I think the topic should be more focussed next time, I felt they brushed over a lot, also it would be nice if you asked them some questions of your own or try and mediate more to prevent them talking past each other. Otherwise great debate and would love more👍🏻

Fair income Matt

Spanish speaking subtitles Gracias

Trent v Bart Ehrman

Bring an Orthodox to debate with Trent please, Matt. I'd suggest Jay Dyer, Ubis Petrus or Snek.

Is Alex an Atheist or a skeptic...

@@supersmart671 A Christian in the making. There.

@@supersmart671 both.

Agreed!

@@algfayomega lol you can see it too or you joshin?

Tutorials for vegan orbital nuking and lectures on Quantum Physics and ontological metaphysics

@@reggiestickleback7794 Pretty much

Yeah! I feel you! Lol.

I wish I can talk to my friends about this but most of my friends aren’t into philosophy and Christianity and one is an agnostic. 🤷‍♂️

@@nathenram4891 Literally same. My whole family are agnostic apart from my mum and all my friends are basically atheist as well, your not alone, you might feel alone at times, but there are so many who are in the same boat. 1 Peter 5:9

I agree, mine too.

My brother Thomas! See you everywhere haha

I'm not impressed with cosmic "skeptic" or the undue attention given to him.

brooooooooooo ive been seeing you EVERYWHERE lol, youre the last person i ever thought would be watching something like this.

I initially shrugged this one off, even though I adore Trent's pro-life debates. I'm listening to the opening statements, and I gotta say, this is starting to get good.

@J w okay

Trent won

​@Kade Daivis I respect that you acknowledge the depth of differences between Catholic/Orthodoxy and Protestantism. Having been an atheist previously, I noticed its very uncommon to see an Atheist make that distinction. I see many of them attack Protestant talking points and assume that Catholics/Orthodox believe the same erroneous ideas, when in fact we likely agree with the Atheists in asserting that their arguments are erroneous or fallacious! Protestants believe in Objective Truths and Morality theoretically, but in practice they are very much subjective. Why? Because like you said, sola scriptura. They give themselves the authority to interpret scripture and give themselves the authority to believe certain doctrines of the traditional Catholic/Orthodoxy Christian faith, while rejecting others. A perfect example of this is the major disagreements in the Eucharist. (Martin Luther and Calvin were both in favor of the sacrament to a certain extent) This is why protestanism has fractured into thousands of different donimations and why they have no formal body of established theology. The Catholic Church however, is rich in philosophical and theological knowledge. Their teachings are very clear on what a Catholic must follow in order to be in good standing. The magisterium of the Church is not subject to the individual conscience, so we have a very good reason to believe that what the church teaches now are essentially the same principles that the early Christians taught. The Catholic Church has the capability of forging civilizations (Constantine's Roman Empire, Carolingian Empire/Holy Roman Empire, France, UK, Spanish, Portugal, Etc). The Church also is the reason we have institutions of higher learning aka the University. Oxford, the very university that Alex studies at, was founded by the Catholic Church. No protestant church has this kind of track record, which is why other Atheist should avoid blending Catholic/Orthodoxy and Protestanism together.

@@parapoliticos52 LOL

@@parapoliticos52 ah no, he didunt

They are the same old refuted arguments

@@LuciferAlmighty Refuted by whom?

@@ethanm.2411 Exactly, atheists always claim that they are refuted, but there is no proof of them being refuted anywhere, they just go silent.

@@davidus9702 Atheist here. I can refute them, and I won't go silent on you. He says the universe has to be caused by something because the contents of the universe are always caused by something. That's a fallacy of composition. It's like claiming that if a building is made of bricks, the building has to have the same properties as a brick. In actuality, we don't know how the universe began. There are hypotheses, but it remains a mystery. God is merely inserted into the gaps of knowledge. This way of thinking has a poor track record, since the number of times where a mystery has turned out to be caused by God is 0. It always turns out to be something natural. And, Trent doesn't think God needs a cause: an argument from special pleading. In other words: "all things need a cause, except this one thing I call God". "God" has no explanatory power, and can't be used to solve a mystery. Happy with that refutation?

​@@smaakjeks Yes, thanks, good day.

I'm a devout Christian and like Alex a lot, this may be the best debate between a Christian and an atheist that I've seen

What I enjoy about both of them is their ease of concession on certain points. Neither of them seem to hold on to their arguments for the mere sake of a perceived victory

As a nonbeliever myself, this is the kind of debates I enjoy 🤘🤓

Just because physics cant explain ramdomness in quantum mechanics doesnt mean principle of sufficient reason is false. It just mean physicists have reached their limit.

I noticed Alex is rejecting the PSR due to randomness found in quantum mechanics, but at the same time allowing future explanation for things science can't explain at the moment. This is self contradictory.

Nomen est omen 😉 the name is a sign

Is that a way of spelling “rosary” that I’ve never seen?

Get one! It can’t hurt to learn a new prayer and meditate on the mysteries of Christ!

@@dinopad10 makes it clear I'm not Catholic clearly lol

Jake Pope I honestly thought maybe it was a different spelling. Hope you didn’t think I was trying to correct you... I was thinking it was a cultural difference.

In the early 1980's, Australian philosopher and atheist J.L. Mackie wrote, “we can concede that the problem of evil does not, after all, show that the central doctrines of theism are logically inconsistent with one another.”

​@@andrewferg8737 "But," he should have continued to say, "internal logical consistency says nothing about truth."

@@rickwitten But, it’s still not an inconsistency whereas the atheist has an inconsistency in claiming that they have universal moral duties. What are they and where did they come from? If they claim that they don’t, we would live in a free-for-all, do what you please society, but we don’t. Why? Is it that stable and prosperous societies are built upon the assumption that there are universal moral laws?

@@hugomunoz9039 The word Morality points to the concept of judging human actions as good or bad. Judgment is definitionally a subjective act. Universal or Objective Morality (you said “moral duty”, which is even less defensible) is self-contradictory. A married bachelor. Even if one could point to a god (no one can) and demonstrate the unambiguous moral opinion of that god (no one can), that would still be the subjective morality of that god. We, as humans, would have the right and the responsibility (moral duty even?) to determine for ourselves if that god’s morality is appropriate for us as humans to accept. No atheist that I agree with claims there is a universal morality. If you assume a distribution of moral opinions across the human population, the median values at any given time will tend to win out. In the absence of an oppressive power, when most members of an evolved social species hold opinions that are conducive to (relative) stability and (relative) prosperity, that’s how societies will be built. Those humans outside of the median will engage in problematic (in the view of the majority) behavior, which necessitates laws, police, judges, social workers, etc., etc., none of which would be expected if a perfect and maximally powerful being wrote it’s moral code upon our hearts. Your assumption of the type of world we would have given the atheistic understanding of the world we actually live in, is based upon the false teachings of religion. Namely, that humans are bad, born of sin, and in need of redemption/saving. Once you accept that humans exist across a wide range of possibilities due to the error-prone means of natural reproduction, this puzzle you perceive will vanish. Humans need not look for a perfect being as a source of goodness, but to each other.

Truth and theism don’t go together

Dana Harper strychnine

I wish they had this kind of honesty.

Then they’d just be politely corrupt...

@Enjoy and Travel The World! Definitely, and with a surfboard. I don’t disagree with you; however, maybe you could articulate yourself in a more scholarly and polite fashion. The two gentlemen in the discussion seemed capable of intense disagreement, yet maintained a respectful discourse. This is better as it allows the audience to fully appreciate and evaluate each interlocutor’s argument.

post presidential debate this comment is painful

Yes! Both of them are brilliant!

I agree!! ❤️

E H well one of them yes

@@NobleVagabond2552 I agree.... Alex is brilliant.

Absolutely !!

nice lol

Me too!

Woah, same

No way! Mine too!

Haha so true. Watch Christian vs Muslim debates and look at the comment sections. Tribalism at its best. I think its just part of being a human, although we should strive to reduce our biases as much as possible

That’s most of us 😁

i llike his genuity to seek truth with a seeminlgy open mind

Jesus From Hyrule he seems like a kind person but at the same time don’t forget, his channel is anti christ and his arguments are getting people out of their faith. I wouldn’t give him so much like because he is still a wolf with respectful argument convincing young people to become atheist

Yes. But his kind dangerous in a boat in covid times ;-).

David F I agree we should be weary. But remember, hate the sin but love the sinner. That’s kinda the approach I’m taking but I’m glad u pointed out that he does have a bad mission

Actually Matt hosted him

Vagaba Assassina Lol because he didn’t use a comma after “hosting.” He probably meant to be thanking Matt. It’s often used as an easy shortcut, I use as well, to quickly write what I want to say, without using punctuation. I also like using too much punctuation, to confuse what I’m saying, as well. ;)

@@junelledembroski9183 Ah okay

Seth Gustafson smells like bias to me. Thats ok to admit it too.

@@Leo-yn5fx agreed that it is ok to admit. Bias is good and bad. Without our biases we may not hold helpful nor unhelpful predispositions. Which is why the charge is bias is unhelpful.

Well most theists never seem to understand other perceptions. It’s always their way or the highway without good reason.

@@Jrod- I agree with that many theists fail to understand the perspectives of people holding apposing views, just as many people who hold any socially "charged" position. However I disagree that "most" is representative, in fact hasty sweeping generalization as such are not typically indicative of an intention that is looking to understand either.

@@Phill3v7 that’s the hard truth about most theist, it’s an a generalization. If you ask theists the hard questions, they don’t have a reasonable and sincere answer. They avoid it or lie in order to keep fooling themselves into their beliefs. Everyone knows that and if I don’t agree, then you’re denying it.

@Order Of The Black Cross Like Matt Fradd, and this debate was a joy to listen 😄

I love your channel so much!! My regards from a Roman Catholic brother in Christ from Brazil!!

Ah, this explains what had you so worked up on your illustration!

Hey bojan, you have catholic fans too

@@solberg7049 I know! Love you guys!

in Aquinas' day you would be hearing them in Latin, and then in the middle of the disputation the atheist would be burned in a festive auto-de-fe.

I haven't seen Trent before, but this is how Alex operates. He can get his dander up when disrespected, but he's otherwise always collegial, kind and brilliant.

He’s a Thomist like myself but I’m not catholic. That is he’s a follower of Thomas Aquanis and his 5 ways. You can look them up to familiarize your self with the 5 proofs of Gods existence. Edward Feser probably the best philosopher out there right now wrote a book on it called “the five proofs for Gods existence.” Feser once was an atheist teaching philosophy to his students he came across Aquinas again but this time instead of brushing it off as wrong like he did before he noticed it had merit.

@@TheLloyz Thomists are not christians?

Mister.P unKnow Probably he believes in and holds Thomistic thoughts and ideology, but he himself is not baptized and does not believe in LORD Jesus Christ. I’d say that’s just a fancier way of being a neo-Aristotelian deist.

@@mister.punknow6639 Not sure what you are asking, i myself am a reformed baptist bought by the precious blood of Christ.

@@TheLloyz You said you were a thomist but not a catjolic so I wondered if non christians could be thomists but yeah it turns out you are christian just not catholic

If it's 'faith" it needs no defense.

Check out William lane Craig. He does an excellent job. I found the exact opposite scenario where I was disappointed in the Craig-Hitchens debate because I felt like Hitchens didn't understand how to debate. This one was much more satisfying because both sides seemed to understand the rules.

Trent rehashes the same tired arguments.

@@darkdragonite1419 You'd think after Hume, after Nietzsche, after Freud, after Wittgenstein, that they would abandon trying to logically justify a belief in God. Why can't they just say "We believe because we believe" and leave it at that? They could then be left to their product of wish-fulfillment and whatever peace and serenity it gives them. But no, they demand others should take their belief seriously and so they try to produce evidence for their belief. True faith needs no external evidence, its effect is entirely internal.

@@ibanezdudeck you think that... Hitchens didn't know how to debate?? 🤨

Can you name a single sound argument that Trent presented?

@@xnoreq The first one

@@matthewschmidt5069 Which is?

@@xnoreq Uncaused Cause

@@matthewschmidt5069 How is that a sound argument?

Yep, they are both great guys. I think Feser vs. Oppy made stronger arguments (of course, they are experienced philosophy professors) but I was impressed with Trent and Alex for arguing fairly and kindly.

@Catholic Crusader Deus vult yes, super intelligent.

If he is the best then the religion is in deep trouble.;)

The best? Just scrolled randomly through this video and both times this guy is into special pleading fallacies, like "our intelligent mind has to come from somewhere, and that must God". And of course this God doesn't have get his intelligence from anywhere. Last time I heard someone correct someone committing this fallacy was by a six year old kid. When a six year old are able to understand logic better and/or being more honest than Horn that should tell you something.

@Max Payne You would be better off actually argueing my comment instead of saying Alex didn't argue this particulure point. And who are you to say I'm a layman and Alex isn't? That's some claims I would love you to give some good arguments for :)

Well it is clearly displayed in the Bible when god decided to flood the earth but only saving two of the so called “unclean” animals and sevens of the so called “clean” animals. The fact that no explanation as to why the animals where murdered for the deeds of men proves the atheist points.

The 3/4 of the points went over your head because they were meant to. Theists love this philosophical gibberish because it means they stay well away from having to justify their childish make believe.

@@johnbull1986 there was absolutely nothing about this debate that was confusing to me or went over my head, so I think this is just you calling yourself out bud. If there are any particular points you didn’t understand I’d be happy to explain them in less jargon-filled terms. And I’m an agnostic, so you don’t have to worry too much about me being uncharitable to one side

@@lebeccthecomputer6158 you're fluent in dishonest bullshit apologetics masquerading as intelligent philosophy? Nice of you to admit it. You believe in the supernatural. Presumably in shite like transubstantiation and hide behind philosophy because you know how utterly stupid it is to think it's real. Grow up.

Iron sharpens iron. Hopefully Alex can become a Disciple of Jesus Christ.

​@@danielsmithiv1279No he won't

​@@someone-jl4sjNever undermine the power of God.

@@joeturner9219 I'm not because he doesn't exist. No rational will believe in any relegion.

​​​@@someone-jl4sjWell it's your personal opinion that He doesn't exist. I don't believe in religion. I have a relationship with God. And it's absurd to say that someone isn't rational because of belief in God. Some of the most brilliant minds are Christians.

Totally, agree. I initially hated Alex on the way he questioned others in his other videos, but understood that it’s cruel of me that I did so. He helped me get the answer for those questions which I thought aren’t necessary. Well, sometimes it is. At least, I can explain other Atheists the essence they actually miss. It just deepens my relationship with loving God anyway.

😂

What are the other top 2

@@npc9207 Jordan Peterson v Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens v William Lane Craig

@eeneemeenee6236 ok thanks I've seen the second one you mentioned, personally I would put the sean carroll debate with william lane craig as the best

Good to know, thanks

Hello Take a look at this video. It explains what happened to the Catholic Church after Vatican II. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/jKiPm7iVt7HNZKM.html Also, see vaticancatholic.com, it contains critical information on the Traditional Catholic Faith, which is necessary for salvation.

You if I am hearing you right this does not prove a moral God or even any God at all thank you

The circlejerkers are gonna love this. I’m vegan btw.

@@lllULTIMATEMASTERlll who are the Circle jerkers? I'm vegan btw

That settles it.

When did he say that? Is he really vegan?

@@reggiestickleback7794 hE sAiD iT mAnY tImEs iN tHe vIdEo tHoUgH

Yeah, he had Dr. William Lane Craig laughing.

You're probably not going to be convinced just watching debates, debates barely skim the surface on these issues. You're going to want to listen to a lecture, an interview or read the actual literature if you want some insight into what Christian scholars are really saying.

@@vincentiormetti3048 Thanks for your comment ..I dont need to be convinced .i am a 73 year old Atheist and it served me well .I am just impressed with the level of common sense from a young man like Alex and also the calibre of intelligence from the people he debates .kudos to both .

Hope you will find Christ in your heart and search Him for your salvation. God created us, He gave us life and He created earth and all things so thank we may have food to eat, etc. if a person chose not to believe in God he/she has a freewell, but there is hell.

Trent is one of those shotgun debaters. Just rattle off a bunch of nonsense with the goal of either confusing your opponent or over stimulating them. It's such a dishonest debate style. Typical theistic tactic.

Really? It was basically 15 minutes claiming avoiding an infinite regress requires a sentient god who is supposedly self evidently the objective source of morality. Meh.

@@gilesbbb Let's be all serious here faith in creation and logic are two completely different things. Any assertion of faith will always lack rationality; however, people entertain creationism because of the fact we can think, feel, and experience. There is and we are. This whole perpetual nothingness, concrete laws of the universe around us, etc does require SOME explanation when you think through it. Why is energy concentrated in different parts, what is empty space, why are some things in the universe bound by laws. Why are there theoretical limits to things.

Now this type of thinking doesn't justify you having faith in things with obvious logical conclusions. There definitely are theologians and religions that create more god of the gaps arguments than not. However, we cannot follow that there is a logical reason for everything existing. Humans are bound by fundamental unchangeable aspects that is beyond our comprehension and always will be in my opinion.

@@Kyle-pj2vc the thing about the God Trent advocates is that, supposedly, belief in his existence is a necessary condition to avoid eternal damnation. Seems like he has some obligation to make his existence accessible to people don't you think? Unless (and seems far more likely to me) it's just some human created God myths that don't really hold together.

@@gilesbbb Except that's not the God Trent advocates for in this debate. It's also not the God Trent personally believes in. Lumen Gentium and the catechism make clear that it is possible for those who do not belive in the Christian God to be saved. Maybe I missed it, but where in the debate does Trent argue for what you say he's arguing for?

was not a debate more like a discussion too much topics to respond why does Alex has with hitler, quantum, and free will very safe points for discussion

u just want to see the world burn u absolute mad man

Matt Fradd please make this happen!

I would really like to see this.

David Bently Hart would just start roasting everyone in the studio for no reason

I assent to this proposition and second it.

Exactly. Good Point. Basically it makes the 2 hours a waste of time. It doesn't prove or disprove anything. I think he heard Bart Ehrman making this Point and decided to use it for his case.

Because Alex cannot refute Trents points. God is a necessary Being. There is no way around it.

@@libertarian85 _"God is a necessary Being."_ Demonstrate your ridiculous claim.

@@libertarian85 Hahahahaha. That's hilarious. Well, I claim that God, but evil, is a necessary being. There is NO logical way out of this argument if we accept god as a necessary being. There is no modal function that entalis [~(possible) ~(moral being)]

@@libertarian85 then super god is a necessary being as well, I guess

And yet he didn't present a single sound argument that proves God. Also, no believer believes because of convoluted, fallacious, "sophisticated" philosohpical arguments. So it really is not a defense. It exposes the absurdity of apologetics.

@@xnoreq very well said indeed 👍 and for Mariefa - defending the catholic faith you should watch the debate with Christopher Hitchens on whether the Catholic Church is a force of good in the world, Hitch and Stephen Fry absolutely spell out the truth of the matter.

@@colinross3755 The truth according to a pair of posh English pansies.

Yes, please. YESSS

Ripperger rejects Evolution. It will be akin to featuring flat earthers

@@st.mephisto8564 He rejects evolution? Please tell me that's not true.

@@Catholic-Redpilled-Spaniard It is unfortunately! He's atleast very critical of Evolution and doesn't understand it, imo.

@@st.mephisto8564 I'll look into it. I thought fr Chad was pretty red-pilled. I hope I wasn't wrong

Yeah this is quite true. #fapisdegeneracy

So how do you reconcile your epistemological framework with the indeterminacy of Quantum Mechanics??

@@abdallahayman9802 Well, before we actually get to how we are going to reconcile it, we mst first understand the ramifications of denying the principle of sufficient reason in the first place. If the principle is to be denied, then science, of course, is now completely impossible. The simple reason for this is that if a thing has no sufficient reason for its existence, then there cannot, even in principle, be any form of causal regularity or intelligibility within nature which science takes for granted in its everyday operations. This also has the implication that the things we believe have sufficient reasons for their existence or operations may not have any such reasons. This ultimately culminates in the denail of human rationality in its totality. The simply reason for this is that when somebody reasons from a set of premises to a conclusion, the sufficient reason for the conclusion is found within the premises itself. But, if the principle of sufficient reason is false, then it is impossible to know whether any such conclusions actually follow from a set of premises. You may well retort, "isn't it obvious that the conclusion follows from the premises?!", but such a response would simply beg the question, as whether or not they do have a sufficient reason is precisely what is being debated. It may well be the case that your own intuitions do not have a sufficient reason for their existence and operations, meaning that any for of deduction would be made completely impossible. It is complete madness to deny the principle, and it was quite embarrassing that the quantum physicist said that the principle of sufficient reason is actually holding science back instead of pushing it forward. The principle cannot be denied, as the logic or induction you use to deny it will also be denied as a consequence of denying the principle in the first place. It must be affirmed.

@@abdallahayman9802 The most hilarious thing about this debate is that nobody can reconcile anything with anything if the principle is false.

I think that the PSR can survive indeterminacy, though, or at least a somewhat limited version of the PSR that still works to run a cosmological argument. If you state the PSR as simply "everything has a reason for its being" rather than "everything has a reason for its being one way rather than another", you run into no complications with quantum mechanics. The reason the electron passed through the left slit is simply indeterministic laws. The reason can just be that it was a random selection within some set of constraints. Though I haven't thought it out much, I also think the more limited PSR is easier to reconcile with Free Will, as it doesn't conflict with indeterminism like the stricter one does.

Never heard, he is one of the very best, debates all the time for years.

@Matt Blaise thanks

Agreed! Alex is for sure a worthy opponent! They did a beautiful job! Trents YT page (as Matt referenced) is really insightful. You will find more of his debate dialoges with any and all religious/atheism etc on Catholic Answers YT channel. He holds open forums that share controversial topics. Hope it helps!❤

Check out Jimmy Akin

@@__Man_ Thanks for checking up! Still on going. I lean more towords a deist view (god of the philosophers), but in the sense that there are decent enough reasons to believe, but not to have a justified true belief (just too many good objections to the many views to make me comfortable to say "I Believe!".) So, right now, the best I can do is say there are good reasons to believe, but they have good objections against them. For the christian ver. of God, I'm now into the history arguments, but they seem to have similar results. The more I study, the more Jesus turns out not to be who I thought he was. Still trying though. This year I get my degree on Philosophy and will try to get a master's degree on justified belief\epistemology. Hopefully I can go as deep as a phd. Would've never happened if it weren't for content like this. So, long road ahead still. Wish me luck.

@Comboman70 Good luck. Funny how this video produced the most wholesome and respectful people.