Matt Dillahunty CHALLENGES Christian Apologist's Evidence Claims in Heated Exchange

[00:00:00]There needs to be additional evidence for it because of its extraordinary nature. Saying, "I just got a new puppy," doesn't require anything beyond your word because I have mountains of evidence in reality of people having puppies. Saying, "You just got a new firebathing dragon," requires some evidence beyond your word. Hey everybody, welcome back to the channel.

[00:00:18]Pull up a chair because this one is a good one. Today, we're sitting in on a faith versus reason showdown between Trey, who's defending the Christian position, and Matt, who's pushing back hard from the skeptic's chair. The whole clash comes down to one deceptively simple question. Did the miracles in the Gospels actually happen? And if so, what proof is there beyond the story itself?

[00:00:38]Trey leans on history and archaeology to make his case, and Matt is not letting a single inch of it slide. What starts as a calm exchange turns into one of the sharpest evidence standoffs I've watched in a while. Stick around right to the finish because the closing line of this thing lands like a hammer and you do not want to miss how it wraps up. And while you're here, drop a comment and let me know what part of the world you're tuning in from. I love seeing how far this community reaches. All right, let's get into it.

[00:01:05]>> Um, the very purpose of a miracle, I mean, miracles are conspicuous by their absence. So, the very purpose of the miracle is to verify the message of the prophet. So for example, you got people today like Benny in or whatever and they say they do miracles and uh do all these healings.

[00:01:25]They're not doing miracles. I don't believe miracles exist today. I think that there can be extraordinary providences with God. But a miracle by definition is something that is extraordinary and a purpose is to verify that this person is speaking for God.

[00:01:39]For example, when Jim Jones says he is, you know, speaking for God, I'm not going to believe him. And even if he can perform miracles, I'm not going to believe him because the Bible says that um God has spoken through the fathers, through the prophets in many in various ways, but today he's spoken through his son. Even the charismatics today believe that their supernatural signs that they say are really not signs because they don't they don't, you know, that when they're wrong, they say, "Well, it's not that big a deal. It's not the same thing. It's in the Bible." So, I don't believe we have miracles as signs anymore. So, the reason I believe the Bible is because of the signs. That's the only uh uh uh reason that I would want to believe that this person were supposedly speaking for God, that they could demonstrate through se supernatural uh signs that they were speaking for God. Like Nicodemus meeting Jesus uh in the night, he said, "Uh, you must be the son of God because nobody can do these unless God is with him."

[00:02:38]>> Hey, Ryan, could you read the question again real quick?

[00:02:40]>> Yeah, sure. Uh, Trey, did Jesus walk on water and heal the blind? If yes, what is the evidence of these miracles besides the claims themselves?

[00:02:50]>> Trey didn't come close to even remotely answering the question. The question is about an epistemological way to justify that a claim about Jesus walking on water is in fact true. Trey instead went on to talk about miracles don't exist today and you wouldn't believe people who did miracles and all of these other things. Trey offered absolutely nothing beyond he believes it. He didn't answer the question. He didn't provide evidence.

[00:03:16]>> Okay. Well, the question the way that I I'm not just believing the Bible because somebody told me it was so. But the Bible is considered to be an accurate representation of what happened in first century Palestine. And this would have been further on in my my talk by uh the science of archaeology uh as evidenced by Sir William Ramsey, the Scottish archaeologist who was at the Tubigen School for CF Bower, which is higher criticism in Germany. He was taught that um uh that the book of Acts was written a hundred years later than when it was purported to have been written. And he absolutely was a part of that school and was sure that uh Luke was uh uh not written when it was it was not authentic. And he spent his entire life studying the book of Luke Acts and um uh and came out of that saying that Luke is the greatest historian of antiquity. Um um and it's even been said that he had the accuracy of uh Thusidities which is a father of scientific history. So the example that we have in a book say for example in Luke as an author um is the uh he's been called the greatest historian of antiquity. Um so we have an accurate rendition of what has been said there and we have a faithful witness of what was said at that time. So it's not just like oh well somebody told me the Bible is true therefore it's true. No, the science of our theology uh has given us uh a testimony that the witnesses of New Testament um were faithful uh in telling us what was happening.

[00:04:51]>> This is the part that genuinely fascinates me because Trey builds the exact trap he later falls into. He opens by telling us that miracles are conspicuous by their absence and that the very purpose of the miracle is to verify the message of the prophet. Sit with that for a second. He is admitting right out of the gate that a miracle is only worth anything if it can be verified. Verification. That is word standard. And here's what people don't realize watching this. He just handed Matt the entire game. Because Trey then does something I find weirdly honest.

[00:05:20]Talking about a self-proclaimed prophet.

[00:05:22]Trey said this. Even if he can perform miracles, I'm not going to believe him.

[00:05:26]Think about how revealing that is. Trey is telling you that raw miracle claims are not enough for him either. He needs more. He needs a reason to trust the source. So the moment he demands extra scrutiny for everyone else's wonders, he has already conceded that a bare claim proves nothing. You can't be skeptical of every other miracle on earth and then quietly exempt your own. And then he reaches for his strongest card, archaeology. Trey said this, Luke is the greatest historian of antiquity. And honestly, even if we grant him that completely, it changes nothing. You have to understand what archaeology actually does. It can confirm a city existed, a coin circulated, a road ran where the text said it ran. That is real and it's impressive, but none of it touches the supernatural claim. A perfectly accurate reporter writing down that something impossible happened does not make the impossible thing happen. Being correct about a map is not being correct about a miracle.

[00:06:17]>> Yeah. The problem is is that the question was what evidence is there behind the beyond the claim? And Trey said that he doesn't just believe the Bible because someone says so. It's about the archaeology. Well, I was going to ask what is the archaeological evidence that confirms Jesus walked on water? But we don't have to waste time on that because there isn't any there can't be despite your interruption. What archaeological evidence could there be that Jesus walked on water? So instead, >> Jesus Christ. Instead, what he says is how this archaeologist talks about Acts being written 100 years later and Luke being the greatest historian to show that what he's reporting is accurate.

[00:06:55]But that isn't evidence. In addition to the claim in the Bible, that is the claim. And the fact is, despite twice saying that he doesn't just believe the Bible because someone says it's so, all he pointed to was someone saying it's so.

[00:07:10]>> Okay. What evidence would would be just would be good enough for you that Jesus walked on water?

[00:07:14]>> See, that's irrelevant. That's not what was asked at all. The question was No, no, no, it's not. The Nobody asked, "What would convince me?" They asked, "What evidence do you have beyond the claim?" And now that you've dodged Now that you've dodged it twice, you're asking me what evidence would convince me of that or what evidence should convince me of that. That wasn't the question. I'm sorry that you can't be honest and address it because the right answer is there is no evidence beyond the claim. And for you, that's enough.

[00:07:47]>> And is the claim a reliable uh um uh rendering of what happened?

[00:07:52]>> No.

[00:07:55]Okay. Why?

[00:07:57]>> Because someone saying a miracle occurred, isn't sufficient evidence to warrant believing that a miracle occurred. There needs to be additional evidence for it because of its extraordinary nature. Saying, "I just got a new puppy," doesn't require anything beyond your word because I have mountains of evidence in reality of people having puppies. Saying, "You just got a new firebathing dragon," requires some evidence beyond your word. saying someone walked on water. Hell, I saw a video of Dynamo walking on the water and he's just a magician. The There needs to be more. And that's that's evidence.

[00:08:30]It's just that there's another explanation. When somebody says, "What evidence beyond the biblical claim is there for Jesus walking on water?" The one and only correct answer is there isn't any, which is what you were trying to get to, but you didn't. And instead, you talked about everything else.

[00:08:48]So Matt, is it possible that for there to be some kind of evidence that would verify that empirically?

[00:08:54]>> I don't know what evidence we could reasonably expect for a historic claim of a miracle. But if there is a God, anything that would qualify as a God, anything that would qualify as the Christian God should be capable of presenting all of us with in indisputable evidence for these claims and that doesn't happen.

[00:09:20]>> This right here is where the whole thing comes apart and it's kind of beautiful.

[00:09:24]Matt ends the archaeology defense with a single question. Matt said this, "What archaeological evidence could there be that Jesus walked on water?" And there is no answer. There can't be one. You cannot dig up a dry footprint from the surface of a lake. Archaeology can tell you a man lived, where he traveled, who he upset. It can never tell you he overrode physics. Matt didn't just win the point. He exposed the category mistake the entire defense was sitting on. And here's the part that gets me.

[00:09:48]Matt catches the deeper move, too. After all the talk about historians and manuscripts, Matt said this. All he pointed to was someone saying it's so.

[00:09:56]That's the kill shot. Trey insisted twice that he doesn't believe just because someone says so. And then everything he offered was at bottom someone saying so. A trustworthy narrator reporting a miracle is still only a report of a miracle. Then comes the line I think everyone should keep in their back pocket. Matt said this saying you just got a new firebathing dragon requires some evidence beyond your word.

[00:10:17]That is the whole principle in one sentence. Ordinary claims write on trust because the world is packed with ordinary things. Extraordinary claims have to carry extraordinary support because nothing in our experience props them up. So when the question is what proof exists beyond the story itself, Matt said this, the one and only correct answer is there isn't any. And he is completely right.

[00:10:38]>> Well, I gave the claim at the beginning of this argument and you would not deal with it. If there is a creator, is it a problem for him to interrupt the supernatural and to perform a miracle?

[00:10:51]That's the first time that question or sentence has come up during this debate.

[00:10:56]H how how could you say that you you did this at the beginning?

[00:10:59]>> It was the first part of my whole argument that there's a creator if a creator creates something exhilares being multiplied. Not only was that not discussed or brought up, it's irrelevant to this. The issue here is what evidence is sufficient to war.

[00:11:25]>> Oh my gosh.

[00:11:27]>> You know what? [ __ ] it, Trey. I'm done teaching you. You're incapable of learning.

[00:11:32]>> I'm just too stupid.

[00:11:33]>> Yep. Yes, you are. I I I've never done that in a debate. But you are clearly either too stupid or too scared because I was actually sitting here saying, "Wow, we're getting close to something."

[00:11:45]And then you presented as if you'd presented it two or three times before or at the beginning a subject which doesn't actually address this. And I it's just we are incapable of having a conversation about this because the issue here is what evidence do you have beyond the claim we don't have any. What evidence and you'd like to respin that to what evidence could we have? And I don't know what evidence we could have in a world without a god. But in a world with a God, we could have incontrovertible demonstrations of the truth of everything. Are you saying that God is incapable of providing evidence of his existence?

[00:12:25]>> Uh I think that he has given us incontrovertible evidence and you will not even deal with it because you can't.

[00:12:32]>> That's funny for somebody who's not an evidentialist and avoided presenting any evidence. But thank you. Okay, this final stretch is where the entire debate quietly resolves and almost nobody catches it in the moment. Trey tries to flip the table. Trey said this, "If there is a creator, is it a problem for him to interrupt the supernatural and to perform a miracle?" And look, as pure logic, sure, an all powerful being could do anything. But Trey is answering a question nobody asked. The issue was never whether a god is able to perform miracles. The issue is what reason we have to think a specific one actually happened. Those are two totally different questions. And watching him swap one for the other tells you he never had the goods to begin with.

[00:13:11]Here's what I really want you to understand. Matt said this. In a world with a god we could have incontrovertible demonstrations of the truth of everything. That point is so strong. If a being that powerful actually wanted us to know, we would know. No debates, no hours of arguing, no missing footprints. The silence itself is the data. And let me give you some context because this argument is far older than people assume. Back in the 1700s, the philosopher David Hume laid out this exact reasoning that the evidence for any miracle would have to outweigh the entire mountain of evidence for how the world normally behaves.

[00:13:43]Centuries later, the apologist still has not cleared that bar. Nothing has changed. Then Trey makes his last stand.

[00:13:49]Trey said this. I think that he has given us incontrovertible evidence and you will not even deal with it.

[00:13:55]Incontrovertible. That's a heavy word for something he never actually said on the table. And Matt shuts the door perfectly. Matt said this. That's funny for somebody who's not an evidentialist and avoided presenting any evidence.

[00:14:06]That is the entire debate in one sentence. You don't get to claim mountains of proof while refusing to show a single grain of it. Saying you have evidence is not the same thing as having it. And for me, that is the lesson that outlives this whole conversation. So, what do you guys think of this? Leave your thoughts down in the comments. Please like and subscribe, and I will see you in the next video.