Is belief in the Resurrection reasonable? Trent Horn Vs Matt Dillahunty Debate
Why Christianity Stack Exchange recommends it
Christianity Stack Exchange users link it as the source for Dillahunty's and Horn's claims about verification, falsification and epistemology when discussing the resurrection and modern miracle claims.
Recommended by 1 people across 1 different months, 2021 to 2024.
What it is
A formal debate hosted by Pints With Aquinas in April 2021 in which Catholic apologist Trent Horn argues with atheist Matt Dillahunty over whether belief in the bodily resurrection of Jesus is reasonable. It includes opening statements, cross-examination and audience questions, running about two hours.
What people said
Recommends user50422 · 2021-12 · Christianity Stack Exchange · on “How do Cessationists who believe in modern-day miracles judge the credibility of modern miracle claims?”
@GratefulDisciple - what do you mean by "general critical thinking Christian"? I've chatted with hardcore Cessationists on other sites who would deny every miracle claim I threw at them, including those reported by Craig S. Keener in his book "Miracles" and other cases published in peer-reviewed journals. Atheists display critical thinking skills as well, and they are skeptical of every miracle claim, including the resurrection of Jesus. ( Recommended debate [this video] , recommended post-debate analysis [LINK] ).
Recommends user50422 · 2021-12 · Christianity Stack Exchange · on “How do Cessationists who believe in modern-day miracles judge the credibility of modern miracle claims?”
Judging the evidence to be "insufficient" has everything to do with epistemology. Epistemology is the study of how we know what we know (or claim to know). If people have different standards to decide what counts as "sufficient" evidence, that's a difference in epistemology. Check out Matt's cross-examination of Trent [this video] to understand how their epistemologies differ.
Cites user50422 · 2021-09 · Christianity Stack Exchange · on “What is the basis for the different epistemologies of continuationists, cessationists and atheists regarding eyewitness testimonies of miracles?”
Preliminaries From the Wikipedia article on Epistemology [LINK] : Epistemology [...] is the branch of philosophy concerned with knowledge. Epistemologists study the nature, origin, and scope of knowledge, epistemic justification, the rationality of belief, and various related issues. [...] In these debates and others, epistemology aims to answer questions such as "What do we know?", "What does it mean to say that we know something?", "What makes justified beliefs justified?", and "How do we know that we know?" For the purposes of this question, I will be using the word 'epistemology' more colloquially to mean the way a given individual processes and filters information in order to update the
Cites GratefulDisciple · 2021-12 · Christianity Stack Exchange · on “How do Cessationists who believe in modern-day miracles judge the credibility of modern miracle claims?”
What criteria do Cessationists use to inspect a modern miracle claim and decide whether it is believable or not? Cessationists would use the same criteria that a general critical thinking Christian uses: a supernatural event that is not explainable by natural or scientific laws. (see Wikipedia article on Miracle [LINK] ). Although different than atheists who may a priori eliminate even the possibility of a miracle (i.e., they exclude any kind of supernatural causes), Cessationists (who because they are Christians allow the possibility of God performing miracles) ask for roughly the same rigor of evidence an atheist would ask. For example, if the claim is resurrection from the dead, Cessation
Cites user50422 · 2021-12 · Christianity Stack Exchange · on “How do Cessationists who believe in modern-day miracles judge the credibility of modern miracle claims?”
A small correction to your last comment on **second order**: D. was not talking about future resurrections (in a eschatological sense), he was referring to the 600 resurrection claims cited by Craig S. Keener's in his two-volume work "Miracles", which Trent referred to earlier during his cross-examination of Matt [this video] .
Cites user50422 · 2022-03 · Christianity Stack Exchange · on “How do Christians rebut Matt Dillahunty's objection that the resurrection of Jesus is untestable, unfalsifiable and thus unreasonable to believe?”
On April 8, 2021, during a debate between Matt Dillahunty [LINK] and Catholic Apologist Trent Horn [LINK] titled Is belief in the Resurrection reasonable? Trent Horn Vs Matt Dillahunty Debate [this video] , hosted by Pints With Aquinas [LINK] , Matt Dillahunty said: 20:56 [this video] : It's important for people to recognize there is a difference between verification and falsification . Verification is the concept that we should produce the thing. If we were to say that all intelligent beings are on planet earth, verification you could run around "hey, there's an intelligent being on earth, there's one on earth and there's one on earth, there's one on earth", but verifying it exhaustively could be com
Cites user61679 · 2024-04 · Christianity Stack Exchange · on “What is the Biblical basis for Christians partaking in formal intellectual debates with atheists and skeptics?”
Notable examples include: Does God Exist? William Lane Craig vs. Christopher Hitchens - Full Debate [HD] [LINK] The God Debate II: Harris vs. Craig [LINK] Does Math Point to God? William Lane Craig + Graham Oppy [LINK] Is the Kalam Sound? Graham Oppy vs. Andrew Loke [LINK] Are There Any Good Arguments for God? Ed Feser vs Graham Oppy [LINK] William Lane Craig and Sean Carroll | "God and Cosmology" | 2014 Greer Heard Forum [LINK] DEBATE: Theism vs Atheism | Jonathan McLatchie vs Alex O’Connor [LINK] DEBATE Matt Dillahunty Vs Cliffe Knechtle | Is Christianity True? | Podcast [LINK] Is Belief in the Resurrection Unreasonable? Mike Winger vs. Matt Dillahunty [LINK] Is belief in the Resurrection
Cites user61679 · 2024-04 · Christianity Stack Exchange · on “Which Christian theological frameworks support anchoring one's faith in a direct encounter with God?”
I've identified several potential pathways for why someone may embrace Christianity: Option 1: Influence of birthplace, culture, and upbringing, possibly resulting in a 'cultural Christian'. See related discussion: How is it possible to be a "cultural Christian" without being Christian? [LINK] Option 2: Conversion influenced by interpersonal relationships or community dynamics. This could involve being inspired by the faith of friends, family, or mentors, or finding belonging and conviction within a Christian community. Option 3: Just choosing to believe. Right now. Just believe. That's it. Option 4: Persuasion through intellectual engagement, often via philosophical reasoning found in natur