First you're deriding Matt for not speaking prudently, then you comment - as a married woman - with capitals on the handsomeness of a Dominican priest?

[@crystald3346]

Admiring beauty is imprudent?

[@RK-dk5vt]

Your earlier comment seems a bit hypocritical in this context, 's all.

[@crystald3346]

I was referring more to the beauty which seems to emanate from him overall... the robust voice, the white robe, and halo-like lighting... but I also just came from his other video on the Matt Fradd show (not PWA) from a few years ago in which Fr. Pine so beautifully described Heaven. And in that interview, he briefly puts his hood on his head at which instant I was forcibly reminded of depictions of angelic creatures I’ve seen previously in works of art. That, plus the fact that he’s is actually a being dedicated in his entirety to God, as a Dominican priest.. for all his Earthly life... how beautiful is that? Seriously? Fr Pine makes me yearn for the source, for Beauty itself (God, or an attribute of God) as it exists objectively. Having said that... taken at face-value I can see how my comment may be imprudent, and I think your point may be fair in that respect.

[@RK-dk5vt]

@@crystald3346 Thank you for the explanation, sister. You are humble as well; I can learn from you. I also think Fr Pine has much beauty. Love!

[@billmartin3561]

Hundreds of millions of years of animal evolution and suffering don’t prove that God is evil. Within that suffering was also love - birth of the fawn, the wolf eating the burned fawn from the forest fire, etc. plus these are animals we’re talking about, without reason and only driven by survival.

[@giacomofilosofia]

Welcome back Matt!