Matt Dillahunty and "Claims aren't evidence" (REBUTTED)

[@TheCounselofTrent]

An addendum to the video: Matt accepts transgender ideology so the mere claim a man is a woman is not just evidence, it's proof of the "extraordinary claim" that a person with a penis is a woman (See here: twitter.com/Matt_Dillahunty/status/1373341831824617472).

[@Eliza-rg4vw]

Things that only require self-consistency anyway have littler reason to obtain evidence. With a self-defined definition of woman (or man) in both sex and gender, it is possible for a person to call themselves a woman and be totally accurate. It's correct due the definitions being used and the lack of a need of evidence in the first place.

[@49perfectss]

This shows that not only do you not know his justification for trans acceptance but you also don't know the mountains of social and biological science that confirm trans is a real thing. You're... Not exactly a strong thinker.

[@stephengalanis]

What's interesting to me is you've just put out a video defending that epistemology as totally legitimate. So... do you accept the claim that the person with a male body is a woman? I suppose so.

[@Tzimiskes3506]

@@49perfectss Well the point went straight over your head didn't it, guy?

[@49perfectss]

@@Tzimiskes3506 how so? Please be specific.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

Solid response! Great work.

[@derekallen4568]

That's just a claim. Where's your evidence?😊

[@scrapdog2113]

Holy moly! It’s him!!

[@scrapdog2113]

@Harley Mann I think it was a joke 😅

[@MAP2023]

Come home, Mike. ;)

[@follower2thelord43]

@harleymann2086 He was talking about the claim of the video being great.

[@saintmatthew956]

So Rick Astley isn't the true President of the United States? How disappointing.

[@macmedic892]

He promised to never give you up, never let you down… which is a refreshing political statement these days!

[@buratchini]

@@macmedic892 😁😁😁😁😁 yeahhhh beyyybbbiiii

[@ironymatt]

He does a cover of a song called Walk Like a Panther, which is pretty awesome. It's all about soldiering on with confidence in the face of crumbling standards, rank corruption and other assorted immoralities

[@blackswan7568]

You could say that Rick let you down😏

[@ATageH]

Matt Dillahunty: "Claims aren't evidence" Man who thinks he is a woman: "I am female" Matt Dillahunty: "I believe you"

[@newglof9558]

Matt Dumperpumpy

[@tuav]

This is so true LMAO. He got so mad at Thoughtful Faith when he asked how does one determine their gender and all Dillahunty could do was say: "well they identify as a woman and others say they identify as a woman". 😂

[@volusian95]

And he does more than believe him 😅

[@Mark-cd2wf]

In a case like this, what would Matt accept as evidence for the claim? Make the guy drop his pants?🤷‍♂️

[@tuav]

@@Mark-cd2wf Its not even that. Even if the guy dropped his pants and we saw male genitalia, Matt would still conclude that they are a woman simply because the guy self-identifies as a woman. What should be given more credence? Self identification or External Appearances? I wonder what Matt would say lmao.

[@Starfield_Eclipse]

Matt just wishes Mary pulled out her iphone and recorded it

[@YeshuaIsLord135]

😂😂😂

[@Rotten9]

Or how about God come and let us undeniably know right now! 😂😂😂😂😂 God could do that, couldn't it? Funny how that never happens.

[@Starfield_Eclipse]

@@Rotten9 Thomas Aquinas covers that topic in detail

[@Rotten9]

@yourcakeandeatingittoo1576 If you are talking about Aquinas proof of Godn they are flawed as you probably know.

[@johnjackson9767]

​@@Rotten9It could happen and you still wouldn't believe it.

[@Doc-Holliday1851]

I loved his debate with you from two years ago. Matt: testimony isn’t evidence😡 Trent: what kind of evidence would you like to see? Matt: medical testimony Trent: 🤦‍♂️

[@AbleAnderson]

Not remotely how it went

[@Doc-Holliday1851]

@@AbleAnderson That is almost word for word what the dialogue of that debate was. At one point Matt says that testimony isn't evidence, not some testimony can't be considered because it's bias. He says testimony ISN'T evidence, period. Then Trent asks what evidence Matt would like to see, and Matt gives the example that a physician's report would be suitable evidence.

[@Ale90fcb]

I'm Protestant and this is my first time watching your content, Trent. Really good video and love the quality. I need to say that one thing that caught my attention was the mate behind you. God bless you, Trent.

[@IsraelCountryCube]

Matt dillahunty is idiot. With all respect. Protestantism systematic theology should reboot him.

[@johnyang1420]

Try Rcia

[@tonic-music]

The mate behind you? You mean the image of Jesus?

[@Bigboss192x]

Consider his book "Why we are Catholic"

[@newglof9558]

"I'm not convinced" When your career is contingent on your nonconviction, it's easy to see why

[@newglof9558]

And before any atheist sees this and says "theists do the same thing!" The difference is theists are honest about the fact that they're apologists. Good luck trying to get guys like Dillahunty, Aron Ra or Pine Creek to admit that they're "atheist apologists" when that's what they are: individuals using argumentation in favor of a particular doctrine (atheism, which is in no way, shape, or form, a lack of belief)

[@Regular_Pigeon]

His career would probably grow if he had a conversion. His theist followers would praise god and watch even more, and theists that don't follow him would start to.

[@newglof9558]

​@@Regular_Pigeon that would depend on the quality of his theistic takes. I don't just follow people just because they're theists. I don't know any theist that does.

[@Eliza-rg4vw]

What do you mean? Atheism is general is typically grounded on a lack of a belief in a god, so whats the point here?

[@Tzimiskes3506]

@@Eliza-rg4vw Well no. Atheism isn't a lack of a belief. Trent has also refuted this in magazine article.

[@bassman_0074]

Some people are so skeptical they don’t even know if they exist.

[@gunsgalore7571]

It's a real thing, I remember hearing about it somewhere. I don't remember what it's called, though.

[@Chicken_of_Bristol]

@@gunsgalore7571 sounds like a claim you don’t have evidence for ;)

[@newglof9558]

I'd rather be virtuous than skeptical

[@bearistotle2820]

​@@gunsgalore7571 I was thinking solipsism, but that's the belied that you are the only thing that exists...

[@gunsgalore7571]

@@bearistotle2820 Yeah, my bad. You're right. It's coming back now. I was thinking of solipsism. By the way, I would love to watch two solipsists debate about which one of them is the only true mind. That would be... beyond awesome.

[@jackolyte]

Also, to Trent's producer, you should consider adjusting the studio lighting. Compared to the setup a few months ago, the lighting is off. Trent's face is like half lit, so he looks much angrier and more tired (although who knows, maybe he is...)

[@LarryXLR]

"A claim is not evidence" Meanwhile, Matt Dillahunty claims his trans "girlfriend" is a woman because he says so.

[@ADHD_Samurai]

I love how Matt moves the goalposts on physical evidence by asking are there 21st century medical practices in the 1st century that can be considered physical evidence for the resurrection. I suppose Tacitus' claim that Jesus died under Pilate was just "another claim".

[@Chicken_of_Bristol]

Funny that he asks for a medical examiner. St. Luke was a physician by grace.

[@Chicken_of_Bristol]

"Physician by trade*"

[@EvilXtianity]

_"I suppose Tacitus' claim that Jesus died under Pilate was just "another claim"."_ No one in history witnessed Jesus - not even any of the Gospel authors. In the entire first century Jesus is not mentioned by a single historian, religion scholar, politician, philosopher, or poet. His name never occurs in a single inscription, carving, sculpture, or monument, and it is never found in a single piece of private correspondence or official record. No Greek or Roman historian witnessed Jesus. They merely reported what the Gospels asserted (none of the Gospel authors witnessed Jesus) and what Christians told them. Pontius Pilate wrote nothing about Jesus. Herod wrote nothing about Jesus. Flavius Josephus wasn't born until 37 AD (and was likely Paul). Mara bar Scarpion wasn't born until 50 AD. Tacitus wasn't born until 56 AD. Papias of Hierapolis wasn't born until 60 AD. Pliny the Younger wasn't born until 61 AD. Dead Sea Scrolls were composed from 150 BC to 68 AD and do not mention Jesus. Suetonius wasn't born until 69 AD. Polycarp wasn't born until 69 AD. Ignatius of Antioch died in 108 AD (birth date is unknown). Lucian of Samosata wasn't born until 125 AD. Titus Flavius Clemen (Clement of Alexandria) wasn't born until 150 AD. Thallus is first mentioned around 180 AD. It is not known when he lived. Celsus wasn't born until the second century. Phlegon of Tralles wasn't born until the second century. Talmud wasn't written until 350 AD. Until the mid-90s AD, there is no corroborating evidence from anyone who was not party to the new religion of Christianity. Flavius Josephus wasn't born until 37 AD (and was likely Paul). There are no known manuscripts of Josephus' works that can be dated before the 11th century, and the oldest which do survive were copied by Christian monks. References to Jesus are not found in the oldest manuscripts of his Antiquities of the Jews. Josephus says that he drew from and "interpreted out of the Hebrew Scriptures". The original was written in Aramaic and was later translated into Greek by Christian monks. In the third century, Origen wrote extensively about Josephus, even about the very chapter that contains the Testimonium, but never mentioned or referred to the Testimonium in any way. This is inconceivable if the Testimonium had existed at that time. Since the first mention of that passage came from Eusebius, we can conclude that is when it was created. Early Christian apologists like Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and Origen never wrote about the Testimonium passage. Origen even mentions Josephus but never mentioned the Testimonium. Further evidence of a fraud is if you remove the Testimonium from its larger context, the previous paragraph flows together. The Testimonium is out of place because it was crudely inserted centuries later. The first mention of Jesus in Antiquities of the Jews came from Eusebius (none of the earlier church fathers mention Josephus’ Jesus). Scholars have determined that Eusebius, not Josephus, was responsible for those writings. Eusebius wrote about “how it may be lawful and fitting to use falsehood as a medicine, and for the benefit of those who want to be deceived.” The Testimonium Flavianum (testimony of Flavius Josephus) is a passage found in Book 18, Chapter 3, of the Antiquities which describes the condemnation and crucifixion of Jesus at the hands of the Roman authorities. The Josephus reference to Jesus is also a well-known fraud. The ink is marked out, the writing is different, the tone and quality and voice of the writing is also different. Furthermore, it includes the word “Christian”, which wasn’t coined at all until decades later. The earliest secure reference to this passage is found in the writings of the fourth-century Christian apologist and historian Eusebius, who used Josephus' works extensively as a source for his own Historia Ecclesiastica. Eusebius quotes the passage in essentially the same form as that preserved in extant manuscripts. It has been suggested that part or all of the passage may have been Eusebius' own invention in order to provide an outside Jewish authority for the life of Christ. Tacitus wasn't born until 56 AD. He was merely documenting, from more than 80 years after the purported event, and from hundreds of miles away, the early Christian movement and what those early Christians told him (Annals book 15, chapter 44 was written in 116 AD): "Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome...". If Tacitus had been copying from an official source we would expect him to have labelled Pilate correctly as a prefect rather than a procurator. Philo of Alexandria was born around 20 BC, and thus was an adult at the time of the Bethlehem star. He lived well past the crucifixion, dying about the year 50 AD. He would have been the ideal man to record everything about a Jewish miracle-worker and savior. He wrote about 40 individual essays, which now fill seven volumes. Yet he says not one word about Jesus or the Christian movement. ~~~~~~~~ Historians who lived during the time, or within a century, of the purported time of Jesus and who wrote nothing about him: Philo-Judæus Seneca Pliny Elder Arrian Petronius Dion Pruseus Paterculus Suetonius Pausanias Florus Lucius Lucian Quintius Curtius Aulus Gellius Juvenal Martial Persius Plutarch Pliny Younger Justus of Tiberius Apollonius Quintilian Dio Chrysostom Columella Valerius Flaccus Damis Favorinus Lucanus Epictetus Hermogones Silius Italicus Statius Ptolemy Appian Phlegon Phædrus Valerius Maximus Lysias Pomponius Mela Appion of Alexandria Theon of Smyrna

[@newglof9558]

@@EvilXtianity Napoleon did not exist.

[@Cklert]

@@EvilXtianity This is just gish-gallop. But, I'll address the issues with your 'list' of historians. Most, if not all of the historians you've listed. Never even set foot in Palestine let alone were there at the time of Christ's ministry. Philo of Alexandria only ever records visiting Palestine, twice in his life. Philo was much more concerned with writing about the Jews in Alexandria than he was recording everything the Jews did. He scarcely ever wrote about the Jews in Palestine general. Heck, some of these historians you've listed were actually born later than Tacitus and Josephus which just tells me that you likely just copy and pasted this list from a tertiary source and didn't even bother to check it. Arrian is estimated to be born at around ~87 AD also never left Greece Suetonius - born in 69 AD was born in Hippo and spent the majority of his life in Rome. He mentions the persecutions of Christians a bit. And does not seem to regard Christ as a mythical figure. Pausanias - 110 AD - never went to Palestine - also was more concerned with geography. Lucian - Born in 125 - Actually does briefly write about Christians and Christ. But he holds them in disdain for abandoning Greek gods. But his writings don't seem to deny that Christ was an actual person. Quintius Curtius - This historian is so scarce that we only have one recorded work from him, and its a History on Alexander the Great. A person who predates him by several centuries. Juvenal - Born ~55 AD, never went to Palestine, and also isn't a historian. He's a poet, a satirist. Martial - Never left Hispania and also wasn't a historian, he was also a satirist. Persius - Once again another satirist who never leaves Italy Pliny Younger - Pliny the Younger actually does write about Christians and does not seem to deny that Christ existed. He's also friends with Seutonius Justus of Tiberius - Ironically, all we know of this person comes from Josephus. Which you're keen on dismissing Valerius Flaccus - was a poet who wrote epics, not a historian Damis - We have one mention of this person and the only one we have comes from Apollonius' biographer I could go on if you want.

[@lizzard13666]

Fantastic video. I'm 33, and watched a LOT of Atheist Experience videos growing up. Matt Dillahunty was one of the main voices in my ear about religion. I'm eternally grateful that our God was gently guiding me the whole time.

[@brianw.5230]

I'm an ex-atheist, too. He's damaged more souls than he knows

[@lizzard13666]

@@brianw.5230 To be fair to Matt, we're the ones who kept coming back. We're lucky that God is bigger than MD, and I just hope He empowers more of us to do our part helping to guide people out of that way of thinking!

[@brianw.5230]

@@lizzard13666 Amen brother.

[@Mark-cd2wf]

Biblical warning (from Jesus Himself to people who try to destroy others’ faith in Him): Jesus said to His disciples, “It is inevitable that stumbling blocks will come, but woe to the one through whom they come! It would be better for him to have a millstone hung around his neck and to be thrown into the sea than to cause one of these little ones to stumble.” (Lk. 17:1,2)

[@Consume_Crash]

God bless you.

[@mrpalmtree19]

Just wanted to say that as a non-believer and a fan of several atheist youtubers that have argued for this, I think you're spot on here. Distinguishing between claims and propositions is what did it for me. Thanks for the considered view!

[@hotdaniel_xxx]

I claim you just don't understand the topic

[@V305G]

You are NOT a non-believer. Everyone: please look at @mrpalmtree19 history. This person says they’re an atheist to lend credence to their video comments. If you are a skeptic and/or a non-believer, you would know that Trent’s take on claims and evidence is bogus.

[@tgenov]

@@hotdaniel_xxx I claim you don't understand understanding itself.

[@hotdaniel_xxx]

@@tgenov I claim I do understand understanding itself. Because I claimed it, there is now evidence supporting my claim.

[@joe5959]

​@@hotdaniel_xxx"I just self verified and im right"

[@DivineMercy0414]

I have been thinking hard on converting from protestant to catholic im not there yet but Trent Horn and Matt Fradd have been some of the biggest help in my journey. Thanks to the both of you God is definitely working through you guys in my life.

[@carnivalwholesale9809]

Except your God doesn't exist

[@timothywilliams4089]

Have you had a bang on the head?,.....then consider islam, they marry youing girls but don't seem to have the same paedo problem as do Catholic priests. BTW, which god is working for 'these guys'?,....take your pick from about 4,000.

[@buddyforbes7157]

Praying for you

[@timothywilliams4089]

@@buddyforbes7157 Ok, you pray for me, and I'll think for you. BTW, prayer never seems to work for amputees!

[@mattm7798]

I love Trent but Catholics start with a Biblical gospel then add a ton of human tradition on top so while I don't know the details of your faith, I don't believe Catholic teaching is correct. Funny enough, check out William Lane Craig on why he's not a Catholic

[@Tzimiskes3506]

Matt "i don't know" dillahunty.

[@Tzimiskes3506]

@@colinmatts You must not be familiar with dillahunty dodge unfortunately.

[@robinrobyn1714]

@@richardlaiche8303 🤣🤣🤣😂😂. Dillahunty is one of the most dishonest pos out there

[@robinrobyn1714]

@@colinmatts I'm aware of atheist ignorant af pos who defend the Dillahunty Dodge.

[@robinrobyn1714]

@@colinmatts The Dillahunty Dodge -' Well it depends on what you mean by "accusing!!'

[@robinrobyn1714]

@@colinmatts The Dillahunty Dodge -' Not necessarily!! There could be a third option! I'm not going to provide it, only mention it!!'

[@billyg898]

You're point about patient self reporting is one I hadn't thought about. Nice vid.

[@andralfoo]

I claim invisible pink unicorns exist. My claim is evidence.

[@thepalegalilean]

Yes, it is. It's weak evidence, but it's evidence. Now, if there is additional evidence, such as equine behavior where equines don't inhabit, that becomes cumulative with the claim, making stronger evidence, allowing you to possess a weak piece of evidence and a strong piece. Moreover, though, there is something wrong with the claim in and of itself. You have claimed that you've seen an invisible pink unicorn. It is impossible for a thing to be pink whilst also being invisible. At best, you can say that the unicorn is pink to you, assuming you possess a way to see past its invisibility. Aside from that criteria, however, your claim is evidence.

[@andralfoo]

@@thepalegalilean Sorry but its not evidence, its not even weak evidence. Ofc theres something wrong with claiming to see an invisible pink unicorn, same as theres something wrong with experiencing a heavenly immaterial omnibenevolent omnipotent omniscient omnipresent father that trascends matter physics space and time (god) ((or in whatever way you want to particularly try to define the thing into existence, which wont work)) Its ridiculous to claim (and even more to believe) that an invisible pink unicorn exists, it is as ridiculous as to claim that any deity with whatever properties and characteristics you want to imagine into it, exists, when just as an invisible pink unicorn, it doesnt appear to show its existence. If it does, tell me about it. "If its invisible how do you know your unicorn is pink?" "If its immaterial/nonphysical how do you know your god is whatever you say it is?" Now, for real. Asides from the claim "god exists" (which is not even weak evidence, its not evidence at all. You do need evidence to support claims) , why believe god exists? (dont even know if your invisible unicorn is pink or blue or red, I dont know which specific deity you believe in, if you even do)

[@hotdaniel_xxx]

@@thepalegalilean I claim the Christian god does not exist.

[@thepalegalilean]

@@hotdaniel_xxx And that claim is valid evidence. The question is whether or not it is strong evidence? Another question that can be asked is whether or not it can be contradicted by evidence that is just as strong or stronger than the claim supplied?

[@hotdaniel_xxx]

@@thepalegalilean I claim my claim is strong evidence. I claim NO future or past claim can override my claim or constitute as stronger evidence than my claim. I claim NO TAKEBACKS.

[@truthovertea]

Imagine if 911 dispatchers had Dillahunty’s epistemology.

[@ramigilneas9274]

Imagine courts would allow claims as evidence…😂

[@truthovertea]

@@ramigilneas9274 they do, it’s called testimony

[@ramigilneas9274]

@@truthovertea A claim isn’t automatically testimony… but a claim CAN contain testimony. And I am not sure if court would allow the testimony from someone who claims that he got his informations through a vision from a guy who died years ago… or from some anonymous writings about miraculous events written 40 years after it supposedly happened.😂

[@truthovertea]

@@ramigilneas9274 never said it was automatically testimony.

[@ramigilneas9274]

@@truthovertea Good… So we agree that claims aren’t evidence unless they contain testimony. And even then that testimony can often be insufficient to substantiate a claim… and it can never be sufficient to substantiate a supernatural claim.

[@fernandomiranda4714]

Matt believes that a biological man can be a woman based only on their CLAIM . What happened there? 😂

[@philpaine3068]

This is unbelievably stupid. You clearly have no understanding of the difference between biological sex and gender. Nobody has ever claimed that someone with a penis doesn't have a penis. You have probably been told this over and over again by sane and educated people, and you are incapable of understanding a simple fact.

[@ADHD_Samurai]

ah, the Dillahunty Dodge

[@MAP2023]

@@colinmatts Dude, you are the angry one, here. LOL

[@sysprogmanadhoc2785]

Imagine the scene: Religious nut whining about top atheist whilst showing everybody how butt-hurt he is at having zero quality evidence for his entire worldview

[@davemacdougall6039]

@@colinmatts They can't.

[@visualdon]

​@@colinmatts Look up "How to do The Dillahunty Dodge" whaddo you meme, he is the one who came up with the phrase.

[@zhengfuukusheng9238]

Chrischuns be butt-hurt coz they invested a lifetime on a magic man-in-the-sky claim (or should I say evidence LOL) and have absolutely nothing to show for it

[@caruya]

Shroud of Turin

[@zhengfuukusheng9238]

An excellent example of bogus evidence

[@zhengfuukusheng9238]

@@offense53 Ahh the old argumentum ad populum fallacy. Dismissed

[@ToadAppreciator]

@@zhengfuukusheng9238Ah. The old, "if someone makes a logical fallacy, then their entire case must be incorrect." fallacy. It's called the "Fallacy fallacy". Dismissed.

[@zhengfuukusheng9238]

@@ToadAppreciator That's where you're wrong. I didn't dismiss the Shroud based on offense's fallacy. I dismissed him/ her The Shroud is dismissed because its a fake And thus, YOU are dismissed

[@ToadAppreciator]

@@zhengfuukusheng9238 Nope. Too late. You said it word for word. No mention of falsehood. All you brought up was a silly fallacy. Also, there's a case to be made for the shroud's authenticity. Outright dismissing people and mocking them is very arrogant.

[@Seethi_C]

I think at the most basic level, Matt is correct that claims are not evidence. For example, if I said “my uncle Bob rose from the dead”, Matt would rightly ask for evidence. If you said “I don’t have any”, then all you have is a claim which is not enough to convince someone. Where Matt gets into trouble is when he discredits eyewitness testimony by saying they are only a claim.

[@kellymccarthy-uy4fn]

Something being bad, or faulty, evidence does not prevent it from being evidence. Fake Bigfoot track impressions exist, that doesn’t mean we have to reject all footprint impressions as being “not evidence.”

[@stevenlester985]

I’m not convinced. It’s evidence. It’s just bad evidence. Otherwise you’re left in a tight spot with anything. For example, your doctor says “this medicine will help with your infection.” You say “show me the evidence” The doctor produces a research study or trial done with it. You say “so you’re saying this research study happened and these were the results? Show me the evidence.” (Which is obviously the claim being made by the doctor) So if you take that view, then the only true evidence you can have is first hand, repeatable and verifiable experience. And even then, maybe you’re crazy. Ultimately, whether or not we trust evidence comes down to whether or not we trust the source of that evidence. The same is true for testimony/claims. You might have reasons not to trust the evidence but you can hardly avoid calling it evidence

[@DrownedinDesigner]

Claims don’t prove propositions but they can support said proposition, if claims weren’t evidence witnesses wouldn’t be used in courts.

[@Klee99zeno]

Please note that most of the evidence historians use consists of claims that people made. A historical source with usually consist of pieces of writing made by people from the period. These writings consist entirely of claims. A writer claims that a battle happened on a certain date. He names persons who were there. Absolutely everything in his writing is a claim. So it would be impossible to do historical research without relying on claims.

[@thedude0000]

_he discredits eyewitness testimony_ However, in the case of the resurrections, the eye witness claims are only recorded in this specific holy book. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I doubt you put a lot of weight behind _eye witness claims_ in the Quran (e.g. witnesses claiming they saw the moon split in half).

[@PeterBernardMDS1]

Thank you. I like how you stripped his errors down. He commits and commits to logical fallacies all the time.

[@andrewselbyphotography]

basically Matt is saying "I didn't see a miracle happen, so I'm not convinved, therefore, these claims are not convincing" I went through this same thing with Pinecreek Doug. Nothing will convince a person that a miracle happened, when they don't believe in miracles.

[@mloclamgnidyr161]

Nothing will convince a person that leprechauns exist, when they don’t believe in leprechauns.

[@andrewselbyphotography]

@@mloclamgnidyr161 I think that's a different situation

[@cajunking5987]

@@andrewselbyphotographyonly because they replaced on fictional thing with another.

[@andrewselbyphotography]

@@cajunking5987 no, because they exist on different levels, it would be like comparing math to a ham and cheese sandwich

[@pepelechad536]

You have essentially just said "in order to believe in miracles, I have presupposed the existence of miracles". This is an absurdly irrational line of thinking that opens the floodgates to believing all manner of nonsense

[@njhoepner]

“Why can we rationally accept this claim about a person buying a new car” but not claims about a resurrection? Because one is something we’ve observed happening many times over…so we have no reason to doubt it (unless we know the person is a liar). We have NO observational experience of a resurrection, and neither does anyone else - thus we have very good reason to: 1) doubt the claim: and 2) demand evidence, which the claim by itself is not. Dillahunty is right. A claim by itself is not evidence. A claim by an eyewitness MIGHT be evidence, if we have good reasons to accept that the person was an eyewitness. Then we have to consider the person’s credibility. If a person tells me “I saw a raven in your front yard today,” and I know the person is one of my neighbors, I might decide to accept that as evidence, especially since ravens are common where I live. If that same person says “I saw a 50-foot bright pink dragon in your front yard today,” I’m obviously not going to take the claim as evidence, even though I know the person could be an eyewitness. That claim will need some evidence to support it…strong evidence. Eventually (about 17:15) Trent falls back on a version of “well, you can’t prove it didn’t happen - after all, the world is a weird place, and you don’t know everything.” By that standard, the claim that “Jesus rose from the dead” would be on EXACTLY the same footing as “Vishnu guided the life of Krishna” and “the angel J’Ibril revealed God’s word to Mohammed” and “Gitch-Manitou created Coyote, who taught humans how to make fire,” none of which Trent or any other Christian would accept... not because their Christian claims are backed by superior evidence, but merely because of upbringing and/or personal preference.

[@ToadAppreciator]

The twelve apostles were very close to Christ, though. Probably closer than most neighbors.

[@njhoepner]

@@ToadAppreciator Assuming they existed, sure. However, we have no way of knowing for sure if they existed; we have no way of knowing what they actually witnessed, if anything; and we have no clue of any connection between them and the writers of the gospels, who are also unknown. There simply isn't a verified chain of transmission of anything from the time of Jesus (I'll presume he existed) to the time when the gospels were written. So make it one of my older brothers saying he saw a 50-foot pink dragon land in my front yard. OK, he's closer than a neighbor. Should I believe him?

[@timfallon8226]

A statement is evidence as to what a person is claiming. They might be correct, incorrect, lying or any combination of these. If you don't know who is making the claim and when the claim was first made or if they meant the claim to be taken as literally true -as with the gospels- you have very weak evidence.

[@JennnesW]

You further must consider that this “claim is evidence” statement is based on claims within reality. If we stay within the realms of reality, there are good examples if independent claims match with each other and the person who makes the claim is credible and is not motivated to lie. But if you mix it with the supernatural, it falls apart. It is like trying to apply the laws of gravity to quantum mechanics!

[@87weberdrex]

I want to see someone attack Dillahunty on transgenderism by saying claims aren't evidence and make him justify his disordered sexuality.

[@zhengfuukusheng9238]

An inability to provide substantive evidence for their ridiculous hair-brained claims makes people behave with inconspicuous vitriol and agitation. Especially after 2000 years of such failure

[@zhengfuukusheng9238]

@@ithurtsbecauseitstrue That's the biggest pile of crap I've heard in a while

[@87weberdrex]

@@zhengfuukusheng9238 we've had great philosophical arguments that prove God's existence, like St. Thomas Aquinas' 5 ways on top of historical evidence for the existence of Jesus and his resurrection. What I find funny is when people like Matt Dilahunty see a man in a dress, they will ignore all scientific evidence that says this confused man is a man. They rely entirely on the personal testimony of the confused man and call any scientific evidence bigoted and hateful for being pointed out. Keep coping though I guess.

[@jasonleslie4349]

Wow, that would've had to been the most confusing, complicated rebuttal I've ever heard. Do you believe Mohammed flew to 1 of the 7 heavens on a winged horse according to Muslims?WHY?Because we have never seen or heard of such a thing in any part of human history.Now justify a man who's officially known to be dead then on the 3rd day is alive and well.

[@timottes334]

He is just soooo bad! Officer... my wallet was just stolen!! Sorry... that's not evidence of a crime, be on your way!!! Oh... and I forgot my Philosophy 101 : " Absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence... " This just destroys his whole nonsensical sophistic spiel!! We'll take Dillahuny in paraphrase : ' Without physical evidence, there is no evidence. ' Then: Absence of physical proof ( evidence, ) is not evidence ( physical proof ) that there is no physical proof (evidence. ') Yeah... I know!! There is no physical " evidence " that the claim... " Caesar crossed the Rubicon " is true. Therefore, the lack of "evidence" for the claim means it's just an ad hoc assertion. Caesar could be written about in one billion books...yet, this " evidence " of his existence, is not "evidence" that he crossed the Rubicon. His legions may have, but he skipped out & went a different way himself!! The story being created to exalt Caesar! Maybe the legions never crossed the Rubicon, either? Maybe it was all made up to exalt the god Caesar? Did any of the legionairies write that they directly saw Caesar cross the Rubicon? Did any of Caesar's supposed close compatriots write of seeing him or his legion cross the Rubicon? Literacy was probably pretty low in the legions, and writing implements & paper probably weren't affordable to the average legionary. So, that such was written by prominent people after the fact... is just an ad hoc assertion & not "evidence." Thus, I am pretty safe in saying: " There is no "evidence" that Caesar or his legions came anywhere near the Rubicon!! " There are only indirect claims ( hearsay ), which, of course, aren't evidence.... This is just sooo bad! PS: The time of the claim... " My wallet was stolen " can and will be evidence for a crime one way or another... if you get my drift?

[@Isaac_Hess]

I think this becomes clear if we reword like this: _mere assertions_ are not evidence of the truth of a proposition. To say "Jesus rose from the dead" is not evidence. However, some claims are evidence, especially if the claim is regarding something we have special knowledge of. For example when Paul says, "I saw the risen Jesus," we now accept the following as _evidence_: _Paul claimed to see the risen Lord._ And _that_ is definitely evidence to be weighed.

[@Mark-cd2wf]

Exactly. “Claims aren’t evidence!” False. “Assertions aren’t arguments!” True.

[@ironymatt]

The onus lies with Dillahunty to reword for clarity. I have no interest in propping up his intellectually and morally bankrupt views

[@hotdaniel_xxx]

I claim Christians don't understand logic

[@drackoni-han13]

Just coz a book says a dude called Paul said summat, doesn't mean he said it, or even that he even existed

[@VaughanMcCue]

Paul's epilepsy or whatever is just a story.

[@nickgalluzzo6438]

As someone about to enter the legal profession, claims/testimony is in fact evidence, and is one of the most common *kinds* of evidence. Anything that makes a proposition more or less probable *is* evidence. It may be weak evidence, and it may only make a proposition marginally more probable. But evidence it is.

[@michman2]

Yes, but reliance of the existence of a god in court is not allowed. You know this.

[@theother1281]

The Bible is hearsay evidence not first hand testimony.

[@eien1107]

But you don't have eyewitness testimonies, you have a book that *claims* to have eyewitness testimonies (and conflicting ones at that!).

[@nickgalluzzo6438]

@@eien1107 That’s a silly objection. That’s like reading the historical accounts of Herodotus and Thucydides and dismissing them as “books that *claim* to have eyewitness testimony.” The vast bulk of what we know about any ancient person relies on the recorded testimonies of eyewitness. To reject the biblical account on this basis would require rejection of almost all other ancient historical accounts. Also, where do the Gospels conflict as to their testimony on the life and ministry of Jesus of Nazareth?

[@eien1107]

@@nickgalluzzo6438 That they are, difference is those claims are believable, probable, and does not attempt to alter our understanding of reality. They also documented contemporary accounts, which the bible did not. Everything written about Jesus in the bible are all decades after his death. Different number of women that matthew and luke says visited the tomb at dawn, mark is after the sun had risen, and john says it's still dark.

[@AnOpinionatedMan]

Matt is in a relationship with a man pretending to be a woman. He has no issue with believing objectively false things as long as they serve his wants. Even if God Almighty Himself stood before Matt he would try to explain it away.

[@andrewjohn2124]

Many priests didle little kids and you guys just moved them around instead of exposing them . Why should we listen to pedophile priests?

[@UlyssesDrax]

You lack critical thinking skills.

[@AnOpinionatedMan]

@@UlyssesDrax because I don't believe a man can be a woman? Playing along with delusions doesn't make one a critical thinker

[@UlyssesDrax]

​@@AnOpinionatedMan Here's the thing. It's not a delusion, and you're indeed not thinking critically. Had you been, you wouldn't have been thinking in such a shallow/simpleton way. "Man" and "woman" are societal labels that humans have been using for thousands of years. They're tied to generalisations for the type of expression people use for themselves, but they're not tied to a rule book. You don't get to define these things for an individual. They can be changed, and even more, it's none of your business. Why do you care? "Male" and "female" are labels we use to define the anatomy of an individual when they're born, typically used in science. If you ask a transgender woman what they are, they'll tell you that they were born "male". They're fully aware of the definitions. You're not the arbiter of those definitions. What's even cool about this is that you also get to define what you are. How crazy is that?! Amazing. Scary. Here's an example. Do you play football? If you do and you play professionally, you probably call yourself a footballer. If you played once a year, you probably wouldn't', even though you'd still say that you play football. Were you born a footballer? No. Would you call yourself a tennis player? If you play tennis, you could.

[@davidreinker5600]

Now THAT is a rebuttal!

[@ZTAudio]

Trent holding court. Stellar work!

[@janissaryfilms]

Love the regular uploads Trent! Gif bless you and the work you do!

[@IvanGonzalez-kf4lp]

Claims by themselves are not evidence. I had to look this up and the only repeated distinction between claims and propositions that I kept finding was that a claim is an assertion that a certain proposition IS true. Where as a A proposition can be presented without the assertion it is true or false. So having established that, claiming that a proposition IS true is not tantamount to it actually being true. If I were to say there are 400 days in a year, that is not evidence that there are 400 days in a year.

[@crusaderACR]

"tantamount to it actually being true." That would be proof. Evidence is not proof. Proof isn't evidence. Evidence is anything that suggests it might be true. Proof is that it would be unreasonable to deny it. Claims are evidence. Always. Someone saying there are 400 days in a year is evidence, but not proof. Proof would be a scientific study, which I personally wouldn't do but would have to rely on a reputable journal claiming the study was done. We live and breathe on claims, else there would be no science.

[@C3l3bi1]

"he claimed lions are animals" look here is the claim he says "Lions are animals" he made the claim, the CLAIM is the evidence to the fact that he is making a claim

[@sakazuki4584]

Well it is evidence, but... Very weak. It depends really on the context. If I say "I drank coke last night", that's evidence, u might say u need additional evidence like testimony, but that's still claim. The eye witness will claim, either he/she saw me drink, or not.

[@HowToBeChristian]

So... Matt Dillahunty claims that "claims aren't evidence", and his attempt at supplying "evidence" for this "claim" consists entirely of his own claims... but if it is true that "claims aren't evidence", then Matt has no evidence that "claims aren't evidence", because all he's supplied were claims, which according to him "aren't evidence".

[@lukesmith4746]

Claims are statements offered for their truth. Evidence supports claims and the more the evidence supports a claim the more reliable the claim. Matt offers an example to demonstrate that a mere claim is not evidence. Because the claim that "claims are evidence" is easily disproven with an hypothetical, we should not need more evidence to believe that claims are not evidence.

[@Tzimiskes3506]

@@lukesmith4746 You just stated more claims. At no point did you give evidence.

[@lukesmith4746]

@@Tzimiskes3506 Trent does a really poor job of explaining claims vs evidence but if you'd like we could set up a call to discuss

[@Mish844]

claims aren't evidence is a pretty basic thing. So basic in fact, that it's an axiom you should propably know and you don't come off smart by trying to pretend it's selfdefeating.

[@zhengfuukusheng9238]

I flew back to 1st cent Judea in my time machine, interviewing all the disciples and 500 witnesses They said they were paid to say that stuff, it's all BS And since I'm around today and can give 1st hand testimony, this evidence is much better than the bible. Thus proving the Jeesus story is complete bunkum

[@reasonforge9997]

If claims are to not be taken as evidence, I know a lot less about science than I thought. Sure there may be people that "claim" that they did such and such an experiment to verify a theory...but hey, Dillahunty assures me claims are not evidence.

[@hotdaniel_xxx]

I claim the Christian god is false. I claim Christians will never understand this evidence. I claim this evidence cannot be overriden by any future or past claims. I claim NO TAKEBACKS!

[@MrMichealHouse]

experiments usually give you DATA to look at. I dont need to trust your experiment, I can look at your data and try to repeat your experiment. Others can look at our data, and verify our results. Theories can be used to make precise predictions about the future, like where a planet will be at a certain time or the path of a projectile, you can't predict anything with religious documents.

[@DigitalLogos]

"Claims aren't evidence!", he claimed. Dillahunty is one of those atheists who has been presented with most arguments for God's existence and still persists in his atheism. A leper could be cleansed and the dead could be raised right before him, and he still wouldn't believe. Edit: Oh look, 20:30 proves what I said

[@hegel5816]

That's what his entire personality is based on... So he won't relinquish that easily... Pride is at the core here...

[@willolol3353]

I'm sure he thinks he's above intellectually from people who believe,

[@EvilXtianity]

@@willolol3353 _"I'm sure he thinks he's above intellectually from people who believe."_ It's a scientific fact that religiosity correlates inversely to IQ. Are normal people supposed to take people who literally worship ritual human sacrifice and cannibalism seriously?

[@eddardgreybeard]

​​@@EvilXtianity He was executed, and transubstantiation is a supernatural occurrence where the holy spirit turns the bread and the wine into the body and blood of Christ. You know better, and you still talk like this. You argue in poor faith and aim to do little more than antagonize

[@willolol3353]

@@EvilXtianity I'm sorry but, I can't take people with superiority complex seriously,

[@NHarts21]

Great work as usual! God bless you, Trent!

[@invisiblechurch3855]

If they claimed Hannible flew elephants over the alps, I would not believe it either. No matter how many claimed it.

[@njhoepner]

That's a point Trent is completely missing - some claims are inherently more believable than others.

[@crusaderACR]

@@njhoepner But theyre still evidence that something like it happened. Claims are evidence. Come on, repeat it with me. Claims. Are. Evidence.

[@njhoepner]

@@crusaderACR Come on, think. The Norse religion claims that the gods of Asgard fought a war with the frost giants. Is that "evidence that something like it happened"? The Tripitaka claims that the Buddha once turned himself into a Cobra God in order to escort a person seeking enlightenment, and then turned himself into a golden ship to carry that person on a journey. Is that "evidence that something like it happened"? Roman history claims that Romulus ascended bodily into heaven (sound familiar?) and THEN met a senator on the road leading to Rome (sound familiar?). Is that "evidence that something like it happened"? 7.5 million Americans claim that the earth is flat. Is that evidence? People claimed to have seen Elvis alive decades after he died. Is that evidence? Dan Brown claimed that everything he wrote about the Catholic Church and the Templars and the Illuminati in "The DaVinci Code" is historical fact. Is that evidence? People can, and do, make up claims out of pure imagination, wish fulfillment, on and on. You have enough brains to reject such things out of hand - until your religion needs claims to be evidence (because that's all it has) and then you apply a different standard.

[@Alieth]

@@crusaderACRHow many people would it take for you to believe that they saw a purple winged horse fly through the sky?

[@crusaderACR]

@@Alieth That's a wild claim. So a few thousand eyewitnesses would be enough to tell me something like it happened.

[@clareritzenthaler1033]

I am here for this content! I love atheist rebuttals, thanks Trent!

[@EvilXtianity]

Jesus is a fictional character.

[@sneakysnake2330]

@@EvilXtianity Dude, nobody takes that fringe position seriously. And please, if you’re going to respond, don’t copy and paste the same dissertation you always do.

[@EvilXtianity]

@@sneakysnake2330 _"Dude, nobody takes that fringe position seriously."_ Yet you believe, without any evidence, that God walked around town for thirty years and then died and became a zombie and then the graves opened and the corpses and skeletons rose out and "appeared to many" and all of that happened without any of the locals noticing. So provide the single-best evidence you have that Jesus existed.

[@sneakysnake2330]

@@EvilXtianity That the gospels were written by eyewitnesses. We have several patristic sources affirming the traditional authorship of the gospels, and no sources positing any other authors. The other reason probably being the extreme ad hoc-ness of the mythic position.

[@EvilXtianity]

@@sneakysnake2330 _"That the gospels were written by eyewitnesses."_ The Gospels literally state the opposite. Mark: The Gospel of Mark is anonymous. Most scholars date Mark to in or about 70 AD, after the failure of the First Jewish Revolt and the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple at the hands of the Romans. They reject the traditional ascription to Mark the Evangelist and believe it to be the work of an author working with various sources including collections of miracle stories, controversy stories, parables, and a passion narrative. Mark originally ended at verse 16:8, with no appearances of the risen Jesus - merely a statement that the young man told the women that Jesus' body was gone and they fled in terror, telling no one. The later Gospels made up the resurrection tale and that was also added to Mark from the Luke version. Luke: The Gospel of Luke, written in Greek, does not name its author. The Gospel was not, nor does it claim to be, written by direct witnesses to the reported events. Most modern scholars agree that the main sources used for Luke were (a) the Gospel of Mark, (b) a hypothetical sayings collection called the Q source, and (c) material found in no other gospels, often referred to as the L (for Luke) source. The author is anonymous. The most probable date for its composition is around AD 80-110, and there is evidence that it was still being revised well into the 2nd century. The earliest manuscript of the Gospel of Luke is dated dated circa 200 AD. Luke states at the beginning of the Gospel, “Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account”. John: John reached its final form around AD 90-110. Like the three other gospels, it is anonymous. The Gospel of John was only attributed to John later in the second century when the Church Fathers were attempting to define who, in their opinions, wrote each of the gospels. There is no evidence that John even existed. The earliest Gospel fragment we have dates from the second century (John 18). More than 80% of New Testament manuscripts date to the 5th century or later. We know John was written anonymously because it is written in the third-person (John 21:24-25) referring six times to "the disciple whom Jesus loved" and "This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true." And John 20:3 reads, "Peter and the other disciple started for the tomb." That "other disciple" is John. Matthew: Most scholars believe the gospel was composed between AD 80 and 90, with a range of possibility between AD 70 to 110. The work does not identify its author, and the early tradition attributing it to the apostle Matthew is rejected by modern scholars. The Gospel of Matthew occasionally lets it slip that it was written long afterwards, such as the description of the Jewish authorities’ cover-up of the resurrection (“this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day." Matthew 28:15) and the story of the field of blood (“Wherefore that field was called the field of blood until this day." Matt. 27:8). Matthew is also written in the third-person as with Matthew 9:9, "As Jesus passed on from there he saw a man named Matthew sitting at the tax office. And He said to him, “follow me”. So he arose and followed Him."

[@paullooper1090]

On your butler analogy... the witness will be on record and testify with evidence not just accusations...

[@FuddlyDud]

Testimony is a person getting on the stand and making claims under oath. The evidence is the person’s claims in this scenario. :)

[@paullooper1090]

@@FuddlyDud Yes, but the witness still needs to provide evidence of his/her Claims. Not just take your word for it...

[@FuddlyDud]

@@paullooper1090 "Yes, but the witness still needs to provide evidence of his/her Claims. Not just take your word for it..." Ok, I agree they do provide evidence. So, how does a witness evidence their claims in Court? :)

[@paullooper1090]

@@FuddlyDud depends on the case.. example for rape, their should be medical exam of force entry, scratches, bruises, etc... For the butler analogy, the witness must produce more than just words, or it would be a he said she said thing... like the murder weapon, or cctv...

[@FuddlyDud]

@@paullooper1090 "depends on the case.. example for rape, their should be medical exam of force entry, scratches, bruises, etc... " Ok, that is part of the evidence. How would said exam get verified in a Court? :) NOTE: Most Courts don't like accepting mere written reports, at least from my experience in LA law. :) "or the butler analogy, the witness must produce more than just words, or it would be a he said she said thing... like the murder weapon, or cctv..." Well, both the weapon and cctv are great, but that is actually not what would likely be it. Rather, you may have your criminal investigator testify to said evidence you just brought up, the physical evidence being secondary to her testimony. For, in Court, testimony is probably the highest form of evidence since it can be so effectively cross examined. :)

[@kellyedington8716]

Just wanted to say I just finished your book Why were Catholic. I really enjoyed it. I appreciate how easy and straightforward it was. It was like an easy conversation (easy for me)... The wife is reading now... I will be recommending it! Thanks Trent! ❤️‍🔥

[@The_Atheist_Carpenter5625]

I disagree with your definition of evidence. Instead of "likely to be true" I would have said "reasonable to accept". Because while you can technically argue that leprechauns are more likely to be real because there's that viral video of some incredulous people pointing at a tree and saying they saw it, if that's how low the bar is for your usage of the word evidence, then sure those claims are evidence for you. And if I choose to engage with that usage of the term, then I would say it's appallingly poor and shallow evidence that shouldn't raise your confidence in leprechauns even a thousandth of a percent. Claims could technically be "evidence" under your semantics, but only terrible, literally the least reliable evidence not worth anyone's time But if evidence is that which makes a claim more reasonable to believe, I can point to things like falsifiability, testing that can be reproduced, multiple methods of recording, objectivity that spurns the biased anecdotes of potentially crazy people, etc. These rationally increase our confidence in a given claim. This is why matt doesnt debate the issue of "is their evidence for god/christianity", because people are silly with the word evidence, he makes sure the motion is more like "is belief in god/Christianity reasonable/have GOOD evidence.

[@alpha.beta.2219]

I agree that MD is shooting himself in the foot with the whole "Claims aren't evidence" thing, but I still agree with him that claims/testimony would never be enough to convince me of the resurrection. @19:50 "You can see the flaw in Dillanunty's argument when you replace Demon with undiscovered creature" I think this is where Trent and I part ways, epistemologally speaking. I would say that any zoologist who accept that chupacabra exist just because someone claims they saw one is a bad zoologist. They should definitely keep an open mind, but without a specimine to examine they should continue to assume it doesn't exist, regardless of the claims. At this point, Trent seems to be conflating "not accepting a claim" with "being closed minded"

[@Pyr0Ben]

I really don't understand how this kind of argument is a sound analogy. The testimony around Jesus' resurrection isn't anything like chupacabra or bigfoot. It's not "I saw Jesus raise from the dead trust me bro", it's "We spent three years with a miracle worker who performed more wonders then we could count. He predicted his own death and resurrection, and that's exactly what happened. We offer our lives as proof."

[@alpha.beta.2219]

@@Pyr0Ben I think a large part of the objection is that we don't have "I saw Jesus rise from the dead"; we have "I heard a story about Jesus rising from the dead" from an anonymous author. This is way outside my area of expertise, but my understanding of the current academic consensus is that 1) the gospels weren't written by the apostles and 2) the earliest was written decades after the fact. This is a looong way from eye witnesses testimony.

[@Pyr0Ben]

@@alpha.beta.2219 No sir. The gospels aren't anonymous. I don't know how on earth that's the "academic consensus", that's an incredibly flawed argument. I can direct you to some resources that make compelling arguments for both the original authorship and early dating of the gospels (if youd be willing to change your mind)

[@alpha.beta.2219]

@@Pyr0Ben My understanding is that none of the original manuscripts found were autographed so by definition they are anonymous. There are some arguments and speculation that the apostles may have been the authors but my understanding is that this is not the broadly accepted conclusion. Similar for the dating - there are many arguments for a relatively early date but no conclusive evidence. If you send on whatever sources you have i will try to make time to have a look at them, but this kind of hermeneutics is a complex academic subject that requires years of dedicated full time research to gain a meaningful understanding. A lay person like me just doesn't have the time to dedicate to it, so i am generally forced to rely on the academic consensus.

[@alpha.beta.2219]

@@Pyr0Ben weird, I wrote a reply but it seems to have disappeared. Apologies if this shows up twice. My understanding is that none of the original manuscripts are autographed so they are anonymous by definition. There is lots of speculation and arguments to attribute them to the apostles but that is very far from definitive, or even convincing. Similar for the date - lots of speculation about how they could be earlier than the generally accepted date but no hard evidence. I will try to have a look at any sources you pass on, but this type of biblical hermeneutics takes years of dedicated research by talented individuals to have any serious confidence in a position. A lay person like me just doesn't have the free time to dedicate to that type of study and I'm forced to rely on the generally accepted academic consensus.

[@manny75586]

As an attorney, I assure you, that in court eye witness accounts are always presumed to have more weight than circumstantial evidence. So 40 people attesting to having seen something, like the resurrection, means the person who doubts it now has the burden of showing those claims are false.

[@BobPaul]

But in cross examination a good lawyer would ask them specifics about what they witnessed. A witness will claim "I saw him commit this crime", and certainly that might be what they've concluded and what they believe, but what did they actually see? In cross the court finds out more specifics: were they even standing in a position where they could have seen it. How obscured was their view? How far away were they and can someone reasonably spot identifying details from that distance? When exactly did they look in that direction? Did they witness the actual event or did they only look over there after the event happened and there was commotion? If their claim holds up to scrutiny, it will have weight. But if their claim does not hold up to scrutiny, then it's worse than circumstantial evidence. (And there's a big difference between what's sufficient in criminal court vs what's sufficient in civil court vs what's sufficient from a logical/philosophical standpoint.) That is what I understand is the difference between claim and evidence. It's reasonable for a claim to serve as evidence, but only once that claim has been shown to have merit (effectively accepted as accurate). People mistakenly believe they saw something different from what actually happened all the time. For example, we have LOTs of UFO sightings that coincide with known events (weather balloons, test flights of military aircraft, etc). Does that mean all UFO sightings are automatically garbage? no. But it does serve as an example of why a claim ("I saw an alien space craft") isn't itself evidence the claim is true, even when it's a lot of people looked up at the sky, saw something they didn't understand, and came to the same wrong conclusion. As a computer tech, I've learned to always take user reports with a grain of salt: they'll misquote error messages in a misleading way, they'll get the order of events wrong, they'll leave out important steps they did (which they don't think are important but often are sufficient to explain why things aren't happening the way they expected things to happen). Whenever possible I try to get users to demonstrate the issue while I'm watching. It's not that they're stupid or anything like that, it's just that their background isn't computing so they aren't as tuned in to which details are important and which aren't and that leads to misinterpretation, misunderstanding, and inaccurate reporting. What's great about computers is that they're extremely repeatable and predictable, but we don't always understand the inputs. Something can seem like it "works most of the time but breaks randomly" but in reality it breaks whenever the filename has a space, or it breaks when they also open some other program, or it breaks... you get the idea. And often instead of reporting "it works most of the time but breaks randomly" they'll identify something completely unrelated and confidently exclaim that as the cause (ex: "It always breaks after lunch, the servers are overloaded by people coming back from lunch and logging in at the same time" ... sir, the file is on your computer; there's no servers involved...). So sure, someone claims they saw the resurrection, but what did they actually see? And when was that claim made? Unfortunately, these people are long dead and it's not possible to ask them for specifics so it's kind of a fruitless discussion. You either believe it or you don't.

[@AtypicalShort]

Are those 40 claims sufficient on their own to warrant conviction?

[@davidryan8547]

@@BobPaul You're right. But the whole point is Dillahunty doesn't do this. Because he can't because the eyewitnesses are dead. We also cannot ask them follow up questions because they are dead. So instead we have to use circumstantial evidence and their accounts together to try and figure out what most likely happened.

[@davidlamb1107]

​​@@davidryan8547What eyewitnesses? We have eyewitness testimony? There is only a single instance -- in 1 Cor Paul says that the risen Christ appeared to him. But that testimony provides zero details about this appearance. Everything else is anonymous hearsay.

[@LeoVital]

No court would convict someone based on written accounts of someone saying that 40 people saw the defendant commit a crime. But nice try. Not.

[@djhunt6433]

Love the new digs, Trent. Looks fantastic!

[@alessandrovolta8354]

Could you explain to me how you manage to make the episode I would love to Watch at the right Moment Every time?

[@promking4575]

Thanks for what you do Trent. These arguments seem abstract most likely because of how watered down our language is become with euphemisms and nonsensical “make people feel good” rhetoric. Your willingness to put up videos and make logical claims and contend these contentious topics is greatly appreciated. God bless you brother.

[@timothywilliams4089]

Logical claims?, must have missed those, do enlighten us.

[@edukaeshn]

The Shroud of Turin really nailed down the fact of the Resurrection for me.

[@judexbarborum]

It’s a beautiful miracle and good but we don’t need it to know of the resurrection.

[@edukaeshn]

@@judexbarborum I'm not saying we do, but much like Eucharistic miracles, these events shouldn't be ignored and help to solidify what can be discernable by other means.

[@edukaeshn]

@DeletedUser1892 Please explain how it was invented.

[@judexbarborum]

@DeletedUser1892 Well that at least is false.

[@judexbarborum]

@DeletedUser1892 Lots of things are dated incorrectly. In the first place I don’t accept that it was dated to the Middle Ages. If it was, that could easily be explained if that part of the cloth which was dated had been replaced from the original cloth. In any case, there are more inexplicable things about the shroud than there are ones which people speculate might prove it invalid as a miracle. I side with the majority on this issue, not to say that’s significant in itself, but the facts are stacked against you.

[@pdxnikki1]

Matt Dillahunty is so vitriolic that he permanently blocked me from any future calls-in or live stream commenting/comments for suggesting to his audience that it is best to approach any serious study should be with an attitude of sincerity and humility; especially when our objective is the study of truth. I used the example of entering a course of organic chemistry or astrophysics for the first time in college, where you act with sincere humility before your professor because she knows more than you do about the subject and deserves respect. And after all, it is worth it to us as we PAY these profs to teach us their knowledge. And I got booted off cuz I couldn't prove in one sentence with a single piece or acceptable evidence that God exists. Their evidential standards are laughable and such low hanging fruit. God exists.

[@zhengfuukusheng9238]

Well it certainly aint the Abrahamic god, as that one, has , for all intents and purposes, been debunked

[@zhengfuukusheng9238]

@@ithurtsbecauseitstrue And? How do you feel that it's bin debunked?

[@nzsl368]

*historical blunder?* if claims aren't evidence, i guess the study of history is way more complex & complicated than it was before socrates, alexander the great and a number of historical figures (and even unknown individuals) would never truly have existed (based on the "claims" of other people which are sometimes not unified or in unison with each other) *take note:* there are millions or probably billions of historical figures out there that are not backed up by hard / solid physical evidence (including "claims")

[@crusaderACR]

@@zhengfuukusheng9238 debunk it in one sentence or at all u cant

[@zhengfuukusheng9238]

@@crusaderACR The bible is false bc it dunt comport to the reality we observe QED. You lose

[@madison6475]

Can you do an episode, possibly with your wife, about the role of a wife? I think it’s been lost in our culture, even among Christians. There’s a pretty defined concept of the husband’s role, especially as protector and provider. There’s also a well defined concept of the role of a mother. But the role of a wife cannot be the same as that of a mother. They are separate, often simultaneous roles. I have some idea that wives are meant to be advocates, and love and support, but honestly I don’t know what that looks like. There are housewives and working wives, and wives with a side gig. What is the role and duty that they should all be fulfilling? What would it look like for them to fulfill that role? In the past 100 years, the home life has changed so much, that the typical vision of wifely roles are impossible to pair with our society. I’d really like clarification on what the roles and duties of a wife are.

[@alexwr]

I suppose Matt Dillahunty just rejects every single historical and scientific document. After all, claims aren't evidence.

[@cajunking5987]

Documents aren’t claims, documents are evidence

[@ManlyServant]

​@@cajunking5987those are claims

[@dougmasters4561]

​@cajunking5987 documents are claims genius. Anything written down that says 'So and saw saw such and such happen' is a claim, if it is written its called a document, if its spoken its not called a document. Its a claim either way. The only way to address first century claims, are in written form because that is the only way we would have known of those claims.

[@LeoVital]

​@@dougmasters4561 And most historians of ancient history know not to believe in something just because it was written down, "genius". Especially when it's something extraordinary like, I don't know, a guy claiming to be God resurrecting.

[@dougmasters4561]

@LeoVital Doesnt make your genius point about documents not being claims any less wrong. Choose to believe whatever you want but a bad point is a bad point.

[@stephenrandell7152]

I claim talking snakes don't exist!😊

[@grond21]

What a pleasure to listen to

[@brianstacey2679]

"Many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view" - Obi Wan Kenobi. A claim does not lose value just because it doesn't match with one's worldview. Besides, Jesus' Resurrection was not just on one claim but many claims. Number plays a role here.

[@ReadingFanGirl]

Might be my favorite video yet!

[@MadaraUchiha55910]

Is there any contemporary historical records from A.D 4 that show that indeed Jesus rose from the dead. By contemporary I mean historical records that were written and corroborated by multiple peer reviews. If it happened there would be actual history books that talk about it (scripture doesn’t count as historical records)

[@FuddlyDud]

Are there any comparative contemporary peer reviewed historical records outside of modern record keeping? :) If there is 1 Jesus’ narrative should have looked like, please bring the example up!

[@sleepystar1638]

Clearly Matt has never heard of an albino Raven.

[@cookmjc]

Matt is absolutely correct, claims are NOT evidence

[@thepalegalilean]

That's a claim, not evidence, so you have NO evidence that claims are not evidence. Seriously, get an education. Protestants like you need them.

[@andralfoo]

@@thepalegalilean I claim invisible pink unicorns exist. Is my claim evidence?

[@thepalegalilean]

@@andralfoo Yes, it is. It's weak evidence, but it's evidence. Now, if there is additional evidence, such as equine behavior where equines don't inhabit, that becomes cumulative with the claim, making stronger evidence, allowing you to possess a weak piece of evidence and a strong piece. Moreover, though, there is something wrong with the claim in and of itself. You have claimed that you've seen an invisible pink unicorn. It is impossible for a thing to be pink whilst also being invisible. At best, you can say that the unicorn is pink to you, assuming you possess a way to see past its invisibility. Aside from that criteria, however, your claim is evidence.

[@thepalegalilean]

@Anon Ymous If 1,000, 10k, 1 mil, 1 bil, 1 tril, or however many people claim something happened, then what you have is very strong evidence a certain phenomenon happened. For instance, I think someone brought up UFOs and alien encounters. The sheer volume of testimonies reveals some phenomenon is occurring. There's no doubt about that. The question is what is the phenomenon? Is it hysteria? Is it abductions by aliens? Is it abductions by the government? Is it a normal human fantasy concocted by merely living in a cultural experience (think wendigos), or is it all of these at once? These are the questions that are being asked. Even the most hardened skeptic that has volume between his ears agree that a phenomenon occurred at the time Jesus is reported to have died. And this phenomenon resulted in Christianity. What is being asked is whether or not this phenomenon was Jesus rising from the dead, or something else. Either way you look at it, claims are evidence of something. The question is what?

[@sakazuki4584]

Yes it is. It's not proof, it's evidence.

[@316350]

I think Luke’s gospel would qualify as a doctors note, based on the testimony of those who were eyewitnesses.

[@Mark-cd2wf]

The Roman soldiers who crucified Jesus were professional executioners. They knew what dead people looked like. The spear thrust into Jesus’ side alone would have killed Him, apart from His other wounds. Yes, Pilate was surprised that Jesus was dead, but he confirmed it with the centurion before releasing the body to Joseph of Arimathea for burial (Mk. 15:44,45). I think this kind of desperate, unfounded objection (“How do we know Jesus died!”) shows just how badly rattled Matt was at this point in his debate with Trent.

[@316350]

@@Mark-cd2wf Matt has left no illusion that he would not worship the God of the Hebrews, even if he believed God did exist. There’s no reason for any Christian to even debate him anymore. The best thing for Matt is prayer.

[@Mark-cd2wf]

@@316350 Indeed. So sad, really.🙏✝️

[@ramigilneas9274]

Luke wasn’t an eyewitness… and he doesn’t identify any eyewitnesses. He is writing down hearsay… and copies 60% of the gospel of Mark almost word for word.

[@burner918]

Great video. Learned a lot. Clarification question and apologies if I misunderstood. Something seems off here. If a claim is evidence and if evidence is anything that makes a statement more likely to be true then by definition a claim makes a statement more likely to be true. But then how does that account for a false claim? It only becomes false after we’ve investigated it right? but at the time the claim is made (even though later we find out it to be false) does that definition still make sense? Are we saying the claim, say for example, the earth is flat, be more likely to be true - just by virtue of someone making that claim (assuming claim=evidence)? So by virtue of someone claiming that the earth is flat - is that more likely to be true (I’m assuming more likely, as opposed to, less likely, or not at all likely) simply because someone made it? Something seems off here.

[@jvlp2046]

The Counsel of Trent Blog (TITLE) means to give ADVISE and GUIDE based on the COUNCIL (gathering/meeting) of TRENT (Catholic Ecumenical Meeting of 1545 to 1563 A.D.)... The English word COUNSEL is a verb that means to give ADVISE and GUIDE, but nowhere can we find the meaning to REBUT (rebuttal, refute, invalidate) or to REBUKE (scold, reprimand, castigate, etc.)... My advice if I may, they should change the TITLE of their Blog, for it is MISLEADING to the viewers... My suggestion if I may, their TITLE Blog should be "The COUNCIL of TRENT DEFENSE."... which is more appropriate and non-misleading to the viewers... or a separate Blog, one for Counselling/Giving Advice and the other Blog for Defending the Catholic Faith... MISLEADING the viewers are (parts of) associated with the works of Satan (former Lucifer/Old Serpent in the Garden of Eden/the Dragon in Revelation)... Amen.

[@IvanGonzalez-kf4lp]

This is so disingenuous it’s actually disgusting. Reducing everything down to just a “claim” because the matter at hand has to be communicated propositionally to try and make the argument that a claim is evidence is the hardest mental gymnastics cope I’ve ever come across. The idea that a medical professional that diagnoses a condition is equivalent to a hypochondriac diagnosing themselves because they both ultimately make “claims” is stupid and dishonest. All these apologists guys are snake oil salesmen.

[@smedrano1964]

Dillahunty says claims are not evidence. I reject his claim because it is not evidence. PROBLEM SOLVED.

[@hotdaniel_xxx]

Matt follows up his claim with actual evidence that claims aren't evidence. He can actually demonstrate what he says about claims. Your comment isn't the pwn you think it is.

[@smedrano1964]

@@hotdaniel_xxx When Matt debated Trent he even said that next time he was going to be more prepared because he knew he lost. Matt knew he lost to to Trent but his sheeple weren't even honest enough to admit that.

[@hotdaniel_xxx]

@@smedrano1964 It seems to me that the "sheeple" would be the people who think character wins debates. Matt might admit Trent presented better, but that doesn't mean Trent presented good arguments.

[@smedrano1964]

@@hotdaniel_xxx I heard that debate it was even close.. Matt was out classed but his diehard worshippers can't hear .in a logical manner anymore. The examples and arguments of and the way it was presented in logical sequence was light years beyond Matt is even capable of.

[@hotdaniel_xxx]

@@smedrano1964 You heard? So you didn't watch it yourself? And what does this have to do with the topic.

[@martyfromnebraska1045]

I see atheists parrot this “claims aren’t evidence” bit constantly on Erik Manning’s testify channel. It’s hard to keep having the same conversations over and over.

[@motorheadbanger90]

Can you please explain how, since evidence support claims, a claim can support itself - since it's somehow also evidence?

[@martyfromnebraska1045]

@@motorheadbanger90 Sigh It’s hard to keep having the same conversations over and over. You’re conflating propositions with claims/testimony. Someone testifying to having witnessed something is evidence that the thing they claim to have witnessed occurred. You accept this principle every single day you’re alive. Now, someone could theoretically be lying or mistaken when they submit testimony, which are both options that we typically attempt to rule out (did they gain something from this claim? Would they suffer consequences for making the claim? Did others make the same claim about the same event? Did they witness this under stress? How long was the event they witnessed? Were they far away? Could they easily have mistaken something for something else?), and larger numbers of credible people making a claim is stronger evidence that the claim is true than fewer less credible people. Especially in a context where they have nothing to gain and things to lose (like, say, being under oath). If you have a different definition of claim than testimony, then you’re just equivocating when you say “claims aren’t evidence” and you’re referring to someone testifying to having witnessed something. It’s a way to dismiss evidence without actually examining it. I’ve noticed atheists do this a lot, actually. God of the gaps being applied to certain arguments, “claims aren’t evidence,” “there’s infinite evidence against miracles because every day experience testifies against miracles,” etc. Tons of attempts to avoid engaging with the arguments/evidence a priori.

[@motorheadbanger90]

@@martyfromnebraska1045 "Someone testifying to having witnessed something is evidence that the thing they claim to have witnessed occurred" Simply put. No it isnt. It is you who are conflating testimony with claims. You are also oversimplifying it to one context: a court of law. And even in that context, eyewitness testimony is never solid evidence. In fact that is why in the legal system, testimony and evidence are separated from one another...

[@martyfromnebraska1045]

@@motorheadbanger90 No, lol. It’s an analogy. The reason you trust testimony in court is that there are consequences for lying. Also, we have external corroborations for the claims in the gospels. They get hard facts right in a time when people didn’t have access to libraries of information. You’re literally just separating testimony from physical evidence, saying physical evidence is better/preferred, therefore testimony is worthless. No.

[@motorheadbanger90]

@@martyfromnebraska1045 "The reason you trust testimony in court is that there are consequences for lying." Yes i absolutely agree. They are under oath. But here is the kicker: people still lie under oath. So you are taking a leap of faith that they are not lying. But we should not get boggled down with the court room and justice system context. Because I can think its easy to demonstrate a case where eyewitness testimony was not enough to convict someone who was indicted. In regards to the gospels, if you want to believe these claims the reliability of the New Testament hinges on the supernatural claims. As Dillahunty says, they are not consistent with what we know about reality. I.e. Men don't walk on water, men can't turn water into wine, men can't magically produce bread and fish out of thin air. Men can't rise from the dead, etc.

[@nathanaelculver5308]

10:45 *"He basically makes this point when he talks about the claim, 'I bought a new car.'"* Dillahunty undercut his own argument here, without, apparently, realizing it. Take Proposition *P:* Bob bought a new car. What evidence do we have to believe it? _Scenario A:_ Let’s grant all the "mountain of evidence" Dillahunty introduces: cars exist, Bob exists, people buy and own cars, people will tell you when they get a new car. Is any of that sufficient for me to reasonably believe *P* ? No. _Scenario B:_ identical to _Scenario A_ but with the addition of Bob’s claim that he got a new car. _Now_ is it reasonable to believe *P* ? Arguably, yes. There is, by Dillahunty’s argument, no additional _evidence_ in _Scenario B_ (since claims are not evidence). And yet, _cetera paribus,_ it is the claim alone which suddenly makes belief in *P* reasonable. So, regardless of whether Dillahunty wants to _call_ claims "evidence", it would seem claims _can_ carry epistemic weight, even in Dillahunty’s own example.

[@cajunking5987]

Yes, that should be sufficient for you to believe. It’s not a very crazy claim.

[@kawanuu]

ever heard of the sagan standard?

[@nathanaelculver5308]

@@kawanuu If you’re referring to “extraordinary claims”, first, it’s not really Sagan’s; it traces back to at least the 19th century in one form or another. Second, it’s not true. Like any other claim, extraordinary claims only require sufficient evidence.

[@kawanuu]

@@nathanaelculver5308 Yes, that's what I'm saying. "I bought a car" is not extraordinary, obviously, but "An all powerful god that transcends space and time created the universe" is VERY extraordinary, thus requiring WAY more proof. "Sufficient" is a very broad way of putting it. Sufficient evidence for the god hypothesis has to be way more than sufficient evidence for the purchase of a car.

[@nathanaelculver5308]

@@kawanuu *"An all powerful god that transcends space and time created the universe" is VERY extraordinary* Says who? *”I bought a car" is not extraordinary* But that wasn’t the point under discussion. Dilahunty is arguing that claims are not evidence, then uses the car example to demonstrate _that_ claim. But his car example actually works against the claim that “claims are not evidence”. The Sagan Standard, as you call it, is not what was being discussed.

[@williamfortune755]

I have a herd of unicorn in my garden, that’s my claim

[@eddardgreybeard]

They argue atheism as a default position. Consider: the sky is blue. To argue it isn't would require the claimant and the claimant alone to argue it isn't, because anyone and everyone can plainly see the sky is blue. For the atheist, absence of evidence is evidence of absence, and anyone stating otherwise must shoulder the burden of proof because the default position is _there is no God._

[@kriegjaeger]

The default position would be (contemporary) Gnosticism or agnosticism. Either you think there exists entities beyond our understanding or you think it's unlikely but are open to the possibility. The position of proclaiming something isn't true without evidence isn't a reasonable one.

[@eddardgreybeard]

@@kriegjaeger In light of the fine tuning argument, to think something as intricate and ordered as the universe could've just happened and isn't proof of a higher power is being so open minded your danged brain fell out. Might as well go be an LGbt ally at that point. Trans women are real women, am i right?

[@kriegjaeger]

@@eddardgreybeard There's probably a *bit* of overlap with people who reject god and embrace sexual immorality if I had to guess. I think a good argument is the probability of intentional design. If something has 1 in 100 of happening, there are a few possibilities if it happens; It was just really very lucky Or It received help to improve the likelihood If for instance we find someone at the base of the stairs with a knife in the back, the odds of this happening randomly are far more slim than to have been caused. There's a 1 in 10,000 chance they happened to slip on the stairs carrying a knife, hit themselves in the back on the way down and died. But there's a 9,999 in 10,000 chance someone stabbed them and pushed them down the stairs.

[@patricialauriello3805]

Matt has NO evidence that it didn't happen.

[@patricialauriello3805]

@@AwesomeWrench he still has NO evidence. He has nothing but his opinion.

[@1q34w]

@@patricialauriello3805 Yes. Because you don't get to shift the burden of proof.

[@patricialauriello3805]

@@1q34w and bullshit walks

[@kurtcocain25]

Do you have proof that it did happen?

[@hotdaniel_xxx]

Sure he does. He can just claim it didn't happen. Now there is evidence, because claims are evidence.

[@thegroove2000]

Matt supports LGBT. Says it all.

[@thegroove2000]

Anyone can make a claim about anything. I claim to be able to leviitate unaided so you accept that?

[@thegroove2000]

Extraordinary claims.

[@1q34w]

@@thegroove2000 According to Trent this is evidence that you can levitate.

[@davidely7032]

This seems like a topic muddled by semantics. Theists tend to elevate the claims made by the Bible as proof that everything written in the Bible is true. Dillahunty seems to be going by the spirit of the words and noting the Bible doesn't contain proofs but rather is a collection of claims, in a strict sense of the word. Thomas said he saw Jesus after his crucifixion. This is a claim. Even if it is true that Thomas saw Jesus after the crucifixion, he cannot prove he saw Jesus ... and so it is a claim. If multiple people claim to have also seen Jesus after the resurrection, it may approach becoming evidence ... but it in no way proves the claims to be true and it in no way wrecks the idea that these people are misrepresenting the truth in other ways. Mistaken identity. Dreams and visions. A con game. There are other reasons someone could claim they saw Jesus after the resurrection. You can quibble over the meaning of the word claim and try to 'claim' that claims can support a belief in the claim. Just don't expect people to believe the claim because the claim is enough to justify belief in the claim. You can claim the earth is flat. Penguins are animatronics (a claim made by a kook on the internet. 5G cell phone towers cause Covid-19. Just deconstructing every statement into a claim doesn't really strengthen a belief that claims are enough to justify a belief in a claim. Dillahunty seems to be saying one needs more than a naked claim to justify a belief in a claim. You can dress it up to appear different, redefine words to suit your purpose, use semantics to muddy the waters and keep the question open and unanswered ... in the end, you need more than opinion to truly justify a belief in ... unbelievable claims.

[@moldytomato9130]

You can’t compare someone flashing kids to someone literally coming back to life by the power of god. The standards for evidence are much lower for a flashing than it is for a resurrection which is why testimony holds more weight with a flashing. Testimony isn’t enough for a resurrection, especially when the testimonies are all 3rd hand accounts from anonymous authors, it’s too weak to support the claim.

[@jaikelr]

Thank you Trent for all your good work!

[@prisopuma8807]

The idea that claims aren’t evidence is so stupid, if we apply this to everything then most of history is gone

[@ramigilneas9274]

There isn’t a single supernatural event in history that historians agree on actually happened. And pretty much all of history is up for debate and could be changed drastically if we found new evidence.

[@Gregheffley1287]

More like all

[@PhantomRangerEarth1397]

Man they should create an Olympic competition for all these mental gymnastics

[@TheOnlyStonemason]

Dillahunty isn’t a serious skeptic IMO…he couldn’t prove his own existence by his standard.

[@ramigilneas9274]

And most philosophers would agree with him.

[@TheOnlyStonemason]

@@ramigilneas9274 that’s a claim …what’s your evidence?

[@ramigilneas9274]

@@TheOnlyStonemason The evidence is that lots of philosophers tried to determine what can and can not be proven based on the limitations of the senses and perception of humans… and they concluded that technically you can only be certain that you exist. That’s Philosophy 101. Of course for pragmatic reasons no one acts like the external world isn’t real just because no one can prove that it is real.

[@TheOnlyStonemason]

@@ramigilneas9274 perhaps but that is only because you have to agree on presuppositions, standards of evidence/proof, etc. Matt can’t articulate or agree to any of these.

[@ramigilneas9274]

@@TheOnlyStonemason Then maybe you should watch a few of his videos where he does exactly that. Trent is the one who is playing word games to make the pretty weak evidence for Christianity look less pathetic.😉

[@stevenlester985]

All of this is so good. I’d only add that Matt’s restrictive view would also be hugely problematic because you would need first hand access to “material” evidence since the majority of what we accept even scientifically, we accept because we trust the source that’s making the claim. If we eliminate that, then every individual would have to rebuild scientific inquiry from the ground up which is obviously absurd. Just to illustrate, Matt likely accepts that Mt. Everest is a real place and that he could go there. But it’s unlikely that he’s seen it in person or gone there himself. Everything he would claim to know about it is the result of a claim made by someone else that he trusts.

[@wet-read]

This is obviously too far in the opposite direction, and misses the point. Banalities, such as a certain mountain existing (when we know mountains exist), are not in the same category as someone alleging something that may or may not be true. If someone for some reason doesn't believe the claim of Mt. Everest existing and that it is the tallest mountain in the world, one could simply say that it belongs to the Himalayas, the tallest mountain range in the world. Again, easily verifiable and uncontroversial; not all claims can be so described.

[@stevenlester985]

@@wet-read you saying that they’re categorically different doesn’t make it true. Any truth claim falls under this umbrella. That is the entire point of the argument, and to arbitrarily decide which truth claims are banalities and which ones aren’t without some sort of objective criteria is presumptive.

[@wet-read]

@@stevenlester985 Ok well, the fact remains that some claims are able to be traced in some fashion to determine their validity, and some are not. The way I see it, the idea all claims are somehow equal in nature is odd; we either demand rigorous proofs of all claims all the time or we never do so.

[@stevenlester985]

@@wet-read right, but by Matt’s standard you have to actually do the tracing, otherwise you’re accepting a “claim” that someone else is making. That’s an absurd burden. It’s usually sufficient to accept claims from trusted sources. Whether or not you trust a particular source is going to depend on a lot of things. Not only that, but there are large swathes of things we accept based on testimony (historical facts) that don’t anchor themselves at all to physical evidence. Most “proofs”, even scientific ones, are someone claiming “I observed this phenomenon.” Which is exactly what Matt is rejecting as evidence. So no, this doesn’t seem to work. Either we need first hand experience of the evidence, or we’re accepting claims that someone else had first hand experience. If it’s the latter, Matt’s argument falls apart.

[@tgenov]

@@stevenlester985 Matt’s epistemology is entirely cooked. He is super sceptical about some event that happened 2000 years ago that is inconsequential whether accepted as true or not. But then trusts scientists testimonies that the vaccination he is taking is safe and won’t kill him without any self-obtained evidence whatsoever. He entrusts his life on the testimony of others, but then goes 100% skeptical on matters of no consequence. The guy lacks even a modicum of pragmatic judgment and risk-management

[@Giorginho]

Matt is literally not smart

[@mikevigilance6914]

His arguments are exhausting and not interesting

[@ViscountDI]

I agree. This is quite the idiotic argument.

[@expukpuk]

Matt claims that he is an atheist and that there is no resurrection.

[@repentantrevenant9776]

Sometimes it feels like Matt Dillahunty’s arguments against Christianity are so bad that they retroactively make Christianity more likely. I mean, if Christianity really were false, wouldn’t you expect atheists to have better arguments against it, and not rely on emotional tactics and blatant fallacies?

[@Gregheffley1287]

Ikr there arguments just say “oh that’s a fallacy” “oh that’s not evidence” “oh that’s been debunked”

[@HappyAmerican]

It is hard to believe that someone who's ostensibly intelligent, like Matt Dillahunty, can turn out to be so awfully sophomoric and basic in his thinking.

[@ironymatt]

He has no higher education, or any formal training in theology, philosophy or related academic disciplines relevant to what he talks about. Why take seriously someone as anything more than an empty mouthpiece when they've done nothing to advance themselves otherwise?

[@Mark-cd2wf]

He’s a stage magician by trade. The greatest magician of all time, Harry Houdini, said a good magic trick relies on the art of misdirection. That’s what MD does so well. By saying “claims aren’t evidence” he relieves himself of the burden of disproving any evidence for miracles like the Resurrection. The same goes for his pet statements: “I lack belief,” (I don’t have to prove God _doesn’t_ exist), “I’m not convinced,” (but never explains why). Etc.etc. He’s not called the Dillahunty Dodger for nothing. He’s a master in the art of deflection. P.S. And like any good magic trick, it looks real, until either you see through it or have someone explain to you how the magician did it. Then you wonder how you ever could have been taken in by it. The answer? Misdirection. Thanks, Trent, for ripping the mask off the magician.

[@carnivalwholesale9809]

@@Mark-cd2wf not really, Trent Horn has yet to prove God exist and the burden on proof is on him to prove that his God exist

[@carnivalwholesale9809]

@@ironymatt but Trent Horn has yet to prove the existence of God

[@Anthony-fk2zu]

@@carnivalwholesale9809the question then is, what would prove to you that God exists?

[@dennism7532]

Atheism is lazy. God bless you for putting up with these guys

[@PatrickInCayman]

Lazy and immensely arrogant in many cases

[@motorheadbanger90]

Explain what you mean by that.

[@whm_w8833]

I wouldn’t say that. Academic atheist put in the work and say they believe no god exist based on evidence/arguments. I would say this line of argument by Matt is lazy.

[@motorheadbanger90]

Please explain how Atheism is lazy.

[@hotdaniel_xxx]

@@whm_w8833 They don't need to evaluate evidence. Just claim that there is no god and now there is evidence of atheism.

[@johnnotrealname8168]

Third and only 4 minutes late. I lost respect for him when he does not address more well capable theists.

[@Gumbi1012]

There's a lot to criticise about Matt; imo he does waste his time shouting at incapable theists, oftentimes fundamentalists, but Matt has had debates with Trent, as well as other capable apologists too.

[@michman2]

A claim is the assertion that there is a truth. Evidence proves that the claim is true.

[@djo-dji6018]

From one of the many articles on the net which explain the difference between evidence and proof: "Proof and evidence have related meanings, but they are not the same thing. Proof proves something is true, while evidence is like a clue. The difference between evidence vs proof lies in how conclusive it is."

[@Zosso-1618]

Ooh boy, more Dillahunty debunked. Love to see it.

[@motorheadbanger90]

Please explain how he was debunked, because all i see in this video is a rebuttal that takes him out of context, presents strawman arguments and circular reasoning.

[@idenree5949]

@@motorheadbanger90 you shouldn't really be expecting some good answers from these people.

[@ray_x6959]

@@motorheadbanger90 how so

[@motorheadbanger90]

@@ray_x6959 I explained it in a thread you also replied to me in.

[@motorheadbanger90]

@@offense53 LOL not having a belief in something is "cowardice in disguise". Ok moron. You're right there is nothing for them to defend because atheism makes no claims to defend! Atheists proud and arrogant? Nothing says arrogant like someone who believes they'll enjoy a paradise in the afterlife but I won't because I don't buy into their fairy tales.

[@MacBlagic]

Claims don't support themselves. The difference between a claim made by a witness and a claim made by a nonwitness is the context of the claim. It's the context that is the evidence not the claim itself. If you remove the context of a witness, are the words evidence of the truth of the words? No, its the context that supports the claim. The claim coming from an eyewitness is the context that supports the claim. Take the same claim and put it in the mouth of a nonwitness and all of a sudden it's not evidence, almost like it was the context that supported the claim.

[@SM-hn7sh]

In a court of law, multiple witness testimony supporting a claim is considered the strongest evidence. So, multiple persons testifying that they can provide firsthand witness support to the claim, Jesus rose from the dead, is very strong evidence, under our legal standard of good evidence

[@1q34w]

Wouldn't some DNA evidence or some video evidence be better than testimony?

[@whm_w8833]

@@1q34w it would be. But know that video and dna has to go through a process like authentication and original copy (best evidence) to show dna sample and video has not been tamper with. Point is, because evidence is there, doesn’t mean it sufficient to support the claim/proposition. Matt fails to understand this and rather not argue why the evidence is weak but just exclude it already together.

[@VaughanMcCue]

JC arising is a claim and under our legal standard of good evidence needs to be tested.

[@Alieth]

The issue is the claim itself. If five people claim that they saw a wild horse in town, that’s a possible occurrence which is then supported by the five eyewitnesses making it likely. However if five people claim that they saw a winged horse flying through the air, then the truthfulness of the claim would be taken less seriously. The difference in the two scenarios is the possibility of the claims being made. If people claimed Jesus raised an army and took over Jerusalem, that’s a claim that is feasible and imaginable. But to say he died and was resurrected three days later is a claim that isn’t demonstrable and is harder to believe.

[@VaughanMcCue]

@@Alieth Saying someone claimed something is the nonsense behind all these misunderstandings. Until the horsing around eyewitnesses are tested, it could be 100% true and still only a claim. Everyone knows the holy spirit arrives on the cue of sprit-summoning music Sunday mornings throughout the land. Nothing is hard to believe in the religious magic kingdom. The master apologist, W. L (low-bar) Craig, does not require any standards to accept baloney.

[@lukepoplawski3230]

A claim IS evidence. It’s just the weakest form of evidence. Ie I have a dragon in my garage.

[@claytonhall989]

Mr. Dillahunty is in luck: A doctor DID release a report of Jesus dying and rising from the dead: his name is Luke.

[@goofygoober3407]

Matt Dillahunty thinks he is more intelligent than he actually is.

[@motorheadbanger90]

He has his faults but I think in this particular case, he makes a valid point whereas this rebuttal is just strawmen arguments and circular reasoning.

[@goofygoober3407]

@@motorheadbanger90 Lol. Another one.

[@aaronmueller5802]

​@@motorheadbanger90 Where is the circular reasoning? Strawman arguments?

[@lukesmith4746]

@@aaronmueller5802 circular reasoning: a claim is evidence because when someone makes a claim it is evidence for something that happened. The straw man is that each claim requires the same amount of supporting evidence to be considered reliable. For instance the flat earth example is a straw man because the vast majority of the evidence supports a round earth, And the analogy does not accurately represent Matt's reasoning

[@motorheadbanger90]

@@aaronmueller5802 The argument that claims are evidence is in and of itself circular reasoning, because Trent just constantly falls back on one thing: Claims can support themselves. This is synonymous with saying that the premise is the conclusion. Which by definition is circular reasoning. The strawman is how he constantly mischaracterizes (or deliberately leaves out context) of the points Dillahunty is making. He does this for virtually all of the video.

[@thinkingchristian]

Great video. seems like Dillahunty is just a present-day positivist.

[@gg2008yayo]

Besides dillahunty thoughts on jmike another atheist on the atheist expirence?

[@Unashamed832]

Good job explaining claims & evidence !😊

[@wesduvall]

Claims are merely statements that P. Evidence either increases or diminishes the probability that P. Sometimes claims can increase or diminish the probability that P. We should therefore say, "Claims are not evidence [until they increase or diminish the probability that P]."

[@joekeros3579]

Claims are not evidence is also self contradictory, or does he have any evidence for that claim?

[@hotdaniel_xxx]

Presumably, that's the reason Matt needs to give a lecture to address the topic. Because, in addition to the claim, he needs to actually present evidence. If claims WERE evidence you know what you do? You would make a 30 second video where you say "claims are evidence". That's it. That's all you would do. If claims were evidence, then 30 seconds delivers all the evidence to support that. The fact Trent needs 20 minutes to support "claims are evidence" is the very evidence that he's wrong. Claims are not evidence

[@thomasbailey921]

"If everyone in the world believed something that i found incredible, then i wouldnt believe it until i had physical evidence" How did Dillahunty make it through highschool? Every day he was presented with claims from his teachers without any physical evidence and he took it all at face value.

[@zachrichardson5581]

Are you suggesting that textbooks are similar to the religious texts? You take their word at face value because the things they're talking about (example in science class when we learn what cells are) have physical evidence that was/is viewed, repeatedly, and then written down as the fact it is. Religion, however, is full of things we cannot prove. The argument of the never ending claim rabbit hole is stupid because there is objective physical evidence to support stuff. Like the friend buying the car. To go down the rabbit hole and not believe that you have to assume all those conditions and lies occurred. You'd have to assume your friend stole it. You'd have to assume the title is a fake. You'd have to assume the seller is lying or something. This is the childish thing of when kids as "why" to everything. At a certain point you need to accept the physical evidence you are currently observing confirms the claim at question. Otherwise it's that endless rabbit hole that's pointless. It's a "I will doubt forever even with evidence in front of you" mindset and that's dumb. The important aspect of something being a fact is it the repeatability and observable nature of it.

[@motorheadbanger90]

I side with Dillahunty on this. I think you are trying too hard to prove that the biblical claims of the resurrection are sufficient evidence to believe it. It doesn't work that way. I would argue that claims cannot be evidence because evidence is what is needed to support a claim. Since one relies on the other for support it would be silly to say that the claim supports itself. Also, Dillahunty says the following: In short, claims can contain evidence but they aren't evidence for what they're claiming. "I saw x happen" isn't evidence for x happening...because I could be lying or incorrect. It's the claim's consistency with the facts of reality that matter and it's the facts of reality, not the mere claim, that counts as evidence FOR the claim. Mirrors my own thoughts almost precisely. I think a lot of christian apologists grasp for straws when trying to make a case for "evidence" on the resurrection, the miracles jesus performed, etc. And they fall back on what you are essentially arguing.

[@martyfromnebraska1045]

I side with Trent because he’s right and Dillahunty is wrong. The entire case for the resurrection CONSISTS of arguments for the position that the people making the claims weren’t lying or mistaken. That’s literally the set of arguments that get dismissed with “no bro claims aren’t evidence.” Is there any other situation where you a priori rule out the possibility that testimony is true because “they could be lying or mistaken” without looking at the details of the case? Which aspect do you think they were likely to be mistaken about? What evidence do you have they were lying? The unusual nature of the claims? How do you deal with the evidence that the claims were made immediately after the event was alleged to have occurred, in the same geographic area, in a hostile political context, under persecution, labors, dangers, all the way to martyrdom, and that the claims were embarrassing to those who made them? Were they mistaken that Jesus was Jesus? The guy they followed around for 3 years? Or were they mistaken he was dead? Or were they mistaken he was seen alive? What mistakes do you actually think they made, and why. Again, a priori attempts to just dismiss out of hand without actually talking about specifics.

[@Aisatsana1971]

What is it with theists asking a bazillion questions whenever they try to refute an atheist?

[@martyfromnebraska1045]

@@Aisatsana1971 “Testimony isn’t evidence because they could be mistaken or lying” - atheist “Why do you ignore the evidence they weren’t mistaken or lying? Why do you think they were?” - theist “Bro that’s so many questions” - u

[@motorheadbanger90]

@@martyfromnebraska1045 I'll reiterate. Claims are not evidence because evidence is what supports claims. I will admit however, that a significant amount of claims that are consistently similar and - as Dillahunty said - are consistent with what we know about the physical world and reality can be easy to believe. However the problem still remains that the yare just claimed that are not being supported by anything substantial and, again, it could be a bunch of people lying as well. Also, the gospels are wildly inconsistent and contradict.

[@Aisatsana1971]

@@martyfromnebraska1045 there are 10 questions in your reply. You’re incredibly dishonest.