That debate was absolutely impossible to listen to. He literally said nothing but that he believes his argument is convincing, despite never having produced a single piece of evidence. They almost all end up being presuppositionalists in the end.
The worst opponent I have ever seen Matt formally debate. Not only did he not produce evidence, he didn't even construct an argument. He seemed to use his large vocabulary and name dropping of philosophers to obscure the fact that he wasn't actually making a point. At one point he said something incoherent about God falling on the same sword as the Universe. WTF? It escapes me what Zeno's Paradox or Sextus Empiricus on infitism, coherentism and foundationalism had to do with evidence for God. It seems he thought spewing jargon made him look smart. Not to me. There's no fool like an educated fool.
A person who "recovered" their faith is the worst kind of debate opponent, since they already made a choice between need to believe and desire to understand, and they chose the former.
Well, emotional desires are in most of us. Perhaps Ben has some need in that area of comfort or he may be searching still and not let it out to others. He seems rather aloof and I hope he finds his way through all this. Hopefully he'll watch this or later another analysis video of the debate against Randolf Richardson and see that he's not even close to what he think he is trying to do. Not in the ballpark. Sadly not on the same planet.
I was waiting for this review! The debate was so frustrating! Ben saying that he had in fact presented evidence when he had nothing. And his opening was just silly, reminded me of a children's church activity with those letter written on his palms to be displayed along with his speech.
@@magicalchemicaldaddy4092 i don't know which god you subscribe to. But I've not seen any convincing evidence for any. However of all that have been presented to me, were I convinced they were real, I'd still find them to be demonstrably monstrous deserving only of contempt.
These breakdowns that you do are so important for people who are trying to figure this stuff out. But the reality is that Ben is no different than every other theist that has ever lived in that he’s just a person who thinks they have reason on their side, yet they demonstrably do not.
I kind of disagree. Ben seemed more like someone who just never ever encountered any sort of rebuttals to his position. Which is different from the likes of Ray Comfort and Bill Craig who have been shown how they are wrong over and over.
@@BrutalKnight55 Matt helped me sort out how to think about things like morals and epistemology, once I realized that I had been taught to think in knots and everything I knew about reasoning was backwards. I don't agree with him on everything, but I have a similar background to him, and the way that he dismantles apologists using the same arguments I had washed away any reservations I had about my de-conversion.
To me it seems Ben is the Perfect Example of someone that got a 1st place Participation Trophy 🏆 in everything he did his whole life. Ben seemed to be debating himself over what the word Evidence is, yet not providing any for anything. Hat's off to Matt on how he handled the so called debate with Ben. Really hope Ben watches it & really goes over what Matt told him.
Ben often said things like, "I think this shows..." or, "Well I think this is right". Additionally he regularly said, "Mhmmm" and "yes" which made it sound like he was agreeing to: "God has a beginning" "Theists have the burden" Ben later came back and refuted both of these in the debate. As you put it... I think Ben was listening to himself more than he was listening to Matt.
Bold strategy approaching a debate regarding *good evidence* by providing *no evidence at all*. It's like the theist hat trick: you think they're gonna deliver some weak apologist garbage we've seen a dozen times over, and then they underdeliver on your lowest expectations.
I was hoping (knew) you would do a video on the debate...you of course explained exactly what the problem was with Ben's approach (or lack thereof) so that viewers can see it for themselves. Great video and debate sir! 👍
I think Ben’s problem is he’s trying to explain an axiom by proposing an axiom. Things are the way they are, and this thing I want to be axiomatic explains that. Except the notion that “things are the way they are” is already axiomatic. We cannot demonstrate that is actually true, but it appears to be the case, and therefore accept it as true. Just proposing another axiom isn’t going to fix that problem, especially when it is demonstrably NOT an axiom, since it is not universally accepted as true.
The problem was, he didn't even provide anything that would be classified as evidence. At best he said, "we cannot show that there wasn't a start to a universe, therefore the Christian God". If that was his arguement, which was really hard to actually understand what he was trying to get across, it seem to alter as Matt clarified his position.
Matt: re axioms: Euclid postulated the 5 axioms of (Euclidean) geometry - basic properties such as 'all right angles are equal to one another'. They all seem basic and almost 'properly basic'. But years (years!!) later, the 5th axiom was challenged and found to NOT be basic. (5th axiom: the parallel postulate - re parallel lines etc). The challenging of the 5th axiom led to non-Euclidean geometry, where the angles of a triangle add up to more or less than 180 degrees (and was used by Einstein). So - what SEEMS like a properly basic unchallengeable axiom, can be found to NOT be. Which, as you point out, was Ben's misunderstanding of 'axiom'. I find the Euclidean example a perfect way to argue this point.
Yup that "debate" was SO frustrating to watch. You were incredibly patient Matt. Reminded me of that gentleman who runs the Bayesian "evidence" concept. Evidence insufficient to prove a claim is insufficient evidence and, in a court, if that's all that is presented, the case can be dismissed. Theists have yet to bring anything compelling to the table. Axiomatic, uggh, that was one of the worst ones yet.
I don't know whom you are talking about when writing "that gentleman who runs the Bayesian "evidence" concept" (and therefore i don't know what is presented by him), but 'Bayesian evidence' is not automatrically insufficient evidence; for example see: ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6753897
@@derwolf7810 LOL, if you don't know what I'm talking about, it's a bit pointless to comment. If you did know, then you'd have seen that debate and noted the nearly identical level of frustration. If nonsensical argument was sufficient, god would have been "proven" by any number of lame positions. You merely have demonstrated my point, that people trying to present insufficient evidence as proof of a claim, need to stop wasting everyone's time.
@@135ipocketrocket2 You missed my point. Above you implied that Bayesian evidence is always insufficient evidence (by using doublequotes around the word 'evidence' and adding the word 'concept'): That's plain wrong. So i pointed that out and gave a link to a scientific peer reviewed paper to show that i don't pull that out of my ass. I didn't try to argue for the truthness of the claims of the guy who used that in the video you mentioned. Therefore i don't need to know what he said in the video.
@@derwolf7810 Again you don't have the context and so you are dead wrong. Geez, you're as frustrating as the people to whom I'm referring, with their useless claims. I didn't say it was always insufficient evidence, so your inability to pay attention is sending you off the rails in a direction that doesn't even apply, lol. The reference applies to the lame position put forward in that debate, not universally to Bayesian analysis. How do you not get that?? If I'd meant all Bayesian efforts suck, I'd have said so. The mental gymnastics of the Bayesian approach failed in that debate, in much the same manner as did the axiomatic silliness here. Hence, the obviously appropriate comparison, which you clearly aren't grasping since, again, you apparently didn't educate yourself on my comment, before wanting to snipe on about Bayesian greatness and the useless "peer reviewed" paper that is meaningless to argue a claim I did not make.
@@135ipocketrocket2 Ok, maybe an example analog to the problematic formulation might help you to get the point: Your way to "debate" with me reminds me of someone who used the same I-didn't-say-that "argument" concept as you.
Axiom 1: God exists. Axiom 2: He wants us all dead and in heaven. Therefore, he must have several other more important projects that need dealing with beforehand?
This is why Aron Ra has the best definition of evidence: A body of objectively verifiable facts that are positively indicative of and/or exclusively concordant with one hypothesis over any other. That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
@@user-sl4ul4nc3t And your point was? xd Have you heard: "It will be your word against mine"? You're proving the statement: "That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." This happens in courtrooms, that's why many criminals go free: lack of evidence. Just because you say someone entered your house and took something doesn't mean that anyone would put him in jail...
@@user-sl4ul4nc3t Um...defense lawyers do use that. If there is no evidence other than the homeowner's eye witness statement, all the lawyer needs to do is find a bunch of people with similar features as the defendant to provide a shadow of doubt to the truth of the homeowner's claim. And if he can find one that was in the same area as the burglary, then a shadow of a doubt is way to easy to provide. Not to mention that if there is no other evidence, then the defense lawyer could say the plaintiff is lying and ransacked their own home and tried blaming the defendant for the act. If the only thing you got is one eyewitness testimony, then a shadow of doubt can easily be provided. Our court system did away with being punished by only eye witness testimony a long time ago cause we know it's useless without any corroborating evidence. And in science if the only evidence is that of the individual saying "yes, this happened" and doesn't provide any evidence other than that, then their claim can be simply dismissed without evidence and they will have to come back with the evidence that the thing actually happened and not just say "yes, this happened". This is what some atheists do to theists when they present evidence for a God they have no evidence of other than their own personal testimonies. Again this falls to Aron Ra's definition, If you can provide another plausible explanation to the presented facts, then the facts do not point to only one conclusion over the other.
@@daraghokane4236 In an American court of law, yes. Eye witness testimony is considered weak. It assumes the eyewitness is telling the truth, but understands that people can be mistaken and the person they claimed did it could be innocent and mistaken for someone else. The prosecutors need to provide more than just "this guy said he saw him do it" in order to get any kind of warrant to arrest someone for a crime. But in science, I would disagree. Either the facts presented point to one conclusion over another or it's not evidence of that conclusion.
@D W Since you made the assertion "actually it can't" without evidence to back it up, I am going to dismiss it. See? It actually can. And it's not the same thing cause my evidence is that you provided no evidence to your claim. What you are advocating for is shifting the burden of proof. I need no proof to dismiss any claim you make that has no evidence to back it.
This was the debate that made me realize that theists really don't have any argument. It was infuriatingly incomprehensible in the sense that he didn't address the concepts, he had very specific views of epistemology and reality that he could not comprehend would be questioned, he essentially was arguing why he liked his mindset. Like everything Matt said went in one ear, died, went to heaven, realized there is no heaven, came back down, tried to get into his brain but failed, shrugged, and went out the other.
People who want to denigrate Wikipedia by saying such things as "It's crap because anyone can edit it to say anything," need to try editing it to say "anything." These people will quickly find that their edits have been reviewed, rejected and then deleted (presuming they add information that is either untrue, unverifiable or irrelevant). If they keep adding bad information/ making unwelcome edits, they'll soon find their I.P. address banned from Wikipedia altogether. It's very hard indeed to edit Wikipedia pages if you're no longer able to access Wikipedia due to being banned. This is how Wikipedia ensures the quality of their product. Admittedly, however, if such a person as above chooses to make an edit that's very hard to notice and yet completely changes the meaning of the information presented (such as changing the sentence "There are _no known_ examples of..." to instead read "There are _many_ examples of...") and they do this on some obscure page that very rarely ever sees any traffic, then their vandalism is likely to go unnoticed for much longer than if they make obvious edits to well-travelled pages. Yet regardless of what they edit, or where, their edits WILL be seen and will be evaluated by people who evaluate such things for a living. TLDR: Ultimately, Wikipedia is a mostly reliable source of information, that is- for the most part- highly reliable.
Eh... Maybe I'm jaded, but I'm preferring to not watch those MDD's and just come for the review afterwards. Good for them for getting Matt out there, but the way to manage the debate, not to mention their chat, is... something to be desired.
Also the “moderator” doesn’t do a good job of corralling individuals who go off the rails and off topic. Just see the Ray Comfort and Matt debate for an example of this.
I like to watch his platform from time to time can be fun. He does interact when needed for example Vaush vs Sargon. He set up a structure and inforced it along with a few other debates I've seen on there. He only really steps in to keep the peace when can be nice if you're there for that
Isn’t an “axiomatic argument” an oxymoron? If the existence of god is assumed to begin with, there’s no need for an argument. Besides, what is assumed and accepted in a human speculative construction often has no correspondence in real life, ie does not exist. For example in geometry we have points, straight lines, flat planes, perfect squares, perfect spheres etc. that we accept axiomatically as the foundation upon which geometry and all its theorems and proofs are built. Geometry has perfect internal logic and consistency and it’s an invaluable tool to study and deal with the real world but none of those perfect geometric shapes exist in the real world. I find that a lot of people confuse abstract constructs humans build in their brains to make sense of reality with reality. One dimensional infinite straight lines exist in geometry but don’t exist in real life. Perfect two dimensional circles exist in geometry but they don’t exist in real life. Evil is a human subjective value judgment, “evil” as an entity doesn’t exist in real life. Gods are human constructs that exist in mythology but they have no counterpart in the real world.
You just say everything that apologist look to contradict by making sophisms while keeping themselves saying lies and things they may want to believe (they say they do, but I don't think that's psychologically possible). And some of these constructs you mention, even some atheists don't dare to state maybe because they don't like admitting existential nihilism or at least agnostic nihilism.
@D W "A straw man fallacy is a kind of logical fallacy that occurs when a person deliberately distorts their opponent’s argument and proceeds to argue against that distortion instead of the actual position." Which in this case is precisely what you are doing. 1. Matt D wasn´t assuming that God "was assumed in the first place". His opponent was doing that by assuming that the existence of God was axiomatic, namely self-evident. 2. Atheists do not present arguments for the non-existence of God. They don´t have to, any more than there is some obligation on non-believers to present an argument that confirms the existence of alien abductions. Like theists, those making claims about reality, if they are to be convincing enough to warrant belief, need to demonstrate the veracity of their claim. Mere assertion can never be considered enough because it could be, in the lack demonstration, false. The bald claim that one can leap from an aircraft at 30,000 feet without a parachute and survive is, in other words, not worthy of belief unless it can be demonstrated that this feat is achievable, as blind trust in this claim could potentially impair one´s physical health. To say that one will suspend judgement that this feat is indeed achievable until it has been sufficiently demonstrated is not to present an argument. It´s saying, "Okay, you think it´s possible, well convince me, and maybe I´ll believe you," which is not an argument, it´s a position being taken in relation to determining what is true or false. 3. "All atheistic argument is fallacious" is an unsupported claim and thus worthless unless justified. 4. Atheists do not present arguments about the non-existence of God, or of Gods, they evaluate deific claims, and the arguments presented in support of them, to see whether belief in them is justified. Consequently, your assertion that " All atheistic argument is fallacious" is manifestly false.
@D W You either didn´t read my post or seemingly didn´t understand it. Atheists neither present arguments against the existence of God, nor do they have an obligation to do so, because they ARE NOT MAKING SUCH CLAIMS. If an answer to the question, "How did the universe get here" is, "God", that, as it stands, is an unjustified claim. People making unjustified claims have an obligation, a burden of proof, to justify their claim if it is to convincingly warrant belief. If they are unable, or unwilling, to do this, their claim, their answer to questions such as the one above, can justifiably be considered worthless. For example, if someone´s answer to a question about what lies beyond the known universe is, “An infinite number of china teapots”, it cannot, by definition, be known whether this assertion is true or false. That doesn´t mean doubters have an obligation to present a logical argument dismissing what is a definite but unsupported claim of existence if they wish to reject it. THEY ARE NOT MAKING THE CLAIM. This shifting of the burden of proof on to the shoulders of the atheist is a devious ploy because of the difficulty, the logical impossibility, of mounting a logical method of producing a concrete example of something non-existent. What, for heaven´s sake, would that consist of? An existent example of something, by definition, non-existent? That would be interesting. But, to reiterate, NO CLAIM IS BENG MADE, so logical perambulations asserting the existence, or non-existence, of God, or of Gods, is irrelevant in the case of the atheist. The construction of such arguments is the task of the God apologist. They´ve come up with the idea so, to use a colloquialism, they should arguably be prepared “put up or shut up”. It´s the task of the atheist to evaluate them and see where the logic fails, not produce counter arguments, unless they are making claims, which they´re not.
@D W instead of "assume", think "granted for the sake of discussion". That's how reasonable arguments work. I "assume" your answer to the question is true because I want to discover what the consequences of that would be. It would also be worthwhile to consider how you got to the answer (aka show your work). When you just say "God" as an answer or explanation, that carries a lot of hidden baggage that needs to be teased out. When you say "God," you demonstrably mean something different from other people who use that same word or concept, unlike something like "gravity". Therefore there are "assumptions" made by anyone involved that need to be teased out. What is the use of your God? What predictive power have we gained about the universe now that we've included it into the discussion? Does it want anything from us? What kind of influence does it have, and what mechanisms does it use to achieve its will? Is your God only a hypothetical thought experiment, or something that has tangible effects on reality that need to be taken into account when asking questions like "how far back can we determine the history of the universe and how confident can we be in our results?" Saying God just is axiomatic or self-evident only shows everyone else that the speaker is not ready to sit at the big kid's table. It's sticking your head in the sand intellectually and abandoning the chance to actually learn anything. It's like giving "faith" as a reason for believing anything, when faith is literally believing in something without reason. Furthermore, if they claim to believe in a Christian God then they would need to justify why they would ignore the Bible's exhortation to "be ready always to give an answer to every man who asks of you the reason of the hope that is in you." Why would the writer of 1 Peter expect people to question Christian beliefs if they are so blatantly obvious? And why would people for thousands of years before that time question His very existence?
@D W I agree, faith isn't believing something without reason. It's what replaces reason when none is to be found for that belief. Epistemologically, it's the same as screaming, "but it *JUST IS!*" But I'm just talking about how the concept is used, I don't want to debate pedantic definitions of the word itself. "God is the only explanation," how did you come to this conclusion? How certain are you that you have considered every other possible explanation, both ones thought of before by others, and ones that no one had yet thought of until you, and found reasons to reject all of them but the one you favor? Does this mean that you think no one in the future will be able to conceive of an we explanation that you have not already considered and discarded? I mention this to hopefully show you how arrogant such a statement is, and why it's a terrible reason to come to a conclusion. It's called the argument from ignorance fallacy; you would have to be claiming to be some kind of supreme intelligence yourself in order to have the knowledge that your argument implies you would need to evaluate it. Consider this: what would a universe that was created by this God look like, compared to a universe without this God that popped into existence fully formed through she other means, at whatever furthest back point in time we can measure. From that point of time onwards, what are the differences between those universes, and how would we be able to tell if we were in one universe or the other? That is, outside of the creative event itself, does this God have any noticable ongoing impact on the universe that would distinguish it from a universe where (say) a creator started it up one day and walked away?
It's very important when talking about axioms to remind people that removing axioms can be extremely useful. Remove the axiom that says "parallel lines remain at the same distance" and suddenly you can do spherical geometry. Remove the axiom "not not P -> P" and suddenly you have constructive logic. This shows that axioms have nothing to do with an underlying truth about reality, and they are absolutely not "obviously true". They are arbritrary optional rules.
I thought Ben Fischer in this debate was word salad incarnate. His demeanor and delivery were condescending. His content was circular and nonsensical most of the time. Matt - as usual - was straightforward and a bit harsh - but in a clear and concise way. I always appreciate Matt’s delivery and - yes - I may be biased towards Matt’s positions. But Ben Fischer grated on me.
@John Barron well - i think WLC is a lot more coherent in his arguments. This guy is certainly no William lane Craig. Don’t get me wrong - Craig irritates me big time and I find his arguments circular. The cowardly aspect could be justified given that he won’t debate dillahunty or others unless they are academic scholars.
The amount of time that Ben spent on what atheist might say, or how Matt might try to rebut, was completely baffling. The way that he seemed to occasionally ignore Matt's presence felt kind of insulting.
I get the impression that apologists have come to the realization that they have no compelling evidence. So they attempt, unsuccessfully, to discredit atheism, evolution, and science.
Well let's be real, most end up being a waste of Matt's time. Apologists are sorely lacking in people who can put up even the most remote of arguments against him.
@D W True, but to reasonably accept that they exist, you do need some sort of evidence. A demonstration of some sort is incredibly helpful in feeling like you have a sure footing in your acceptance of a claim.
@D W You'll notice that I didn't presuppose what the evidence must be. I said that some evidence is necessary and a demonstration would be mighty helpful. Feel free to let me know what non-demonstrable evidence you would propose and what method or methods I can use to verify that it is reliable. I'm open to anything.
@D W So a mathematical description of odds related to an event for which we have limited access to a single example is evidence for a specific entity. Good to know. How do I verify this?
@D W Nope, I'm asking for the method or methods that will allow me to verify that the use of a mathematical description of the odds related to an event for which we have limited access to a single example is a reliable method of determining the existence of a specific entity. You're proposing that this is such a reliable method that it, in and of itself, counts as evidence. I'm looking for a way to verify that claim. Do we have other examples of this method in action? How did we verify the accuracy of the conclusion?
I think it is a mark of the level of evidence this guy required & possibly his honesty & integrity that he "claimed" to have nearly lost his faith but was brought back by yet *MORE* voices in his head! You think having that supposedly happen god might have taken the opportunity to say to him - _"Dude! Your going to be debating this atheist guy in a few weeks. Here is the _*_CATERGORICAL_*_ evidence from me that is going to make him look like a spot of grease!"_ and then give something other than _"I know god exists because I know god exists!"_
That debate was hard to listen to, cuz Ben was not even listening to anything. Everytime he wasn't speaking he was just, "hmm, hmm, hmm" constantly to act like he was paying attention but was just ignoring everything around him until he got to speak again. And he assumed his argument was solid and convincing, when he literally said nothing.
I watched the debate & it was a complete waste of time: as I remember he stuck with '"its axiomatic knowledge'" then it became "no that's not good enough" vs "yes it is"
Math guy here with a comment on axioms. I think a good example is how axioms work in math. The most famous set of axioms is that of Euclidean geometry. If you reason from these axioms, you get geometry on a flat plane. However, we also switch out these axioms. In Euclidian geometry one of the axioms is, "For any line L and point P that is not on the line, there exists a unique line L' that is parallel to L, and passes through P." To do spherical geometry, we replace that axiom with, "There are no parallel lines." There are also places where both A its negation could be added as an axiom with no contradictions (see continuum hypothesis.).
I'm very glad you made this video. I've always been interested in mathematics, and I LOVE trying to eliminate axioms. When I was younger, I was very excited to find that one of the five axioms in "Euclid's Elements" was actually unnecessary (his fifth axiom was only used in one place, as far as I can remember, and I think you can prove it before then using a proof by contradiction). Principia Mathematica by Bertrand Russell (who was an atheist, btw) and Alfred Whitehead is an attempt to form a logical basis for everything in logic and set theory on very few assumptions, which in turn forms a basis for arithmetic, algebra, probability, calculus, geometry, you name it. And then, of course, those form the basis of science. Principia Mathematica was first published in 1910-1913. Euclid's Elements was written in *300* *B.C.*. The fact that this guy doesn't know this stuff in the year 2020 is a little sad, especially since he's clearly done some research on philosophers. Also, a lot of people like to bring up String Theory as a scientific theory without any evidence for it. I _suspect_, although I don't know (I haven't learned anything about String Theory yet), that what that theory does is reduce the number of assumptions in the many fields of particle physics/quantum physics. I think this also lines up with Matt often saying it's a mathematical theory. Any theoretical physicists here that can confirm/deny this? I'd love to know!
It takes some balls to do a debate on is there good evidence for a god and your only argument is god must exist for the world to make sense in my mind.
@@magicalchemicaldaddy4092 true we are all evidence... I don't see how anyone can be alive and not recognize the creators that designed us all and assembled us atom by atom in deep space before teleporting embryo-us into our mother's belly. All praise to the creator leprechauns. 🙏☘️ Self-evident, and I can't even imagine a universe without them!
The more I think about it, the more Ben's "argument" just bugs me. Something can be used as an axiom to a truthful end even if that axiom is known to be false. For example, according to the axioms of geometry, there's an infinite quantity of points inside my desk drawer. Now, does my drawer _actually_ contain any objects known as "points?" No, they're entirely imagined. I'm pretty sure Ben was trying to describe a necessary truth, not an axiom. He would _still_ be wrong, but at least he'd be using the right term.
Matt I appreciate you so much and you have helped me in more ways than I'm willing to admit on a public platform. I watched the original debate a few hours after it was uploaded and I can understand the frustration at some points I got agitated at Bes arguments and reasoning. Sometime I felt like Ben wasn't actually debiting if there is Good evidence for God at all just providing random points that supports his stance on Theism. Side note, I understand you aren't a studio engineer I don't mean to point this out for the sake of pointing it out I wish to provide feedback to improve the quality of the channel. Could you ask someone about standard margins for Video as the intro graphics/text hurts. It's uncomfortably close to the edge of the frame, Heck I'll even do it for you. HMU, send me the PNGs and I'll sort you out with a little intro because the editor in me dies a little every time I load up your videos.
It's like Fischer is trying to go the ontological route that Anselm and others have by tautologically defining God in such a way that it has to be accepted as true and thus conclude it must exist. I remember a class looking into that and even back then, about 10 years ago, I already was seeing how terrible (and circular) the argument is, yet it's still somehow considered one of the "better" ones alongside cosmological and teleological.
Yeah, I dont get that approach. Ok, you have defined something so fucking abstract that there is simply no way for you to show that that "thing" has anything to do with the god of the bible :D
To about 20:00 - Axioms: you might have fun contemplating Euclid's 5 axioms. For centuries, clever mathematicians tried to derive the fifth from the first four, because 5 was complicated and it seemed reasonable that it should be derived from the others. It turned out that "it ain't necessarily so". The first 4 axioms were more or less obvious from what we see around us: points, lines, etc. The fifth *defined* what had to be true for a geometry to behave the way Euclid wanted it to behave. As though it were on a totally flat piece of paper. Different 5th axioms *define* different geometries (Minkowski's curved spacetime that Einstein used, for example). I think what I'm trying to say is that axioms are things we *make up* that do not necessarily have any bearing on reality (you know this, Matt, I'm teaching granny to suck eggs here). You talk a lot about axioms in the context of logic, but they exist elsewhere, too (as you know - I'm just gibbering, really). Maths (for example) uses axiomatic systems from which sometimes bizarre-looking number theories arise. Physicists' axioms tend to look more like what we'd expect of the real world (including, but not limited to, the assumption that the real world exists). An axiomatic system is (I think): here are the rules I've made up from whole cloth; let's see what the implications are. The context is crucial: am I exploring an artificial world, or trying to make some sense of the "real" (assumption) one? "God exists" could obviously be an axiom of some world view. Doesn't make it true in this world, though.
Very well said! I don't get how ppl connect these highly abstract gods/first cause/etc. to the god of the old testament... I mean the guy talked out of a burning bush, wtf that has to do with a pedantic little self contained formula which relies on carefully defined concepts?
this video gave me alot of homework (Laplace, Scientific method history and Identity non contradiction excluded middle) so many rabbit holes to jump into
Good evidence for a proposition = a fact/s for which the proposition in question is the most reasonable necessary and sufficient account. Ben offered nothing approaching this.
That debate was slightly frustrating, but enjoyable. I'd like to see that modern day debate take a more active roll as a moderator in these talks. Whenever two participants disagree about a definition of a word - he should step in and make the two agree before continuing. Otherwise everything grinds to a halt and the same conversation can be stuck on the small detail for another hour. It's not like you don't change topic before one of the two concedes and admit defeat - no. But rather reaching a point where the moderator could say something like: "Since you're not using that word to mean the same thing, we're now going to replace that word with a new one that has definition "X". Otherwise we have to move on to another topic. "
At 3:16 Matt asks us (the viewers) if just telling us he is recording is enough evidence to believe he is actually recording. Well, seeing is believing :)
This was a better debate than normal. While the guy avoided answering the actual question, and didn't even seem to understand what was being asked, he wasn't spewing the usual crap that stop me even wanting to watch the debate.
Nice flowers. Also, i love you. And your intelect. Very good point about "Evidence" and "Good evidence" . Wording change everything. Im pedantic with it and people find it anoying. But i think it has importance to bring precision in many situations and topics.
I was having a very civil discussion with Ben on his most recent video. After he has already replied, he says he can't figure out how to use the RU-vid comments to reply. He then tells me he hasn't read my comment. He then tells me to buy his material. I am not joking: *Thanks for the tech tip. However, in glancing over your lengthy writing (which I have not read) I would encourage you to simply schedule a discussion on Modern Day Debate if you want to talk this through quite that deeply. RE: I think it would simply take me too long to write a response to every one of your responses to my response to you. Beyond that I can point you to my website where I have stored hundreds of pages of densely researched content on these issues. You can also get my master-class for five bucks under a special deal right now.*
I mean that kinda makes sense... he probably had responses to your points already written, and better worded than he would be able to in the time he had at that point. If you are genuinely interested in hearing what he has to say then buying his book is a good way to do that.
@@BentDoorFrame Unfortunately he is a broken record. Matt gave valid objections and Ben forgot about them even during the debate. Key example - foundherentism
@@malirk I hear you on that man. I do think that promoting his book to people who want to hear his thoughts is not such a bad thing ya know? Wait is it a book or video?
@@BentDoorFrame He can promote his book. However in his video he says the material is free. People are then reporting you have to input a credit card. His video is also supposedly a video where he says he will show the problems with skepticism... but it's just an ad for his book... which is free... which he is selling... at a special discount price. Whole thing is fishy to me.
It sounds like you ended up 'debating' a presup who was just using fancier words than usual. 'First we start from the position that I'm right, then we use that to demonstrate that I'm right, therefore I'm right.'
@D W There's nothing wrong with thinking you're right, the problem comes when that's all you have or at least all you present in a discussion/argument. The claim is not and cannot be evidence for itself. If rather than provide evidence that supports your position/argument you simply assert that it's a fact and leave it at that, and/or act as though your claim has already been proven to be true and start building future arguments/claims from that point, that's when it becomes a problem.
@D W Wow, I've never heard *that* strawman before, I can only imagine how much time and effort must have gone into creating such a unique and well constructed assertion. Atheists don't 'start' from anything other than not believing the claims made by the theists, and as such they don't need to build any sort of argument as unless a particular atheist wants to claim that a particular god doesn't exist the burden of proof is entirely on the theist. As for the idea that god is an answer, sure, just like cosmic pixies or the interdimensional bigfoot are an 'answer'. A god only becomes an answer in any meaningful manner when they've been proven to exist and proven to have done something, until that point they're nothing more than a claim.
@D W Ah but you see they're *cosmic* pixies, creators of universes, with just enough power to do that and no more, making them even more viable an answer than a god since there's no need to appeal to an all powerful being, just a bunch of very powerful ones. If you really want to use *that* definition of 'answer' then you cannot at the same time rule out cosmic pixies and the interdimensional bigfoot, since those are both equally valid answers as both of them answer the question you posed just as well as a god. As for your last line you are either very confused, or very dishonest. Saying 'god did it' is an assertion, as unless you demonstrate the truth of the claim then it's functionally identical to saying 'a wizard did it'. Both of them might provide an explanation for something and therefore technically count as an answer, but until you can back up the claim(whether god or wizard) it's a useless 'answer' at best. When someone throws out an unsupported claim like 'god did it' there's no need to argue from any position, as the correct response is simply [Citation Needed].
@D W >The issue is whether God created the universe or not. Not cosmic pixies or wizards or anything else. You just made that up. Nobody debates those things. You just present another strawman. Oh but we very much are debating cosmic pixies, you just gave yours a name, because hate to break it to you but to people who don't already buy your claims 'my god did it' is effectively indistinguishable from 'cosmic pixies did it'. 'My god did it' is to people that don't share your particular religious beliefs as that same claim made by other religious believers would be to you. As for the rest of your comment you... don't seem to have any clue what an assertion is, which I'm guessing is the problem and something you might want to hit up a dictionary to fix. If you say that your name is Dave you just asserted that your name is Dave, with the presence or lack of ID irrelevant, so if you 'assert' that your name is Dave and I point out that you just claimed that your name is Dave I am both 'asserting' that you just made that claim(based upon the fact that I just saw and heard you say so) and entirely correct in doing so.
@D W Hold up. "God" means many different things to different people, many of them contradictory. Don't just assume we know what you mean when you say "God." Define this "God" you speak of. Are we talking about Yahweh, Zeus, Ra, love, the universe?
@Matt Dillahunty, you were incredibly kind to Ben in this video. I think I saw this review video a long time ago but only tonight I saw the “debate.“ I assume you saw or heard more in your time with him than is on the recording. Ben gave every indication of being, if not deliberately and deceptively obtuse, then absolutely incapable of grasping the meaning of something not couched in philosophical language. I consider myself a patient man- and am considered patient by others- but I would have stopped long before you did. Of course, I’m a year late to this party so like as not no one will ever see this comment and realize how amazingly clever I am; I’m used to it. LOL More grist for the mill! Also, I can’t seem to create a tag… oh well… I will say one more thing: what I really think is that Mr. Ben doesn’t know what he’s about and he knows he doesn’t know what he’s about but he’s clever with language.
If one assumes there's a God that controls every aspect of reality and could change them with a thought, I don't know how you could ever assume a consistent reality. God could make gravity suddenly a repelling force, rather than an attractive force. God could make magnetism no longer exist. Reality 5 seconds ago could be completely different than reality in the next 5 seconds, if you assume God exists. And as soon as theists say "well we know God wouldn't do that!", you just say, "Could God trick you into thinking that?"
My biggest problem with this debate and I tolerated watching only a third of it, is that it searches for evidence for something in pure logic. If there is a smoking gun, something in this reality that can be measured, tested, and verified for its existence as an object or phenomenon of this reality, then I can sit through a ton of logical arguments that tie, or don't tie, the object or phenomenon to a god, whatever we define a god to be. But if someone has an argument from pure logic that ends in the existence of a god, then we can immediately answer that we don't even know if we are brains in vats, and the logical existence of a god is even harder than the solipsistic problem. Before even listening to another debate about the evidence for a god, I would like to see anything in the real world that can be shown as an object or a phenomenon of this reality.
I think, the explanation of the reductio ad absurdum is wrong. It actually means that if you know that the conclusion that follows from your premise(s) is wrong, you know that at least one of your premises must be wrong. It is not about a contradiction between the conclusion and the premise(s). It is a way of testing your premises. If your premises are correct, they must always lead to correct conclusions.
You're actually kind to these guys. Ben arrived with his fast talking monologue, but he just went off on an irrelevant tangent. Shame really, he's a better public speaker than I could ever be. I've never actually believed in any supernatural beings or occurrences, including Santa. I just wonder why grown men and women never question some of the fantastical things that they've been told, or read about.
I think the arguement Ben was trying to make is that it is necessary to assume God exists (i.e. God is axiomatic) for knowledge to possible... it was a kinda weird and stupid argument but I think roughly the argument goes something like this. 1) It is possible for Humans to have knowledge; 2) the basis for knowledge can be either infinitism, coherentism or foundationalism; 3) infinitism is not possible because you cannot have an infinite chain of causes; 4) coherentism is not possible because it relies on circular reasoning; 5) therefore, foundationalism must be the basis for knowledge; 6) the only possible foundation is God - because it has to be an uncaused cause, with personal agency etc etc. 7) therefore, for knowledge to exist we must axiomatically assume that a God exists, otherwise there is no basis upon which we can know anything. I think this argument has a number of problems and it makes a lot of baseless assumptions but I think this is more or less the arguement he was trying to make.
Seemed like a well-read kid and like he was smart, but as we all know, good arguments and sound conclusions don't always follow from smart people. Good conclusions are not axiomatic for people with philosophy degrees, demonstrated by their philosophy degree.
Ben was the worst I've ever seen and or heard. So many words to say nothing. Its just self evident that god exists. I think he was saying its obvious god exists. Why? Because.
To 3:41 - the bit of evidence (that leads me to believe you are recording this) you seem not to have mentioned is: I am watching the video. That's pretty compelling. (I stopped the video to comment because my memory is dreadful these days: sorry if you say this at 3:42).
Matt, that's not what a reductio ad absurdum is. There are no multiple premises and you don't necessarily reach a conclusion that contradicts the premise. You have a premise p and you show that it leads to an absurd or contradictory (basically, false) conclusion. p implies q, q is false, therefore p is false. Often used in the form of assuming a negation: p1 = not p0, p1 implies something false, therefore p1 is false so p0 is true.
Presupps assume god exists as an axiom. They add on an extra assumption without justification. On top of that, they also use fallacious and dishonest methods
Matt, I hope you find a way to create a place for debates outside of using Modern Day Debates. The host is a terrible person and the way he has treats his audience and some of the people he invites on is disgusting. Hiding behind his fake smile, he is friends with the likes of Darth Dawkins and takes glee in having him verbally abuse atheists. Then the host gleefully verbally abuses people in live chat for calling out said behavior and bans them for making totally fair assessments of his behavior. I have missed many of your debates lately because I won’t traffic that channel, and I really miss watching you debate.
Did you notice Matt? Ben’s example with the dominos placed “your” domino arbitrarily at the end of an infinite line (a point that can’t exist on an infinite line)? There is nothing stopping an infinite chain of events from getting to the next event. Theists are just wrong about these assumptions that somehow reality is barred from moving down an infinite chain of events if the chain is infinite.
I bet the people that fling crap in the comments are mostly normal people, they just get excited and go into wild football cheering mode. Its nice to be excited about things.
"In the Greater Community, God is too large and too great to incite only faith. Faith can only bring you to the threshold of experience. Beyond this, faith is too weak and too fallible to carry you further. Here faith serves its only and most important purpose-to bring you to the gate of experience. This is the purpose of faith and the purpose of preparation. This is the purpose of religious training in your world and in all worlds. Beyond this gate is God of the Greater Community. Leading to this gate is Greater Community Spirituality and beyond this gate is Greater Community Spirituality. In order to realize the theology of God in the Greater Community, you must have a greater mind, a greater vocabulary and a greater range of experience. This can be translated to you, and you can translate it to others, but your words cannot capture it. It can only be transmitted from one to another through a mysterious process of Divine transmission. No one can understand it intellectually because its environment is too great and too all encompassing. Those who want ideas alone will have to stay with their local religions, for this is too big. Those who only want to know guidelines for constructive living will find this too great and confusing, too inexplicable and too mysterious. Those who experience God in the Greater Community and those who can transmit God in the Greater Community represent individuals who have transcended the boundaries of their own racial heritage and intellectual capacity. They have become universal in their thinking. They see what others cannot see, and they know what others cannot know. This is their burden and their gift. For them, belief is not an issue because they have gone beyond the need for belief and beyond the limits of belief. Their experience is too remarkable to be translated into any broad spectrum or to any great audience. It must be given one to another. Their church and their temple is the environment in which they receive Divine transmission and communicate it to others. Their students are few. Their journey is long. Their requirements are great. Their application is total and complete." A quote from a free online book by Marshall Vian Summers, titled *Greater Community Spirituality* - Chapter 1: What is God
Gatekeeping 101, also "the mysterious process of Divine transmission" is just as real as Sauron who forged the rings of power to rule Middle-earth... This is medieval level intellect used here. The problem is, we are no longer illiterate farmers who are awed by great stone structures and primitive melodies and dead languages. "Come to the church and we'll brainwash you to give us your crops or you'll go to hell". Hallelujah! Why write a book, when you can't actually explain anything? It's like, "Spirituality for Dummies" and the first chapter goes: "First, you must become one with the universe!..."
@@atzerk3854 I know it is risky to put out a quote like that, taken out of context, but I do it for the sake of inciting curiosity in those who really wish to explore and know things. Do you consider it fair to judge a whole book by just a few paragraphs, which speak of extraordinary things that are not easily discerned even in a close engagement and let along in just skimming the surface or reading a few words. It's not like I'm trying to sell something, I am just trying to share something that is free and that can have a positive influence on some of the people out there. I understand your repulsion by the state of how some religious teachings are presented and misused but perhaps your experience is preventing you from at least trying to be objective with something new. Here is another quote from the same book but a bit more practical and mundane in nature: "In the world, you always build upon what you have learned in the past, adding new things as you go along. As you advance, you become more selective in what you learn because you want to validate what you have learned already. Thus, the intent of education, which is to learn something new, to experience something new and to be able to do something new, becomes lost because increasingly you will attempt to validate the past. Here you will become more fearful and anxious about the future, less willing to see things as they really are and less open to new ideas, new experiences and new capabilities. Here the mind closes down upon itself. It often does this with the belief that it is open and accessible when in fact it has become such a filtering mechanism that very little new information can come to it, either from within or from without."
Look, no offense but that is just a huge pile of nothing. If we boil that down to it's bedrock statements it becomes the same thing guys who take too much DMT will tell you.
@@oneworldonehome I came across quite harsh, I admit. I will definitely judge a book that defines the Greater Community Spirituality as the "mysterious Divine transmission" that leads one to God, and then I'd assume continues to go on exploring other ideas, when it all started with such an argument. You have to give me something to chew on to make me interested, and I will not swallow that, thank you very much. Curiosity is fine, but that does not equal critical thinking. And those willing to accept such presumptions are voluntarily looking for some positive influence wherever they can. I do not believe that it is best to feed those starving for an answer with imaginary breadcrumbs that I might even consider poison. Placebo is not positive influence. Ignorance is only bliss to those who do not question. I do think that the system of education now in place is not sufficient to facilitate individual, critical thinking. We get fed all those breadcrumbs, but they do not become loaves of bread in our stomach (excuse my metaphor). If what we are taught is not given to us in the logical structure that is needed for its understanding, then, yes, our minds may close and not accept anything. But critical thinking (if taught well) will enable you to discern what is logically sound and what is fallacious. Tell me, where is the sound argument in the "mysterious process of Divine transmission"? Also, why do YOU (I presume you agree with what you've read in that book) go back and try to "validate the past" of theist and spiritualist thinking, when it is in our nature to question and try to explain the world and all its phenomena? Science is proof that finding new information IS what we do, and our minds do not close down upon themselves. We proved Newton. We didn't stop. Einstein? Revolutionary! Were we afraid? No, we questioned, tested, then did it again and again and found out more about the world. This is not "becoming fearful and anxious", this is skepticism. We need a reason to accept new ideas. Quantum physics is still so alien to most of us, many find its ideas outlandish, even contradictory. Yet, it does shed light upon questions previously unanswered, and we are not afraid of what answers it may or may not bring. For millennia, humanity has and will come up with answers to the great questions about the world. Science can adapt and change so that it always gives the best it can offer. The best WE can do is to follow our brightest minds. Life is change. Evolution. God remains the same. God is dead. Our minds are open to information. Just make sure it IS information. Merriam-Webster: Definition of information 1a(1): knowledge obtained from investigation, study, or instruction. And just to play the devil's advocate as well: What would you say to those people referring to a "deeply personal connection" or "relationship" with God? Do you dismiss their experience? What about their faith? Are they forever stuck at the "gate of the experience"? On what basis can you determine that what they believe in is false? I'd say you cannot. Are they simply not advanced enough in their beliefs? Like, they would need the mysterious divine transmission? Well, try to prove them that YOUR god is the one true god! And voilá, we're back at square one. The million dollar question, the issue that resulted in thousands of years of religious wars and millions of lives lost. All because of an unfalsifiable, fallacious argument. We've come farther than that.
I don't know if this is Hinduism, Lovecraft or Scientology. It seems to be specifically vague and obscure, and reminds me both of how snake oil salesmen try to sell something that sounds sensible by the use of a lot of grandiose vocabulary and yet little substance. It also reminds me of how cults act towards outsiders when try to to maintain a clean and pristine facade to attract the desperate and the naive. Since this pantheistic monologue is so vague and there is talk of a gate and a greater spiritual community... I am going to go with cosmic horror fiction here.
How about you debate him again with the proposition being, "the existence of god should be accepted as an axiom?" Or, "as axiomatically true?" You might have to work with the language; "the existence of god is axiomatically true," could work. That's the debate he wants to have, I think you should oblige him.
Ben bases his whole idea of a God on the assumption that an infinite regress is not possible or needs to be solved. He inserts a God at the start, that he claims is absent time (evidence needed). He claims this is a solution to the problem of infinite regress because this God has all thoughts and makes all decisions all at once, in the 'present', absent time (evidence needed). This is simply illogical, as for any thought or decision to occur, it at the minimum requires a before and after. His proposed God is defeated by his own model, where our universe and time comes to exist after this God has decided to make it happen, and that this God can interact with us, beings that exist in a time dimension. If he's suggesting that because this God is outside of time, that the idea of it deciding "before" time isn't required, then he's just reopened the infinite regress problem by removing the God from the beginning and inserting it anywhere he pleases. You can't have it both ways. Your God can't be at the beginning of and absent time, to fix the infinite regress problem and the problem of "before time", yet also interact within time at any and all points when it decides to do so. Also, if Ben is one of these Christians that believes that the properties of the universe are properties of God, of if you are a pantheist that believes God IS the universe... Explain how time can be a property of something that is absent time please...
In math an axiom is simply defined to be true, and then you deduce the consequences of your axioms (theorems). Math by itself has nothing to do with "the real world", once you start to apply it to the universe you must show that the math you are using is a good model for the part of the universe you are trying to describe. And if is not it is not the math that is wrong, it is you applying that type of math to that problem that is wrong.
If you say to me: "I'm convinced that I'm recording now.", I wouldn't have been able to hear it unless you (or somebody else) were in fact recording it. That I'm hearing (and seeing) you speak is much more compelling evidence than your statement itself.
@Matt you are right, it was obvious after 3-4 minutes, but when he started to show hes palms and looked like he is very satisfied with himself how inventive and convincing it must be, I think after that was no question that the debate is unsalvagable! To be completelly fair he didnt say god is axiomatically true, he thought hes argument is a proper derivation from some axioms to god. I just don't get why would you get so frustrated?! I like the playful, calm Matt, I dont like the indignated, pricky Matt at all. :D And besides that your frustration gets interpreted as if your opponents argument has merit, so laughing at them is always a better strategy, and its better for your health too! :D
I was talking to someone in the comments of the MDD video who said that they wouldn't call themselves a theist or a Christian if they found out for certain that God and the resurrection were real. They said they'd instead start calling themselves a deist because the Christian god is so evil, regardless of how much evidence there was. All sorts of people seem happy the abandon their supposed values as soon as it gets difficult and get confort from a lie they've concocted. It's sad enough seeing the religious do it. When atheists can't even answer a hypothetical question by saying they'd accept reality but would prefer to lie to themselves, we have a problem.
Identifying as deist in that hypothetical might be pushing it since the person would have solid evidence that a particular god exists, but refusing to identify as christian for the reason given in that example seems to be a reasonable position, as unless the definition of 'christian' is watered down to nothing more than 'acknowledge that the christian god exists' then 'acknowledging that they exist but not wanting anything to do with them due to their evil nature' would not really a christian make.
I think you need to provide more context for this, because what's the problem? A "Christian" is supposed to be the label for one who not only accepts the specific God of the bible and the resurrection, but is subservient to that god's teachings and laws, no? So, it sounds like they tried to take the label "deist" out of acknowledgement of the existence, but a refusal to abide that god's laws. They should've said "theist" though as you also noted, as that would acknowledge the fact that the god in question was an actor in the universe. Deism doesn't recognize an active "god" with doctrine, just an unknowable entity. It doesn't seem like a lie so much as a mistake in understanding definitions. IF the Christian God was in fact real, the ACTUAL creator, and the bible was in fact His word, then he is by objective moral standard an evil agent, regardless of what He Himself claims He is. Why would a god tell those he wants to worship him endlessly that he has and will act monstrous, after all? He has operated in His doctrine by might makes right, with Himself as the most powerful agent. I see no lie in saying they'd believe there was a god, but not worship and follow it on the grounds of the horrors that entity committed when it, in all its power and glory, could've done anything else.
If I not only believed but knew for a fact that Jesus was resurrected by the God of the Bible and could grant me passage to heaven and immortality, then I'd consider myself a Christian. If you believe other things are required to qualify, that's fine. I don't really think it's useful for us to argue about what a true Christian is and that wasn't my point at all However much we'd prefer something not to be true should have no bearing on whether or not we're willing to admit we were wrong and correct ourselves. My hypothetical is just a test to see how intellectually honest someone is.
@@gavinhillick We judge that god by our morality. If the Christian god exists, our moral codes. The God of the bible sanctions slavery, the genocide of peoples He didn't approve of, and casts those He doesn't approve of into eternal torment for finite crimes when they could never be certain of His existence. If that God truly exists, He's a monstrous entity not worthy of human worship. We as humans don't have an absolute standard, but in larger, general society, we've outlawed slavery, we don't allow for our law systems to give eternal torment. We aren't perfect by any means, obviously we still wage war and have many, many issues socially, but we allow for dissent and difference, where that God does not. I agree that it isn't useful to argue definitions or "true Christian", I was trying to explain why I don't think the person was lying. How is it intellectual dishonesty to say you wouldn't call yourself a Christian, a follower of Christ, even if that particular God was proven to exist, on the grounds of His immorality? The Christian God being real, the resurrection being true, has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not you choose to label yourself as a member of that group and dogma. Just as you said if you knew for certain, my point was that if that person knew, they wouldn't consider themselves a Christian because they wouldn't follow the doctrine associated with that belief. That was my understanding of what they meant based on what you said. If I've misunderstood the context of your hypothetical and that person's response, then as before I have to ask for the actual context.
