Who won and why?

Fr Pine is definitely one to look up to.

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

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

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

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

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

Fr. Gregory "As it were" Pine

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

God bless Fr. Gregory ❤❤❤

Great debate guys!

Awesome, thank you so much for hosting these debates.

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

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

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

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

Amazing debate! Great job, Matt!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hearing Father Pine speak is always spiritually uplifting!

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

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

Welcome back Matt!

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

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

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

Looking fresh Matt!

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

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

Awesome Debate...Well Done!

hi Matt, would you have a link to Fr. Pine's podcast?

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

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

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

This very interesting debate for our time.

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

GOD BLESS HIS ONE AND ONLY CATHOLIC CHURCH! :)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Digging that intro song

Great job guys!

Should have been Ed Feser

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

This debate has been going on for years and years

Could someone watching this for the first time tag me with the time where Matt asks them the most convincing argument for the opposing side

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

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

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

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

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

I never noticed your tattoo before, I like it. The miraculous medal M cross

We love Fr. Pine. He’s wonderful.

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

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

Proposition for next debate topic: Sedevacantism

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

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

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

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

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

Yeah right on Matt stouts for life!

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

A person can be deceived by worldly wisdom in two ways, that is, sometimes by the real principles of philosophy, and sometimes by fallacious arguments. And Paul teaches them to beware of both: See to it that no one makes a prey of you by philosophy, that is, by philosophical teachings: “Your wisdom and your knowledge led you astray” (Is 47:10). For there are many who have turned from the faith after having been deceived by philosophy: “Man has become foolish in his knowledge” (Jer. 10:14). As regards to the second way to be deceived he says, and empty deceit, which is based on the way words are used: “Let no one deceive you with empty words,” as is said in Ephesians (5:6). But how are they being deceived? One who deceives another must have something which seems reasonable, and something which is not really so. So first Paul shows the basis of this seeming reasonableness. It is based on two things, the first being the authority of the philosophers. And about this he says, according to human tradition, that is, according to what is handed down by some, basing themselves on their own judgment: “The Lord knows the thoughts of man, that they are but a breath” (Ps 94:11). The second source of an apparent reasonableness are the contrivances of reason, that is, when a person wishes to measure or judge about the things of faith according to the principles of things, and not by divine wisdom. And many are deceived in this way. And so Paul says, they should not be deceived by those judging according to the elements of the universe, and not according to Christ: “They were unable from the good things that are seen to know him who exists” (Wis 13:1). Now the higher a cause is, the more superior is its effect. And so those who wish to investigate certain effects in terms of causes that are inferior are deceived. For example, if one were to consider the movement of water in terms of the power of water, he would not be able to know the cause of the tides of the sea; to do this he would have to consider water in terms of the power of the moon. Thus, those people are even more deceived who consider the proper effects of God in terms of the elements of the world. And this is the reason for the seeming plausibility of what they say. Commentary on Col. 2:5-10, Thomas Aquinas

1:18 "I went from an IS to an OUGHT". It is true that we use hypothetical Imperatives (as in your example) routinely, but, by themselves, they don't solve the Is/Ought problem in the sense of providing an objective basis for morality. Father Pine cares about the condition of his teeth, but someone else who did not care about them is not bound by the 'moral' obligation to take care of them.

Father Pine is SO handsome!

Great debate! Also why do all athiests have a world map in the background?

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

I barely understood anything but enjoyed

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

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

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

Everyone thinks way too hard about free will, your free to love God above all else or not. One decision brings heaven on earth, the other peril to society.