So even when we have already proved that the Exodus, the flood, the tower of Babel and the flood did not happen the way the Bible describes, y'all still believe the Bible anyway. And nothing could ever change your minds.
Do you guys believe that an educated, articulate, well spoken atheist is being given power by "The enemy" as you said after Matt hung up? If you do then this entire conversation was meaningless. Your chivalrous comments spiraled down to insults within 5 minutes.
G Man Whether something has been proven or not does nothing to detour people of religion. Faith seems to be all they need to wave away whether something is true or not. And not all Christians believe these things happened as actual events either, such as specifically The Flood not being an actual world wide flood that happened, because it's utterly impossible for it to have ever happened.
10 лет назад
G Man you have to forgive Aronra, he claims that he has done every scientific experiment that has ever been done in all of history :)
G Man You'll have to forgive 'Fact'vsEvolution - he believes he knows the 'truth' in that most deluded of ways, so it's difficult to get any sense out of him...
10 лет назад
The Royal Fool - Sigmun Lloyd haha. Did you watch Aronra vs Matt? He actually said that he had done every scientific experiment that they had spoke of himself. I was ROFL :)
Moral absolute would be like attaining yourself to an extreme over a moral situation or social decision, an extreme would be the absolute reason for you to do or not to do something at all... which is pretty partial whenever you require Jesus Teachings to know if what you're doing is negative or positive for anyone at all. Please such comments of absoluteness leave 'em to omnipresence matters...
Ryan G It's extremely frustrating. Slick's pathetic chuckling and childish name-calling in the face of Aron's calm discussion further demonstrates that Slick is incapable of holding an adult conversation with people with whom he disagrees.
The worst thing is that after Matt Dillahunty leaves, matt slick doesn't have the decency to accept the conversation went as it went, and Tim Biblethumpingwingnut doesn't have the decency to end the show and let the bad mouthing of the man carry on in private. Shitty.
Yep, Tim Biblethumpingwingnut and matt slick certainly managed to live down to my expectations. I have to wonder though, why Tim keeps putting Slick through such regular humiliation at the hands of atheists?
Favorite part of the debate is when Slick gets intimidated by Dillahunty's expertise on Christian Theology and tries to flex on him, to which Dillahunty responds: "Im not going to measure biblical penises with you." 😆 😆
Sir Isaac Newton believed that he had been specially chosen by God to have a better understanding of scripture than any other man. And one of those revelations was that Jesus was NOT the same entity as God the father. This is one of many ways in which Christians disagree about God.
ArcanE LogoS (theGhost) Please provide a transcript or recording of any kind where AronRa has claimed in those words "We evolved from monkeys". If you cannot find or provide such, then shut the fuck up about it.
*Matt Slick’s self-contradictions:* The ‘Dillahunty Fallacy’ is a fallacy (9:57) The ‘Dillahunty Fallacy’ is not a fallacy (20:19) There is only one atheistic worldview (51:59) There are multiple atheistic worldviews (33:26) The transcendental can’t be verified (59:20) The transcendental can be verified (1:06:50) Only direct revelation can confirm divinity (1:07:29) Divine beings can be justified without direct revelation (1:21:45) Christians don’t disagree about God (1:25:50) Christians do disagree about God (1:27:20) Resurrection is proof of Jesus/God (1:42:05) Resurrection isn’t proof of Jesus/God (1:43:48) Claims that no other worldview can account for the logical absolutes: (34:00, 39:50, 44:07, 44:57, 1:17:59, 1:18:41, 1:21:20, 1:31:11) Failures to demonstrate this (35:15, 45:05, 1:18:31)
The Inquisitor That would be an interesting video, but considering the snail's pace at which I produce content and my current backlog, I don't think I can find the time. That said, I've posted Matt's blatant contradictions for everyone to click through and hear, so perhaps some other brave soul will take on the challenge!
***** well Matt Slicks an idiot, he's a Christian apologist who takes pride in being succinct and accurate, but should know that what he was saying is recorded and can be referred back to refute him and (not just be simply quote mined) He may not care about being caught out for dishonesty, but it would leave an impression to his followers and his CARM organization.
When I talked to Slick, I pointed out how we know that all the major fables in the Bible are false. He couldn't address that, and had to change the subject to transcendence. Yet he is still referring to those fables as if they were "the word of God". If a god exists, it cannot be the Bible god. That one has been disproved.
AronRa It seems that no one can get Slick to answer questions, one wonders why they even call the show "Matt Slick answers questions" perhaps Matt should be a pro dodge ball player.
There are gods that existed before the bible and especially for those that were polytheistic. Though many monotheists of the Abrahamic belief systems in variation are not willing to see the past honestly but more for their own agendas and political views it seems. At least some can effort to be bravely honest.
"we know that all the major fables in the Bible are false". wow...this is hysterical. HOW do you know they are false? i am super interested. such a huge claim that not even an expert like Ehrman can defend, but ok, i will listen to anyone who want to explain. :D
If this is a good representation of Christian supernatural religionist myth-believers, then THANK YOU Biblethumpingwingnut, you and Matt Slick could not have possibly presented a better case for atheism.
Wordsmiths the pair of them Mat Smith would be very good salesman with all his diversionary talk his summing up shows how unable he was to divert Mat D, or crudely Mat S is using the bullshit baffles brains technique, unsuccessfully in this case.
@@Loislikesmore shifting the blame changing the subject dishonest behavior from a Christian. If your myth cult was true it wouldn’t need to lie so much to maintain its social dominance over low IQ minds.
@@el29 why don’t you tell us about them? I’ve seen him flip out and be a rude interlocutor on phone calls, but name something during this discussion… also I have studied a bit of philosophy but I actually hate it because it doesn’t focus on reality.
Once they start talking about the parting of the Red Sea you can tell that Slick has no more word games to play. "How do you know?", lol. And then afterwards he complains that Dillahunty required proof for everything, when he was explained several times why the burden of proof was on him and what Dillahunty's position was. I can't believe Slick accuses Dillahunty of being slippery when he was open and honest about everything. Sorry, guys, but Dillahunty definitley won this one.
@@edshaba4893 he did, his position was 'I'm not convinced that there is a god until proven otherwise' And based on this video and Slick's masterful performance of ignorance, that remains unchanged.
@@infernalsymphonytv2928 except the problem is the acceptance of something as "proof" is subjective. I can choose to accept proof or deny it. Dilahunty denies it based on his subjective perceptions and he knows it. Dilahunty agreed with slick when slick said that the error is that Atheists subject God to their own reasoning. A limited mind cannot fully encompass an unlimited being
@@ToadrixAce our Lord says never argue with a fool lest you become like him... the fool says No God for me.. Reverence for the Lord is the the beginning of all wisdom... Jesus the Christ has all power and authority through his death and Resurrection on the cross. The battles already won... Aloha ke akua
Ken Cress blah blah blah blah, all I read was bullshit, written by sheep shagging desert dwellers... give me the evidence, give the FACT, the adjectively verifiable data that a god, not the other 400 plus gods that supposedly exist but the Christian god exist...
I realize this is old, but I have a couple of comments. 1) The bad mouthing (after the opponent has left) at the end is extremely bad debate etiquette. The host would have had to summarize, thank the participants and end the show right then and there. 2) In Matt Slick's final rant, it appears to me that he just cannot wrap his head around the position "I don't know". Which is a perfectly valid position, and arguably the most rational one. Can he, or will he not conceive of the possibility that there might, in fact, *be* no answers? Or that there could be, but we might never be able to find them? Anyway, not being able to grasp Matt Dillahunty's position, he tries to discredit the position, saying D. doesn't have a position. Wow. 3) Like it or not, believers *do* have the burden of proof. Period. Kudos for Mr Dillahunty for great debating.
>3) Like it or not, believers do have the burden of proof. Period. Not always, there's a variety of debate topics and positions where both sides could share the burden of proof or even the atheist side could have the burden of proof. The problem here is that they're discussing Slicks' argument in particular. The topic is essentially "Is Matt Slick's formulation of TAG sufficient proof for god?" Slick has the defensive position and there's no way to turn that topic into an attacking position. Even the original call-in conversation was a critical examination of Slick's argument. "Is Matt Slick's formulation of TAG sound?"
@@josephlawson2768 Thank you for your comment. Allow me to clarify what I meant: *Believers do have the burden of proof if they claim what they believe is true, e.g. that (a particular) God exists. Wasn't that kind of clear from the context? In other discussions, yes, atheists could have a burden of proof. It's an epistemological principle that anyone who makes a claim has the burden of proof with regard to that claim.
Matt Slick has difficulty with the most basic concepts. Show me a colored ball - it's kind of reddish. Ask me: Is it blue or yellow? I say: neither. You say: then which is it? I say: I don't know the name of this color but it's definitely not yellow or blue. Where is the fallacy?
Ofir Gal This has to be one of the best illustrations to the *SLICK Fallacy*. IE, the *PROJECTION* of his misunderstanding, and or dodging of the issues at hand.
An even better example would be "what is the square root of 6 to the power of 500 plus 13, it's either 6 or 2." You don't have to know the actual answer to know that it's neither 6 or 2.
Ofir Gal I am just 18 min in and the amount of dancing "not-so" Slick has done so far just about calling it a fallacy to not accept a fallacy is just ridiculous. Why would anyone take him seriously after he has tried so hard to prove he can not be taken seriously, the one thing he has done somewhat successfully.
D: There might be some other candidate explanations. S: What are they? D: I don't know. S: Well let's come up with some. D: Cool. That's the way I wish it went.
Words are metaphors, symbols, each Letter each Font. Each Language, Each tone, each accent... sound. That's the reason why, truth remains as a Metaphor and we cannot explain it with mere words for we continue under metaphor expressions... we can only explain objective truths with higher Art, like Music which explains the Will or "Voluntad" and Poems which structure can lead you to a better understanding over an Objective point of view. They are kept as the Higher Arts Music/Poetry and the Visual arts are usually for immortal consideration which even using our eyes do not make us perceive an objective form of truth like Music or Poetry. God is just a name, symbol, metaphor and represents an objective truth over a common "whole" ... you cannot divide God but have different stances of him attributed to different suns/stars/symbols/people/love.
Benur Radio How do you explain atomic theory with music or poetry? I don't get it. *God is a placeholder for ignorance.* We used to think everything was caused by god(s). Lightning, rain, illness. Now we have to hide our gods behind the physics and chemistry we've learned. *God is the bookmark we use to know what needs further investigation.*
Matt D LOOKED VERY STUPID!! I been studying to be a pastor, but don’t know the basics of Christian belief.... Matt d is very carful not to put himself in any position..
@Wall Street Hamster You do have to prove that your God exists if you want to posit that he was the "first cause" of the universe. You are guilty of making an argument from ignorance if you're just going to throw up your hands and say "I don't know how else it could have happened, therefore God is an explanation."
@Wall Street Hamster I'm not saying it wasn't God or that it was. What's wrong with saying we don't know until we can definetly prove one explanation over another? The burden of proof lies on whoever wants to posit an explanation. I haven't asserted a claim that God didn't do anything, I just haven't seen evidence to suggest that it was God.
Having seen most of Dillahuntys debates , I'm always so impressed how the subject of the debate almost becomes secondary to his educating his interlocutor on sound epistemology.
His sound epistemology he constantly reframed the conversation just so he doesn’t ever have to defend it, his epistemology is bankrupt I don’t know what you’re talking about, he has said it himself he can’t do anything with absolute certainty, The logical conclusion of his epistemology is complete skepticism, or solipsism.
@@pleaseenteraname1103 hmmm.....I saw the conversation differently. Matt D can be abrasive or somewhat uncharitable at times but here it seemed like he was actually trying to engage with Matt S. Honestly I'm not sure that Matt S liked where the conversation was going, he got very uncomfortable at 1:03:57 and his whole tone/approach changed. In any case, it's good that you're watching these videos, when I was a Protestant you couldn't have paid me to engage with apologetics! Follow up question, did you think Matt D made any good points anywhere in the conversation?
@@pleaseenteraname1103you can't do anything with absolute certainty either and neither can Slick. You just say you can without actually.demonstrating it.
Well, Slick is now obsolete. Sye, Slick, Who's next? Let us stop playing this game with humanity!! This group still hasn't gotten past being okay with "not knowing" things. Elementary. God did it??? Really? This game of intellectual dishonesty is now a waste of humanities time.
how would they deal with someone instead of saying "i dont know" but instead "magic space pixies". Could they prove this isnt the case ? would they ask for evidence of magic space pixies ? Im not sure how they could argue against it without contradicting their own defense for their god claim.
youweechube They likely wouldn't understand the argument. Every time this comes up in a debate, the theists just dismiss that as "obviously silly" without putting any more thought into it. The problem is not that the right arguments are not being made against theists, it's the delusions that prevent them from understanding and accepting them.
Yes, I understand the argument, but they will not accept that magical space pixies is conceptually the same as a god. The problem is not the argument itself, but their special pleading which they won't recognize as such
Dillahunty doesn't even have a position to defend. His attitude is for people to convince him since he supposedly doesn't believe nor disbelieve in God. It's pretty funny because if his position is inherently unbiased toward the belief of God, then you wouldn't expect for him to so adamantly refute any attempt by anybody else to attempt to reason why God can be real. Matt has certainty that God is not real, which he loves to hide using semantic games like "I don't believe nor disbelieve".. well if you're indifferent why so many stubborn and passionate refutations when evidence for God is attempted to be provided? He's a clown
@@julianmanjarres1998 you cannot defend Matt slick here. He gets absolutely demolished and attempts to swerve and jostle his position. Which holds absolutely no water it’s a pathetic excuse of an argument! Prove x? Well you can’t prove it’s not x
Slick do you believe blank. Dillahunty I don’t know and you also don’t know. Slick how do you know I don’t know. Dillahunty I don’t know that you don’t know.
@@julianmanjarres1998 what he does is move the goal post and constantly reframe the conversation that way he doesn’t ever have to back up any of his claims, or justify his epistemology he can just keep shifting it back on to you even though you’ve already presented your case. And then then people will praise him as if he’s some kind of genius or intellectual it’s sad really.
@@tablefor2643 except Dillahunty didn’t do that at all he didn’t even attempt to address his actual positions just constantly reframe the conversation.
Shawn My position is that morality is based on cause and effect and empathy. As far as how I solve your list of problems, I don't believe I'm under any obligation to do so.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 I know this is a six year old, and it’s been a long time since I’ve seen this debate, but literally that’s all Dillahunty did the entire time he just criticizes and never takes an actual position and constantly reframe the conversation, just so he doesn’t ever have to back up any of his claims that’s why they call him the Dillahunty dodge.
@@pleaseenteraname1103 being a atheist is only a position that you don't believe in a god or gods. How much more of a position could you have than what Matt did here?
@@fopish in a textbook sense, he’s not just an atheist he’s a secular humanist and a philosophical naturalist, just like slick is a theist but it’s also a Christian. He deliberately didn’t take a position, it’s just a lazy strategy but it’s I gotta admit kind of affective, this debate was wearing the term Dillahunty dodge was born, The Dillahunty dodge is when you’re given a dilemma, i’ve only two options instead of picking one of those two options, you suggested that there is a third option yet the supposed third option is never demonstrated in anyway, and you acknowledge that you don’t even know what the third option is, really made him look like a Weasley coward. He’s debating on the existence of God so he needs to actually give a counterpoint to slicks arguments instead of just presupposing logic and standards of evidence yet never justifying them, he can defend his philosophical presuppositions because he does have them, again this is the exact mindset and problem with a lot of new atheists, that they just simply hold to a lack of belief and nothing else and have absolutely no burden of proof whatsoever.
@@pleaseenteraname1103 Slick didn't justify anything. "God did it" isn't a justification. Atheism isn't god doesn't exist, even if you want to pretend that it is. Define your god and we can see if it exists or not, but until there's a clear definition we can only say I don't believe in any gods.
@@fopish Oh well that’s how it’s been traditionally defined, and that’s how Graham Oppy defined it if you wanted to find it that way I don’t really have a problem. But to say that’s his only presupposition is nonsense. That’s exactly what slick I did and that’s what this discussion was about yet Dillahunty didn’t give a counter to it, am I saying that Silck positions true no, what I’m saying is Dillahunty failed because he didn’t fulfill his duty. What do you mean there is a clear definition, slick is a Christian so he goes by how the Bible defines God that’s a clear definition.
So, after watching the whole thing, it is absolutely clear that Slick makes grandiose claims and shifts the burden of proof to everyone but himself and clearly doesn't see (Or doesn't choose to see) that he may have a world view that explains everything but he has no proof and says he requires no proof. He also consistently mischaracterizes atheist stances on topics. In other words, Slick completely loses the debate by that alone.
John Westcott Wel slick loses by the fact that he strawmans constantly. He's not addressing what the other person says, but what he wants to argue against.
John Westcott You can see he's giving more respect to Dillahunty than to AronRa. Maybe because he already experienced Dillahunty's logic bombs before, since they already debated before this on. So maybe at the back of his mind, he thought he can't possibly win against Dillahunty. =D
***** Well he did say that God knows what evidence that would convince him. If God did everything and Matt still isn't convince, then I believe God did a poor job of convincing him. Personally, when I encounter this question: "What evidence would convince you". It would be that a lot of people, including my friends that I trust and Biologists/Physicists/Scientists, will witness the said evidence with videocams recording. So that I will know that I'm not hallucinating or whatever. I'd probably ask first if he's really the man named Jesus in the Bible and if he is, he has to demonstrate all the miracles found in the Bible, maybe not the Resurrection part. Explain the origin of life and the origin of cosmos. I believe that would definitely convince me.
***** That's his view. The beauty of Atheism is that we don't have a worldview. We each have our own beliefs and that's what separates us from Religion, that's what makes Atheism not a Religion. In Matt's case, he did say God knows what will convince him. That I think is very reasonable. If God is indeed omniscient and all-knowing, convincing Matt wouldn't be a problem. After all, God has the power to soften or harden man's heart.
Oh really except Dillahunty constantly tries to refine the conversation just so he doesn’t have to justify his own claims or assertions,And he’s only arguments are pretty much I don’t know and I’m not convinced it’s the Dillahunty Dodge in action, and this is just a prime example of that.
@@pleaseenteraname1103 As always, it's up to the person making a claim to provide the evidence supporting it. If they don't meet their burden of proof, the only honest position to take is I don't know and I don't believe you yet. Theists claiming that god exists adopt the burden of proof. Matt doesn't need to provide proof of his non-belief. That's just not the way it works. If it did, you would have to prove why you don't believe every single thing I make up on the spot until the end of time. Instead, it would be up to me to prove why what I claim is true.
@@Algrimor yes but Dillahunty also makes claims,And this is a debate, this is not how a debate works a debate is not just positive side provides their positive case, and the negative side just sits back and does nothing, and asks questions constantly, that’s what the audience does not the person who is part of the debate. And this is a mindset Dillahunty has he believes his position isn’t really a position it’s nothing merely than a lack of belief, that carries no burden of proof and requires no justification whatsoever, which is just total nonsense because he has claims about the universe he has claims about epistemology, Science, and philosophy which he does need to justify and support, he thinks he can just criticize and doesn’t ever have to take a position, he constantly reframes a conversation he does it several times in this debate just so he doesn’t ever have to back up his own epistemology or give a justification in anyway. It’s not an honest position when you’re saying that just to get out of ever having to give a justification for your position,the honest thing to do if you don’t know some thing would be to look into it which he never does, OK never is a strong word but most of the time doesn’t. It’s not the only honest take, he could actually answer the questions and said completely dodging them all together, that would be better than just saying I don’t know constantly. Yes but Matt also does because he’s in the debate, and he also has a burden of proof to justify his own presuppositions about reality and his epistemology. It’s not merely just a non-belief he has presuppositions about reality and he has an epistemology, and also it’s a debate if you were going to provide a negative case against something you need to actually give an argument and take a position, instead of just totally dodging it all together and reframing the conversation 1000 times over. The negative side in the debate has to give arguments that’s how it works I don’t think you know how debates function. No you wouldn’t because they’re talking about specific thing, and if the debate was does Easter bunny exist or is there evidence for the Easter bunny, and I agreed to that debate yes I would have to provide my case my negative case against Easter bunny, Dillahunty’s only arguments seem to be I don’t know and I’m not convinced. And it’s not just his claims against God‘s existence it’s his claims about his own epistemology and his own world view, he’s not just an atheist he’s a naturalistic humanist, and he’s not just a naturalist he’s a philosophical naturalist or at least he wasn’t this debate.
@@Algrimor The Dillahunty Dodge goes something like this, I don’t believe your arguments are valid or convincing, why? Well I’m not convinced by them and I don’t know and you also don’t know, how do you know I don’t, I don’t know. Literally what Dillahunty does he did in this debate and he did it in his debate with inspiring philosophy, David Wood, Trent horn, Mike Winger, Tyler Vale, and Jordan Peterson every single debate I’ve ever seen.
@@pleaseenteraname1103 no his "fallacy" is only pointing out that there given the false dichotomy Matt presented to him, there are not only 2 options which slick also agrees with, dillahunty just doesn't have a label which is completely irrelevant because they already described the characteristics of that third category as being not physical and not conceptual.
slick is clearly not used to debating people as smart as Dillahunty. When Slick gets in trouble, he throws out a bunch of rapid fire word tangles, kind of like a squid shooting ink. He's screwed because Dillahunty can actually listen to, try to makes sense of, and then lampoon these lame dodges.
I love how by the end of it, Matt Slick is basically mad at Dillahunty for not marrying himself to equally unjustified beliefs, such as he holds. It's like: 'How DARE Matt Dillahunty not claim a position on what exists outside the universe!? How am I supposed to intellectually bully a person into sharing my beliefs who admits to not knowing the origin of the universe?!'
Oh but Dillahunty won even though he didn’t even attempt to give a counter against it the only response out of him is I don’t know or I’m not convinced, if you don’t take a position you automatically lose the debate.
I like how Matt Slick says, "You should know that if you studied philosophy" after Matt Dillahunty demonstrated to understand it multiple times and Slick demonstrated that he doesn't understand logic at all.
Matt slick derides Matt Dillahunty the whole discussion by accusing him of relying too much on his "subjectivity" while at the same time admitting his belief is influenced greatly by his "subjective" personal experience that he claims to have had with Jesus. He talks out of both sides of his mouth. It's dishonest af.
Matt Slicks position is the ultimate subjective position. “God is true because he revealed himself to me personally in a way that only I can understand” We cannot build a functioning society on this level of arbitrary solipsism.
***** No it isn't a claim. If you claim there is one you have the burden of proof if you want to change our mind on the matter. I do not claim they are unsupported, I believe they are. Is it making a claim if you believe the tooth fairy or leprechauns are unsupported?
***** What you fail to grasp in the 'no black swan fallacy' is that there is no reason to believe there are black swans until there is evidence. Dillahunty is simply refuting Slick's arguments. He doesn't need to provide counter evidence he just needs to show Slick's position is untenable. You don't need to know the correct answer to spot a wrong answer.
The Dillahunty "Fallacy" - "if you don't know what something is, you can't say what it isn't." If you take a spectrophotometer to a school playground and ask the kids "is this a tennis racket?", Matt Slick doesn't think they're allowed to say "no".
But you've already helped Dillahunty by having the object itself. Strawman. The analogy is busted because If you take an object to a school playground you're providing something. In this case Dillahunty has nothing. No object no concept no reference at all. Empty handed with no idea what he needs. You've actually named the object which is even worse. You've taken it much further
@@theonebegotten Slick's "you're not allowed to say what something isn't unless you know what it is" is asinine. That was my point. Do you dispute this?
@Jr Juarez Slicks holds up an oscilloscope in front of a kindergartner. "Is this a tennis racket?" "No". "What is it, then?" "I don't know, but I know it's not a tennis racket." "But you can't tell me what it IS." "So? I can know it's NOT a tennis racket, can't I?" Matt Slick - less informed about logic than a kindergartner.
It's such a joy listening to these two interact. Matt Slick likes to play word games with people to confuse them and trick them into little logical traps that he has constructed beforehand, which is how he "wins" most of his debates. Dillahunty doesn't play along with this, and it drives Slick absolutely insane.
What you consider to be "little logical traps" and "playing word games" is actually just logically valid & sound argumentation called presuppositionalism which proves God with 100% certainty. It uses a reductio ad absurdum proof on all non-Christian worldviews to prove the Christian worldview is necessarily true. Essentially, the idea is that only the Christian God has the necessary attributes to solve Münchhausen's Trilemma to make knowledge & rational thought possible
@@lightbeforethetunnel The logical courses of human thought are proven wrong over and over, in the face of real world experimentation. Even if you had perfect logical proof (you don't) it wouldn't matter without a way to confirm the conclusion outside of concept. For example, to say that if i set two identical watches to the same time and begin to move them apart, I can know the time on one, by reading the other. Identical watches tick at the same speed, the watches are identical, therefore they will tick at the same speed. It's perfectly logical, perfectly reasonable, perfectly compatible with mathematical systems and... it's wrong. It doesn't account for relativistic physics. Your logic doesn't matter until its validated in the real world.
@@valroniclehre193 Well that tells me that I think you'd benefit a lot from researching the the difference between science and scientism. Because you're appealing to "real world experimentation" (science) as your response to a philosophical issue, which is a fallacy of scientism. Denying God exists because of scientific experimentation is comparable to denying the laws of logic exist because you can't detect them with a metal detector. It's just the wrong tool. Technically, Scientism is a category error fallacy. You're not recognizing we are discussing a topic beyond the limit of the scientific method. The issue is: All observations are theory-laden, which means all observations for any science could be interpreted differently depending on the worldview of the person interpreting it. Philosophical problems are solves completely differently than scientific problems, but many Atheists seem to falsely think that science is the only way to know truth. This means you have a self-refuting epistemology known as Scientism. Here's why it's self-refuting: The claim "Truth can ONLY be known if it's scientifically verified" cannot be scientifically verified ITSELF. So, Scientism does not meet it's own requirements of acceptability and it refutes itself. All self-refuting claims are false by necessity. In other words, "real world experimentation" will never be able to answer the question of which worldview is true. That's a philosophical debate beyond the limitations of science can deal with. Philosophical debates (particularly worldview / paradigm debates) are settled a completely different way than how scientific debates are solved. This is the primary issue holding most Atheists back. Scientism causes a combination of intellectual errors, such as: 1. The false idea science has no limits & will eventually tell us everything about reality, which is impossible since science definitely does have limits which are taught in science class 2. The false idea that scientific results are absolute (they're always provisional. Absolute truth only exists in logic and mathematics, never science) 3. The false idea that philosophy is "just opinions." The use of logical evidence and systemic evidence can be used to determine some knowledge with 100% certainty in philosophy, which is more certainty than we can possibly know anything in science given that science is always provisional. This means you're dismissing absolute truths as "just opinions" 4. Scientism leads people to think "science" means blind faith in current consensus of mainstream academia like a religious text, without the need / ability to independently verify. Such people typically don't understand why they believe the current consensus, or even if there actually IS actual scientific evidence to believe it over competing options (Evolution over Creation, for example). They simply believe whatever mains academia says, and dogmatically defend it with more zealotry than the most severe fundamentalist 5. They don't understand all observations are theory-laden, meaning you can have a set of observations which can be interpreted completely differently according to two different worldviews. But since Atheists are falsely assuming the system of presuppositions of their worldview are "the default" ... and since the mainstream scientific community shares this false notion, this makes all of you conflate your beliefs with facts to the point where you unwittingly force them on everyone else, when you expect everyone else to share the sake "default" system of presuppositions you believe. If you had to give a single rational reason for why you believe your worldview over mine, you wouldn't be able to. Because you have no rational reason, let alone proof or justification. Even you don't know why you believe your worldview over any other. Christians do have justification for why they believe their worldview. It's the only worldview that does. They justify the necessary existence of the Christian God as the fundamental metaphysic with transcendental reasoning along with a reductio ad absurdum proof on all non-Christian worldviews.
@@valroniclehre193 Also, you said you think the reductio ad absurdum proof isn't a perfect logical proof. What's not perfect about it? Reductio ad absurdum proof is how your worldview establishes fundamental laws of logic, such as the law of noncontradiction. You seem to think it's perfect then.
@@lightbeforethetunnel You watch too much matt slick. There's no series of logical fluff words thats gonna get you to a conclusion about reality. You are making a claim about the existence of something. Show the evidence of that thing existing or your claim is unworthy of serious consideration. Simple as that. No I'm not misunderstanding syllogistic reasoning. Yes I grasp that you think its a category fallacy. It's not. You want it to be, because it means you can assert whatever you want without evidence. No amount of internal reasoning will get you there. You must confirm your conclusions beyond internal reasoning or else its just your internal reasoning. See how that works? You need to bounce it off the reality your are making claims about, and if you can't then your position remains unjustified.
Matt D pointed out every fallacy Slick did and Slick had no idea what to do with it. It was funny watching the three of them sit around at the end and try to make each other feel better about that obvious schooling. From the very first topic to the last Matt D kept hammering. Great stuff.
There is a fantastic little section in the middle, where Matt Slick commits 4 logical fallacies in 75 seconds - and Dillahunty calls him on it every time :-) Absolute meltdown, Slick was floundering in his own ignorance.
@@garystevens5015 by the end of that fallacious parade I was laughing out loud shaking my head. I couldn’t believe how simplistically he spoke each fallacy. Usually apologists try much harder to obfuscate their fallacies with more complex language and fancier vocabulary. I’m surprised he didn’t end his rant with “btw look at the trees dumb dumb!”.
All of Matt Slick's statements were prepared ahead of time. Notice that Matt keeps looking our right. That is where is computer monitor is sitting. He is using a cheat sheet.
Exactly, made it all the way to the end just to find out that even the moderators themselves don't understand burden of proof. What a bunch of disingenuous schlubs.
Their little after show was disgusting. Way to knock Matt after the argument. They are scared to debate with him in person, other than Matt Slick, who got destroyed in this debate.
Yeah it's astonishing they can be so shameless as to speak condescendingly about Matt D. after he leaves. No different than anyone else using post hawk rationalization to delude to themselves in too believing they won the debate. Very cringe.
If A asserts that something is true and B states that he is not convinced, A has the burden of proof and B does not. Apparently the hardest concept ever.
Disagree. Both parties should offer alternarive explanations for what they disagree with and dillahunty can't bc all he says is IDK. Like okay , you don't know but you seem to know it's not God given your passionate refutations toward anyone trying to provide reasons why God is plausible.
@@julianmanjarres1998 No, the burden of proof is on anyone who both takes/holds a position, *and* wants to convince someone else of that position. Not being convinced by someone else's (lack of?) evidence is fine, even if you don't have a better explanation yourself. Epistemologically speaking, no explanation is a better position to have than an explanation based on bad arguments. Think of it like this: say the person who holds the position and wants to convince someone is a salesman, the other person is perfectly justified not buying if the sales pitch is unconvincing, even if he doesn't go out and finds a competing salesman with a better pitch (/edit: or doesn't come up with one himself).
I especially like how the minute Matt D leaves the room, they all start discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. That's what I call quality.
It’s honestly embarrassing to watch Slick flounder around and refuse to change his position after his fallacies are made crystal clear multiple times. It seems to be either incredible dishonesty or deep rooted defense mechanisms. I’ll admit that’s not a true dichotomy. 🙂
@@latenitehvac868 Because there's a cultural precedent for doing so. I have also proclaimed "holy RA!" and "By the nine!" believing in neither one. Why would you think that using a word denotes belief in what that word refers to?
@@valroniclehre193 ah so the culture that has brought forth the most human prosperity in history you guys have decided, it can’t be true, it’s has no bearing on today, somehow the people of today know more about human behavior then the last 4000 years of human history?
The biggest issue Matt S has with Matt D is that Matt D openly accepts that there may be things he doesn't know. Matt S just can't handle that and calls it dodging. I call it being honest.
Matt Dillahunty knows exactly what he is talking about ! , shame other people can't or won't admit that they believe total bullshit for no apparent reason , and expect every body else to do the same , why would any body want a god to exist in the first place ?.
BIBLETHUMPINGWINGNUT.COM Honestly, how many more times do you need this beaten into your head? There are two different uses of the word "know" being used: 1. A belief of high confidence. 2. An awareness of something that is absolutely true. Firstly, the problem of induction doesn't even apply to the first definition, since it is a based on a sliding scale of confidence and probabilities, and not the binaries of some incoherent "absolute" reality. In this sense, it is plainly evident that people do "know" some things, regardless of the fact that they also do not "know" others. Secondly, there is the question of whether or not the second definition is even coherent given the philosophical problem of induction, but it is indisputably clear that people like you, Slick, and Sye already understand this since your entire line of apologetics is effectively nothing but the assertion of this very premise. And yet, when someone else recognizes this same observation, as Dillahunty did, you simply conflate it with the first definition in order to substantiate your unmerited incredulity. You are making a false equivocation in order to create a straw man of what Dillahunty meant. And that is where your argument ends. You're just claiming that not being omniscient is absurd. Not God? Absurd. It is a completely vapid conclusion that does nothing to dissuade anyone from the fact that we're still not omniscient, nor does it solve the problem of induction, no matter how much you try to work around your own premises. All it does is make you look ridiculously arrogant and incapable of the humility necessary to admit that you're ultimately as fallible as those you criticize.
Bleuski Nobody as yet has answered the question of why any body would want to have , or invent a god ! , beats me why you would ever need one , if you are so sad that you just want to worship something , or person , and admit to being unworthy or no use then you could join a club ! , get instant gratification now , why wait until you die ? , how do you know that when you die that you will still feel the same way about yourself , after all a lifetime of worship , praying and telling yourself what a little shit you are might be more than enough !
***** Don't understand what this coded message actually means ? , nobody has yet answered my question , why would any body invent , need or even want the god ? , if you want to be dominated , humiliated , dehumanized and basically made to feel like crap , why not just find a master or mistress or sometimes even a spouse that you could tithe too , problem solved they could help you out , and fulfill your masochistic needs , it would be a win win situation ! .
BIBLETHUMPINGWINGNUT.COM I don't think this is a fair characterization. I've listened to him speak a lot, and I think he'd be more likely to say that we can't know anything to be true with absolute, 100% certainty. In the day-to-day sense of how we use the word, "know", he wouldn't "claim to know nothing". He (very reasonably, I think) claims to only know things which can be known. I find it to be a reasonable position to withhold judgement on positions which cannot be determined to be true or false.
Matt Slick is like a drunk. He doesn't have the intelligence to retain in his memory a complex argument. Over and over again he loses sight of the pertinent details and go off on some tangent.
Wrong! Laws of logic ARE contingent upon physical reality, because they are merely *descriptions* of how the physical reality behaves. As always, Slick is trying to anthropomorphise them as actual things, as entities, while, in fact, they are just a label we slap on top of our understanding of the way Universe functions... like mathematics.
95TurboSol he is pretty good but he needs to debate Ravi zachrias.ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-5bjhfKmRCZw.html Dawkins owned by Ravi ZachariasThe godless church and the atheists taking the US…: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-O1t-WEk0DOk.html
Wow. That was absolutely brilliant. He turned that question around on him perfectly. Why can't Matt Slick understand when he's shown to be wrong like B.T.W. did?
The saddest part of this, even after all these years, is listening to Slick and moderator, the two losers, lick their wounds after Matt D's drubbing, trying desperately between them to pretend they weren't just spanked. It's pathetic.
How can Matt Slick be so well versed in philosophical logic but not understand the FACT that one who asserts, assumes the burden of proof??? Also, how does he not understand that Atheism does not make a positive claim??????? I really don't understand how you can be so intelligent in a specific area but then be unable to understand an elementary concept within that area... Innocent vs. Not guilty vs Guilty.... Matt Slick, how is this concept so hard for you to understand???
If there is a dead body and you analyze whether or not the Butler did it, there is a true dichotomy in answering if the Butler did it or didn't do it. But when you investigate it, your answer could be 1.) Yes, he did it. 2.) I don't know if he did it. Or, 3.) No, he didn't do it. The last two answers don't tell you who did it. If I tell you the Butler could not have done it because he has an alliby, that doesn't tell me who did it. If I don't have enough evidence to tell me if he did it or not, that still doesn't tell me who did it.
Slick admits the only reason he feels justified in believing a god is the basis for intelligibility is not the ontological argument but a subjective experience he had when he was a teenager. At this point Matt Slick has completely lost this argument. Not-So-Slick.
Yeah and dillahunty is saying he doesn't know if God is real, yet his attitude and passionate disagreements with God believers sort of tell you what is really going on, he passionately disbelieves in God.
God apparently decided to get involved with Mr Slick here but ignored 6 million Jewish men, women and little kids...who probably prayed their hearts out.
Dullahunty points out a fallacy, Slick completely ignores that and won't acknowledge the point that was made, and goes on to repeat the fallacy. Slick is embarrassing himself over and over.
Amazed that BTWN would even post this debate when Matt Slick clearly got his ass beatdowned. The smartest thing Slick said was after Dillahunty left, which was that he thought at times Dillahunty acted as it he weren't even defending a worldview? Wow, took him all that time to discover that atheism isn't a worldview. What a tool. Lmao.
Matt Dillahunty does have a worldview everybody has a worldview, and I don’t want auntie is defending his specific world if he’s not simply just defending just a lack of belief that is dishonest.
Well slick got his ass handed to him *AGAIN*. The last ten minutes with the parting of the red sea shows how slick will just pick and choose his reality, and how incoherent his "worldview" is. Towards the end I think Dillahunty figured out that he's not dealing with an adult, but literally a -->SNOTTY CHILD
Yeah, can we please make the distinction between the Map and the Terrain clear, explicit, and make it out of bounds for equivocation, please. I dunno bout you O Philosopher, but it really gripes my irrits when these pseudo-philosophical Christian numpties try and plant their flag in Aristotle and claim it for their own, whilst simultaneously demonstrating their own failures of logic and imagination in the process.
Mat Hunt that a tree is a tree is a material fact, yes? A=A is our conceptualisation of that fact One is the Terrain, the other the Map. The terrain is material, the map is conceptual. Make sense now?
First time I've heard a discussion with Matt Slick and I hope I never hear his voice again. He gives the impression he doesn't want to be understood. His smug demeanor screams 'I'm a soaring intellectual and you're an anchor who just can't keep up with me '. Notice his ' I enjoyed reading a thorium fuel book in school' comment. It was a completely incidental comment to bolster his 'genius' view of himself' He doesn't clearly explain anything, he just obfuscates and then attempts to claim victory, pretending he's presented a knock down argument. Dillahunty did not 'paint himself into a corner', Slick just repeatedly attempted to put words in his mouth. Just one more theist who won't admit he's presupposed the existence of an unnecessary god 'blanky' that he's damned if he's letting go of.
+Shawn Can you site some evidence so I can understand your claim? Unless he edited his posts I'm sure there's all the evidence you need in this thread.
+Shawn You're trying to discredit me but the things I described are in the video for all to see. This is why people are defending my post. They can relate what I said back to the video and they agree. I can't be bothered to go back through the video and mark my original comment with time stamps but I could. As for your first post, whether I like him or not is irrelevant, if his points are valid I will accept them, it's not he owns them. He really is unbearably smug.
This is going to hurt me a bit but I have to say a BIG THANK YOU to the BTWN for submitting this video where Matt Dillahunty AGAIN kicks Slick's ass. This is what happens when you put an extremely knowledgeable person like Matt Dillahunty against that idiot Slick.
The amount of times that the argument from ignorance fallacy was employed by Slick indicates that his whole argument rests on it. He claims that if Dillahunty can't give him other options then one of his options must be correct. His whole point revolves around that fallacy. Dillahunty did well in pointing out his logical errors. It was also nice to see Dillahunty call out Slick for the bad behavior of naming a false fallacy after Dillahunty. He couldn't run from that behavior quick enough.
ok the gloating at the end is just too much. they've just been massively owned, and are merely complaining that dillahunty has all the integrity they lack, and yet they don't even realize it and concoct "the enemy, blah blah blah" stories. it's insane. these people are insane.
Let me save everyone 2 hours here. 15:49 "You're trying to shift this whole thing back on me". Yes, it is called the Burden Of Proof. He won't provide it. End game Slick claimin' they both have the same burden isn't only dishonest it's kid games
During the introduction, you state that "this was the plan from the beginning." So... God created the universe (or multiverse), created animals, created Adam and Eve, then put a serpent in the Garden to trick them into eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil (why it's a sin to no longer be ignorant, I have no idea), then he kicks them out. Later, he gets fed up and destroys the whole Earth except for Noah and his family and some animals (not dinosaurs). Then, because the people he created still suck, he sends Jesus to be tortured and murdered (kind of) to act as a scapegoat for the sins of all mankind. What a shitty plan. One would think an omniscient, omnipotent being could come up with a better one.
+BIBLETHUMPINGWINGNUT.COM so you think this was a good plan? Why wouldn't a God who already knew all of this would happen either skip making humans altogether, or just create good ones to begin with?
+BIBLETHUMPINGWINGNUT.COM Do you have any of your own thoughts are are you just going to quote what some anonymous guy wrote a couple thousand years ago.
can i add another conundrum that iv not had a rational rebuttal for, ever. To add to your assessment of gods plan, we are told over and over by theists like Slick that god is omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient so he knows every one of his creations life plan up front. We are told repeatedly about adam committing the original sin, after being tempted by lucifer the serpent. I dont think anybody will disagree with me that lucifer didnt create himself, God created him, so knowing he would cause such chaos who then is the true prince of darkness and the architect of the original sin god ?
I'd say Dillahunty clearly bested Slick in the discussion. Yes, Dillahunty is a maximal skeptic and for good reason: He wants never to be bamboozled by spin artists and snake oil salesmen who claim that their privileged revelations from deities entitle them to "account" for this and for that while at no time do they demonstrate that their "account" is true. Not a few times did Dillahunty properly call Slick out for piling logical fallacy on top of logical fallacy and for attempting to shift the burden of proof. Dillahunty wins again and it wasn't even close.
6 years behind this video but Matt D made Slick look like a fool. Slick presupposes everything and then wants Matt D to prove him wrong. The exact definition of shifting the burden of proof. Matt S is a parade of fallacy
God is not explanation because magick isn't an explanation. And magick 'fits' because the definition of magick is the evocation of supernatural forces or entities [god] to control or forecast natural events.
ATHEISTS DON'T NEED AN ACCOUNTING FOR THE LAWS OF LOGIC BECAUSE THEY ARE AXIOMATIC. Matt S is the one requiring an "accounting"---ACCOUNT FOR YOUR GOD, Matt S!
Karen S LOL "BECAUSE THEY ARE AXIOMATIC" ahhahahahaha you must be a glutton for intellectual self-PWNAGE! You atheists are so stupid, its actually funny
Matt Slick just does not understand (or doesn't want to) that logic is a language that WE HUMANS invented, just like all other languages. He thinks that logic is like a physically existing thing in reality or something just as ridiculous. He couldn't even understand the differences between logic and reason smh. I guess the religious thinking has ravaged his ability to think freely and critically
***** The real question is how can many people see the same evidence and some come away believing while others come away not? If God uses reveals to those He chooses and those that humble themselves then maybe it is an issue of revelation after all.
The most amusing part for me was Slick claiming Dillahunty's view was subjective. No view was more subjective than Slick's. Slick has myths/fairy tales on his side. Dillahunty has reality on his side.
***** The mechanism is His word in scripture. According to scripture. And Christians are commanded to preach the gospel. And we can tell if something is God revealed by its adherence to His word.
Tom Brooks Because it is a fact that some people have a psychological predisposition to accepting magical things. Slick even mentioned that he was into weird stuff when he was an atheist.
Leo Crossfield What do you mean magical things? We have yet to conclude that the Bible is magical. Miracles are one thing. But the only magic found in the Bible is practiced by the wicked and the unbelievers. If its miracles your after then you have all kinds of logical issues with that.
The reason we get apologetics like TAG is because they are designed to fit a predetermined conclusion. I have never met a single christian who has been convinced or converted by tag, presup, kalam, or any other apologetic. They give reassurance to people who already believe, but that’s all.
It's because none of those are convincing arguments to any one even remotely skeptical. In fact, I don't see how people struggling with their faith could listen to these arguments and be more convinced of their beliefs. No evidence just must be/has to be god statements
I think this is the most patient I've ever seen Matt D. Calmly holding peoples feet to the fire, and correcting the moderator immediatley when he thinks theres a gotcha to say, "nothing can convince Matt D of gods existence". Amazing work.
The odds that Matt Slick is telling the truth about his "atheist" past is rather small. Every apologist claims to have once been a "hard core" atheist when they were like 15. Let's be honest, how much does a 15 YO really understand about the topics being discussed in modern atheism?
I agree, perhaps a lot of them make statements like that in hopes that wont view them the same as you view or apologists. Or maybe you wont automatically assume that they are spewing the same rhetoric. Either way, I still don't take any of them serious. At least, not in this "day and age". 1. Talking goats, snakes, donkeys and TREES. LOL 2. A man can't live in the stomach of a whale for 3 days. 3. A global flood that covered every mountain top. 4. Bats are not birds.
@@MikePadilla82 let's not forget that the Bible also claims there is a dome in the heavens which all humanity believed until the medieval period. Leviticus lists rabbits and hyraxes as animals that chew cud.
I had to laugh at the end where Slick had to whine to his buddy about the debate. Clearly he was shook up about the intellectual tail kicking he just experienced.
Matt Slick is oozing with confidence while saying nothing convincing at all. I just dont get how people turn themselves into mindless sheep over what people like Slick teaches...Smh
You say confidence, I say condescending arrogance. And there's nothing worse than than an arrogant person who thinks they're more intelligent than they are.
Matt SLICK(not dillahunty), you do not understanding what the 'argument from ignorance' fallacy is. It is not arguing on a topic you are ignorant on. It is saying you believe something because you do not know of any other options that could necessitate it.
+SacredTankX Dillahunty must have explained that like 10 times during that debate. I think he even explained it right before Slick made that mistake. Ridiculous
Eric Madden He's never said God doesn't exist. He's only ever said that it's unreasonable to believe in a God and put the burden of proof on Slick to prove that God exists. When Slick failed to prove that God exists without logical fallacies, Dillahunty pointed them out and showed Slick his errors.
Eric Madden Atheism is not necessarily a positive claim in the nonexistence of God. It's simply a lack of belief in the claim. His position is that if you provide him with evidence that God exists then he will believe that God exists. Then he challenged Slick to provide an argument for the existence of God that would satisfy the burden of proof that Slick has in saying that God exists. Slick failed. The argument is that it's unreasonable to believe in something without evidence that supports the existence of that thing. In other words, believing in something without evidence is unreasonable. He thinks that it's unreasonable to believe in God due to the limited amount of evidence for the existence of such a thing. I can sort of predict you asking like "Has he gone through all the evidence and all the arguments in order to come to the conclusion that it's unreasonable" I doubt it but that's his position and I'm not arguing for his position. I'm only defending my initial correction to your post which was that Dillahunty was making a claim that God doesn't exist. He's never said that. His position is not that God doesn't exist, therefore he can't be arguing from ignorance to that point. Let me spend a moment though to explain what atheism is because you said "So the burden of proof still lies on the atheist's hand to demonstrate God's non-existence. " That's not true. The burden of proof might be on the atheists who claim knowledge of God's existence but that's not most atheists. A lot of atheists are "agnostic atheists". This means that they don't believe in God and don't claim knowledge of the existence of God. They simply are convinced by the claim that God exists. The claim that God exists however does need to be proved. Theists don't get to say "God exists!" and when people don't believe that claim say "Well prove that God doesn't exist!" That's not how it works. Think of it like a court case. You don't say "That person murdered my mother!" Then when they ask for proof say "Well prove that he didn't kill my mother!" Doesn't work that way.
Eric Madden *It is a positive claim, through and through. If you cannot prove God's non-existence, then you cannot affirm atheism; at best you can only be agnostic, but once the atheist worldview is shown to be incoherent, theism logically follows.* Theists believe that a god exists and atheists do not believe a god exists. Just because you do not believe a proposition provided it does not mean that you have to believe the contrary position. For instance, if I had a jar of marbles infront of me and asserted that I believe there is an 'odd' amount of marbles in the jar you probably would not believe it. It does not mean that you think there is an 'even' amount of marbles in the jar and it does not mean that you are asserting that it is NOT an odd amount of marbles in the jar. It simply means you do not believe my assertion on face-value that there IS an odd amount of marbles in the jar you do not have to take the contrary position that there is an EVEN amount in the jar. *Atheism is an ideology and worldview; unless you can prove its positive claim that there is no God,it is unreasonable and theism follows. There is no third option here.* Atheism is a single position on a single topic it tells you nothing about what that person believes although many atheists share worldviews which is secular humanism. Atheism has no rules, books, tennates, dogmas, or authorities to follow. It is simply the rejection of a proposition. If I asserted that aliens existed and you rejected my proposition it does not mean your world-view consists of a-alienism. That tells me absolutely nothing about you. *Then he needs to stop referring to himself as an atheist; he needs to change his show's title to the Agnostic Experience, but that wouldn't be as edgy sounding. In fact, it sounds more accurate, a worldview based on ignorance.* I am astonished that you do not know the difference between agnostic and atheist. Atheism and theism deal with belief and agnostic and gnostic deals with knowledge.You can be an agnostic THEIST or an agnostic ATHEIST. For instance, theists believe a god exists and atheists do not believe a god exists. A gnostic theist KNOWS a god exists and an agnostic theist does not KNOW a god exists but believes in it anyway. A agnostic atheist (which is what Matt is) is someone who does not know if a god exists but does not believe in it. Or a gnostic atheist is someone who asserts that they KNOW a god does NOT exist. *Again, they need to either learn and live by the right definition of that word or they need to admit they are using the wrong term for their belief.* You simply do not understand definitions. *That's the same thing as saying a lot of circles are squares; no they are not.* Once again, theism/atheism deal with what you believe and gnostic/agnostic deals with what you know. You can be an agnostic atheist or agnostic theist. *The idea of God is necessarily presupposed for the proper definition of atheism to even have been conceived; in order to be an atheist, one must have knowledge of the idea of God, and one must therefore refute said idea in order affirm this claim. Atheism is an assertion. Prove it or abandon it. Simple as that.* If you presuppose a claim to be true then by definition you do not have any evidence that the claim is true. If someone rejects your assertion that the claim is true it does not mean that they have to provide evidence to the contrary. If I asserted that there is a flying unicorn 4554545 light-years away and you rejected my position it does not mean that you have to demonstrate that this unicorn does NOT exist. You can simply reject my claim until I demonstrate that it DOES exist. Positive claims require evidence. Atheists do not make any claims unless they are gnostic atheists who claim a god does not exist.
*And once this is proven via logical argument, you must conclude that God does not exist; this is not a suspension of judgement at this point, it's a logical conclusion that must be accepted in order to fulfill that line of reasoning completely.* If someone makes the claim that a god exists they have to demonstrate that claim. No one has ever demonstrated this claim so the rejection of your proposition is validated. We are NOT asserting the contrary (a god does not exist) we are simply not believing your claim that one does. For instance if I claimed that invisible flying pixies exist and did not demonstrate this claim, you do not have to demonstrate the contrary (that they do not exist) you simply can reject my proposition until I demonstrate the validity of the claim. This is logic 101... *Dilahunty gives "I don't know," as his reasoning for atheism; this is not a positive argument for the positive claim that there is no God. So the burden of proof still lies on the atheist's hand to demonstrate God's non-existence.* Why is this so difficult for you to understand? Atheism is not believing in a god. You can simply not believe in a god without asserting that there IS NO GOD. For instance if I claimed that there is a dragon in a locked room that no one has access too in order to evaluate my claim then you can simply not believe my claim until I demonstrate this to be true. It does not mean that your position is that there is NO DRAGON because you would have no way to test or verify that position. *So, unless you can negate God's existence completely via rational argument, you can't be an atheist and not be a hypocrite at the same time. Sorry, that's just how logic works.* You do not need to negate something that has not been demonstrated to be true. If I asked you to negate flying pixies that live 4343424 light-years away you would have no way to do so. That does not mean that you are irrational for not believing that these pixies do not exist because no one has demonstrated that they exist in the first place. You can reject a proposition without believing the contrary. *For the record, I'm not defending Slick's arguments; I'm discrediting what Dilahunty claims is an argument, and showing that its not one.* Matt Slick is claiming that there is a God. Matt dillahunty does not believe Slicks proposition. So in order for Slick to verify his position he needs to demonstrate that a god exists. All matt dillahunty is doing is showing why slicks position is not logically sound to reach his conclusion. Dilahunty has no position to defend since he does not make any claims. All he has to do is show why slicks arguements do not properly reach his conclusion. (by the way arguments are not evidence.. )
@@julianmanjarres1998 Hmmmmm...and you are incorrect again. On so many different comments. Listen to the whole thing. Think. Listen again. Try to learn something
I am on the fence of belief and have been investigating my feelings about weather to stay christian or become an atheist. A Friend directed me to this debate. Wow, I have never seen a more proud man fall so far than I have during this debate. Matt Slick I went back to watch the debate you guys referred to in the beginning of the video. You indeed said what the other Matt claimed you did. I am not sure I have ever witnessed such a sheer amount of intellectual dishonesty as I have from Matt Slick in this video. The TAG argument was one of the last bastions securing my hope in staying a christian and I have seen it represented here by MS. I have to say I am impressed with MD and his deconstruction of it and MS I believe you have failed to defend your position and our belief system. You seemed so sure of your self even so far as to rather pathetically attempt to name a fallacy after MD only to have based it on a fallacy of your own. That is really slimy man. Any way, this video may have been the last straw, If MS cant convince me nobody can. I feel as if MS may have actually made me an atheist.
