Time stamps. 0:11 Formalities. Host Introduction of speakers and general rules. ~20 minute speeches 6:07 Braxton Hunter. 25:49 Matt Dillahunty. 46:17 Braxton Hunter. 56:20 Matt Dillahunty. 1:06:34 Formalities. Host lays out rules for cross examination. Q&A between Speakers, ~ 6 minutes 1:07:31 Braxton Hunter. 1:13:42 Matt Dillahunty. 1:20:46 Formalities. Host lays out rules. Q&A between Speakers, ~5 minutes 1:21:26 Braxton Hunter. 1:26:37 Matt Dillahunty. 1:32:42 Formalities. Host lay out rules Q&A from audience to speakers 1:33:36 Directed at Matt Dillahunty. 1:36:23 Directed at Braxton Hunter. 1:39:44 Directed at Matt Dillahunty. 1:42:38 Directed at Matt Dillahunty. 1:47:36 Not directed directly at speaker, but question pointed at Braxton Hunter. 1:51:54 Directed at Braxton Hunter. 1:53:25 Directed at Matt Dillahunty. 1:55:20 Directed at Braxton Hunter. 1:58:32 Directed at Matt Dillahunty. 2:00:53 Directed at Matt Dillahunty. 2:02:48 Directed at Matt Dillahunty. 2:05:33 Host preaching...?* (I don't know what to label this neutrally.) *I generally don't put personal opinions into time stamps, but this took me a back a bit. because the host so far was doing a decent job at being a host.
@@adamheywood113 Thanks for posting. I wanted to help anyone who might want to watch it. Be it Matt for reference in a possible follow up video or someone else. Be that now or x time in the future. It's a shame I didn't get to the video faster though. I checked my phone with another account of mine and I'm shown as the 11th ranked comment.
@@amadcarrot Thanks for posting. It's not the preaching and prayer in and of itself that I have a problem with. It was more the host undermined his role as a host, which undermined the entire point of the debate/discussion. I wouldn't find it acceptable if any host said their personal beliefs after an extensive debate/discussion. What he SHOULD have done for his role as a host at the end: -Thanked them both for coming -Tell the audience that he hopes this has given them some things to think about -Maybe asked the audience for a round of applause for the two speakers coming here today. The reason I personally don't think you should state personal beliefs at the end of a discussion, it being regardless of your beliefs as a host, is because it creates what I'm going to call 'Vacuum of thought'. The discussion allows for a more open environment for people to think about the ideas of the debate more so they might begin to develop the start of critical thinking. It takes that entire environment, and narrows it down by someone telling people how they OUGHT to act in regards to all this information. It seems like it is more likely to shrink a person's ability to think than expand their ability to think. In a sentence, a 'You can think, but I won't let you think for yourself for too long' kind of social structure.
Braxton: “stay with me here it’s about to get complicated” and “you’re not gonna like what I say here.” Proceeds with overly complicated non-answers. It annoys me how 99.9% of Christians debaters can’t answer a question straight. Matt Dillahunty was once a Christian who answered questions straight. Now he’s an atheist.
You reach...to answer your own understanding of what is real...Sorry if no one has the answers that couldn't make you annoyed. There are questions that aren't currently answered, and we as humans need to understand that, not reach for answers that are fiction based in an ancient book.
This one made me laugh good. When he said he wasnt special pleading while he was really specially pleading something had me dying. But its really sad that these apologists utilize so many presups, fallacies, and dishonest debate tactics to move on to the next subject.
@@exodiathecoolone The problem I have with Kalam (and its application in secular science) Is the statement "Something can not come from nothing". The honest statement is "AS FAR AS WE HAVE DETERMINED.....". The statement is NOT a fact and is as dishonest as any God claim IMHO.
“Oh shit, this debate was a bad idea, Matt made some really good points. I better do some last minute evangelizing so these people don’t become atheists.” - Moderator
Even worse, he had this planned out in advance, knowing he'd sandbag Matt with no opportunity for rebuttal before even knowing how the debate would go. And yet....probably because he did know how the debate would go...
@@bprocks07 they probably didn't either, with me, alarm bells start ringing: do they actually care about people being miraculously healed, or do they only care about that when they use it in an argument for their apologetics?
5 лет назад+27
@@daddyleon God couldn't heal the guy in the wheelchair, he was too busy giving aids to babies in africa.
It’s hilarious that you think walking from a wheel chair rather than changing a God hating heart is miraculous..what’s even more comical is you think the judge should give evidence to the criminal.. You need to read the Bible in context instead of demanding The judge to bow to you.. Miracles were to establish his word.. Not to prove something to you, that you already know, but suppress because you hate the God you know..
Wow, that preacher right at the end actually asked his audience to please not think with their minds but instead to act purely on emotion and be very very careful to never ever let logic or experience turn them away from that. If evil existed, that would be it right there. What an absolutely reprehensible belief system. I'm compelled to go off on a big angry rant right now, and it's taking a lot of discipline to acknowledge that would be pointless and not do it.
I don't know if he did it on purpose but that's a pretty well known tactic con artists and cult leaders use, he's basically reassuring you that whatever you've heard that might have just created a tiny bit of doubt in your mind isn't really important and you should forget about it. He majorly manipulated almost every Christian in the room turning the whole debate completely pointless
Even worse, imo, his story and the repeated turns towards Matt, he did the exact thing that Matt said was the most insulting - implying that when Matt did his "searching" for God at that "fork in the road", he just didn't do it right or good enough or whatever, and then went a step further.... If you listen close, he slipped in after his own part about fans and pencils about "scientific proof" (with another half turn in Matt's direction), as if he completely ignored the part of the story where Matt specifically said that all he was looking for was that same "still small voice" (not in those words exactly, but he definitely implied something more like that than pencils moving or fans turning on or anything else that would qualify as "supernatural"). So, if anything, this preacher is saying that because he asked for something God wasn't willing to do, he got the thing that Matt had asked for, and Matt didn't because....??? Abhorrent. That's the only word for it.
The worst part about all this is the brainwashing of children. Assigning a religion to them at birth and teaching them that they may go to hell if they misbehave or don't believe properly.
NO ONE asked for that final "preach" of the host and the fact that he even acknowledged it "not being fair to our atheist friends", while still going through with it, says a lot about his character...
He was rude. I have seen countless debates & the damn moderator or host never closes with preaching and prayer. This was a debate not no fucking church. Get out of here with the BS.
@@darkstar4494 his role is moderator not preacher during this debate, it is unfair, he is supposed to be neutral as the the moderator regardless of what his opinion was
I loved how he claimed "if it ain't broke don't fix it", I'm like if anything has been "broke" it is kalam, what a crap argument, kalam doesn't even get you to a god
"Recalibrated plausibility" must be the theist version of "alternative facts". Edited to include timestamps: 0:11 Introduction of the format 5:58 Braxton's opener 25:48 Matt's opener 46:03 Braxton's rebuttal 56:20 Matt's rebuttal 1:06:33 Cross examination #1 by Braxton 1:13:35 Cross examination #1 by Matt 1:20:43 Cross examination #2 by Braxton 1:26:31 Cross examination #2 by Matt 1:33:09 Q&A period
I gave you the thumbs-up not for your time-stamps (which I was going to do myself!) but for your translation into plain English of Braxton's phrase, "recalibrated plausibility..." :D
@Ag21 Keep your scape-goat ritual-cum-human sacrifice! I'll have none of it! Such rituals are abominations which can ONLY EVER perpetuate evil, by punishing the innocent so the guilty can go free! Only the extremely immoral or the extremely gullible could ever believe in such nonsense! And your fairy-tale 'heaven' and 'hell' are just the 'carrot' and the 'stick' in the oldest form of mind-control known to our poor, benighted species: RELIGION!
Please, don't look for evidence, because you won't find it; listen to the voice in your head that says the good things you want to hear, because THAT'S how you're going to KNOW god exists!
@@joshua.merrill I listened to the voice in my head,and due to the nature of my brain which your "God" gave me,it tells me that I need to have a factual evidence before believing in something.
@@kuwandak Romans 1:20 "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse," General revelation reveals the existence of God and makes known His attributes. No matter where a person is in the world, God is speaking to them. It is the very nature of God to be revealing Himself to mankind. The fact of God’s existence is not hidden from the human race. No matter where a person is on planet earth. God has created a world, which is perfectly equipped to punish or reward the living entities according to their activities. We should look at what is visible around us in nature, what God has made, and arrive at some obvious conclusions about what is not visible. Adding one and one together, we should understand from nature that God has eternal power and a divine nature. If a person denies the existence of God, then there is no reference point for correctly understanding themselves or the world around them. If human beings do not "work out" the basic nature of God from what is seen in creation, and seek Him from there, they are simply "without excuse." They are willfully ignoring the obvious. God insists that He has made it plain to human reasoning and that to decide otherwise is to suppress the truth we know by nature. It is inexcusable to deny our Creator God for His invisible attributes, eternal power and divine nature leaves man defenseless. God also reveals to mankind in the way to know Him. This saving revelation is found exclusively in the written word, which alone tells us about the living Word, Lord Jesus Christ. What we know of the person of Christ and the plan of salvation is found in the written word of God. The ultimate goal of this process is union with God characterized by pure love of God and other people as well as personal holiness or sanctification. Hebrews 11:1 "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Just as our physical eyesight is the sense that gives us evidence of the material world, faith is the “sense” that gives us evidence of the invisible, spiritual world. Through faith, guided by the word of God, the things unseen are brought to the proof; what that word teaches, though future, or though belonging to a world beyond human sight, is received with full conviction. The eye of faith sees beyond our present reality and places its feet firmly on divine revelation given by almighty God, through the Word-made-flesh. It believes God's Word of truth in the pages of Scripture, which was written for our learning, instruction, encouragement, and hope. Only an eternal, all-powerful, all-knowing being could prove the existence of the God described in the Bible. Keeping the word is the work of sowing a seed, allowing it to take root. Faith only makes sense to the one who hears the word. We must place our full trust in Jesus Christ as our personal Savior and repent. As Christians we understand that Jesus Christ is the founder and perfecter of our faith, the undeniable evidence of God’s faithfulness to His word. If God does exist, then rejecting His existence and desires for how we live is the height of foolishness. Yet it is also foolish to claim to believe in God, but to live as if God is absent. The wicked man believes that God “will never see” his evil deeds. How sad that so many reject the one Who loves us so much that He sent His only begotten Son to die on a cross to pay the price for our sin. May the hope we have in Christ and the faith we have in God be built on the truth, of His Word and grounded on a sure conviction. Psalms 1:1-6 "Blessed is the man Who walks not in the counsel of the ungodly, Nor stands in the path of sinners, Nor sits in the seat of the scornful; But his delight is in the law of the Lord, And in His law he meditates day and night. He shall be like a tree Planted by the rivers of water, That brings forth its fruit in its season, Whose leaf also shall not wither; And whatever he does shall prosper. The ungodly are not so, But are like the chaff which the wind drives away. Therefore the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment, Nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous. For the Lord knows the way of the righteous, But the way of the ungodly shall perish."
but can't you also say "if I drink water, god doesn't exists. I drank water, therefore god doesn't exists."? I mean it's just meaningless phrases, trying to confuse people and seem to look "smart", I guess. Haha! These "debates" are starting to get boring tho. Heard all the arguments so many times already and debunks to them so many times. I really don't understand faith at all nor belief.
@@roqsteady5290 I'm fairly confident this is not affirming the consequent. His formation is "If P then Q. P, therefore Q." Affirming the consequent would be Q, therefore P.
@@CravenM1980 that doesn’t even make sense. You make an assertion(baseless one) and the above guy summed the end up perfectly. So explain how. By allllll means
I couldn’t help wondering after the concluding preaching; since without god we have to wonder “what is the purpose of our life”, does god ever wonder what is the purpose of his life?
@@CravenM1980 I'm on the other side and I think they both made points, some better than others. But you think Matt made 0 points? And just gave misleading information? What false information do you think he gave?
Ancient Miracles: Parting of the Red Sea Manna from Heaven Jonah and the Whale Jesus Feeding the Multitudes Jesus Resurrected......etc, etc... Modern Miracles: "I found my car keys!"
Or my sister is dead in a fire -- the bible survive....... it a miracle! Your sister is dead by the way. The real positive aspect of it would have been that she has survive at least. Not that a book have survive in a fire. Believers are more and more weird. They don't know what to say anymore. Go Matt your the best.....
I would have LOVED to see Scott Clifton/Theoretical Bullshit tackle this particular debate. He has a great series of videos on the Kalam cosmological argument and is incredibly well spoken in general.
@@LordHengun : It is my belief that a debater's duty is to sharpen his wits and dust up his tools before a major encounter. Thanks for the name, I'll look it up for my own pleasure.
Anyone that claims they became a believer because of Kalam is a lying pile of crap. Every single one of them was a believer first, and are desperately trying to find a reason for it.
Kalam is not a useful argument to bring up in any debate. The best it does is suggest that the universe is not infinite (had a cause). You can call that cause "god", if you wish, but then what does that have to do with an actual theist god (the kind that has a relationship with mankind)?
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom hey bud there is no need to spam post, but i hope you agree that having a reasonable standard of evidence is a good idea.
Otangelo Grasso Please stop putting my god down !! My god Thor is better than your god .. 2 reasons why !! It’s in my book and I had dream when I died and came back to life and he told me and showed me the way !!!
THE PEOPLE SING that’s silly. It’d be like saying my hand belongs to me not you, therefor my hand is part of my reality but not yours. I can observe the effects of your love based on the actions you take because of it. I can verify you exist. You and your love are part of the one reality which we both share. I don’t posses your love, but I share a reality with it.
Frances Snowflake wait, what?. There is a difference between existence, as a concept, an abstraction, that which we think about. And existence as an act, as being, a feature of reality. That which is defined, is but a concept. Material reality is objective reality.
Yep. Completely shooting the very idea of a fair debate in the foot by openly promoting one side's arguments as being absolutely true regardless of anything the other side had said in the debate. When the debate was over. And no one could challenge him anymore.
@@WeirdWonderful well in a way pershaps but in reality why not let a man follows what he knows and why should it upset anybody otherwise one is as guilty as the supposively guilty one .
"We have libertarian free will!" "God already knows everything I'll think and do in my entire life, because it's all according to his divine plan!" *Cognitive Dissonance Level: MASTER*
@TheEsotericZebra I missed the part where he disproved there is a God maybe you can time stamp that since the debate is about the exist of a Christian God or he could just completely ignore that and just persuade people away from God with his experiences and ideas like he tried and failed to do with me. I lived with an atheist family. So I heard it before. They still did not believe back then even when they saw miracles from Jesus.
@@mikejr8604 What are these miracles? Are they like in the debate, where doctors couldn't explain it, so it was attributed to god, or is it something substantial, like a limb growing back?
@@joshua.merrill @@joshua.merrill referring to miracles is what Jesus Christ has done and no need to explain that everyone heard them before that's because the word of God is already in us and written on our foreheads. The debate don't matter the sides don't matter there's a bigger picture then these wrestling shows. Stop looking up to idols and listening and think for yourself those in limelight get paid to push a certain agenda. Its clear to see it. The same stuff collages push along with everybody else on RUclips n tv.
I'm incredibly curious as to why he even bothered to be there, people like him already "know" everything they need to know and don't care if they've been proven wrong thousands of times. That, and just looking at him you know he's a nothing more than a punk looking for anything to rebel against.
I think people don't really understand how words work... Gnostic=knowledge; agnostic=no knowledge. Theist=belief; atheist=no belief. Just because people think atheism is anti-theism doesn't change the roots of the word. Sure, it could be argued that the meaning is changed, colloquially, but that's why you define things when they aren't clear. The fact that it was defined, and the question asker still rejected it, shows his adherence despite evidence to the contrary, aka delusion. That's like me saying a Christian doesn't have faith, because they don't live their life as if good has complete control over what happens. You have to definite what faith means to them. Basic conversation principles: establish common ground.
It completely defeats the purpose of having a debate to begin with if he's going to jump in at the end and preach to the audience. It's clear that he knew Matt made some hard-hitting points and so to prevent any seeds of doubt or questioning, he slides in when the debate is over to butter the audience up with a sermon. It's pathetic and dishonest.
@THE PEOPLE SING : "If we relied on atheists to invent the CAR, we'd be in big trouble...." Cars weren't invented thanks to faith in any deity. It only required faith in the methods that uncovered the physical principles used to build a working car, which does not rely on any god. I completely fail to see the problem with atheists inventing things. I would, however, see a problem with anyone trying to invent a working device based solely on faith in a god.
@@Crashawsome Naw. God is Love. And You obviously don't see Love as Nothing. Love is the most important thing in your life...And it's Invisible. Your Ego will try to ignore it But Emotion is the very reason you JUST REPLIED Without it... you'd literally be a Robot 🤖. You can't Touch it, Taste it, or Smell it..But you know it's real. LOVE... IS THE INVISIBLE FORCE THAT IS THE SOURCE AND MOTIVATION FOR EVERYTHING YOU DO Thats... kind of a Big Deal. Haha GOD IS THE SAME EXACT DEFINITION I repeat... GOD IS THE SAME EXACT DEFINITION Love is inescapable. That's the reason Atheists say a higher power is useless and pointless...but Atheists CONSTANTLY talk about it. That's AWESOME.
I love the closing "sermon" that the moderator gave. I did exactly what he said I stopped looking for external and went to the internal. I internally examined my faith and reached out to "God" to show me the truth ,show me the way, and it was through this internal examination self-reflection and soul-searching that I realized the reasons I had four belief we're Unjustified . I prayed nearly that exact same prayer, and I did so with the expectation of being enlightened or brought closer to Jesus or something. Instead I encountered something slightly more profound in my studying the bible. The more I studied the less it made sense . Also the silence from God speaking to my heart was deafening.
First, you have to know how it written. Reading it like a story book or novel, it wont make sense, and is quite unbelievable. It is not a surface level reading. Its mostly metaphors. Which has had the most important parts edited out. One example of a misunderstood would be, the Bible says Jesus is Gods son. It also states “We are all Gods children. “You prayed, but most likely incorrectly. It tells you to pray. How was edited out. God has no audible language and doesn’t read your thoughts. Another mistake people make(Because of reading only at surface level) is thinking God is some magic man in the sky. Giving him human characteristics. He is not a decision maker. This applies to any religions book. Bible, Quran, etc. They are the same. Teachings with human additions and edits. They were meant to be spiritual books. Not religious books. This is why it doesnt matter what religion you are, or if you call him God, Allah, or Billybob for that matter. They all have the same core beliefs and say to do the same things. Basically, dont be a selfish prick. Lol Could it be a coincidence that they all include some form of meditation ? Even tribes in South America, Africa with little to no interference from the outside world do the same things. The rituals being the only difference. Christianity does too, if you read the edited out parts. You were correct going internal. Because hes not in the sky, hes not a being. Hes in all beings. Hes in your subconscious. What they call supernatural is actually the most natural thing on earth. Its just not completely understood….yet. So it seems supernatural. Take what religions have in common. Understand what that means beyond surface level, and live that way. Religion itself is a human invention. Which millions have killed each other over the man made parts of their scriptures. Watch this. Seems like rhe first few mins are boring. Theres a lot of explanation though. ruclips.net/video/_ZQ03ki7-UU/видео.html
@@91GT347 what an arrogant comment "yOu Did It WrOnG" if god existed you shouldn't have to jump through random hoops just to get in his favor and if he did exist then hes no just god for playing games with christians or anyone for that matters proclaimed afterlife because they "did it wrong"
@@kylebooth4948 Your speaking as if its a human. With thoughts, beliefs, an actual judgement like a courtroom. Literally watching with eyeballs. Kind of the whole point is, you dont have to jump through hoops to get on his good side……if it were a him and he had a side. Its not and it dont. Its not arrogant at all. Im definitely not the first one to see it. It doesn’t make anyone any better than anyone else. In fact, not understanding completely, doesnt even matter. You apparently may have difficulty, but most any person of any religion, understands their teachings at the core say “Dont be a dick to anyone or anything.” Which is really all thats important. Self awareness, try it. You cant do it right, without all of the instructions. Was the point. Not comprehending my simple comment, it’s understandable why you still have this “magic man in the sky” thinking. Its much more complex than anything I could write.
@@91GT347 "ObViOsLy you werent a true christian!!!" There is so much wrong with this. But I liked the part where you admitted the bible isn't the word of god!
Right? Total nonsense. If this thing I can’t prove exists, then this other thing I can’t prove exists. I have no evidence on how they’re tied together or how one proves the other. “If free will exists, no God exists” is an equally plausible statement.
It doesn't matter whether he has an explanation or not... The article of Faith is an article of Divine Science... Not only perfectly defined in the Bible Hebrews 11 that's the definition of Biblical.
@@andnowwevibe270 are you for real? If you are you clearly have no idea what the term means. Theism is making a claim which is rejected do to insufficient evidence. So yeah it's a correct position to hold and most atheists are pretty accurate when examining evidence that seemingly supports the god claim.
@@darkoleskovsek2558 SO YU HAFF NO EFFIDENCE THAT ATHEISM IS ACCURATE AND CORRECT. TYPICAL AYTHEIST AVOIDING THE QUESTION! WHY DO YU HATE THA LAWRD AND LOGIC?
I'm new to Dillahunty, and when I heard his opening statement, I found it unremarkable. Then the second round happened and he shined. I'm an absolute fan. Thank goodness.
Atheism is more of a 'defense', as one does not believe in any specific deity on the lack of proof, therefore atheists are more about disproving theist arguments. Its like parrying and riposting in dark souls
He's awesome. When I first started seeing some of his work, it was like he was speaking out what I was thinking internally about religion, then expanding on it and making it insanely logical and coherent haha. I've learned a lot about philosophy and atheism in general by watching a lot of stuff by him and the ACA
@@lisalisa3635 defense against being persuaded by bad ideas, bad reasoning, bad philosophy, illogical, irrational, wrong meanings. Education give you tools for greater decision making capabilities.
@@ceceroxy2227 Yea if you presuppose this shit is real. You still have to account for all the other faiths who once stood and will stand in the future.
@@ceceroxy2227 None of them have any good evidence. They’re all similar when it comes to “evidence”. People will point to anecdotal evidence or hearsay and think that’s empirical evidence.
Theist: of course, but you won't accept testimonials, or the Kalam so I won't bring those up, there's plenty of evidence otherwise, obviously, more than I could bring up right now, such as miracles. My time's up now, I think I made my case.
@Edward Moran and the counter argument is THEIST: AN ALL POWERFUL JEWISH RABBI WHO EXISTED FROM THE BEGINNING OF TIME CHOSE TO INVENT THE WORLD SO THAT JEWS ON ONE TINY PLANET COULD RULE NON JEWS FOREVER THROUGH USURY AND RELIGIOUS FAITH. ANY PERSON NOT BELIEVING IN THE INVISIBLE, ALL POWERFUL, ETERNAL RABBI WILL BE TORTURED IN HELLFIRE FOR ALL ETERNITY. PLUS, THE ETERNAL, ALL POWERFUL, INVISIBLE RABBI LIVES IN AN ALL MALE HEAVEN, SENT HIMSELF TO EARTH TO FIGHT THE DEVIL-- WHICH HE CREATED AND SENT TO EARTH TO RULE THE KINGDOMS OF MAN. AFTER BRIEFLY DUELING WITH THE DEVIL HE CREATED, GOD SACRIFICED HIMSELF TO HIMSELF, TO CONVINCE HIMSELF TO OFFER PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE IN THIS ( on faith) TO POSSIBLY ESCAPE AN ETERNITY OF HELLFIRE AND TORMENT. HOWEVER, IF A HUMAN CALLS HIS BROTHER A FOOL-- HE WILL BURN IN HELL NO MATTER WHAT HE BELIEVED.. 🤷♀️
@Edward Moran Adding "magic" to that creation does not add anything that is persuasive to a non-believer. And I have never heard of a mechanism that a magical non-person-deity could use to create matter and life that doesn't equal "magic". Nobody has ever been able to demonstrate even the existence of the simplest of supernatural phenomena without being a superb stage magician who knows how the trick works. In short "I don't know how it happened" does not lead to the conclusion "god did it".
@@piotrgraniszewski8544 Good for you, doesn't mean he knows. Should he just make shit up that he doesn't even believe, just to give Braxton a semi-satisfying excuse of an answer?
Do you know everything? Can I ask you just about anything and you would just know? Would it be a guess or shot in the dark? Saying idk is better than “Because magic did it.”
Piotr Graniszewski But believers pretending to know things that they don’t isn’t obnoxious, wow, what’s more obnoxious, the people claiming to know things or the one saying he doesn’t know. Not for nothing but your obnoxious.
"I see evidence for God EVERYWHERE!" Yeah that's because you already believe in a god. Convincing believers that "x" is evidence for God is like shooting fish in a barrel. He's not looking at the evidence from a non-believer's eyes. When you already believe in a creator then of course EVERYTHING is a creation!
“I see evidence of god everywhere” Great. That means coronavirus is evidence of god. Literally a virus for which there is no vaccine for that’s killing people left and right is evidence god exists
Exactly, religious people can't seem to grasp this concept. If you're trying to convert a non-believer, you can't just use sermons meant for your congregation. I'm not going to just agree that a banana is proof of God. You need to talk to ME, not your followers. I think most atheists come from a more neutral position, seeing as the majority of folks are raised religious.
I don't know why debates often prioritize speech and rebuttal over cross-examination. I've watched many religious debate videos and for me the best format is the long conversation between 2 debaters.
It allows both parties to clearly establish their positions and provide plenty of material for cross examination. Remember this is modeled after formal debates which can be on any topic.
@FACE GALLON The God of the Old Testament is more blatantly cruel, but the God of the New Testament is cruel in ways that are more insidious. For example, a lot of people have grown up with a fear of hell. Those fears can in some cases run very deep. There are numerous cases of people that no longer believe in the teachings of the religion including not believing that hell really exists, but yet they are still plagued with these intense fears that were driven into them as a child.
Watcherfox Absolutely, I know hell doesn't exist but every so often I have doubts that I'm making a mistake. I'll never go back to religion but that fear is definitely not completely gone.
I love that the absolute BEST argument that theists can bring up is to squeeze out the logic that PERHAPS a god-like being exists. They have absolutely zero evidence that it’s Yahweh, or that Jesus was the Messiah, or that the prophets were real...they say “Wow, a space pixie? That sound like God! We win!” 🤦🏽♂️
in many forms of martial arts its a legitimate move, its called dodging and weaving... hey wait, this isn't a martial arts competition, this is a debate...
Anthony Risso sounds good to me. get the word out to your fellow cultists NOT to debate atheists anymore. the more we can be separated the better. you go off to your little corner of the globe and build your theocracy and we will continue the advancement of secular governance and philosophy (wherever it may exist) and we'll see which society has the staying power. if only we could conduct such an experiment... it would end these silly debates sooner or later...
i feel like braxton undercuts himself immediately when he tries to defend the claim that jesus died and was resurrected. when he's talking about historical evidence for the crucifixion (something that we know can happen in the physical world), he puts so much effort into saying "maybe you want a jewish opinion" "maybe you want a liberal opinion", effectively trying to make the point that most scholars agree that there was a jesus who was crucified. then on the topic of his resurrection (something that defies what we understand about the physical world), his claims immediately change to "we have good evidence that there were christian communities that really believed this". i dont see how you can feel justified going to a more fantastic claim with a lower standard of evidence
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom even if i accepted that this is actually evidence for the resurrection (which it doesnt seem to be), i was making a comment about braxton's argument and how he initially presents evidentiary standards
Thing is none of them theists even know or debate what Jesus had to say on the subject himself in the following works. He clarifies everything, but since it isn't Bible it 'couldn't be true'! : www.helirods.net/documents/The-Real-New-Testament-The-Talmud-of-Jmmanuel-Person-Known-Nowadays-as-Jesus-Forgery-in-Christianity-1.pdf The Padgett Messages divine-love.us/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/THE_PADGETT_MESSAGES.pdf
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom Hi Otangelo...you're complaint about "mocking, ridiculing, rejecting, and never satisfied" is called critical thinking. You may want to try it sometime. Additionally, forever the persecution complex eh? In many cultures, especially in the culture of the USofA, professing non-belief is serious taboo, and in some cases reacted to very harshly by Christians. It's like humans who say "yeah, sorry, I don't see any reason for me to believe in this" is taken a GIGANTIC offense, that in some parts of the world will still get you killed for. But please, (sips tea) tell me more about how the Christianity, among one of the most dominate religions on the planet, holds sway over 10s of millions, influences public policy, and in many places actually RUNS governments and enforces laws is so "persecuted".
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom So you can reply... thanks for taking the bait. Considering that you refused to acknowledge other claims i assume is because you know they are not true and are too coward to defend them. catholicstraightanswers.com/what-is-the-shroud-of-turin/ "However, to believe that the Shroud is the actual burial cloth of the Lord is not a matter of faith. No Catholic is bound to believe it is. As Cardinal Saldarini of Turin stated, “It’s not Christ, but something that brings us back to him. Salvation is not in the Shroud, even if it truly wrapped the martyred body of Jesus, even if it was mysteriously given by God to His Church. Salvation is that which is given to us by Christ” (Columbia, June 1998). " In other words the catholic church (vatican) don't consider the shroud as truthful, but they don't care if some gullible idiots think that is not a fraud.
Dude...you can't blame him ( Braxton) dude...in fact he is not Wrong and right at the same time... Cause we all come from a single cell ( our humble single celled ancestor,very humble indeed)and we are just chemical molecules with no soul ( because no God, and big bang didn't bang to give souls).. What he says must be an outcome of chemical reactions in his brain just like how chemicals work in yours and mine ... The chemicals in His Brain can't be blamed cause you or I have no right to say or determine how reactions of molecules of our body and brain should occur...only big bang should or our humble ancestor ( Mr. Humble bacteria ) should say cause only they know how they determined the chemicals to work... I will let you know soon cause my scientist friend is working on talking to singularity (AKA nothing ) and our humble ancestor, I hope the latter responds.....well simply put you can't blame the chemicals in the lab( braxton's brain) that causes a "KABOOM"( proving Christianity, something you disagree ) in the lab ....you also can't blame the scientist (God)because you don't believe in the scientist in first place... So the KABOOM happened by itself........well big bang made him ,you and me and you have no right to call him wrong because it is the chemicals of his brain like it is in your brain
@@JesusInSkyrim i didn't try and blame you for anything....i was just wondering who created vamps.....some novelists i believe...from europe way back in 1600 ??
I hold as few beliefs as possible. I do not believe "god(s) exist" I do not believe "god(s) do not exist." I hold the neutral position of "the burden of proof has not been met, so I lack a belief in god." So no, theists do not have beliefs 'just like me'. By the way. I was not saying that ALL theists claim that, only this one specific theist.
Current political events have brought me to the conclusion that religion based on supernatural ideas makes everything in human existence worse. Whatever religion does there is a secular version that we could create that would do that thing better. Religion increases suffering and religion in politics just magnifies its negative effects. That is all for my rant.
atam mardes Mark Twain should have said “The best cure for Christianity is The Old Testament and The New Testament”. But I gratefully accept Mark Twain’s intelligent conclusion.
@@luciadelia5607 Trouble is, the Sickness that Christianity is dealing with, is the Sickness of our Human-Race at war with itself, robbing itself, raping itself, making brutality & misery upon itself... a.k.a. Sins... We are all Sinners, nobody has the solution to the chain of Evil running through this world ; anybody who becomes free from Evil and takes the stand for Innocence, gets Crucified... not Crowned...
Not too sure about it. I have witnessed religious people reading the bible for the first time and making excuses for their god making immoral decisions. Also, in ambiguous passages they interpret things to their convenience. They read the biblie with "open mind."
@@solimarra Dear Dog-Chow, : ) EVERYTHING that God does, is Good.. ! ! ! God NEVER makes immoral decisions. The Israelites who wrote the Old Testament, knew Something about God, but NOT Everything. The Lens through which they looked towards God, was imperfect. So they wrote imperfectly. God is Perfect. To understand God better, let me give you, my How-to-find-God Kit.. : ) >>> HERE are some short UNCONVENTIONAL videos, to help you find, The Supreme Being, a.k.a. God-on-High… ruclips.net/video/1mFRUGDY8Ao/видео.html ruclips.net/video/xVUvEy8BbkU/видео.html ruclips.net/video/Bsel8hEp4HM/видео.html ruclips.net/video/pHn2zFU6-zY/видео.html ruclips.net/video/7FEykDoaTHg/видео.html Here is The Bhagavad Gita, for good measure… ruclips.net/video/ZuRvBoLu4t0/видео.html en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhagavad_Gita ruclips.net/video/PC0FW407FVs/видео.html Here is The Gospel of John, in audio book & movie form >>> ruclips.net/video/47OkuvT5JFo/видео.html HERE is my own “hand-made” video : ) ruclips.net/video/gdcOGFUQAag/видео.html Have a Nice Day : ) from The All-Seeing Eye …
Why would god allow them to write about him imperfectly? Now people will think god is immoral when supposedly isn’t. Looks like either God doesn’t care enough or god doesn’t exist.
The debate was over when the Christian said that libertarian free will does exist, in his first few sentences. Libertarian free will doesn't exist, next.
Libertarian free will is the contention that we can make decisions that are not determined by our character or our experience or some combination of those. Quite how we could possibly do that without such decisions being random is never made clear by its proponents.
Close. It's the ability to make decisions AT ALL that could have been otherwise. Nothing to do with character/experience necessarily. It's not a psychological phenomenon. If the universe is consistent and causal, then every interaction that every particle makes could be calculated theoretically. Therefore, the illusion of self and decisions is why people think free will exists. And secondly, randomness plays no role. If some things are determinately random (like maybe virtual particles), that just introduces randomness. Basically, if you went back in time and pressed play, things might be different, but still, randomness does not equal free will. Hence, libertarian free will does NOT exist, it is just a very convincing illusion.
Hunter got ALL THE WAY into his argument, THEN rebuttal, THEN Q&A before saying: "Wait, I wasn't done making an argument!" The debate was "Does the Christian God Exist?" and he never even got to "god." That's what happens when all you've got is "kalam" and a bunch of head-fakes about free will.
25:10 - "we shouldn't be moved merely by rhetoric" said the christian currently engaged in rhetoric.
5 лет назад+33
Actually, in 2019. discussions about god or gods are rather obsolete. Once you read some of Bart Ehrman's books there is nothing left to debate. It's like we debate structure of a water molecule or an atom. Most people will still believe, but arguments against god and gods are more sound.
Well, 60%+ of the US population are theists. Until that drops below 35% we do have to debate these topics. We still debate abortion and that's supported the supreme court since the early 60s, as well as the majority of the US today. You don't get to decide when a nonacademic debate is over. It's It's for the public and does convince people their religion is wrong, so fuck off and leave if you don't enjoy watching. Some of us do enjoy it, and these types of comments are counterproductive.
@@slavaukraine716 I adamantly agree. We need more discussion and debate on this topic. If we can a least get people to question their beliefs, I'll count as it win.
5 лет назад+2
@@slavaukraine716 You don't have to be so rude with your comments. Your point is well taken, you like debates. I like them too. I like Matt and everything he says stands the trial of reason. As for me, I don't like repetition. I follow this kind of debates from the very beginning and I hear the same arguments over and over again. Also, most of us who are here are presumably atheists, so there is no point bashing Christians all over again. As for your 60% of people who are religious, many of them are older people who almost never go online or watch debates on RUclips. We need proper secular legislation, separation of Church and the state. Debate has been won long time ago.
What does it say about your position when the moderator has to close reinforcing their position out of fear that they didn’t appear on top. Doesn’t matter where a debate is taking place or what position the moderator has, you have a role as a moderator and I pray(lol) that this man never moderates again.
@@kimmmimemwest1895 doesn’t matter the venue or the event, the moderator should always remain unbiased during the event. Just reflects very poorly on the moderator and the position they support even if their position is correct(which obviously was not the case here).
@@arcaithe8030 I'm not talking about the venue I'm talking about the point of the event itself.. it's to promote religion so I would expect them to promote religion that's all.
@Ag21 you do realize your bronze age sheep herder books means nothing to me. Let's look at the first part. How did God give his only begotten son? Nonsense. The birth of christ isn't the birth of christ. It's the birth of an avatar. Son and father are one being and aware of their own existence. Their very existende is non corporeal. Humans cannot be shown to have an awareness of spiritual self or existence before our birth or after our deaths. According to your book there is no death for the son. There was no sacrifice, no death.
@Frances Snowflake you can use whatever philosophy of time you prefer I don't care. If you don't care either then just flip a coin and answer within whatever context the coin flip gives you.
@Frances Snowflake I'm very much aware that there are different theories of time. But they are completely irrelevant to my question since I'm giving you a completely open floor to answer it within the context of whatever theroy you prefer. My hunch here is that you just don't want to answer the question because either a yes or a no will put you into a position that shows a fairly glaring problem with the whole "God created time" thing. Am I right or are you going to give me a yes or no?
@Frances Snowflake the part I'm confused about is how you can't answer a simple yes or no question when you are asked one. Did God DECIDE to create time or didn't he?
@@Mailman316 Sure it's his church, but its as shady as when Christians hand out food at shelters but do so with the caveat that you have to sit and listen to them proselytize to you first. A debate is supposed to be an attempt at a civil discussion on equal footing, doing what he did violated that.
@@Mailman316 well, it was a debate set up to discuss the very idea.. it's just cheap to preach the very idea when the other side has finished the debate
One of the most cordial debates I have seen . Matt and Braxton debated honestly and clearly respected each other’s views . Only spoiled by the rant at the end which can be summarised as “ don’t wait for evidence - just believe in your heart “ BTW - the heart is not an organ of emotion or belief ! The preacher clearly did not listen to anything either speaker said .
@FACE GALLON LOL! Me too, the argument is too powerful. There's no way around the fact that "feelings" guide me towards truth/knowledge and my actions in life. Without the right feelings guiding me I'd just rape and murder and rob people. How could i tell right from wrong without feelings communicating to me that things feel good or bad, how would i know what to avoid doing? I must allow my feelings to tell me what i should do. Yay Believing in God/Jesus gives me such good feelings therefore Jesus/God exists!
@heelercs This is the huge problem with people who are religious. Most of the time they don’t ever factually state anything. I don’t like the reputation atheists get, of being obnoxious about their atheism and saying it to everyone they meet. Which is not true atheists are usually smart and nice people and I love to debate them. The reputation with people who believe in god is that they are in average less intelligent than a atheist. Which is true (if the study I looked at was correct)
@@koreaface I am not of the opinion that religious followers are in fact less intelligent, aside from it being demeaning even if it is true, it's not helpful,useful or caring or considerate towards them as people/individuals. They're just trying to make sense of things while getting emotional. we do too. bad ideas transcends intelligence/IQ, plenty of strong minded people can succumb to bad ideas, my beliefs is its through emotional reasons, which are incredibly strong. Look at what Love get us to do, or narrow our thoughts, act irrationally. It's very very powerful.
@Ignirium yes and that’s where both parties fall. It does not matter how smart you are if no one wants to listen to you because you annoy the hell out of them. And no one wants to listen to arguments that don’t even make sense. We need to be very open mined for us to gain respect, and with respect comes listeners. You need to have a moderation of both having a good personality and intelligence.I try to convert my atheist friends to Christianity by making sure we find something we can both agree on and then I build my argument off of agreement. After time and time again that middle ground is going to get much bigger. Resulting in one party converting, or the other party is now more educated.
@@koreaface I'm all for Compassion, people needs, individuality, caring, consideration, rights and wellbeing of people. I don't use it as a tactic, or with intention or as a means to an end; to kindly share beliefs between each other. i just believe people should be treated as people. Bad ideas have a right to be criticized, shamed, made fun of. You can't criticize good ideas, or shame them or make fun of good ideas, which lends to its credibility and authenticity. This is why Humour is truthful, a joke that is blunt or cultural is funny because it's true so we laugh! we don't laugh if we know its false, immoral. It takes bad ideas/beliefs to get a good person to do bad activity. Not athiesm, just wrong ideas, wrong beliefs. Your intention is to convert?"I try to convert my atheist friends to Christianity" I wouldn't even try to convert a Christian to anything else, that's very aggressive of you. I find that distinctly controlling of you to decide to do this for other people. it's about your benefit, not theirs. That's not what Compassion and Understanding and a good Listener is about, its not for you to soften the ground to better win them over. I'm nice and open minded, very agreeable, caring, compassionate person(i love that), and i would agree with you IF you only made logical sense. If you are swayed by emotions, you're believing for the wrong reasons. This is the thing with religious people, some decide to use Emotions as weapons, weaponized emotions. they target people, like you admitted you do to your atheist friends. An ingratiating face + pseudoscience or ambiguous questions to make you think about spirituality should not win anyone's mind. There is no middle ground, either its true or it isn't. Saying Jesus raised from the dead is a claim about Biology. Either Jesus didn't raise from the dead and Biology is true, or the laws of Biology and Physics and the natural order of the universe was suspended to just favor him. What's more plausible? Why is it so easy to find fault with the Bible lol. The bible really does have some good in there though. but it's a mixed bag where people pick and chose what suits them. or you can take it literally and stone people to death if you like.
Matt is quickly becoming my favorite Atheist representative. He held himself so well throughout this debate and shoved reason and logic into any point they threw at him. I'm annoyed he had to sit through that jackassery from the mod, though.
Dawkins isn't a philosopher tho and he's been making antagonistic claims about trans people lately. Plus just very condescending to believers. My favorites are Jimmy Snow, Shannon Q, Katy Montgomerie, Tracie Harris, I'll second Cosmic Skeptic, The Messianic Manic, and possibly my favorite in terms of eloquence and temperament is Genetically Modified Skeptic (Tho Tracie Harris, Shannon Q and Katy Montgomerie are up there too.)
@@randomviewer8974 Dr Josh Bowen/Digital Hammurabi is absolutely fantastic to listen to. I'd go so far as to recommend picking up his books on the OT Paulogia is probably my favorite all-around atheist. His content is great
Matt's ability to step back and look at each argument logically, definitely speaks to me. I always used to say I was mathematically minded, and that's why I couldn't believe, it just didn't make logical sense. It wasn't until I cam e across Matt that I finally opened my eyes to logical fallacies which then gave me the ability to accurately identify why each argument fell apart. Definitely a fan of Tracie Harris, and Cosmis Skeptic, Rationality Rules, Shannon Q and Paulogia. There are too many to name, but I definitley appreciate the time and effort they put into each of their videos. Looking forward to conferences starting up again, as I only found these people after Covid had already started wreaking havoc on social gatherings.
Yeah, yeah: don't look externally. Listen to the voice in your head, or believe the goosebumps on your arms, or if you feel really really strongly about something, don't ask questions - it must be God. In other words: turn your brain off, and you WILL believe.
Don Saito I will from now on whenever I am cooking chicken. I know this chicken is done because I feel it's ready just use the goosebumps to tell whether or not you will get salmonella.
The preaching at the end was a bit of a cheap shot. Juuust in case Matt got one or two of them Christan folk thinking. Otherwise a very interesting debate.
"Liberitarian freedom exists, therefore gawd exists..." Without any doubt, one of the most brilliant minds of his generation. /s Him claiming to be rational is a very bad joke. Related to the Kalam cosmological argument: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it. It is not broken..." Stopped taking Hunter even remotely serious. Related to his "Writing on the moon argument", why would he seriously believe that this would point to an act of a god and not the work of an extremely advanced alien race or invisible pink unicorns or pixies? And... how the heck would this nonsense even lead to the Christian god of his favorite flavor?
I agree. It could also be a timetravelling being who decided to play pranks on us and we wouldn't know it . Singling out god did it seems like a personal bias.
Braxton Hunter has got to be the most likable person Matt has debated so far. Bad arguments, but nice attitude and is laid back enough to make little jokes here and there.
Random internet user's review: I thought Braxton was a great debater, and did excellent research on Matt's positions and (mostly) Steelmans him. That said, his arguments were less than convincing. "I feel like I have free will, therefore I have free will" is instinctually convincing, but completely vapid. Kalam is very overplayed (and instinctually convincing) and just an appeal to our ignorance. Loved the debate, Matt did a great job, though the opener could have been more polished and pointed. Looking forward to the review...especially to the first question, haha.
Matt's opening sucked. It was half-assed and unconvincing. It only brought some vague themes to the debate. Matt at least played the defense very well. Can't wait for his review.
I disagree about Matt’s opening. I think he was trying a different tactic. Listen to the way he shifts his tone from a matter of fact hardcore debater to almost a personal anecdote style. I think he recognized his audience as likely all Christian and was trying to get through to them by being different from what they expected.
Yeah, Braxton strawmaned right from the beginning. Have you _EVER_ heard Matt support the "swoon" theory? No. But Braxton built a whole argument around it to try to make himself seem more grounded in reality by knocking down a ridicules theory that Matt does not even support.
The speaker at the end was all about damage control. He essentially admitted he had no intention of allowing the substance of a fair theological debate to mull around in the heads of their congregation.
The pastor's speech at the end made me want to vomit. "if God gave you actual evidence, you wouldn't have any reason to base your beliefs on your feelings anymore, and that's somehow bad!"
I guess that's a matter of perspective. Couldn't God have just created the universe & let it go to do its thing? How would that make God "bad?" If there was no pain, no death, etc, this would already be "heaven." By the way, I'm an athiest. Just playing devil's advocate.
@@pappapinskie5883 I am referring to the Abrahamic concept of God. I am a diablo avoca as well. lol As a Philosophical Taoist I don't believe in deities, just a natural non-conscious creative and motive force.
Notice how Christian continued to try and divert Matt's time away from the argument of God existing to ones about morality and rational thought but struggled with the answer I. Don't. Know.
datboyjeff The inability to recognize they don't know everything there is to know. Is a trait I find the religious and conspiracy theorist have in common.
"I'm not saying it's a miracle when someone is healed and we can't explain it, but when that happens over and over again, it really seems to defeat the idea that there aren't miracles anymore" Are you sure you're not saying it's a miracle?
The preaching at the end really undermined the achievement of the debate - he should have gave people the option to leave so they didn't have to have the preaching forced on them.
He just selectively lowers his inner skepticism so that it doesn't apply to his own flavor of religion. Other supernatural miracles suddenly become deceptive works of the devil. Quite convenient.
Recalculated plausibility is just following the evidence. This is shown well with the moon landing as when we find out we have a rocket and how it works and when it happened we reevaluate if it's plausible This falls flat with the resurrection because the data is lacking and it's not possible to draw a conclusion. I would consider a rocket "extraordinary evidence" to the claim of going into space. I wouldn't consider the Bible evidence at all.
I think this whole "timeless" description for a personal God needs to be poked at. If agency involves decision making, doesn't there need to be a first decision or thought. Wouldn't God fall into an infinite regress in that regard as well?
If they pull this linguistic garbage of God exists but isn't temporal, or exists outside of time here's the response... Existence is necessarily temporal. If something exists for zero seconds, how can you say it exists?
It’s just more defining things into existence a la Plantinga. God is by definition a “necessary” being therefore he exists. Or he is “timeless” (whatever in hell THAT means) therefore he didn’t have a beginning. It used to confuse the crap out of me, but then it finally clicked that using words to define concepts of god doesn’t somehow magic anything into reality. It just sounds slick to the uninitiated.
I just ask when and where it exists, reiterating that if it exists outside of space and time (spacetime for educated people) it exists nowhere and nowhen. As for the supernatural I point out that this means it isn't contained in the physical world, and since the physical world is the only observable reality it's almost a tacit admission that said phenomenon doesn't exist in reality. In other words, it not real. I guess some kind of matrioska brain might hypothetically exist and be simulating us, but there's no reason to assume that and I think it lies outside the generally accepted definition of "god" in the first place. Checkmate theists? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I love how theist debaters always seem to forget that free will is impossible with even a single omniscient deity. Since they already know what's going to happen everywhere to everyone, its already been determined.
My response to Hunter's opening arguments: 6:55 Syllogism, "If God exists and raised Jesus from the dead, then God exists." Insufficient evidence for either claim, so, conclusions are unwarranted. 7:00 Syllogism, "If you chose to come to debate, God exists." Or not - this is a ridiculous and nonsensical claim. It'd be like saying, "If you chose to come to this debate, the Loch Ness Monster exists." 7:19 Syllogism, "If God doesn't exist, libertarian freedom doesn't exist." Since there's insufficient evidence for the Christian God, comments about the existence of libertarian freedom with relation to gods is moot. 7:14 Syllogism, "Libertarian freedom does exist, therefore God exists." Not everyone agrees that libertarian freedom exists, therefore, the syllogistic conclusion is in doubt. 7:34 Two sides of argument: either free will exists (libertarian) or it doesn't (determinism). Says, "kind of sad," with regard to deterministic view. Why sad? If true, it "is what it is." 7:57 Gets into libertarian freedom (free will) vs determinism (no free will). Understanding the concepts as I do, I come to the conclusion that humans do NOT have free will but only the illusion of free will. Our choices are made based on input from the physical world, plus our education, social background and emotional state, none of which we have control over. 8:00 Espouses libertarian freedom (free will) "You are the originator of your actions..." because "he likes it," and is repulsed by the notion that his choices may well be deterministic. Emotional preferences have no bearing on what is or isn't real. 10:25 Hunter posits that "If you have free will, God is the best explanation for that freedom," and further says, "If God exists, then the universe is not merely a natural system of cause and effect." Those are two humongous and undetermined "ifs," and are not the basis upon which a conclusion can be reached. 10:37 Says, "Deep down, I think we all know that we have the freedom to do other than whatever we end up doing." First, good guess, but that's all that was: a guess. And second, most people haven't considered free will and just assume we all have it, even though there are strong arguments that we don't. 11:18 Brings up courtroom analogy for criminal defense that says if humans have no free will, criminals couldn't be held responsible for their actions. This is a ridiculous argument, as courts do not wholly base their decisions on the reasons or intent for why crimes are done, but also on the actions of the crimes and the degrees of harm they cause. 11:27 Brings up hate crimes, which is ironic, since religions are typically the cause of many severe hate crimes throughout history. 11:35 States that libertarian freedom must mean a supernatural entity exists. He has yet to lay out exactly how he came to that conclusion, and instead just states it as a matter of fact, which is wrong. 12:21 "You can't rationally affirm anything at all including your determinism." Um, yes, you can. Hunter never explains this conclusion and I, for one, can easily and rationally conclude everything I do, say or think was achieved deterministically. 13:16 Gets into Kalam Cosmology as "evidence" for the existence of the supernatural Christian God. 15:08 States that because an infinite timeline is impossible, therefore an infinite being must have started the universe. He basically replaced one impossible infinity with another, based on nothing. The truth is: we do not know why there is existence. Being apparently incapable of leaving a question unanswered, theists made up an answer (gods), and try to convince others with bold statements given confidently. 15:28 "A mind, without a body, would serve as a fitting explanation (for existence)." It sure would! That is what is called a hypothesis. Now, all he (and theists in general) needs to do is look for evidence to support this hypothesis. No one in the history of Humankind has ever come up with actual evidence for anything supernatural, including supernatural gods. 16:18 Brings up Occam's Razor to reduce Matt's well-known tongue-in-cheek argument for "universe-creating pixies" down to one pixie, which would be God. This is practically a straw-man argument, in that Matt's pixies is not a serious attempt to supplant God, but an illustration of the ridiculousness of considering _anything_ as a universe creator before acquiring sufficient evidence for one. Hunter missed the boat on this one. 16:45 States "God is the best explanation for the beginning of the universe," without having actually established that a god even exists; all he's given are flawed arguments attempting to define his version of God into existence. That's not how it works. 16:50 Recognizes the Kalam doesn't confirm existence of the Christian God, and then brings up a bunch more "if" statements as though they were evidence; they're not. 17:22 "Recalibrated plausibility." Says he's given good arguments to believe God does exist (he hasn't). Therefore, everything past this statement can be ignored as relevant to the claim. 17:58 Tries to say that believing NASA's Apollo project to put a man on the moon is analogous with the resurrection of Jesus. Bad analogy. There's more than sufficient evidence for lunar landings. There's entirely insufficient evidence for the resurrection or divinity of Jesus. 19:26 Tries to use the logical fallacy, Argument from Popularity, bringing in historical scholars and others to state that Jesus died by crucifixion. There is insufficient evidence to verify this claim; no eyewitness accounts, no government records, nothing. Just second-hand accounts recorded decades or centuries after the alleged event. 21:20 Gets through several minutes of claims from historians and scholars that Jesus was crucified, but fails to mention that no one has anything more than second-hand accounts of the alleged event, which kind of puts a kibosh on his entire premise. 21:30 Attempts to use the Bible's resurrection accounts to verify the Bible. You can't do that; it doesn't work that way. 22:40 Complains that attempts to use "mass hysteria" as an explanation for why Jesus' alleged followers had experiences with Jesus after his death are sketchy at best (too far removed from the event). But, the resurrection, itself, is just as undetermined, so, zero net gain. 22:50 Says early disciples were willing to die for Jesus, except, no one knows if those stories are true or not, so you can't use that as evidence. 23:36 Brings up Fredrickson who says the disciples saw the raised Jesus and that all the historical evidence points to the disciples statements as true. Except there is insufficient historical evidence for any of that. The best anyone has is second-hand accounts, decades or centuries after the alleged event. 23:55 "They must have seen something." Or not. Maybe the whole thing was a fictional story, based on similar fictional stories coming from the same region around the same time. 24:04 "Scholars agree." It's all BS. Scholars have insufficient evidence to come to any solid conclusions. 24:25 "Recalibrated plausibility" is Hunter's euphemism for "spin," and spin doesn't equal sufficient evidence. 24:30 Out of the blue, brings up "repentance" and "salvation" as the end goal of all the inadequate arguments he's given for the existence of God. 25:24 Lays out what Matt has to do to refute his arguments; a typical false flag supposition that has no bearing on what Matt will do to his "arguments." All Matt need do is point out none of Hunter's arguments or evidence (such as they were) are sufficient to believe in an all-powerful/knowing/loving/perfect and eternal supernatural being.
And how is it not more likely that if Jesus Christ was indeed one man who did exist, that when it was believed that he died and came back that he just wasn't actually dead?
Matt must be applauded for his patience dealing with this, I understand why every once in a while he blows up on a caller, he has to hold it in during these "debates".
I remember a time when I would have fallen for that preacher's rebuttel. It was only until I was given the opportunity to question my own beliefs without retribution that I finally broke free.
![Does God Exist? William Lane Craig vs. Christopher Hitchens - Full Debate [HD]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/0tYm41hb48o/mqdefault.jpg)
![Does God Exist? William Lane Craig vs. Christopher Hitchens - Full Debate [HD]](/img/tr.png)
If Matt objects to slavery why does he own so many people?
Omg, I think I love you
Psalm 34:8
Taste and see that the LORD is good; blessed is the one who takes refuge in him.
stahhp
HAH
NICE!
Time stamps.
0:11 Formalities. Host Introduction of speakers and general rules.
~20 minute speeches
6:07 Braxton Hunter.
25:49 Matt Dillahunty.
46:17 Braxton Hunter.
56:20 Matt Dillahunty.
1:06:34 Formalities. Host lays out rules for cross examination.
Q&A between Speakers, ~ 6 minutes
1:07:31 Braxton Hunter.
1:13:42 Matt Dillahunty.
1:20:46 Formalities. Host lays out rules.
Q&A between Speakers, ~5 minutes
1:21:26 Braxton Hunter.
1:26:37 Matt Dillahunty.
1:32:42 Formalities. Host lay out rules
Q&A from audience to speakers
1:33:36 Directed at Matt Dillahunty.
1:36:23 Directed at Braxton Hunter.
1:39:44 Directed at Matt Dillahunty.
1:42:38 Directed at Matt Dillahunty.
1:47:36 Not directed directly at speaker, but question pointed at Braxton Hunter.
1:51:54 Directed at Braxton Hunter.
1:53:25 Directed at Matt Dillahunty.
1:55:20 Directed at Braxton Hunter.
1:58:32 Directed at Matt Dillahunty.
2:00:53 Directed at Matt Dillahunty.
2:02:48 Directed at Matt Dillahunty.
2:05:33 Host preaching...?* (I don't know what to label this neutrally.)
*I generally don't put personal opinions into time stamps, but this took me a back a bit.
because the host so far was doing a decent job at being a host.
Last time stamp.... Preaching, nullification of the point of debates, and then prayer. Yeah, i was a bit beyond words as well with that.
Thank you for posting this
@@adamheywood113 Thanks for posting. I wanted to help anyone who might want to watch it.
Be it Matt for reference in a possible follow up video or someone else.
Be that now or x time in the future.
It's a shame I didn't get to the video faster though. I checked my phone with another account of mine and I'm shown as the 11th ranked comment.
@@amadcarrot Thanks for posting.
It's not the preaching and prayer in and of itself that I have a problem with.
It was more the host undermined his role as a host, which undermined the entire point of the debate/discussion.
I wouldn't find it acceptable if any host said their personal beliefs after an extensive debate/discussion.
What he SHOULD have done for his role as a host at the end:
-Thanked them both for coming
-Tell the audience that he hopes this has given them some things to think about
-Maybe asked the audience for a round of applause for the two speakers coming here today.
The reason I personally don't think you should state personal beliefs at the end of a discussion, it being regardless of your beliefs as a host, is because it creates what I'm going to call 'Vacuum of thought'.
The discussion allows for a more open environment for people to think about the ideas of the debate more so they might begin to develop the start of critical thinking.
It takes that entire environment, and narrows it down by someone telling people how they OUGHT to act in regards to all this information.
It seems like it is more likely to shrink a person's ability to think than expand their ability to think.
In a sentence, a 'You can think, but I won't let you think for yourself for too long' kind of social structure.
Thanks for posting,
I would've fired that host on the spot for that stunt
Braxton:
“stay with me here it’s about to get complicated” and “you’re not gonna like what I say here.”
Proceeds with overly complicated non-answers.
It annoys me how 99.9% of Christians debaters can’t answer a question straight.
Matt Dillahunty was once a Christian who answered questions straight. Now he’s an atheist.
I think you meant to write "was once."
YY4Me133 I did, ty
Thought the same thing. You beat me to the punch.
Christians love dodging questions and shifting the goal post
You reach...to answer your own understanding of what is real...Sorry if no one has the answers that couldn't make you annoyed. There are questions that aren't currently answered, and we as humans need to understand that, not reach for answers that are fiction based in an ancient book.
"This isn't special pleading, I'm just pleading something special." ~Special Pleader
im always surprised by what comments will break me and make me actually laugh out loud.. but when I read ~Special Pleader I lost it
This one made me laugh good. When he said he wasnt special pleading while he was really specially pleading something had me dying. But its really sad that these apologists utilize so many presups, fallacies, and dishonest debate tactics to move on to the next subject.
Every time I hear someone saying, "If atheism is true..." I know they're stupid.
Arrogantly stupid. So annoying.
Anytime I hear someone saying the Kalam Cosmological Argument is evidence...philosophical arguments are not evidence of anything.
@@exodiathecoolone The problem I have with Kalam (and its application in secular science) Is the statement "Something can not come from nothing". The honest statement is "AS FAR AS WE HAVE DETERMINED.....". The statement is NOT a fact and is as dishonest as any God claim IMHO.
don't say that... they have just, less knowledge
Yup. You instantly know they don't know what the fuck they are talking about. And this guy debates ! How embarrassing
“Oh shit, this debate was a bad idea, Matt made some really good points. I better do some last minute evangelizing so these people don’t become atheists.”
- Moderator
That guy should not be allowed to moderate again.
He was trying plug a hole in a leaky boat.
It is my, or he mixed in the pascal's wager in his preaching?
Even worse, he had this planned out in advance, knowing he'd sandbag Matt with no opportunity for rebuttal before even knowing how the debate would go. And yet....probably because he did know how the debate would go...
@@Julian0101 Yeah he did a little bit.
"People experience miraculous healing all the time."
*guy in a wheelchair asks the next question.
holy shit didn't catch that. hella irony
@@bprocks07 they probably didn't either, with me, alarm bells start ringing: do they actually care about people being miraculously healed, or do they only care about that when they use it in an argument for their apologetics?
@@daddyleon God couldn't heal the guy in the wheelchair, he was too busy giving aids to babies in africa.
It’s hilarious that you think walking from a wheel chair rather than changing a God hating heart is miraculous..what’s even more comical is you think the judge should give evidence to the criminal.. You need to read the Bible in context instead of demanding The judge to bow to you..
Miracles were to establish his word.. Not to prove something to you, that you already know, but suppress because you hate the God you know..
@@angieh4534 nobody's demanding the judge to bow to anybody, they're demanding the judge merely to show up.
Wow, that preacher right at the end actually asked his audience to please not think with their minds but instead to act purely on emotion and be very very careful to never ever let logic or experience turn them away from that. If evil existed, that would be it right there. What an absolutely reprehensible belief system. I'm compelled to go off on a big angry rant right now, and it's taking a lot of discipline to acknowledge that would be pointless and not do it.
Go for it!
I don't know if he did it on purpose but that's a pretty well known tactic con artists and cult leaders use, he's basically reassuring you that whatever you've heard that might have just created a tiny bit of doubt in your mind isn't really important and you should forget about it. He majorly manipulated almost every Christian in the room turning the whole debate completely pointless
Even worse, imo, his story and the repeated turns towards Matt, he did the exact thing that Matt said was the most insulting - implying that when Matt did his "searching" for God at that "fork in the road", he just didn't do it right or good enough or whatever, and then went a step further.... If you listen close, he slipped in after his own part about fans and pencils about "scientific proof" (with another half turn in Matt's direction), as if he completely ignored the part of the story where Matt specifically said that all he was looking for was that same "still small voice" (not in those words exactly, but he definitely implied something more like that than pencils moving or fans turning on or anything else that would qualify as "supernatural"). So, if anything, this preacher is saying that because he asked for something God wasn't willing to do, he got the thing that Matt had asked for, and Matt didn't because....???
Abhorrent. That's the only word for it.
The worst part about all this is the brainwashing of children. Assigning a religion to them at birth and teaching them that they may go to hell if they misbehave or don't believe properly.
Totally inappropriate rant from the preacher at the end; and to use the debate as his springboard. Wow…total disrespect!!!
NO ONE asked for that final "preach" of the host and the fact that he even acknowledged it "not being fair to our atheist friends", while still going through with it, says a lot about his character...
They have to trying to SAVE all of our unbelieving souls, they would feel extreme guilt
I disagree, it’s his church and his prerogative. He probably also paid Matt.
That’s not disrespectful to Matt personally. Preachers preach.
He was rude. I have seen countless debates & the damn moderator or host never closes with preaching and prayer. This was a debate not no fucking church. Get out of here with the BS.
@@darkstar4494 his role is moderator not preacher during this debate, it is unfair, he is supposed to be neutral as the the moderator regardless of what his opinion was
Came here to say exactly this…. Quite pathetic.
Audience member : "Why do you define yourself as atheist?"
Same audience member 5 seconds later : "I don't care how you define things"
excuse me wtf
He was pretty angry too which was bizarre.
And then went on with his own definition, basically telling Matt he's lying about his. The sheer arrogance!
The guy was just stupid. He thinks labels are more important than the actual position 🤦♂️🤦♂️. Morons come in many different shapes and sizes
@@TheNewPatsyBailey Seems like a follower of Jordan Peterson.
"We shouldn't be moved by cliché's. Anyway, here's the Kalam."
I loved how he claimed "if it ain't broke don't fix it", I'm like if anything has been "broke" it is kalam, what a crap argument, kalam doesn't even get you to a god
"Recalibrated plausibility" must be the theist version of "alternative facts".
Edited to include timestamps:
0:11 Introduction of the format
5:58 Braxton's opener
25:48 Matt's opener
46:03 Braxton's rebuttal
56:20 Matt's rebuttal
1:06:33 Cross examination #1 by Braxton
1:13:35 Cross examination #1 by Matt
1:20:43 Cross examination #2 by Braxton
1:26:31 Cross examination #2 by Matt
1:33:09 Q&A period
I gave you the thumbs-up not for your time-stamps (which I was going to do myself!) but for your translation into plain English of Braxton's phrase, "recalibrated plausibility..." :D
@Ag21 Keep your scape-goat ritual-cum-human sacrifice! I'll have none of it! Such rituals are abominations which can ONLY EVER perpetuate evil, by punishing the innocent so the guilty can go free! Only the extremely immoral or the extremely gullible could ever believe in such nonsense!
And your fairy-tale 'heaven' and 'hell' are just the 'carrot' and the 'stick' in the oldest form of mind-control known to our poor, benighted species: RELIGION!
The moderator clearly didn't think that Braxton did a good job with that desperate and dishonest ending.
Please, don't look for evidence, because you won't find it; listen to the voice in your head that says the good things you want to hear, because THAT'S how you're going to KNOW god exists!
@@joshua.merrill I listened to the voice in my head,and due to the nature of my brain which your "God" gave me,it tells me that I need to have a factual evidence before believing in something.
Psalm 34:8
Taste and see that the LORD is good; blessed is the one who takes refuge in him.
@@kuwandak
Romans 1:20
"For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,"
General revelation reveals the existence of God and makes known His attributes. No matter where a person is in the world, God is speaking to them. It is the very nature of God to be revealing Himself to mankind. The fact of God’s existence is not hidden from the human race. No matter where a person is on planet earth. God has created a world, which is perfectly equipped to punish or reward the living entities according to their activities. We should look at what is visible around us in nature, what God has made, and arrive at some obvious conclusions about what is not visible. Adding one and one together, we should understand from nature that God has eternal power and a divine nature. If a person denies the existence of God, then there is no reference point for correctly understanding themselves or the world around them. If human beings do not "work out" the basic nature of God from what is seen in creation, and seek Him from there, they are simply "without excuse." They are willfully ignoring the obvious. God insists that He has made it plain to human reasoning and that to decide otherwise is to suppress the truth we know by nature. It is inexcusable to deny our Creator God for His invisible attributes, eternal power and divine nature leaves man defenseless. God also reveals to mankind in the way to know Him. This saving revelation is found exclusively in the written word, which alone tells us about the living Word, Lord Jesus Christ. What we know of the person of Christ and the plan of salvation is found in the written word of God. The ultimate goal of this process is union with God characterized by pure love of God and other people as well as personal holiness or sanctification.
Hebrews 11:1
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."
Just as our physical eyesight is the sense that gives us evidence of the material world, faith is the “sense” that gives us evidence of the invisible, spiritual world. Through faith, guided by the word of God, the things unseen are brought to the proof; what that word teaches, though future, or though belonging to a world beyond human sight, is received with full conviction. The eye of faith sees beyond our present reality and places its feet firmly on divine revelation given by almighty God, through the Word-made-flesh. It believes God's Word of truth in the pages of Scripture, which was written for our learning, instruction, encouragement, and hope. Only an eternal, all-powerful, all-knowing being could prove the existence of the God described in the Bible. Keeping the word is the work of sowing a seed, allowing it to take root. Faith only makes sense to the one who hears the word. We must place our full trust in Jesus Christ as our personal Savior and repent. As Christians we understand that Jesus Christ is the founder and perfecter of our faith, the undeniable evidence of God’s faithfulness to His word. If God does exist, then rejecting His existence and desires for how we live is the height of foolishness. Yet it is also foolish to claim to believe in God, but to live as if God is absent. The wicked man believes that God “will never see” his evil deeds. How sad that so many reject the one Who loves us so much that He sent His only begotten Son to die on a cross to pay the price for our sin. May the hope we have in Christ and the faith we have in God be built on the truth, of His Word and grounded on a sure conviction.
Psalms 1:1-6
"Blessed is the man Who walks not in the counsel of the ungodly, Nor stands in the path of sinners, Nor sits in the seat of the scornful; But his delight is in the law of the Lord, And in His law he meditates day and night. He shall be like a tree Planted by the rivers of water, That brings forth its fruit in its season, Whose leaf also shall not wither; And whatever he does shall prosper. The ungodly are not so, But are like the chaff which the wind drives away. Therefore the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment, Nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous. For the Lord knows the way of the righteous, But the way of the ungodly shall perish."
@@loveandfaithfulness4479Exodus 21 ~ type that out so everyone can read it then justify it in your own words.
If I eat a cookie, god exists. I ate a cookie, therefore god exists. I proved that god exists!!!!
but can't you also say "if I drink water, god doesn't exists. I drank water, therefore god doesn't exists."? I mean it's just meaningless phrases, trying to confuse people and seem to look "smart", I guess.
Haha!
These "debates" are starting to get boring tho. Heard all the arguments so many times already and debunks to them so many times. I really don't understand faith at all nor belief.
I'm 1 minute into Braxtons bit and I'm already rolling my eyes.
Not sure I should waste my time watching the rest, maybe I'll get a good laugh though.
Takoja : it is a fallacy known as "affirming the consequent" in case you didn't know :).
@@roqsteady5290 Thanks..didn't know..there are too many fallacies these religious and FE'rs use. Can't keep track em all :(
@@roqsteady5290 I'm fairly confident this is not affirming the consequent. His formation is "If P then Q. P, therefore Q." Affirming the consequent would be Q, therefore P.
That preaching at the end was ironically perfect. Way to prove Matt´s point about faith.
Ha Matt makes no points lol just false information
@@CravenM1980 that doesn’t even make sense. You make an assertion(baseless one) and the above guy summed the end up perfectly. So explain how. By allllll means
I couldn’t help wondering after the concluding preaching; since without god we have to wonder “what is the purpose of our life”, does god ever wonder what is the purpose of his life?
@@CravenM1980 I'm on the other side and I think they both made points, some better than others. But you think Matt made 0 points? And just gave misleading information? What false information do you think he gave?
@@CravenM1980 go troll somewhere else you idiot
Absolutely awesome job Matt. In my opinion this is some of your best work in a debate so far.
Hell yeah
Ancient Miracles:
Parting of the Red Sea
Manna from Heaven
Jonah and the Whale
Jesus Feeding the Multitudes
Jesus Resurrected......etc, etc...
Modern Miracles:
"I found my car keys!"
😁
"Wow, look at that sunset!"
Or my sister is dead in a fire -- the bible survive....... it a miracle!
Your sister is dead by the way. The real positive aspect of it would have been that she has survive at least.
Not that a book have survive in a fire. Believers are more and more weird. They don't know what to say anymore. Go Matt your the best.....
@Ryan Lee I don't.. so that's not true. One requires faith, one can just by chance have bad reasoning skills
@Ryan Lee I'm not saying anything about absolute truth, just greater certainty than zero
Anyone have the timestamp for when they proved god exists?
Error. Ts not found
2:10:55
Sure. It's at it has never happened o'clock
The timestamp is timeless
That time stamp exist outside of space and time
Excited to watch. Dillahunty is by far my favorite debater.
Check out Tom Jump, you won't be disappointed.
I would have LOVED to see Scott Clifton/Theoretical Bullshit tackle this particular debate. He has a great series of videos on the Kalam cosmological argument and is incredibly well spoken in general.
@@LordHengun : It is my belief that a debater's duty is to sharpen his wits and dust up his tools before a major encounter. Thanks for the name, I'll look it up for my own pleasure.
Mr.Teacher.McC check out Dan Barker if you haven’t. Goes for the jugular at all cost.
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom Logic, reason, skepticism and humanism.
I swear if Matt hadn't said anything about telling people "you didn't believe strongly enough" that dude was ready to say that exact thing
Oh god.. the kalam?? Really?? 🙄
A staple argument! Gets resurrected time after time after time, just like Jesus on a toast.
Anyone that claims they became a believer because of Kalam is a lying pile of crap. Every single one of them was a believer first, and are desperately trying to find a reason for it.
Kalam is not a useful argument to bring up in any debate. The best it does is suggest that the universe is not infinite (had a cause). You can call that cause "god", if you wish, but then what does that have to do with an actual theist god (the kind that has a relationship with mankind)?
To his credit, I thought the Christian speaker presented the Kalam in a more-compelling-than-usual manner.
Yeh, I agree. What a dead donkey that one is.
So he asks skeptics to lower the standard of evidence until Jesus is in the conclusion? Sounds like an admission that the evidence isn't there.
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom hey bud there is no need to spam post, but i hope you agree that having a reasonable standard of evidence is a good idea.
Otangelo Grasso
Please stop putting my god down !! My god Thor is better than your god .. 2 reasons why !! It’s in my book and I had dream when I died and came back to life and he told me and showed me the way !!!
Spaceless, timless, non-material... in other words, it doesn't exist in reality.
Yeah those types of gods are boring... I'd prefer one that was a good dancer and could provide me with free pizza forever!
But not having free will sounds bad so god must exist or else I’d have to face an uncomfortable truth. I feel like it, therefor it’s true
THE PEOPLE SING that’s silly. It’d be like saying my hand belongs to me not you, therefor my hand is part of my reality but not yours. I can observe the effects of your love based on the actions you take because of it. I can verify you exist. You and your love are part of the one reality which we both share. I don’t posses your love, but I share a reality with it.
This is when Anselm’s “now an imagine an existing Greatest Conceivable Being” syllogism gets torn to pieces
Frances Snowflake wait, what?. There is a difference between existence, as a concept, an abstraction, that which we think about. And existence as an act, as being, a feature of reality.
That which is defined, is but a concept. Material reality is objective reality.
Did this man just really do a whole sermon at the end
Yep. Completely shooting the very idea of a fair debate in the foot by openly promoting one side's arguments as being absolutely true regardless of anything the other side had said in the debate. When the debate was over. And no one could challenge him anymore.
He really did... Embarrassing, and proving Matt's point lol
@@WeirdWonderful well in a way pershaps but in reality why not let a man follows what he knows and why should it upset anybody otherwise one is as guilty as the supposively guilty one .
@@Crashawsome being French speaking I would say yes ,however if it lacks reasoning to your intellect please point out where and I will elaborate.
for anyone wondering it's 2:05:31
Answer: No. NEXT.
round and round and round......stop ...i want to get off this thing
@Gods Servant prove it. Show evidence or shut up. Without evidence your words are just a pointless waste of time.
@Gods Servant God is fake news
Correct answer is: who cares.
Phobos Anomaly agreed. Theists have no point to their nonsense nor do they have any proof. They hate you and me for their stupidity
The moment he opened with “if atheism is true” I knew Matt was gonna run away with this
@Ag21 How do you know all of this happened? And why was a magic blood ritual the only way to go about it?
@@daghul4785 Never question the human sacrifice and zombie cultists. They’ll just throw more scripture at you.
"We have libertarian free will!"
"God already knows everything I'll think and do in my entire life, because it's all according to his divine plan!"
*Cognitive Dissonance Level: MASTER*
Amen
@TheEsotericZebra I missed the part where he disproved there is a God maybe you can time stamp that since the debate is about the exist of a Christian God or he could just completely ignore that and just persuade people away from God with his experiences and ideas like he tried and failed to do with me. I lived with an atheist family. So I heard it before. They still did not believe back then even when they saw miracles from Jesus.
@@mikejr8604 What are these miracles? Are they like in the debate, where doctors couldn't explain it, so it was attributed to god, or is it something substantial, like a limb growing back?
@@joshua.merrill @@joshua.merrill referring to miracles is what Jesus Christ has done and no need to explain that everyone heard them before that's because the word of God is already in us and written on our foreheads. The debate don't matter the sides don't matter there's a bigger picture then these wrestling shows. Stop looking up to idols and listening and think for yourself those in limelight get paid to push a certain agenda. Its clear to see it. The same stuff collages push along with everybody else on RUclips n tv.
@Joy Bradford everybody knows Jesus miracles. That's what I was referring to.
Braxton Hunter's opening speech is giving me motion sickness.
I know what you mean. I'm listening to it right now and scrolling the comments to retain my sanity.
Wow the guy that claimed Matt wasn’t an atheist must have been asleep during the entire debate
I'm incredibly curious as to why he even bothered to be there, people like him already "know" everything they need to know and don't care if they've been proven wrong thousands of times. That, and just looking at him you know he's a nothing more than a punk looking for anything to rebel against.
123rockfan : It's the Jordan Peterson trope = Because matt haven't yet killed or raped or murdered someone = then he's not really an atheist.
123rockfan he is going on what he has been told by believers atheism is. Not surprising he would get it wrong.
I think people don't really understand how words work... Gnostic=knowledge; agnostic=no knowledge.
Theist=belief; atheist=no belief.
Just because people think atheism is anti-theism doesn't change the roots of the word. Sure, it could be argued that the meaning is changed, colloquially, but that's why you define things when they aren't clear. The fact that it was defined, and the question asker still rejected it, shows his adherence despite evidence to the contrary, aka delusion.
That's like me saying a Christian doesn't have faith, because they don't live their life as if good has complete control over what happens. You have to definite what faith means to them. Basic conversation principles: establish common ground.
Psalm 34:8
Taste and see that the LORD is good; blessed is the one who takes refuge in him.
That moderator should've stayed quiet at the end
Essentially "Please don't be swayed by the blasphemy you've heard from Matt tonight, cuz I have no faith you won't be..."
I would never let him moderate a debate again for that little stunt.
It completely defeats the purpose of having a debate to begin with if he's going to jump in at the end and preach to the audience. It's clear that he knew Matt made some hard-hitting points and so to prevent any seeds of doubt or questioning, he slides in when the debate is over to butter the audience up with a sermon. It's pathetic and dishonest.
That showed a lack of class.
Final statement: ignore evidence, just hold on to faith
Final statement: i used to think logically, now i just believe in rubbish on zero evidence and no good reason.
imagine what would happen to the legal systems around the world if we did that all the time
@THE PEOPLE SING :
"If we relied on atheists to invent the CAR, we'd be in big trouble...."
Cars weren't invented thanks to faith in any deity. It only required faith in the methods that uncovered the physical principles used to build a working car, which does not rely on any god.
I completely fail to see the problem with atheists inventing things. I would, however, see a problem with anyone trying to invent a working device based solely on faith in a god.
God made science!!!
He never does!!!!
Braxton was stalling in answering to burn out Matt's question time while Matt answered all his questions quick, fast and simple
Which should lead to Braxton, if he was honest to becoming an atheist and admitted his cognitive dissonance, which is all throught his presentation.
@@mattmaloney2445 lmfao
It's a Shame. God is the Existence of Love. Everyone Obviously Believes Love Exists.
Atheists Unnecessarily Overcomplicate it.
It's Unfortunate
@@damianedwards8827 it's not a shame it is a CLAIM...first prove god is anything
@@Crashawsome Naw. God is Love. And You obviously don't see Love as Nothing.
Love is the most important thing in your life...And it's Invisible.
Your Ego will try to ignore it But Emotion is the very reason you JUST REPLIED
Without it... you'd literally be a Robot 🤖.
You can't Touch it, Taste it, or Smell it..But you know it's real.
LOVE... IS THE INVISIBLE FORCE THAT IS THE SOURCE AND MOTIVATION FOR EVERYTHING YOU DO
Thats... kind of a Big Deal. Haha
GOD IS THE SAME EXACT DEFINITION
I repeat...
GOD IS THE SAME EXACT DEFINITION
Love is inescapable. That's the reason Atheists say a higher power is useless and pointless...but Atheists CONSTANTLY talk about it.
That's AWESOME.
I love the closing "sermon" that the moderator gave. I did exactly what he said I stopped looking for external and went to the internal. I internally examined my faith and reached out to "God" to show me the truth ,show me the way, and it was through this internal examination self-reflection and soul-searching that I realized the reasons I had four belief we're Unjustified . I prayed nearly that exact same prayer, and I did so with the expectation of being enlightened or brought closer to Jesus or something. Instead I encountered something slightly more profound in my studying the bible. The more I studied the less it made sense . Also the silence from God speaking to my heart was deafening.
First, you have to know how it written. Reading it like a story book or novel, it wont make sense, and is quite unbelievable. It is not a surface level reading. Its mostly metaphors. Which has had the most important parts edited out. One example of a misunderstood would be, the Bible says Jesus is Gods son. It also states “We are all Gods children. “You prayed, but most likely incorrectly. It tells you to pray. How was edited out. God has no audible language and doesn’t read your thoughts. Another mistake people make(Because of reading only at surface level) is thinking God is some magic man in the sky. Giving him human characteristics. He is not a decision maker. This applies to any religions book. Bible, Quran, etc. They are the same. Teachings with human additions and edits. They were meant to be spiritual books. Not religious books. This is why it doesnt matter what religion you are, or if you call him God, Allah, or Billybob for that matter. They all have the same core beliefs and say to do the same things. Basically, dont be a selfish prick. Lol Could it be a coincidence that they all include some form of meditation ? Even tribes in South America, Africa with little to no interference from the outside world do the same things. The rituals being the only difference. Christianity does too, if you read the edited out parts. You were correct going internal. Because hes not in the sky, hes not a being. Hes in all beings. Hes in your subconscious. What they call supernatural is actually the most natural thing on earth. Its just not completely understood….yet. So it seems supernatural. Take what religions have in common. Understand what that means beyond surface level, and live that way. Religion itself is a human invention. Which millions have killed each other over the man made parts of their scriptures.
Watch this. Seems like rhe first few mins are boring. Theres a lot of explanation though.
ruclips.net/video/_ZQ03ki7-UU/видео.html
@@91GT347 what an arrogant comment "yOu Did It WrOnG" if god existed you shouldn't have to jump through random hoops just to get in his favor and if he did exist then hes no just god for playing games with christians or anyone for that matters proclaimed afterlife because they "did it wrong"
@@kylebooth4948 Your speaking as if its a human. With thoughts, beliefs, an actual judgement like a courtroom. Literally watching with eyeballs. Kind of the whole point is, you dont have to jump through hoops to get on his good side……if it were a him and he had a side. Its not and it dont. Its not arrogant at all. Im definitely not the first one to see it. It doesn’t make anyone any better than anyone else. In fact, not understanding completely, doesnt even matter. You apparently may have difficulty, but most any person of any religion, understands their teachings at the core say “Dont be a dick to anyone or anything.” Which is really all thats important. Self awareness, try it. You cant do it right, without all of the instructions. Was the point. Not comprehending my simple comment, it’s understandable why you still have this “magic man in the sky” thinking. Its much more complex than anything I could write.
@@91GT347
"ObViOsLy you werent a true christian!!!"
There is so much wrong with this. But I liked the part where you admitted the bible isn't the word of god!
@@allan4210 I didnt say I was a Christian. What is wrong with it ?
I feel like Matt can do this in his sleep.
I felt braxton did a great job pointing out matt’s flaws
@@jw-rx8gn Too bad it wasn't a debate about Matt's flaws..
Jesus can save you!!
@@joakkley9659 Where is he?
@@FuckFascistRUclips Well right now He is with me but you can call Him He'll be with you too. You see He is omnipresent.
Christian opener: If you think you have free will, the Christian God exists.
Amazing....
Right? Total nonsense. If this thing I can’t prove exists, then this other thing I can’t prove exists. I have no evidence on how they’re tied together or how one proves the other.
“If free will exists, no God exists” is an equally plausible statement.
1:26:23 I love this line. "A philosophical approximation is different from what actually happened at the origin of the universe."
Matt: *quotes hebrews 11 to define faith*
Other guy: I don't think that's a very biblical definition
Did you listen to his whole response?
It doesn't matter whether he has an explanation or not... The article of Faith is an article of Divine Science... Not only perfectly defined in the Bible Hebrews 11 that's the definition of Biblical.
That moment may have made me shoot coffee out of my nose😂.
@@zer-op2gq well...?... What the fuck? Did you?
I actually haven't seen it yet it feels like a chore. But I know that verse... And it's actually the definition of faith.
"if atheism is true..." please make it stop
Darko Leskovsek : It's that the; Either or thinking. :-(
@Christopher Mayer : And how is your response serving any purpose?
WHAT IS THUH PROOF AND EFFIDENCE THAT ATHEISM IS ACCURATE AND CORRECT ATHEIST HEATHEN
@@andnowwevibe270 are you for real? If you are you clearly have no idea what the term means. Theism is making a claim which is rejected do to insufficient evidence. So yeah it's a correct position to hold and most atheists are pretty accurate when examining evidence that seemingly supports the god claim.
@@darkoleskovsek2558 SO YU HAFF NO EFFIDENCE THAT ATHEISM IS ACCURATE AND CORRECT. TYPICAL AYTHEIST AVOIDING THE QUESTION! WHY DO YU HATE THA LAWRD AND LOGIC?
I'm new to Dillahunty, and when I heard his opening statement, I found it unremarkable. Then the second round happened and he shined. I'm an absolute fan. Thank goodness.
Atheism is more of a 'defense', as one does not believe in any specific deity on the lack of proof, therefore atheists are more about disproving theist arguments.
Its like parrying and riposting in dark souls
He's awesome. When I first started seeing some of his work, it was like he was speaking out what I was thinking internally about religion, then expanding on it and making it insanely logical and coherent haha. I've learned a lot about philosophy and atheism in general by watching a lot of stuff by him and the ACA
@@lisalisa3635 riposting, lmao epic
@@lisalisa3635 defense against being persuaded by bad ideas, bad reasoning, bad philosophy, illogical, irrational, wrong meanings. Education give you tools for greater decision making capabilities.
Watch the Atheist Experience, watch his debates with Peterson or D'souza. He can do even better.
The moderator appealed to Pascal's Wager. Wow.
Its ridiculous right
nothing wrong with that, wagering your eternal soul may be an important thing
@@ceceroxy2227 Yea if you presuppose this shit is real. You still have to account for all the other faiths who once stood and will stand in the future.
@@frisco9568 true, but see which one you think has the most evidence
@@ceceroxy2227 None of them have any good evidence. They’re all similar when it comes to “evidence”. People will point to anecdotal evidence or hearsay and think that’s empirical evidence.
In a nushell:
Atheist: "Do you have testable, verifiable proof of God's existence?"
Theist: "No, but..."
Atheist: "Next case..."
Unfortunatly they'll claim miracles or something similar. Especially something you can't debunk on the spot.
Theist: of course, but you won't accept testimonials, or the Kalam so I won't bring those up, there's plenty of evidence otherwise, obviously, more than I could bring up right now, such as miracles. My time's up now, I think I made my case.
@Edward Moran and the counter argument is
THEIST: AN ALL POWERFUL JEWISH RABBI WHO EXISTED FROM THE BEGINNING OF TIME CHOSE TO INVENT THE WORLD SO THAT JEWS ON ONE TINY PLANET COULD RULE NON JEWS FOREVER THROUGH USURY AND RELIGIOUS FAITH.
ANY PERSON NOT BELIEVING IN THE INVISIBLE, ALL POWERFUL, ETERNAL RABBI WILL BE TORTURED IN HELLFIRE FOR ALL ETERNITY.
PLUS, THE ETERNAL, ALL POWERFUL, INVISIBLE RABBI LIVES IN AN ALL MALE HEAVEN, SENT HIMSELF TO EARTH TO FIGHT THE DEVIL-- WHICH HE CREATED AND SENT TO EARTH TO RULE THE KINGDOMS OF MAN.
AFTER BRIEFLY DUELING WITH THE DEVIL HE CREATED, GOD SACRIFICED HIMSELF TO HIMSELF, TO CONVINCE HIMSELF TO OFFER PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE IN THIS ( on faith) TO POSSIBLY ESCAPE AN ETERNITY OF HELLFIRE AND TORMENT.
HOWEVER, IF A HUMAN CALLS HIS BROTHER A FOOL-- HE WILL BURN IN HELL NO MATTER WHAT HE BELIEVED..
🤷♀️
@Edward Moran
Adding "magic" to that creation does not add anything that is persuasive to a non-believer. And I have never heard of a mechanism that a magical non-person-deity could use to create matter and life that doesn't equal "magic". Nobody has ever been able to demonstrate even the existence of the simplest of supernatural phenomena without being a superb stage magician who knows how the trick works.
In short "I don't know how it happened" does not lead to the conclusion "god did it".
@Edward Moran
Well, somtime in late 1942, my mother and father had sex, and ...how old are you anyway? Do you really need me to explain this to you?
"I don't know" is not a dodge although theists seem to love to pretend knowing everything.
Tbh, I found Matt's use of the I Don't Know card just a tad bit obnoxious. (EDIT: this statement has been retracted. See the comments below.)
@@piotrgraniszewski8544 So being honest is obnoxious ? lol
@@piotrgraniszewski8544 Good for you, doesn't mean he knows. Should he just make shit up that he doesn't even believe, just to give Braxton a semi-satisfying excuse of an answer?
Do you know everything? Can I ask you just about anything and you would just know? Would it be a guess or shot in the dark? Saying idk is better than “Because magic did it.”
Piotr Graniszewski
But believers pretending to know things that they don’t isn’t obnoxious, wow, what’s more obnoxious, the people claiming to know things or the one saying he doesn’t know. Not for nothing but your obnoxious.
After Matt slipped "ex-wife", Hunter low blowed with "Broken marriage"
... pathetic
A a majority of divorces in the country are Christian.
“Christian broken marriages”
You could always go lower and proclaim that Jesus was a bastard refugee turned convicted felon.
@@PhrontDoor Whose father was a rapist pedophile murderer.
@@joshua.merrill would be true.. though
"I see evidence for God EVERYWHERE!"
Yeah that's because you already believe in a god. Convincing believers that "x" is evidence for God is like shooting fish in a barrel. He's not looking at the evidence from a non-believer's eyes. When you already believe in a creator then of course EVERYTHING is a creation!
All looking at something convinces me of is that said thing exists. I can't conclude where that thing came from.
“I see evidence of god everywhere”
Great. That means coronavirus is evidence of god. Literally a virus for which there is no vaccine for that’s killing people left and right is evidence god exists
Same logic applies to every cultures creation mythology, the myth matches observation, and that match is taken as evidence for the myth.
Exactly, religious people can't seem to grasp this concept. If you're trying to convert a non-believer, you can't just use sermons meant for your congregation. I'm not going to just agree that a banana is proof of God. You need to talk to ME, not your followers. I think most atheists come from a more neutral position, seeing as the majority of folks are raised religious.
I don't know why debates often prioritize speech and rebuttal over cross-examination. I've watched many religious debate videos and for me the best format is the long conversation between 2 debaters.
It allows both parties to clearly establish their positions and provide plenty of material for cross examination. Remember this is modeled after formal debates which can be on any topic.
Was just watching this debate when you uploaded it, switched directly to your channel, felt like you deserved the view.
Hahaha I did the same thing!!
Just did the same thing lol
SAAAAAAAME
Which Christian God ?
Any and/or all of them...
@FACE GALLON , there is just as much evidence for the existence of either/any/all incarnations of a supernatural deity - that is NONE!!!
@FACE GALLON The God of the Old Testament is more blatantly cruel, but the God of the New Testament is cruel in ways that are more insidious. For example, a lot of people have grown up with a fear of hell. Those fears can in some cases run very deep. There are numerous cases of people that no longer believe in the teachings of the religion including not believing that hell really exists, but yet they are still plagued with these intense fears that were driven into them as a child.
The almighty dollar I guess?
Watcherfox Absolutely, I know hell doesn't exist but every so often I have doubts that I'm making a mistake. I'll never go back to religion but that fear is definitely not completely gone.
I love that the absolute BEST argument that theists can bring up is to squeeze out the logic that PERHAPS a god-like being exists. They have absolutely zero evidence that it’s Yahweh, or that Jesus was the Messiah, or that the prophets were real...they say “Wow, a space pixie? That sound like God! We win!”
🤦🏽♂️
Notice how like all these damn debates, it *devolves into talking about ANYTHING OTHER* than the existence of god.
Too true!!!
in many forms of martial arts its a legitimate move, its called dodging and weaving...
hey wait, this isn't a martial arts competition, this is a debate...
Satyasya Satyasya it can only go this way since there's zero evidence of the existence of such a thing
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom do you believe in heaven?
They talked about what might potentially support the yay conclusion. Pay better attention.
1:35:04 Matt Dilahunty hangs up on a someone at a live event!
that was epic!
That guy tho. Frustrating.
atheists shouldn't debate conservative religious people.. it gives those people a platform and validation. BAD BAD IDEA
@@calldwnthesky6495 you got it backwards.
Anthony Risso sounds good to me. get the word out to your fellow cultists NOT to debate atheists anymore. the more we can be separated the better. you go off to your little corner of the globe and build your theocracy and we will continue the advancement of secular governance and philosophy (wherever it may exist) and we'll see which society has the staying power. if only we could conduct such an experiment... it would end these silly debates sooner or later...
i feel like braxton undercuts himself immediately when he tries to defend the claim that jesus died and was resurrected. when he's talking about historical evidence for the crucifixion (something that we know can happen in the physical world), he puts so much effort into saying "maybe you want a jewish opinion" "maybe you want a liberal opinion", effectively trying to make the point that most scholars agree that there was a jesus who was crucified. then on the topic of his resurrection (something that defies what we understand about the physical world), his claims immediately change to "we have good evidence that there were christian communities that really believed this". i dont see how you can feel justified going to a more fantastic claim with a lower standard of evidence
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom even if i accepted that this is actually evidence for the resurrection (which it doesnt seem to be), i was making a comment about braxton's argument and how he initially presents evidentiary standards
Thing is none of them theists even know or debate what Jesus had to say on the subject himself in the following works. He clarifies everything, but since it isn't Bible it 'couldn't be true'! :
www.helirods.net/documents/The-Real-New-Testament-The-Talmud-of-Jmmanuel-Person-Known-Nowadays-as-Jesus-Forgery-in-Christianity-1.pdf
The Padgett Messages
divine-love.us/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/THE_PADGETT_MESSAGES.pdf
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom Hi Otangelo...you're complaint about "mocking, ridiculing, rejecting, and never satisfied" is called critical thinking. You may want to try it sometime.
Additionally, forever the persecution complex eh? In many cultures, especially in the culture of the USofA, professing non-belief is serious taboo, and in some cases reacted to very harshly by Christians. It's like humans who say "yeah, sorry, I don't see any reason for me to believe in this" is taken a GIGANTIC offense, that in some parts of the world will still get you killed for.
But please, (sips tea) tell me more about how the Christianity, among one of the most dominate religions on the planet, holds sway over 10s of millions, influences public policy, and in many places actually RUNS governments and enforces laws is so "persecuted".
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom The shroud of turin is a fraud, and even the vatican acknowledges this.
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom So you can reply... thanks for taking the bait.
Considering that you refused to acknowledge other claims i assume is because you know they are not true and are too coward to defend them.
catholicstraightanswers.com/what-is-the-shroud-of-turin/
"However, to believe that the Shroud is the actual burial cloth of the Lord is not a matter of faith. No Catholic is bound to believe it is. As Cardinal Saldarini of Turin stated, “It’s not Christ, but something that brings us back to him. Salvation is not in the Shroud, even if it truly wrapped the martyred body of Jesus, even if it was mysteriously given by God to His Church. Salvation is that which is given to us by Christ” (Columbia, June 1998).
"
In other words the catholic church (vatican) don't consider the shroud as truthful, but they don't care if some gullible idiots think that is not a fraud.
"The universe cannot be eternal...and our god is eternal." - every Christian apologist
Dude...you can't blame him ( Braxton) dude...in fact he is not Wrong and right at the same time... Cause we all come from a single cell ( our humble single celled ancestor,very humble indeed)and we are just chemical molecules with no soul ( because no God, and big bang didn't bang to give souls).. What he says must be an outcome of chemical reactions in his brain just like how chemicals work in yours and mine ... The chemicals in His Brain can't be blamed cause you or I have no right to say or determine how reactions of molecules of our body and brain should occur...only big bang should or our humble ancestor ( Mr. Humble bacteria ) should say cause only they know how they determined the chemicals to work... I will let you know soon cause my scientist friend is working on talking to singularity (AKA nothing ) and our humble ancestor, I hope the latter responds.....well simply put you can't blame the chemicals in the lab( braxton's brain) that causes a "KABOOM"( proving Christianity, something you disagree ) in the lab ....you also can't blame the scientist (God)because you don't believe in the scientist in first place... So the KABOOM happened by itself........well big bang made him ,you and me and you have no right to call him wrong because it is the chemicals of his brain like it is in your brain
@@sharonblessy6605You're like those old rc planes on a string with your arguments, just going in circles. 😂
I don't care if you don't believe in my existence. I'm too busy killing vampires with multiplied fish.
Oh, man, if you've not seen the short film "Fist of Jesus" then you're in for a treat!
ruclips.net/video/jYLugke-GiQ/видео.html
who created vampires?
@@robertbrown7917 Vamps are the result of the Original Sin. Don't try to put the blame on me.
@@JesusInSkyrim i didn't try and blame you for anything....i was just wondering who created vamps.....some novelists i believe...from europe way back in 1600 ??
When you found Ahzidal's Boots of Waterwalking did you laugh and leave them behind?
This hunter guy just rambled on and on and said almost nothing!! Religion is so dangerous to the mind.. Nuff said
One is open to saying "I don't know" and the other claims absolute knowledge.
Guess which one gets called dogmatic...
not all theists claim to have absolute knowledge, they have beliefs about something just like you. Do you believe god doesn’t exist.
I hold as few beliefs as possible.
I do not believe "god(s) exist"
I do not believe "god(s) do not exist."
I hold the neutral position of "the burden of proof has not been met, so I lack a belief in god."
So no, theists do not have beliefs 'just like me'.
By the way. I was not saying that ALL theists claim that, only this one specific theist.
Current political events have brought me to the conclusion that religion based on supernatural ideas makes everything in human existence worse. Whatever religion does there is a secular version that we could create that would do that thing better. Religion increases suffering and religion in politics just magnifies its negative effects. That is all for my rant.
Well of course, we just cut out a good chunk of bullshit, there is still plenty but it would be a good start I think
Babble and complain much? A good way to live life.
"The best cure for Christianity is reading the bible."
Mark Twain
atam mardes Mark Twain should have said “The best cure for Christianity is The Old Testament and The New Testament”. But I gratefully accept Mark Twain’s intelligent conclusion.
@@luciadelia5607 Trouble is, the Sickness that Christianity is dealing with, is the Sickness of our Human-Race at war with itself, robbing itself, raping itself, making brutality & misery upon itself... a.k.a. Sins...
We are all Sinners, nobody has the solution to the chain of Evil running through this world ; anybody who becomes free from Evil and takes the stand for Innocence, gets Crucified... not Crowned...
Not too sure about it. I have witnessed religious people reading the bible for the first time and making excuses for their god making immoral decisions. Also, in ambiguous passages they interpret things to their convenience. They read the biblie with "open mind."
@@solimarra Dear Dog-Chow, : ) EVERYTHING that God does, is Good.. ! ! ! God NEVER makes immoral decisions. The Israelites who wrote the Old Testament, knew Something about God, but NOT Everything. The Lens through which they looked towards God, was imperfect. So they wrote imperfectly. God is Perfect. To understand God better, let me give you, my How-to-find-God Kit.. : ) >>>
HERE are some short UNCONVENTIONAL videos, to help you find, The Supreme Being, a.k.a. God-on-High… ruclips.net/video/1mFRUGDY8Ao/видео.html ruclips.net/video/xVUvEy8BbkU/видео.html ruclips.net/video/Bsel8hEp4HM/видео.html ruclips.net/video/pHn2zFU6-zY/видео.html ruclips.net/video/7FEykDoaTHg/видео.html Here is The Bhagavad Gita, for good measure… ruclips.net/video/ZuRvBoLu4t0/видео.html en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhagavad_Gita ruclips.net/video/PC0FW407FVs/видео.html Here is The Gospel of John, in audio book & movie form >>> ruclips.net/video/47OkuvT5JFo/видео.html HERE is my own “hand-made” video : ) ruclips.net/video/gdcOGFUQAag/видео.html
Have a Nice Day : ) from The All-Seeing Eye …
Why would god allow them to write about him imperfectly? Now people will think god is immoral when supposedly isn’t. Looks like either God doesn’t care enough or god doesn’t exist.
The debate was over when the Christian said that libertarian free will does exist, in his first few sentences. Libertarian free will doesn't exist, next.
Can you give me a quick summary of libertarian free will. Im not familiar.
Nevermind. It came up in the video. 👍
Libertarian free will is the contention that we can make decisions that are not determined by our character or our experience or some combination of those. Quite how we could possibly do that without such decisions being random is never made clear by its proponents.
Close. It's the ability to make decisions AT ALL that could have been otherwise. Nothing to do with character/experience necessarily. It's not a psychological phenomenon.
If the universe is consistent and causal, then every interaction that every particle makes could be calculated theoretically. Therefore, the illusion of self and decisions is why people think free will exists.
And secondly, randomness plays no role. If some things are determinately random (like maybe virtual particles), that just introduces randomness. Basically, if you went back in time and pressed play, things might be different, but still, randomness does not equal free will.
Hence, libertarian free will does NOT exist, it is just a very convincing illusion.
Matt defines it in the video. I just hadnt hit that part yet. Thanks though.
Hunter got ALL THE WAY into his argument, THEN rebuttal, THEN Q&A before saying: "Wait, I wasn't done making an argument!"
The debate was "Does the Christian God Exist?" and he never even got to "god." That's what happens when all you've got is "kalam" and a bunch of head-fakes about free will.
I'm always amazed how people can still believe after these debates.
Believe in the Humanist religion you mean, and the gospel of Universal Human Rights?
@@a.brekkan4965 universal human rights? Like weman being owned by there fathers and... slaves. Yeah okay there
@@Jeremy9697 Oh, but in Ancient Rome, women owned men as well.
@@a.brekkan4965 umm OK? The point being? Cool subject change there
@@Jeremy9697 Slavery can be and has been gender neutral!
The preaching at the end was inappropriate.
I clicked it off at the word baptist
Downright offensive. Don't invite someone for a debate and then presume to lecture them.
He advocated for confirmation bias, how come he doesn't see this himself?
@c B sorry, what comment are you referring to?
@c B you've lost me... Are you suggesting that I took offence at your comment about me taking offence. That's weirdly circular....
25:10 - "we shouldn't be moved merely by rhetoric" said the christian currently engaged in rhetoric.
Actually, in 2019. discussions about god or gods are rather obsolete. Once you read some of Bart Ehrman's books there is nothing left to debate. It's like we debate structure of a water molecule or an atom. Most people will still believe, but arguments against god and gods are more sound.
I agree completelly. Ehrman and a few others are very informative.
Well, 60%+ of the US population are theists. Until that drops below 35% we do have to debate these topics. We still debate abortion and that's supported the supreme court since the early 60s, as well as the majority of the US today. You don't get to decide when a nonacademic debate is over. It's It's for the public and does convince people their religion is wrong, so fuck off and leave if you don't enjoy watching. Some of us do enjoy it, and these types of comments are counterproductive.
@@slavaukraine716 I adamantly agree. We need more discussion and debate on this topic. If we can a least get people to question their beliefs, I'll count as it win.
@@slavaukraine716 You don't have to be so rude with your comments. Your point is well taken, you like debates. I like them too. I like Matt and everything he says stands the trial of reason. As for me, I don't like repetition. I follow this kind of debates from the very beginning and I hear the same arguments over and over again. Also, most of us who are here are presumably atheists, so there is no point bashing Christians all over again. As for your 60% of people who are religious, many of them are older people who almost never go online or watch debates on RUclips. We need proper secular legislation, separation of Church and the state. Debate has been won long time ago.
We don't know how this happens or we don't know why that is therefore God.
Feel sorry for Matt who had to sit through the sermon at the end.
I've had to sit through many sermons like that.
I'm more than sure that Matt doesn't care anymore since he's sat through hundreds of sermons before. lol
To be fair, he’s getting paid to be there. It was totally condescending, and defeated the purpose of the the evening.
Even Braxton looked uncomfortable, everyone could see it was in poor taste
Haha, I know. I felt uncomfortable at the end due to these muppets.
"re-calibrated plausibility" = I can't meet my burden of proof so I'm going to create a new, lower standard that I can meet... kind of.
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom What's my positive claim about naturalism?
Exactly Matt's position!
What does it say about your position when the moderator has to close reinforcing their position out of fear that they didn’t appear on top.
Doesn’t matter where a debate is taking place or what position the moderator has, you have a role as a moderator and I pray(lol) that this man never moderates again.
Thing is, I think most Christians would see nothing wrong with the moderator's actions at the end and would be confused what you're objecting to.
The Weird and the Wonderful yea that’s mostly true of anyone who agrees with the moderators position. Just outright unprofessional
Well it is a religious event so...
@@kimmmimemwest1895 doesn’t matter the venue or the event, the moderator should always remain unbiased during the event.
Just reflects very poorly on the moderator and the position they support even if their position is correct(which obviously was not the case here).
@@arcaithe8030 I'm not talking about the venue I'm talking about the point of the event itself.. it's to promote religion so I would expect them to promote religion that's all.
Gotta give Matt credit on his tone and pace. He also uses examples most people can grasp and connect with.
@Ag21 you do realize your bronze age sheep herder books means nothing to me.
Let's look at the first part. How did God give his only begotten son? Nonsense. The birth of christ isn't the birth of christ. It's the birth of an avatar. Son and father are one being and aware of their own existence. Their very existende is non corporeal. Humans cannot be shown to have an awareness of spiritual self or existence before our birth or after our deaths. According to your book there is no death for the son. There was no sacrifice, no death.
God created time huh? Did he make the decision to create time? Did his creation of time come after or before he made that decision?
God was tripping on acid when he invented time. He saw a vision of Himself and gave Himself the idea before He had it.
@Frances Snowflake how about just the first part of the question did God decide to create time or did God not decide to create time?
@Frances Snowflake you can use whatever philosophy of time you prefer I don't care. If you don't care either then just flip a coin and answer within whatever context the coin flip gives you.
@Frances Snowflake I'm very much aware that there are different theories of time. But they are completely irrelevant to my question since I'm giving you a completely open floor to answer it within the context of whatever theroy you prefer. My hunch here is that you just don't want to answer the question because either a yes or a no will put you into a position that shows a fairly glaring problem with the whole "God created time" thing. Am I right or are you going to give me a yes or no?
@Frances Snowflake the part I'm confused about is how you can't answer a simple yes or no question when you are asked one. Did God DECIDE to create time or didn't he?
That preacher's closing indoctrination was sad.
@Ay Ok, he's doing the same thing parents do when they claim Big and Jolly exists, to satisfy their crying child who got told otherwise in 3rd grade.
Why? It’s called church, dude. They were at one and this is what they do.
@@Mailman316 Sure it's his church, but its as shady as when Christians hand out food at shelters but do so with the caveat that you have to sit and listen to them proselytize to you first. A debate is supposed to be an attempt at a civil discussion on equal footing, doing what he did violated that.
@@Mailman316 well, it was a debate set up to discuss the very idea.. it's just cheap to preach the very idea when the other side has finished the debate
Once, when I had lost my keys, I 'prayed' that I would never find them, just to make a point. Of course, I found them anyway.
I do this everyday before work.
god works in plainly stupid ways, much like its followers!
I prayed to a jug of milk once that I would find my sunglasses and I found em! Lol
@@bms77 Your jug of milk must be Divine! There is no question about it, you gave enough and proper evidance!
Because you were still looking for them like a DICKHEAD.
One of the most cordial debates I have seen . Matt and Braxton debated honestly and clearly respected each other’s views . Only spoiled by the rant at the end which can be summarised as “ don’t wait for evidence - just believe in your heart “ BTW - the heart is not an organ of emotion or belief ! The preacher clearly did not listen to anything either speaker said .
“I FEEL like I’m free, therefore god exists!”
@FACE GALLON LOL! Me too, the argument is too powerful. There's no way around the fact that "feelings" guide me towards truth/knowledge and my actions in life. Without the right feelings guiding me I'd just rape and murder and rob people. How could i tell right from wrong without feelings communicating to me that things feel good or bad, how would i know what to avoid doing? I must allow my feelings to tell me what i should do. Yay Believing in God/Jesus gives me such good feelings therefore Jesus/God exists!
@heelercs This is the huge problem with people who are religious. Most of the time they don’t ever factually state anything. I don’t like the reputation atheists get, of being obnoxious about their atheism and saying it to everyone they meet. Which is not true atheists are usually smart and nice people and I love to debate them. The reputation with people who believe in god is that they are in average less intelligent than a atheist. Which is true (if the study I looked at was correct)
@@koreaface I am not of the opinion that religious followers are in fact less intelligent, aside from it being demeaning even if it is true, it's not helpful,useful or caring or considerate towards them as people/individuals. They're just trying to make sense of things while getting emotional. we do too. bad ideas transcends intelligence/IQ, plenty of strong minded people can succumb to bad ideas, my beliefs is its through emotional reasons, which are incredibly strong. Look at what Love get us to do, or narrow our thoughts, act irrationally. It's very very powerful.
@Ignirium yes and that’s where both parties fall. It does not matter how smart you are if no one wants to listen to you because you annoy the hell out of them. And no one wants to listen to arguments that don’t even make sense. We need to be very open mined for us to gain respect, and with respect comes listeners. You need to have a moderation of both having a good personality and intelligence.I try to convert my atheist friends to Christianity by making sure we find something we can both agree on and then I build my argument off of agreement. After time and time again that middle ground is going to get much bigger. Resulting in one party converting, or the other party is now more educated.
@@koreaface I'm all for Compassion, people needs, individuality, caring, consideration, rights and wellbeing of people. I don't use it as a tactic, or with intention or as a means to an end; to kindly share beliefs between each other. i just believe people should be treated as people. Bad ideas have a right to be criticized, shamed, made fun of. You can't criticize good ideas, or shame them or make fun of good ideas, which lends to its credibility and authenticity. This is why Humour is truthful, a joke that is blunt or cultural is funny because it's true so we laugh! we don't laugh if we know its false, immoral. It takes bad ideas/beliefs to get a good person to do bad activity. Not athiesm, just wrong ideas, wrong beliefs.
Your intention is to convert?"I try to convert my atheist friends to Christianity" I wouldn't even try to convert a Christian to anything else, that's very aggressive of you. I find that distinctly controlling of you to decide to do this for other people. it's about your benefit, not theirs. That's not what Compassion and Understanding and a good Listener is about, its not for you to soften the ground to better win them over.
I'm nice and open minded, very agreeable, caring, compassionate person(i love that), and i would agree with you IF you only made logical sense. If you are swayed by emotions, you're believing for the wrong reasons. This is the thing with religious people, some decide to use Emotions as weapons, weaponized emotions. they target people, like you admitted you do to your atheist friends. An ingratiating face + pseudoscience or ambiguous questions to make you think about spirituality should not win anyone's mind.
There is no middle ground, either its true or it isn't. Saying Jesus raised from the dead is a claim about Biology. Either Jesus didn't raise from the dead and Biology is true, or the laws of Biology and Physics and the natural order of the universe was suspended to just favor him. What's more plausible? Why is it so easy to find fault with the Bible lol. The bible really does have some good in there though. but it's a mixed bag where people pick and chose what suits them. or you can take it literally and stone people to death if you like.
Matt is quickly becoming my favorite Atheist representative. He held himself so well throughout this debate and shoved reason and logic into any point they threw at him. I'm annoyed he had to sit through that jackassery from the mod, though.
Name your favorite atheists.
@@randomviewer8974 Cosmic Skeptic and Richard Dawkins are pretty good to listen to.
Dawkins isn't a philosopher tho and he's been making antagonistic claims about trans people lately. Plus just very condescending to believers.
My favorites are Jimmy Snow, Shannon Q, Katy Montgomerie, Tracie Harris, I'll second Cosmic Skeptic, The Messianic Manic, and possibly my favorite in terms of eloquence and temperament is Genetically Modified Skeptic (Tho Tracie Harris, Shannon Q and Katy Montgomerie are up there too.)
@@randomviewer8974 Dr Josh Bowen/Digital Hammurabi is absolutely fantastic to listen to. I'd go so far as to recommend picking up his books on the OT
Paulogia is probably my favorite all-around atheist. His content is great
Matt's ability to step back and look at each argument logically, definitely speaks to me. I always used to say I was mathematically minded, and that's why I couldn't believe, it just didn't make logical sense. It wasn't until I cam e across Matt that I finally opened my eyes to logical fallacies which then gave me the ability to accurately identify why each argument fell apart.
Definitely a fan of Tracie Harris, and Cosmis Skeptic, Rationality Rules, Shannon Q and Paulogia. There are too many to name, but I definitley appreciate the time and effort they put into each of their videos. Looking forward to conferences starting up again, as I only found these people after Covid had already started wreaking havoc on social gatherings.
Yeah, yeah: don't look externally. Listen to the voice in your head, or believe the goosebumps on your arms, or if you feel really really strongly about something, don't ask questions - it must be God. In other words: turn your brain off, and you WILL believe.
Don Saito I will from now on whenever I am cooking chicken. I know this chicken is done because I feel it's ready just use the goosebumps to tell whether or not you will get salmonella.
Jesus loves you even if you hate him!!!
@@joakkley9659 'No,' I don't hate something that I don't think is real. Let me ask you this: Do you hate Darth Vader or Voldemort?
@@joakkley9659 You're an idiot. I don't exist. Stop pretending you believe in Me. You're such a brainless tool. Frankly, it's embarrassing.
God works in our hearts not head.
Tiresome tactics of all these religious debaters, just talk very quickly with loads of confidence about nonsense...
The preaching at the end was a bit of a cheap shot. Juuust in case Matt got one or two of them Christan folk thinking. Otherwise a very interesting debate.
They can't help it, it's in their nature. Same reason the scorpion stings the frog.
Bryan Walker they don’t have free will
-Hey, pastor, I was thinking - NO, NO, NO, DON'T DO THAT, YOU GOTTA _FEEL IT_ AND THEN *BELIEVE IT*
He knew that Matt won, that's why
How ironic is it “Miracles happen everyday!” Then the camera pans to the guy in the wheelchair asking the next question 🤦♂️😂
Clearly Braxton's bar on miracles is fairly low.
it is a part of god’s plan that the poor guy can’t walk, because god doesn’t want people to be happy 🙏🤗🙏
@@angelman906 when was it gods plan to make people unhappy?
@@thatoneguy4420 I mean if it didn’t want people to be unhappy, then people would be happy, yeah?
@@angelman906 people are happy like I am :)
"Liberitarian freedom exists, therefore gawd exists..." Without any doubt, one of the most brilliant minds of his generation. /s Him claiming to be rational is a very bad joke.
Related to the Kalam cosmological argument: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it. It is not broken..." Stopped taking Hunter even remotely serious.
Related to his "Writing on the moon argument", why would he seriously believe that this would point to an act of a god and not the work of an extremely advanced alien race or invisible pink unicorns or pixies? And... how the heck would this nonsense even lead to the Christian god of his favorite flavor?
I agree. It could also be a timetravelling being who decided to play pranks on us and we wouldn't know it .
Singling out god did it seems like a personal bias.
Braxton Hunter has got to be the most likable person Matt has debated so far. Bad arguments, but nice attitude and is laid back enough to make little jokes here and there.
Nah I think Michael egnor was
The guy at the end preaching ha. Dude, when I quiet my mind and open my heart, the Flying Spaghetti Monster speaks to me.
All hail his great noodly appendages
RAMEN!
Random internet user's review: I thought Braxton was a great debater, and did excellent research on Matt's positions and (mostly) Steelmans him. That said, his arguments were less than convincing. "I feel like I have free will, therefore I have free will" is instinctually convincing, but completely vapid. Kalam is very overplayed (and instinctually convincing) and just an appeal to our ignorance.
Loved the debate, Matt did a great job, though the opener could have been more polished and pointed. Looking forward to the review...especially to the first question, haha.
I felt the same way about Matt's opening. Matt generally posts reviews on his own debates. I'm interested in his review of his own opening here.
Matt's opening sucked. It was half-assed and unconvincing. It only brought some vague themes to the debate. Matt at least played the defense very well. Can't wait for his review.
I disagree about Matt’s opening. I think he was trying a different tactic. Listen to the way he shifts his tone from a matter of fact hardcore debater to almost a personal anecdote style.
I think he recognized his audience as likely all Christian and was trying to get through to them by being different from what they expected.
Braxton's debate tactics were terrible. All he did was watch a bunch of Matt's videos and try to strawman his arguments in his opening.
Yeah, Braxton strawmaned right from the beginning. Have you _EVER_ heard Matt support the "swoon" theory? No. But Braxton built a whole argument around it to try to make himself seem more grounded in reality by knocking down a ridicules theory that Matt does not even support.
The speaker at the end was all about damage control. He essentially admitted he had no intention of allowing the substance of a fair theological debate to mull around in the heads of their congregation.
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom Are you the same Otangelo that calls into the "Talk Heathen" radio show?
The pastor's speech at the end made me want to vomit.
"if God gave you actual evidence, you wouldn't have any reason to base your beliefs on your feelings anymore, and that's somehow bad!"
Yes it was a pathetic closing statement based on feeling upset and defensive that their beliefs had been made to look stupid
IF God exists AND IF God Created everything AND IF cancer is bad THEN God is bad.
Indeed. Hunter=Word Salad.👎🏽
Surely you can't be that stupid.
@@punisherthunder Apparently you are a fucking imbecile.
I guess that's a matter of perspective. Couldn't God have just created the universe & let it go to do its thing? How would that make God "bad?" If there was no pain, no death, etc, this would already be "heaven."
By the way, I'm an athiest. Just playing devil's advocate.
@@pappapinskie5883 I am referring to the Abrahamic concept of God. I am a diablo avoca as well. lol
As a Philosophical Taoist I don't believe in deities, just a natural non-conscious creative and motive force.
Notice how Christian continued to try and divert Matt's time away from the argument of God existing to ones about morality and rational thought but struggled with the answer I. Don't. Know.
datboyjeff The inability to recognize they don't know everything there is to know. Is a trait I find the religious and conspiracy theorist have in common.
"I'm not saying it's a miracle when someone is healed and we can't explain it, but when that happens over and over again, it really seems to defeat the idea that there aren't miracles anymore"
Are you sure you're not saying it's a miracle?
The preaching at the end really undermined the achievement of the debate - he should have gave people the option to leave so they didn't have to have the preaching forced on them.
"Re-calculated Plausibility" = Twisting the facts until they fit your narrative.
He just selectively lowers his inner skepticism so that it doesn't apply to his own flavor of religion. Other supernatural miracles suddenly become deceptive works of the devil. Quite convenient.
He just gave a really dumbed down version of Bayes' Theorem. That's why Matt agreed.
@@jbrassard100: True.
Recalculated plausibility is just following the evidence.
This is shown well with the moon landing as when we find out we have a rocket and how it works and when it happened we reevaluate if it's plausible
This falls flat with the resurrection because the data is lacking and it's not possible to draw a conclusion.
I would consider a rocket "extraordinary evidence" to the claim of going into space. I wouldn't consider the Bible evidence at all.
Kalam cosmological argument reminds me of the Chewbacca defense.
“I said ‘Kalam’. Case closed!”
Look at that ugly face! How could God not exist when such an ugly, furry gaping maw (chewbacca) is staring back at you? I rest my case.
It does not make sense! 😂🤣
what doesn’t make sense about the kalasm.
Same old same. A layperson theist claiming to have answered the greatest mysteries of cosmology and astrophysics.
Matt's arguments must have scared the hell out of the moderator if he needed to break in at the end to try to convince people Matt was wrong.
@Ag21 Citation needed
I think this whole "timeless" description for a personal God needs to be poked at. If agency involves decision making, doesn't there need to be a first decision or thought. Wouldn't God fall into an infinite regress in that regard as well?
Yes. You just summarized in two sentences what I struggled to convey to an apologist in 4 long paragraphs. Thanks!
If they pull this linguistic garbage of God exists but isn't temporal, or exists outside of time here's the response...
Existence is necessarily temporal. If something exists for zero seconds, how can you say it exists?
@@thekwjiboo yup, they want to have their cake and eat it too. I wish more apologists would get pressed on this point.
It’s just more defining things into existence a la Plantinga. God is by definition a “necessary” being therefore he exists. Or he is “timeless” (whatever in hell THAT means) therefore he didn’t have a beginning.
It used to confuse the crap out of me, but then it finally clicked that using words to define concepts of god doesn’t somehow magic anything into reality. It just sounds slick to the uninitiated.
I just ask when and where it exists, reiterating that if it exists outside of space and time (spacetime for educated people) it exists nowhere and nowhen. As for the supernatural I point out that this means it isn't contained in the physical world, and since the physical world is the only observable reality it's almost a tacit admission that said phenomenon doesn't exist in reality. In other words, it not real.
I guess some kind of matrioska brain might hypothetically exist and be simulating us, but there's no reason to assume that and I think it lies outside the generally accepted definition of "god" in the first place. Checkmate theists? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I love how theist debaters always seem to forget that free will is impossible with even a single omniscient deity. Since they already know what's going to happen everywhere to everyone, its already been determined.
Right, I say that frequently. Same with praying. If God already know what's going to happen then wtf is the point of praying
"Recalibrated plausibility"--really? REALLY? He's going to try to get away with that term?
My response to Hunter's opening arguments:
6:55 Syllogism, "If God exists and raised Jesus from the dead, then God exists." Insufficient evidence for either claim, so, conclusions are unwarranted.
7:00 Syllogism, "If you chose to come to debate, God exists." Or not - this is a ridiculous and nonsensical claim. It'd be like saying, "If you chose to come to this debate, the Loch Ness Monster exists."
7:19 Syllogism, "If God doesn't exist, libertarian freedom doesn't exist." Since there's insufficient evidence for the Christian God, comments about the existence of libertarian freedom with relation to gods is moot.
7:14 Syllogism, "Libertarian freedom does exist, therefore God exists." Not everyone agrees that libertarian freedom exists, therefore, the syllogistic conclusion is in doubt.
7:34 Two sides of argument: either free will exists (libertarian) or it doesn't (determinism). Says, "kind of sad," with regard to deterministic view. Why sad? If true, it "is what it is."
7:57 Gets into libertarian freedom (free will) vs determinism (no free will). Understanding the concepts as I do, I come to the conclusion that humans do NOT have free will but only the illusion of free will. Our choices are made based on input from the physical world, plus our education, social background and emotional state, none of which we have control over.
8:00 Espouses libertarian freedom (free will) "You are the originator of your actions..." because "he likes it," and is repulsed by the notion that his choices may well be deterministic. Emotional preferences have no bearing on what is or isn't real.
10:25 Hunter posits that "If you have free will, God is the best explanation for that freedom," and further says, "If God exists, then the universe is not merely a natural system of cause and effect." Those are two humongous and undetermined "ifs," and are not the basis upon which a conclusion can be reached.
10:37 Says, "Deep down, I think we all know that we have the freedom to do other than whatever we end up doing." First, good guess, but that's all that was: a guess. And second, most people haven't considered free will and just assume we all have it, even though there are strong arguments that we don't.
11:18 Brings up courtroom analogy for criminal defense that says if humans have no free will, criminals couldn't be held responsible for their actions. This is a ridiculous argument, as courts do not wholly base their decisions on the reasons or intent for why crimes are done, but also on the actions of the crimes and the degrees of harm they cause.
11:27 Brings up hate crimes, which is ironic, since religions are typically the cause of many severe hate crimes throughout history.
11:35 States that libertarian freedom must mean a supernatural entity exists. He has yet to lay out exactly how he came to that conclusion, and instead just states it as a matter of fact, which is wrong.
12:21 "You can't rationally affirm anything at all including your determinism." Um, yes, you can. Hunter never explains this conclusion and I, for one, can easily and rationally conclude everything I do, say or think was achieved deterministically.
13:16 Gets into Kalam Cosmology as "evidence" for the existence of the supernatural Christian God.
15:08 States that because an infinite timeline is impossible, therefore an infinite being must have started the universe. He basically replaced one impossible infinity with another, based on nothing. The truth is: we do not know why there is existence. Being apparently incapable of leaving a question unanswered, theists made up an answer (gods), and try to convince others with bold statements given confidently.
15:28 "A mind, without a body, would serve as a fitting explanation (for existence)." It sure would! That is what is called a hypothesis. Now, all he (and theists in general) needs to do is look for evidence to support this hypothesis. No one in the history of Humankind has ever come up with actual evidence for anything supernatural, including supernatural gods.
16:18 Brings up Occam's Razor to reduce Matt's well-known tongue-in-cheek argument for "universe-creating pixies" down to one pixie, which would be God. This is practically a straw-man argument, in that Matt's pixies is not a serious attempt to supplant God, but an illustration of the ridiculousness of considering _anything_ as a universe creator before acquiring sufficient evidence for one. Hunter missed the boat on this one.
16:45 States "God is the best explanation for the beginning of the universe," without having actually established that a god even exists; all he's given are flawed arguments attempting to define his version of God into existence. That's not how it works.
16:50 Recognizes the Kalam doesn't confirm existence of the Christian God, and then brings up a bunch more "if" statements as though they were evidence; they're not.
17:22 "Recalibrated plausibility." Says he's given good arguments to believe God does exist (he hasn't). Therefore, everything past this statement can be ignored as relevant to the claim.
17:58 Tries to say that believing NASA's Apollo project to put a man on the moon is analogous with the resurrection of Jesus. Bad analogy. There's more than sufficient evidence for lunar landings. There's entirely insufficient evidence for the resurrection or divinity of Jesus.
19:26 Tries to use the logical fallacy, Argument from Popularity, bringing in historical scholars and others to state that Jesus died by crucifixion. There is insufficient evidence to verify this claim; no eyewitness accounts, no government records, nothing. Just second-hand accounts recorded decades or centuries after the alleged event.
21:20 Gets through several minutes of claims from historians and scholars that Jesus was crucified, but fails to mention that no one has anything more than second-hand accounts of the alleged event, which kind of puts a kibosh on his entire premise.
21:30 Attempts to use the Bible's resurrection accounts to verify the Bible. You can't do that; it doesn't work that way.
22:40 Complains that attempts to use "mass hysteria" as an explanation for why Jesus' alleged followers had experiences with Jesus after his death are sketchy at best (too far removed from the event). But, the resurrection, itself, is just as undetermined, so, zero net gain.
22:50 Says early disciples were willing to die for Jesus, except, no one knows if those stories are true or not, so you can't use that as evidence.
23:36 Brings up Fredrickson who says the disciples saw the raised Jesus and that all the historical evidence points to the disciples statements as true. Except there is insufficient historical evidence for any of that. The best anyone has is second-hand accounts, decades or centuries after the alleged event.
23:55 "They must have seen something." Or not. Maybe the whole thing was a fictional story, based on similar fictional stories coming from the same region around the same time.
24:04 "Scholars agree." It's all BS. Scholars have insufficient evidence to come to any solid conclusions.
24:25 "Recalibrated plausibility" is Hunter's euphemism for "spin," and spin doesn't equal sufficient evidence.
24:30 Out of the blue, brings up "repentance" and "salvation" as the end goal of all the inadequate arguments he's given for the existence of God.
25:24 Lays out what Matt has to do to refute his arguments; a typical false flag supposition that has no bearing on what Matt will do to his "arguments." All Matt need do is point out none of Hunter's arguments or evidence (such as they were) are sufficient to believe in an all-powerful/knowing/loving/perfect and eternal supernatural being.
How many times has Elvis been seen after his death? Or Tupac? I suppose that they were resurrected as well
Maybe Elvis never died in the first place;)
At least there's solid evidence that 'Pac and Elvis actually existed in the first place.
And how is it not more likely that if Jesus Christ was indeed one man who did exist, that when it was believed that he died and came back that he just wasn't actually dead?
Jesus loves you even if you hate him!!!
@@joakkley9659 Atheists don't hate god, or jesus.
Have they come up with extraordinary evidence yet? Then no.
But muh (falsely claimed) mirucles!
Matt must be applauded for his patience dealing with this, I understand why every once in a while he blows up on a caller, he has to hold it in during these "debates".
I remember a time when I would have fallen for that preacher's rebuttel. It was only until I was given the opportunity to question my own beliefs without retribution that I finally broke free.
how you sat there without rolling your eyes was the real miracle