@@robinrobyn1714 Atheists have one claim that they do not believe in somehting that is not proven or even coherently defined. What is angry or obsessed about that?
This is what happens when you're just interested in disagreeing without even listening or pondering your opponents words. It's just disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing & then agreeing & acting as if you knew what you were talking about all along. Bizarre. Slick: "I was having a problem with the triple negation" Malpass: "A triple negation is just a negation" Slick: "No, well a triple negative is a negative" Malpass" Yeah" FACE PALM.
Here is Alex's argument: PREMISE #1: B or Not B. PREMISE #2. Not B (negating the first B). Therefore: Not B. (which is the second premise). OR PREMISE #1: B or NOT B. PREMISE #2: NOT NOT B. Therefore: B (which is the second premise. In either case, clearly begging the question.
@@Mxxx-ii9bu No he didnt. He argued that it was not sound, not that it was refuted. You do realize the difference, right? For example: All dogs with brown fur are Labradors This dog has brown hair Therefore, this dog is a Labrador The conclusion may be true even though the argument is not sound because one of the premises is not true. Learn the difference.
@@Certaintyexists888 As a 5 point Calvinist, Slick believes God has chosen from the foundation of the world that some subset of humanity (the elect) will be redeemed, and the rest condemned. Which necessarily implies all Christian activity makes no difference in who is redeemed and who is not. Thus, (if 5 point Calvinism is true) all Christian activity is meaningless and valueless. Thus, all Christian activity performed by all 5 point Calvinists is explicitly contradictory to their theology.
Agreed, but this guy is actually a respected philosopher while the other two are pop Atheists. I also find this guy rather respectful as opposed to Aron and Matt. Like I would actually get some coffee with this gentleman. I feel the same about Cosmic Skeptic as well. Cosmic has my respect as well. Maybe Aron and Matt are great guys outside of debates, but I wouldn't debate them and would suggest something else.
Well, Aron Ra and Matt Dillahunty are ignorant af worthless pos. Please don't insult Alex Malpass by comparing him with those two lowlife pos. Alex Malpass is an atheist who is actually intelligent, rational, cogent . He's not pathologically unstable and angry at something that doesn't exist according to him ( unlike those two worthless pos Aron Ra and Matt Dillahunty). Alex Malpass is cool headed and HONEST.
@@hi2cole You said: "this guy is actually a respected philosopher while the other two are pop Atheists". You are correct, they also have very little formal training (if any) in logic or critical thinking.
@@hi2cole The way I see it is Slick knows Alex Malpass is very respected and a known very nice person, so Slick and Rappaport were hobbled prevented from THEIR usual tactics of bullying and browbeating thru their arguments.
Matt, the confusion you are feeling is your brain fighting the truth of seeing your only arguement dying right in front of you. Admit it TAG is dead, it was never real. Let it go. I am not going to lie, I loved watching this.
He brought up a very common objection: "it uses a begging-the-question!" So do all worldviews when appealing to their ultimate authority, so it's not even a criticism. That's why it's problematic to have people who specialize in one field (logic) without any knowledge in the relevant field the argument is about. He would need to understand what worldviews are, and their structure, to understand why it makes no sense to criticize the Christian worldview for using circularity when appealing to their ultimate authority. All worldviews do, so the circularity is not a valid criticism of any of them. So Alex Malpass actually is commiting a fallacy. Plus, that's not even the aspect of the argument intended to convince anyone of anything. The comparison of the two competing systems (worldviews) is, by establishing the Atheist worldview cannot justify any knowledge claims, proving Theism by reductio ad absurdum.
@@lightbeforethetunnel The problem with your assessment is, it's not any worldview that's being criticised for begging the question, it's the form of Matt's argument.
@@lightbeforethetunnel He invalidated Matt's argument. Here's the first in a series of a very nice refutation of TAG .... ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-GET502pP3go.html
A "Premise" is simply a "Claim" so when WLC has as his first "Premise" for Kalam that "Everything which begins to exist has a cause" he is actually making a claim and he needs to demonstrate that claim. He also needs to show what he means by "begin to exist". Lawrence Krauss challenged him on this and he was reduced to mumbling a half answer.
For. Fuck's. Sake. Matt, stop saying, "I understand but...'. If you actually understood, there'd be no 'but'. Because you would *really* understand. 'BUT' you don't. At least as of 25:32 of this video. These laws have withstood thousands of years of the best minds trying to find fault with them and they could not.
I love the way you left the obvious knockout point out of the end of your comment. Not adding “and Matt Slick is not a fine mind” was the punch Ali never gave Foreman as he was going down. West Wing-tastic. 😂
they are still peddling it - and creationism and the kalam and the ontological and the argument from "trust me bro" - religists eh, always resurrecting stuff that should be dead.
Matt just can't understand. Translation: If he accepts this simple point, which Alex has very clearly and patiently explained, he'll have to admit his whole career is a joke and find a new job.
I would like Alex to do this type of debate with someone like Sye ten Bruggencate. This debate just shows that a real philosopher would destroy the presuppositional apologist nonsense script. The main problem with them tends to be in the first premise, that they can't demonstrate to be true.
He explains it correctly, but can be put more simply: - a ball exists or a ball does not exist. We know a ball exists. - a ball is the cause of the fire or a ball is not the cause of the fire Those are 2 completely seperate propositions. The confusion/false dichotomy starts when you put the 2 propositions in 1 proposition: - a ball is the cause of the fire or a not-ball is the cause of the fire. Matt's long life proposition is the false dichotomy: - god accounts for the laws of logic or not god accounts for the laws of logic. + This is where he puts 2 propositions in 1 proposition, making it a false dichotomy. It should be: - god exists or god doesn't exist (there is no evidence for a god, so the rational position would be that god does not exist, until sufficient evidence is provided) - god is the cause for the laws of logics or god is not the cause for the laws of logic (this proposition can only be made when god has been proven to exist) The problem and dishonesty with Matt is that he obscures his false proposition into a question: 'can atheism account for the laws of logic?' That's why a debate with Matt is useless because he is dishonest.
If Matt Slick is the best spokesperson we can find for Christianity, we're in serious trouble. .... This guy is an embarrassment. ..... This entire conversation is painful...... Matt, totally outgunned intellectually, tries to demonstrate that he's as smart as the other guy. And in the process, demonstrates that he IS NOT. .... If I were an agnostic, searching for truth, listening to this conversation would only push me away from God.
if you're christian can you remind god he can't just go around killing people and burning them alive for eternity just because they disagree with him, we have rights. and while you're at it, cold fusion, if god isn't going to do anything about putin (heart attack or something that looks natural), if he's not going to stop the war, (when did he ever stop a war) then the least he can do is hint as to how to get cold fusion working - has he seen my electricity bills since the ukraine debacle started, there's a love eh. don't be pushy though, god has a short fuse.
b gilley yea, that drove me nuts. apparently the entire field of acoustics and physics of sound is based on, what? a misunderstanding? Dudes a Fucking buffoon.
I am sooooo tired of the Christian apologists who use the sloppiest language to make the fuzziest assertions of a “god” possible but then whine that they are pressed on their diction and that everyone is asking them hard questions and pointing out how fallacious their arguments are and that everyone is just being mean…waaaaaaah!
I think Matt hasn't defined what "accounting" for something means well enough. TAG is a good argument in my opinion but accounting needs to be better defined.
I appreciate Malpass and his patience. Held Slick's feet to the fire and kept trying different angles while Slick squirmed and writhed at basic concepts, desperately trying to find a way out. "If I keep saying it doesn't make sense and I don't get it, maybe we'll get derailed and I don't look like a disingenuous halfwit that is comfortable accepting things on faith. Wait I'm confused about the usage of a hyphen, let's dick around with that point for a while and maybe he'll tire out." Miserable but also hilarious. Slick is praying for a meteor to hit his house so he doesn't have to continue and ruin his image.
How can he not understand this? Alex gives an absolutely, crystal-clear, fantastically obvious explanation. Even I clearly understand it. How can anyone not understand what Alex is saying?
I mean, 4 years on and Slick is just as vacuous as ever. He cannot learn because he will not learn. If he learns, it means he has to give way. And he can’t, or his whole so-called argument evaporates.
Even with the help the uploader felt the atheist debater needed with the title and description, the debate is very clearly and entirely onesided as the atheist struggles with the internal conflict of his own positions and the logical conclusions they lead him to. Brilliant.
“How does the absence of toast account for the laws of logic?” Too funny. Having endured more than a few "debates" featuring this insufferably pretentious god bothering halfwit, it was delightful to watch his painfully fallacious logic vivisected with such precision by someone who actually knows what they're talking about.
19:06 Alex - "it's fair enough if you've never heard about any any of these positions before, then y-" Matt - "YES I HAVE." I think this sums up the entire discussion pretty well. By definition, Matt Slick must understand. He's very smart, didn't you know that?
Other issues - Matt is smuggling in the idea of a thing causing/creating (it’s in the very structure of his claim so right away he is claiming that some creative force did x) AND then also the notion that the “ball did not cause the fire” is sufficient. All of his thinking is incredibly sloppy and explains absolutely nothing. Saying “god here! god here!” Doesn’t prove anything whatsoever - and no “red” is a real thing Matt - with wavelengths etc (honestly I can’t believe he didn’t think through this as it’s so basic)- look up colors. His statements are absolutely absurd - he claims that sound doesn’t exist unless a human is there to hear a tree fall? I’m sorry but that is below freshman philosophy and is just absurd. Sound is a real testable thing that exists outside of human perception and same with lights and colors like red etc. He doesn’t even understand the level of absurdity.
kempflar Slick didn’t get what is meant by not not b. He thinks not b therefore b, without realising that not b is negated with a not; therefore not not b.
The thing I'm gonna remember him for, was his outrage when Dillahunty couldn't present to him a third option. After upon HE actually had the balls to invent "the Dillahunty fallacy" LOL I wanna bring back public flogging, just for him:-)
Matt like all apologists just can't concede on anything Matt: I was on a triple negation Alex: triple negation is just a negation. Matt: no Matt: it's a negative Alex: yes.
Holy shit this isn't at all difficult. I think if you'd just phrase it different it'd be easier to understand: 1. Either god is or is not the cause of something Is not the same as saying 2. Either god or an atheistic world view (what he means by not god) is the cause of something Obviously this isn't a true dichotomy. In the second case it a potato could be the cause. Seriously this is painful to watch, though I do enjoy watching Slick get owned.
This is the sort of discussion that derives when an individual who is well-trained in thinking (Alex), attempts to reason with another individual who resists learning at every turn of the road. Alex may as well have been attempting to reason with a wall. Matt is committed to fallacious positions and, when confronted with the problems associated with these positions, he attempts every type of mental gymnastics in attempts to hold onto his positions. As many other commentators have stated, this discussion is "very difficult" to watch. Matt has no desire, whatsoever, to actually learn. He only wants to be right, even when his arguments are wrong.
Yes I noticed that right away, my mistake. However I want to make a point...you were pointing to the fact that everyone should listen to the guy who has a "PhD in philosophy" over Matt, than be consistent and except that everyone should listen to a PhD Philosopher with far more credibility that this other guy, William lane Craig...right?
No, that’s not at all what I was implying. I’m pointing out the discrepancy in logical knowledge through demonstrative title. William Lane Craig doesn’t use logic in the same way. That’s a different animal that has no bearing on this logical constructivist approach.
I am asking a serious question here: Is English a second language for you? - I can’t seem to follow your line of logical semantics with your sentence structure.
i suffer from this. the problem most people have is a lack of concentration. when you get presented with even a slightly complex problem it is easy to get side tracked and miss something vital, and then start talking about something completely unrelated. it's like the gorilla and the basket ball - selective attention.
The proper way to make the argument, is to prove God. A good start to do that, is to make proper parameters on what God means. What does that word even mean.
Slick says, "I can learn", but I've never heard him even consider he could be wrong about something. Standard pre-sup apologetics requires that you can't be wrong by beginning the god argument with the conclusion.
This reveals is that people who know lots about things because they enjoy learning and exploring wear their knowledge lightly, and play with ideas gracefully and kindly. Those who set out to justify an ideology - and whose very identity depends on not being proved wrong about the foundations of that ideology - always end up referencing their “willingness to learn” when confronted by a scholar, or being insufferably pompous and condescending when debating an amateur. It would not surprise me to learn one day that he doesn’t actually believe in god - he’s literally searching for the magic bullet that will finally slay his demon doubt. Berk.
So 1) "B" or "Not B", 2) It's not "B", Conclusion: "Not B." Or 1) "B" or "Not B", 2) It's B. Conclusion: It's B. The second premise is always the conclusion, meaning it is just an assertion.
"if a tree falls and no one's around, does it make a sound?" "no, because sound occurs in the brain." he's so stuck he doesn't even understand that sound is just vibrations, so sound will always occur even when there's no one around to hear it. just like logic and chemistry was still around long before any living thing was around to perceive it. this is probably his biggest flaw in thinking.
The best part about this is that despite Alex hand holding like a child him through why the argument doesn't work, to this day, he is still using the argument 😂
The thing is: I can't stand the guy's face, voice and mannerisms. (Slick's that is) It screams: *_sociopath_* to me (and even does so with the sound muted). So: I ain't gonna watch this.
"How does the absence of toast account for the laws of logic?" At this point, were Slick half way honest or intelligent, he'd have realized and conceded that his argument is bankrupt and moved on. Alas no, he is either too stupid to get it, or too dishonest to admit it. I still haven't decided which.
I wouldn't say I am of superior intellect but one thing I learned from the "Something From Nothing" debate with Tracie Harris and Matt Dillahunty versus "Eric" was that if someone makes a claim, you challenge them to prove it, otherwise you don't accept it.
To be wholly honest, it should be said that Alex is of a superior intellect to the typical theist. Very few of us have Alex's ability to explain the errors in logical arguments as eloquently and precisely as Alex does.
It's worth watching the "debate" between William Lane Craig and Lawrence Krauss. WLC is reduced to muttering at one point though you have to admire his balls for going up against an actual physicist.
quoting misue: "You're basing that on this one video?" Of course not, don't be so unnecessarily obtuse. He's 'basing it on' years of indoctrination with propaganda. He just hasn't recognized it as such yet. Propagandists relentlessly force you to hear their view and discourage discussion. Often their real motives are not apparent. They sift the facts, exploiting the useful ones and concealing the others. They also distort and twist facts, specializing in lies and half-truths. Your emotions, not your logical thinking abilities, are their target. The propagandist makes sure that his message appears to be the right and moral one and that it gives you a sense of importance and belonging if you follow it. *You are one of the smart ones, you are not alone,* you are comfortable and secure-so they say. Some propagandists play on pride. Often we can spot appeals to pride by looking for such key phrases as: “Any intelligent person knows that . . .” or, “A person with your education can’t help but see that . . .” A reverse appeal to pride plays on our fear of seeming stupid. Professionals in persuasion are well aware of that. That's where the intellectual superiority complex comes from, too much ego-stroking by those making money of it or having made a career out of playing on pride, the fear of seeming stupid for not seeing things their way and stroking the egos of their audience by telling them how much smarter they are than those who don't see things their way (Hitchens, Dawkins, Dennett, Shermer, Harris, Krauss, Myers, etc. and those managing the youtube channels: Aronra, The Atheist Experience, ScienceToday, Question Everything, TheScienceFoundation, Thunderf00t, Atheism-is-Unstoppable, TheThinkingAtheist, DarkMatter2525, etc.). Telling people what they want to hear , tickling their ears, is a big part of it as well.
Why is Alex objecting to the triviality of "not not P, therefore P", or "not P, therefore not P"? They're both valid. They're very simple but logic is generally pretty simple. Why is Matt saying there's something wrong with these statements and he can't figure out what it is? There's nothing wrong with them.
Note to everyone. While Malpass does have a PhD in philosophy it is irrelevant. Let’s stick to the point that arguments stand or fall on their own rather than by the person making them otherwise you fall into the appeal to authority fallacy. For the record, Slick’ argument was taken apart by the Malpass’s.
Tony Byers I will reply to this much: If his expertise in philosophy is irrelevant, then there’s too much to question as to why he’s there. Not saying you’re wrong, specifically, but it’s not irrelevant.
Doing Things I agree he was brought for is expertise. However the way we judge arguments is not changed because of their expertise. We must always judge them on their merits. To do otherwise is folly and gives the person making the argument a lower standard of proof.
Yeah, I get what you’re saying but I think you missed my point. What I’m trying to demonstrate is the discrepancy in ability for Slick to honestly think about the position when Malpass is providing useful information to him. If Malpass were “Google” and Slick remained the same, then Slick said that Google’s algorithm is wrong, despite repeated demonstrable verifiability, it helps contextualize someone’s willful ignorance. It’s NOT that their authority verifies their position.
Isn't that a dependent on the argument that Malpass is putting up and Slick totally failing to? Slick just doesn't get it. The dicrepency is because Slick's is full of logical hole. So his (Malpass's) PhD helps him to make a good argument it's not the PhD that is relevant - it's the strength of what he is saying that is compelling. I think that is the subtle difference.
Tony Byers I agree with what you’re saying. My staple is a minor position. I’m stating that the overarching point I’m trying to make is that arguing against received and valid information is a faulty human condition. It’s not a logical point that I’m making, it’s a conceptual social point. I’m not using his PhD as an argument for the validity of the argument: Essentially, it’s not irrelevant that he’s a PhD. But yes, it’s not relevant for the argument itself. I’m not trying to conflate his PhD with the validity of his argument. I’m trying to make a valid conjunctive differentiation. Hope that makes some sense.
Play dumb for 40 minutes or publicly admit that every theological argument you’ve made for 40 years is obviously fallacious. Matt’s highly predictable.
sound does not "occur in the brain" sound occurs when the air vibrates. Our ears sense this vibrations . And our brains give it meaning. how can this man be so lazy in his speech every time he speaks?
