Unbelievable? What would it take for Alex O'Connor to believe Jesus rose from the dead? Trent Horn v Alex O'Connor
32 snips
Apr 30, 2026 
Trent Horn, a Catholic apologist and seasoned debater, and Alex O'Connor, a public philosopher known for skeptical public debates, clash over whether the resurrection is best explained historically or as visionary/alternative phenomena. They debate empty tomb scenarios, group apparitions versus physical appearances, parallels with other religious visions, and what kind of evidence could change a skeptic's mind.
AI Snips
Chapters
Books
Transcript
Episode notes
Resurrection As Best Explanation Of Historical Facts
- Trent argues the resurrection is best explained by three linked historical facts: Jesus lived, died, and was later proclaimed alive by group eyewitnesses.
- He cites Luke, 1 Corinthians 15 (appearances to Peter, the 500, and groups) and Marian apparitions as corroborating supernatural reports.
Mormon Transfiguration As Parallel Example
- Alex compares resurrection claims to 19th-century Mormon visions, highlighting the three and eight witnesses to Joseph Smith's golden plates.
- He recounts the 1844 Brigham Young transfiguration report where many attendees later said Young appeared as Joseph Smith.
Paul's Background Supports A Bodily Resurrection Reading
- Trent emphasizes Paul's Jewish background meant he understood resurrection as bodily, so Paul’s language (soma) supports a corporeal reading.
- He argues visions differ from in-person sightings and the corpus of appearances inclines toward physicality.
