*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.
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?
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+10
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+3
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 :)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.*
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.
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.
@@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.
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.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 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.
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...
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.
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
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.
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.
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?!'
95TurboSol he is pretty good but he needs to debate Ravi zachrias.ruclips.net/video/5bjhfKmRCZw/видео.html Dawkins owned by Ravi ZachariasThe godless church and the atheists taking the US…: ruclips.net/video/O1t-WEk0DOk/видео.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 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.
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.
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.
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.
***** 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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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???
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
''Well, if you removed all minds (from the universe). Period. There wouldn't be any truth by which you can make any statements.'' This IS Slicks admission that there is no god. Think about it...take your time...
@@dailyshadow Was surprised to see a week old reply to a 5 year old comment but I think they mean that slick is conceiding god is necessarily the product of a mind cognizant enough to conceive it. Ie there would be no god absent a mind. It's funny thinking of a god as a cosmic rock farmer though.
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.
How can I take a man seriously that believes the parting of the Red Sea or the resurrection are historic events? My 11 year old daughter can see through Matt Slick's bullshit. The absurd post debate Christian circle jerk would be hilarious if it wasn't so dishonest, ad-hominem and stupid. Shameful...
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
I can't even stand to look at Slick. He's always got that look of smug arrogance about him. As if he's confused about how stupid he thinks you are, and is getting off on how he can now tell you how smart he is in comparison. Is this just me?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
b d you have to be extremely light footed if you are going to get someone this indoctrinated to let their guard down and actually think. Alex’s demeanor, credentials and probably accent was able to achieve this lol.
Slick : God did it Dillahunty : I'm not convinced Slick : Prove he didn't! Dillahunty : I'm not making a claim. Slick : Saying you're not convinced of my claim is a claim! Dillahunty : Yes it is. Slick : I win!!!!!!!!
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.
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.
This video kicks ass. As far as intellectual debate, these guys are firing on all cylinders (ignoring Slick's fallacies). I love that this is 2 hours long and super in depth, which is something you often can't get this deep into on the Atheist Experience show. I hope Matt does a crapload more discussions exactly like this one.
GHUNTACO my flag never stood for slavery. you just proved how dumb you are. my flag stands for freedom from tyrants never flew on any slave ship. if you ever bothered to study the war of northern aggression you will find out it was against the law in the confederate states of america to import slaves. the usa flag stand for slavery. the usa invaded the south to enslave everyone.
animefan2k9 I understand the argument young southerns use to apologize it away. I believe you just proved how ignorant you are regarding it's connotations. My argument remains, wear your pride in public and you will see my argument (and simultaneously get laughed out the room) Apologize it away and say its your southern pride! Then look what it really stands for, poverty and piss poor education. The joke we call the south docs.google.com/drawings/d/1JRU5roUk0Jr1G3D2kHLah5--224KjCFnuE2-HmKpAYE/edit
@@julianmanjarres1998 Hmmmmm...and you are incorrect again. On so many different comments. Listen to the whole thing. Think. Listen again. Try to learn something
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.
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 ?
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
![BRASIL vs. PERÚ [4-0] | RESUMEN | ELIMINATORIAS SUDAMERICANAS | FECHA 10](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/tbyOJKXfQnI/mqdefault.jpg)
*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)
reminds me of the bible
AFI are you going to do a Nye/Ham style post debate of this one?
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!
I'm going to save this and hang it on my wall. It's beautiful.
***** 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.
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.
Watching this now, I have no intention of listening after Dillahunty leaves, one fuckwit speaking is bad enough, two is deal breaker.
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?
***** You alway hurt the one you love.
Next time, ask Slick about his atheist daughter...
David Eriol Hickman We're not talking.and it's breaking my heart.
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.
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...
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 :)
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.
30,000ish ways.
AronRa Please supply supporting references for your claim.
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 Slicks ignorance is unparalleled. I thought Matt Dillahuntys head was going to explode.
Matt Bell Here is a reference supporting my claim about Sir Isaac Newton.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton#Religious_views
Christianity also has no moral absolutes, because their own god doesn't conform to any moral absolute, nor does it offer or enforce one.
Listening live
He is trying to put the laws of logic as if they were entities. .
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...
All of there moaning about your hangout, Aron, made me curious, im off to watch it next.
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.
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.
Deconverted Man he can answer questions alright, give a real honest answer,well that another thing..
Cristóbal Muñoz fair enough :D
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.
That's your problem. You don't' blame the Christian for not converting you my friend.
@@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.
Okay, Christians take note: If you want to convince us that God exists, Matt Slick just demonstrated a pretty solid way NOT to do it!
Shane Killian I watch your libertarian channel
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..
@@edshaba4893 Do you think Matt Slick looked good?
@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.
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.
What color is 3
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.
"I don't know" or "I don't know, therefore God." "I don't know" is a perfectly valid answer. Once you insert God then you have to prove God.
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.
OK... thanks for that spiritual woo woo word salad.
Hey, I have an idea, I'm going to insert a word instead of God... "I don't know... yet."
Benur Radio So, bla bla bla god = awesome?
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.*
Slick: "X."
Dillahunty: "I don't believe you."
Slick: "WELL YOU CAN'T PROVE IT'S NOT X!"
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.
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.
Me too!
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.
@@happyhappy85 are you certain about that one?
Matt Dillahunty dodges question - Matt Slick
That has got to be the most hypocritical thing to come out of Slick's mouth...
Your bf?
David Hamilton Why do you say things like that? Do you think it's "christlike"?
Hacking on you
David Hamilton What???
Goofing around
Wow. Matt Slick is the most dishonest person I have ever seen trying to defend his beliefs. It’s despicable.
lol what an apropos last name for him then.
Sounds like Matt DIllhaunty then, rofl................. Have you ever seen Matt rhetoric tricks ? Obviously youve never studied philosophy
@@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.
@@el29 you are barely intelligible. I'd wager that your level of philosophical study is on par with Otto from "A Fish Called Wanda".
He's the result of Christianity and the cult of trinitarianism
Matt Dillahunty schooled Slick so hard that if Slick actually paid attention he'd earn credit hours towards his degree.
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.
Absolute disgrace how you two attempted to lick your wounds after he left.
Matt Slick: 2 hours of asking questions
Matt Dillahunty: 2 hours of answering questions and clearing misconceptions and malformed questions
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 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.
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.
Tim Van Aelst Matt D LOOKed so stupid... has no positions
+Ed Shaba Your nose looks silly.
@@edshaba4893 Sometimes no position is the only logical position. Slick's position is bent over the table.
@@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
Matt Dillahunty made Matt Slick look like the amateur he is. Slick isn't anywhere near Dillahunty's level.
Dillahunty isn't even in the debate spiritually ignorant... wake up!! !
@@kencress3665 spiritually ignorant lol
@@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
@@kencress3665 cant tell if trolling
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...
Now that Matt D isn't around to defend himself let's talk shit about him! Stay classy...
:D
He does that with everyone who challenges him
Q: What do you call a weasel who gets trampled?
A: Matt Slick
Shawn
It's called a joke. I wasn't exactly engaged in a debate at that very moment, if you'll notice.
Shawn
If you are challenging my position, go ahead and have at it. I'll list and address your points.
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.
Shawn
I told you my position quite clearly. Do I need to quote myself?
Shawn
I find morality to be objective.
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.
so therefore by their own standards arguments for god = "obviously silly" maybe that should be pointed out to them straight away
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
youweechube
The way they would justify it in that scenario is "Magic pixies didn't leave a book for me to blindly trust"
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.
This Slick guy is so irritating. Smug. Obstinate. Deceptive. Dishonest.
drstrangelove09 ...Slimy. Obnoxious. Absurd.
andthereisntone
Are you agreeing with me or calling me names?
drstrangelove09
hahahahaha
drstrangelove09
Ah, sorry for not making myself clear. I was agreeing with you, and continuing with the list of apt adjectives for The Slick One ;)
andthereisntone
Excellent! Sorry. I often have people give me grief and have become too prone to jumping to conclusions. Glad we agree! Thanks! :)
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
ShouVertica Mostly, he's just playing word games and playing semantics, more than anything.
***** 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.
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?!'
1:42:59, Matt Dillahunty's example to this question is incredible, very clear and excellent way to bring the point across.
+95TurboSol Right? I thought the same thing. I was like "Wow, yeah I can't imagine a better way to put that."
+95TurboSol I have a very slight suspicion that example was borrowed from the late Christopher Hitchens. You are right, it is a perfect example.
95TurboSol he is pretty good but he needs to debate Ravi zachrias.ruclips.net/video/5bjhfKmRCZw/видео.html
Dawkins owned by Ravi ZachariasThe godless church and the atheists taking the US…: ruclips.net/video/O1t-WEk0DOk/видео.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?
and then we hear crickets...because they don't know what to say because they just realized that there is no reason to believe there is a god
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".
Crushed it
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.
@@theonebegotten Dillahunty has the logical absolutes. He even named them. The analogy holds.
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.
I'm not convinced that is true.
I'm not convinced that you are not convinced that is true.
SadBunny You've convinced me
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.
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!”.
In the end Slick said that Matt D is good in dodging. But he said it like its a compliment.
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.
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 Slick at 1:45:00 about "Your position is indefensible." No, it simply requires no defending because Dilahunty is not making any claims.
+TheSmellyVideos atheism doesn't make a claim, it's just the belief that all god claims are unsupported. so there is no "not claim" here
***** 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?
+TheSmellyVideos "All God claims are unsupported" is an observation, not a claim.
***** 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.
+Aaron Farris check out creation.com
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.
+Shawn Oh I know that. That's what I was saying. Dillahunty is the bald one, Slick is the dumb one.
+Shawn you aren't very bright, are you Shawn?
Except Dillahunty is a dodgy weasel who did everything he could to reframe the argument that’s why he’s called the Dillahunty Dodge.
@@pleaseenteraname1103 well he is, by you, now that the Dillahunty fallacy has been shot down flames. So until the next time.
@@jonathanrussell1140 well I disagree that it has.
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.
slick lost this argument and should be embarrassed
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.
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.
Pure panic damage control mode yeah
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.
"Now that he's not here, let's whine and strawman his position and arguments. We are so smart and we instantly win debates when our opponent left."
Classy beyond words huh?
Dillahunty’s pixie example had me dying of laughter
Christ I have watched this several times and Dillahunty wins harder with each consecutive time.
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. 🙂
Is there a reason you use Christ as a curse word if you don’t believe he existed?
@@latenitehvac868 to piss people off?
@@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?
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.
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.
amazes me how someone as inept as slick can find so many gullible people to defraud money from
"The magical pixies are transcendent." :)
“-transparent?”
Doesn’t even understand his own bullshit made up category when it’s not applied to his own invisible fairy sky despot.
Matt Dillahunty won this debate by a MILE!!
Not a high bar beating this blithering idiot
why is sophistry, ignorance, and sheer stupidity always so smug?
Because they are all symptoms of dunning-kruger.
Religion doesn't provide you with answers, it just prevents you from asking questions
Matt Slick: Dammit, I'm gonna muddy my way outta this if it takes me all night!
haha
"You're backing yourself into a corner" he screams while driving full speed into a corner
Wow, slick just got nailed over and over and over again. Jesus got off lightly in comparison.
🙄 Did you think that statement sounded intellectual?
@@gracefaith1282 he probably thought it sounded funny.. which it did
Repent of your blasphemy
Or what? You’ll burn him at the stake?
Matt Slick doesn't even debate -- he just throws out verbal road blocks.
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.
My point.....We shouldn't have to get so deep in regards to a God meant for everyone.
Back up a little and have a few drinks while watching this one.
Ya it's pretty much the god of the gaps dressed up with rhetoric bullshit
Exactly. So much time wasted on an improper categorization.
A=A is not physical
Mike Gillespie It's a description of how physical reality works, like the op said.
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 ?.
Sorry Robert but your wrong. Matt Dillahunty claims to know nothing as per his debate with Sye Ten Bruggencate.
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.
LOL I love the reassurance fest at the end..wow.
I'd like to propose a fallacy after slick called the "who farted fallacy." Shifting ones own conflations and burdens to your opponent.
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???
'How can Matt Slick be so well versed in philosophical logic' - He isn't particularly, he just likes to pretend that he is.
Andy Whitaker because God "revealed" himself to him... 😋
He knows nothing about logic.
1:08:00 slick is just unravelling here, his arguments are getting thinner and thinner and he's getting more and more frustrated lol i love it
I am at this part too and ding on the money. He is having trouble dancing between his equivocations.
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.
It is a world view by definition
@@julianmanjarres1998 No. It's not being convinced that gods can exist; or supernatural entities in general. It's not a world view.
@@julianmanjarres1998 What makes you say that?
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
The median price of a house in the United States is $188,900. The look on Matt Slicks face when Matt Dillahunty hands him is ass ....priceless
''Well, if you removed all minds (from the universe). Period. There wouldn't be any truth by which you can make any statements.''
This IS Slicks admission that there is no god. Think about it...take your time...
I’m lost here. What are you getting at?
@@dailyshadow Was surprised to see a week old reply to a 5 year old comment but I think they mean that slick is conceiding god is necessarily the product of a mind cognizant enough to conceive it. Ie there would be no god absent a mind. It's funny thinking of a god as a cosmic rock farmer though.
Not following that one...
Truth is different from ontological status.
'You misunderstood me, or I didn't speak right' - Matt Slick
Yes, Matt ... I think we can guess which it is.
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.
Matt Slick must be a glutton for intellectual PWNAGE! lol.
I've been watching and actually think Matt did a great job.
Sheik Yerbouti Matt or Matt?
Absolute-Atheism First base
How can I take a man seriously that believes the parting of the Red Sea or the resurrection are historic events?
My 11 year old daughter can see through Matt Slick's bullshit.
The absurd post debate Christian circle jerk would be hilarious if it wasn't so dishonest, ad-hominem and stupid.
Shameful...
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!
he already gave his account, his own mind or other know as "revelation"
Cristóbal Muñoz It would be revelation *in a way he can be certain.* But that is not an accounting since it is an implicit interpretation.
=D sorry Karen.. i forgot to put this at the end.." sigh!" I know it's BS! thanks for the explanation either way! =)
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 - " what do you mean by a vaild argument supported by evidence? What does that mean?"
Lmao
Does anyone know Matt Slick's address? I'd love to send him my undergraduate Logic 101. It might help him a lot.
Thank you ***** this was awesome!
I can't even stand to look at Slick. He's always got that look of smug arrogance about him. As if he's confused about how stupid he thinks you are, and is getting off on how he can now tell you how smart he is in comparison. Is this just me?
jiberish001 Most certainly not.
jiberish001 Fuck no.I would love to see that bitch get slapped.You are on point.
dillahunty owned slick soooooooooooo well... this was just sad for slick.
Grumpy Dai you see what you wanna see, as I se it Diluhunty got cleaned up.
@@scubaguy1989 you're an idiot
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.
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 where did he say that?
+Shawn It's inaccurate.
+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.
+Shawn
I've been more patient than you deserve, good day.
Here's an option: x is both conceptual _and_ material... Can we go home now?
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.
***** and Aristotle. Slick hijacking greek thought and claiming it for his cult is an affront I say!
I don't see how logic can be material...
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?
David Eriol Hickman I see that you're using logic to describe things.
Tim says "we don't do this to win arguments"....Tim you're unable to win an argument because you're wrong
YEP !!!
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.
+Heath Kitchen It called a Hallucination. Matt doesn't lose because Slick was tripping one day when he was a teenager.
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.
Matt Slicks most common rebuttals:
#1. Yes it is!
#2. No it isn't!
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.
The only value that Matt Slick provides in these conversations is that he is a demonstration of intellectual dishonesty.
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.
😂
100%
It was so refreshing to watch Alex malpass hold slicks feet to the fire on this argument
ktrigg2 Dillahunty did well here, but Malpass was fantastic at exposing how problematic his argument is
b d you have to be extremely light footed if you are going to get someone this indoctrinated to let their guard down and actually think. Alex’s demeanor, credentials and probably accent was able to achieve this lol.
Less than 5 minutes into the actual debate and Slick is already on the ropes
Slick : God did it
Dillahunty : I'm not convinced
Slick : Prove he didn't!
Dillahunty : I'm not making a claim.
Slick : Saying you're not convinced of my claim is a claim!
Dillahunty : Yes it is.
Slick : I win!!!!!!!!
Luckily for Matt Slick there is no hell because he would be sent there for being a goddamn liar
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.
It's convenient that Slick never remembers when he's wrong, in error, mistaken or deceitful.
The Dillahunty Dodge: Dodging shitty arguments and not accepting baseless assertions.
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.
This video kicks ass. As far as intellectual debate, these guys are firing on all cylinders (ignoring Slick's fallacies). I love that this is 2 hours long and super in depth, which is something you often can't get this deep into on the Atheist Experience show. I hope Matt does a crapload more discussions exactly like this one.
Damage control round! Go Slick, let's see how much you can damage control!
Of course.
Skeptic Fence Show
Damage control round! for the atheists
animefan2k9 The south lost the war, badly. Get your symbol of slavery off the internet. Grow up.
GHUNTACO
my flag never stood for slavery.
you just proved how dumb you are.
my flag stands for freedom from tyrants never flew on any slave ship.
if you ever bothered to study the war of northern aggression you will find out it was against the law in the confederate states of america to import slaves.
the usa flag stand for slavery.
the usa invaded the south to enslave everyone.
animefan2k9 I understand the argument young southerns use to apologize it away. I believe you just proved how ignorant you are regarding it's connotations. My argument remains, wear your pride in public and you will see my argument (and simultaneously get laughed out the room)
Apologize it away and say its your southern pride! Then look what it really stands for, poverty and piss poor education. The joke we call the south docs.google.com/drawings/d/1JRU5roUk0Jr1G3D2kHLah5--224KjCFnuE2-HmKpAYE/edit
1:48:05 Matt Slick does the last resource of any dishonest christian: the "how do you know that" made famous by Sye Ten Bruggencate.
The death throes of the conversation really, having been corrected and exposed over and over by Dillahunty.
That's what dillahunty does lol. Slick was telling him God revealed himself to him and dillahunty basically said the same thing
@@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 feel like Dillahunty should be aware from the start that Slick isn't an honest interlocutor, so he shouldn't have been treating him as if he was.
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.
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.
+GodlessWench Correct, Ps 37:13
+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?
Romans 3:26
+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 ?
wow, that was epic ass-kickery processed by Dillahunty.
What a bunch of cowards. They have to wait till Matt D. is gone to talk behind his back
Yeah I was terrified
@@btwn Regardless, you looked like an asshole. Have some self-awareness.. maybe pray for some.
@@btwncorrect. As shown by your behavior and the fact you STILL lied about Matt's position.... But not until he left. Cowardice.
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