Atheist Debates - Debate - Can Faith Be Rational? Matt Dillahunty and Blake Giunta
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 5 окт 2024
- Part of the Atheist Debates Patreon project: / atheistdebates
As there wasn't a dramatic disagreement on the specifics of this topic, this "debate" dipped into a discussion of the differences in our methodologies for determining whether or not a belief is rationally justified.
![Eminem - Temporary (feat. Skylar Grey) [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ZaK9Wi5ho0o/mqdefault.jpg)
God damn I love Matt's understanding of reason and ability to articulate.
Its exellent.
So what are you calling upon God to condemn?
Blake is always asking "Can we understand X?". Matt is always asking "Can we demonstrate X?".
That is an excellent observation, and a well worded way of comparing their positions.
We’ll, can you? Both are perfectly reasonable questions, especially when dealing with irrational people.
Calling it "trust with evidence" but having no evidence is dishonest period.
You and I consider it not to be evidence because we think more skeptically about their claims of evidence. I have no doubt that they believe it to be evidence despite its inability to hold up to the most minute levels of scrutiny.
ThrowOffYourChains Sorry. I'm still mad about being lied to. ;)
STAY MAD ABOUT THAT.
But only be mad AT the lies, not the people laboring under them.
Eric Mishima how much does logic weigh?
ThrowOffYourChains got any evidence for logic?
I wonder if making an analogy between theoretical physicists and experimental physicists would help make the point. It often feels like there are only ever theoretical apologists.
Theoretical apologetics: "If God exists, then there wouldn't be horrific suffering"
Experimental apologetics: "Oh shit"
This is fantastic. It sums up so much of what I wanted to say.
He doesn’t make retarded excuses for the inaction of fictional characters?
Oh he may, but then the distinction can be made that we should believe it no more than we do say 'String Theory' as Matt started to point out.
There are Christian experimental apologists. The problem is that those experiments have lead to things like the Big Bang. Oops.
I prefer this sort of sit down and talk format rather than the formal debate structure with opening statements and responces with set times for each stage.
Let do a drinking game for every time Blake says the word "bayesian" :)
Minh Pham advocating for alcohol poisoning might be illegal, man.
Let's not
DON'T DO THAT. You'd be in the ER for alcohol poisoning well before the halfway point.
You're safer taking a shot he says "the". It happens less often.
😅
Affready stahded. Hava notha friend my shot!
You've got Sye, Hovands, Slick... all scumbags. Horrible people. Then you've got Giunta. Nothing like those others. It's so refreshing to watch Giunta. He seems so much more open minded and logical than most. Me thinks he will be an atheist soon.
"Me thinks he will be an atheist soon" ?
He does seem FAR less disingenuous, and argues with much more honesty than other Chistians. Seems like a nice guy.
Yes. He's fighting it. He on some level realises he has ZERO in response to especially Dillahunty, but really any competent debater. He really cannot bring himself to internally process it yet.
I hold out hope for him though. And He does seem like a nice chap.
just like he hopes for him, I have faith he will drop his faith
He´s just as much a lying scumbag as any of those, he just uses different presentation. A stupid, lying theist. He will never be atheist as he isn´t even able to comprehend the meaning of "evidence".
I love these type of open discussion debates, and it's so civil and respectful. And it's nice that both Matt and Blake agreed on so much.
Christian guy took 5 minutes to say nothing multiple times
More like one hour to say nothing at all
Sounds like he read "Logic for Dummies" then tried to deploy it before he took it all in. "If and only if" etc. is the language of formal logic, so theists using it is only going to be frustrating to watch, like Mulla Sadra or Anselm's pitifully flawed ontological arguments.
Christians have taken 2000 years and have really said nothing!
He has no choice. He is defending indefensible concepts.
I’m always yelling at my phone every time I listen to a debate with Blake. I just have a really difficult time believing that he’s not being purposely obtuse. Yet, when asked about the possibility of Narnia’s existence, he has a miraculous moment of absolute rational clarity.
Ive fallen down the rabbit hole of Christian v Atheist debates and aside from Kent Hovind, who i am certain believes none of what he is saying, i think that they just have a serious Logical blindspot when it comes to their beliefs.
@@jayjonah83That’s always fascinated me. This Blake guy is clearly not stupid. I would even say he’s intelligent. And he seems to have well developed critical thinking skills on everything EXCEPT his own religion.
I’ve noticed this many times with theists. Specifically Christian’s. Who can articulate, very thoughtfully and rationally, why Islam and the Quran are untrue. They point out all sorts of logical issues such as no one hearing the angel who spoke to Muhammad. So we are basically going on Muhammad’s own word. Or that the Quran is a compilation of texts that were organized many years after Muhammad’s death. Where no one knows if everything that was accurate actually made it in or not.
I’ve heard Christian’s make these reasonable arguments. But as soon as it’s turned around on their religion, it’s like that rational part of their brain shuts off. I have never understood how or why they do this.
Citing Moses as a body of evidence 😣
Yeah, maybe Blake is living in 1918 instead of 2018
*When?*
8:39
muslim mormons jews do that as well .....therefore Allah is chilling on Kolob and Jesus was just a prophet not a god and didn't resurrect :P
...and yet, to back up my other comment in this thread... Did you notice that when he did that, he was not laughed off of the stage?
Always find it so odd when people publicly refer to their spouses hotness. Might just be a Christian thing.
Better than commenting on their siblings' hotness... :-/
Cringe... it may be over compensation for their repressed sexual urges.
Or their daughters...
Rembrandt
Huh? Repressed sexual urges toward their spouse? Why would they have that? I beat guts all day, everyday with my girlfriends. I feel bad for married people that don't ever fuck, but one wants to. That's sad. And that is when the guy goes and gets some strange on the side.
Maybe it's your kind of Christian thing. Myself, and most Christians definitely do not find it odd when people refer to their spouses' hotness, as this is the best case scenario.
By definition, no.
Yep. Belief in 'god' might be rational, if one existed.
Or if someone manufactured believable evidence.
But faith is not, by definition. It's belief without evidence. That's not rational.
Faith just means trust! Didn't you listen! (Sarcasm)
But belief that everything came from nothing is rational..?
"But belief that everything came from nothing is rational..?" The God belief proposes that God came from nothing . He was not created.
Or maybe God is part of a higher dimension, unlike us 3 dimensional or 4 dimensional beings...
Can faith be rational?
If it can, then I have faith there is no possibility of a God.
I would pay $ to watch and listen Matt vs. the pope in a debate.
Damn!!! Just imagine that. It would be a slam dunk for matt 100%
@@remigiuszfetzki7379 I don't think it would be remotely fair to the pope. He's a public figure and an authority to his church, but that in no way makes him good at debate or rhetoric. It wouldn't be as unfair as what people like Ray Comfort do, just confronting Johnny McAveragedude on the street and expecting them to have a good answer off hand to bad faith questions, but I wouldn't expect the pope to be close to Matt's level.
@@KoolWithAQisn't that interesting!? The perceived world leader of a faith probably isn't even remotely relevant to having deep discussions on that said faith. It just goes to show how intellectually shallow faith truly is.
I just stumbled upon this while surfing RUclips, after running out of other debates to watch. It feels like Christmas. Thanks for, as always, such amazing content.
50:31 - Blake says "this data is more likely on the hypothesis that God exists than on the hypothesis that God does not exist". This is where he fundamentally misunderstands Bayesian probability. He has misconstrued the second part, for the correct statement would be: "more likely than on the hypothesis that this something else is the cause". You need two positive hypothesis in order to do a Bayesian analysis, not a hypothesis and its antithesis -- especially when the positive one is not falsifiable and the antithesis does not include positive hypotheses.
For instance: "God created the universe". If you want to do Bayesian probability, you need another hypothesis. Let's take the antithesis: "the universe did not came to be through a God". As you mention, there is nowhere to go with categorical analogy: do we know of instances where God created something? But we can go with another comparison: "People believe God created the universe because God did so" versus "people believe God created the universe because they were fooled into believing so". Now you can compare: how many times are people fooled into believing things? How often can people actually demonstrate that their beliefs about God are correct? Blake is utterly incompetent in Bayes Theorem and probability, and though it is hard to spot that with precision, *you did a good job at identifying the general flaws in his thinking* (just to make sure this is not perceived as a criticism to your handling of his claims).
Flaw #2 at around 1:01:00 -- Bayesian analysis is not "frequentist". Complete utter bullshit. It is.
Henrique Sousa It may be more important that he has said “god” as if that is a well-defined term and excludes the possibility of multiple or mortal creators
Hi Henrique,
I think you're mistaken on both accounts, as a quick visit to Wiki can show.
A) You're mistaken about needing to frame competing hypotheses as p vs. what you call the "antithesis"). It seems you're unfamiliar with the "Odds form" of Bayes Theorem. Search "odds form" for the relevant wiki section here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayes%27_theorem). Or you can go to my first debate with Matt where I explain it over powerpoint. Secondly, I actually set it up as precisely p vs. ~p. So I'm not sure what the complaint is.
B) You're mistaken in saying the Bayesian interpretation of Bayes theorem is not frequentist. Again, on the wiki page, "The interpretation of Bayes’ theorem depends on the interpretation of probability ascribed to the terms. The two main interpretations are described below." Those two interpretations are, quoting wiki, "Bayesian interpretation" (where "probability measures a 'degree of belief'") and "Frequentist interpretation" (where 'probability measures a “proportion of outcomes.'") These are juxtaposed as competitors.
Hi John. I don't know how feasible it would be to assign subjective probabilities (including conditional probabilities) to all beliefs that you have. So in a sense I agree; just like I would be unable to write out all of my beliefs. But a generally Bayesian approach should inform--I think--the strategy of thinking one ought to apply in truth-seeking. I for one never do calculations, but I know how concepts like "prior probability" affect posterior probabilities, and I can understand explanatory virtues in like simplicity and expl. power in probabilistic terms. It's just a clearer way to think, imo, and it allows one to identify potential fallacious methods. I think Matt's method is incompatible with all known academic methods of truth-seeking, which preclude his demonstration principle.
Blake Giunta
I don't see how you can draw any "Bayesian analysis", when you're just assuming your conclusion, speculating and jumping to conclusions about things you don't have evidence for. "God" is an assumed conclusion. (Special Pleading Fallacy)
You want to talk about "identify potential fallacious methods"... Faith is a fallacious method. Faith is NOT a reliable pathway to truth or understanding.
Faith is the fallacy of assuming your conclusion absent justification. If you were in any way justified in your conclusion, you wouldn't need faith.
Faith is a begging the question fallacy.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
Faith is an Ad Hoc fallacy because its an unreasonable "explanation" for an event that may be disputed by evidence that the proponent must resort to untestable, unverifiable "answers" to salvage their claim.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hoc
(God is also an Ad Hoc fallacy)
"The way to see by Faith is to shut the eye of Reason."
[Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard, 1758]
"Faith is believing what you know ain't so" - Mark Twain.
Slevin, why are you talking to me like that? It's socially awkward. I think you've sent too much time in RUclips comment sections.
I just want to know... Who is the one person that keeps trying to start a round of applauds and consistently fails to do so?
Jesus.
IT WAS ME! DIO!!
Uh, no? The faithful wear their irrationality like a badge of honor. No earthly logic or evidence can pierce it. The Bible and other holy books have stories of people who believed despite all circumstances, holding them up as heroes to be emulated.
I conversed with street preacher's who were "protesting" London Pride. On the topic of faith, she proudly proclaimed that her faith had no logic, with a maniacal glee in her eyes.
Is there a collective consciousness? Or a collective unconscious suggesting mind?
Harmonica Man a little of both. Kind of like the nurture vs nature debate
I guess we can’t have faith unless we are fairly certain... which defeats the purpose of faith...
Why do you think they wear their irratuonality like a badge of honor? I agree with you that they do, but what is the reason you think they do so?
It occurs to me that Blake is really a presuppositionalist. God's possibility is baked into the presumed prior probabilities in his Baysian analysis, so he's presupposing God in order to prove its existence.
This presupposition could be described as faith, and appears separate from reasons.
Yeah I noticed his supporting arguments (especially when he spoke about God not violating his understanding of the world). He's basically saying "I accept that gods can exist, and that they can have certain properties. What is the probablity that a God can exist? Well God doesn't violoate my world view so it's very possible!"
Blake loves saying "Bayesian this" and "Bayesian that". Seems to me a true Bayesian would rationally come to a disbelief in god.
It's like trying to prove something is true by making the very thing you are trying to prove a part of the proof. Kinda also like throwing a word into its own definition. It's a circular fallacy.
I agree that there seems to be a presuppositional "lean," - in that he might have such sympathies or some similarities in his approach, but he's not really arguing presuppositionally. The thing is, his conclusion (i.e. the existence of Yahweh) isn't baked into his argument. The possibility of it is assumed, but the truth of it is not. The only other option, of course, is to not assume the possibility, which - when analyzing the question, results, by definition in assuming impossibility. Matt might disagree with that last statement by noting that one can withhold judgment on both impossibility and possibility despite the fact that the choice is binary, but this is a matter of argumentative positioning, not analysis. One can indeed stay neutral on the question of possibility vs. impossibility (endorsing neither) for argumentative purposes, but for analyzing the question itself, only a binary set of options exists, and thus only a binary set of options is available for presuppositional purposes. There is no "neutral" presupposition when it comes to possibility. If it is presumed impossible, then it is necessarily also false. If it is presumed possible, then it can still be concluded to be true or false in actuality, depending on the results of the analysis.
Matt Massingill the fact that one must assume possibility at some percentage without any evidence to justify the assumption illustrates why Bayesian statistics is an inappropriate tool for the justification of belief in a god. All this really does is obfuscate the same apologetics by hiding them within that assumption.
Hearing Matt ask about the korok seeds gave me the biggest smile
Me too haha 😂
Nice. Love that these conversations are finally starting to make progress with out employing ad hominem attacks . 👍
Blake is a crank Bayesian. It's called background KNOWLEDGE, not background arbitrariness.
The way he attempt to dismiss and Pooh Pooh the geezer in the audience, who say's he's employed to do Bayesian analysis. As faras Blake is aware the guy could be a fucking Bayesian expert using it for years. Blake doesn't even barely take him on. He isn't interested.
He's a nice pleasant young chap, in comparison to most apologists. But fuck me, he is incredibly arrogant and full of misplaced self confident. So much so he seems incapable of listening to an alternative, and certainly comprehending and digesting.
Blake talks a lot about the fact that when you have a lot of data then the value of the prior probability, of e.g. the existence of god, is not important. This is a radical oversimplification of the method. In order to choose the most likely of two hypotheses using Bayesian analysis, apart from the prior probabilities, we also need a random sample such that we know the distribution of the data under both hypotheses.
William Lane Craig quoted an analysis that stated that the posterior probability of the resurrection is 0.99. Carrier estimates the probability that Jesus existed is about 1/3. The problem here is a) what data are these analyses using?
b) what are the likelihoods of these data under the two opposing hypotheses?
In the field of arguing for the existence of god/the resurrection, there is great scope for cherry picking your data and appropriately defining the likelihoods of the data under the two opposing hypotheses.
I'm having a problem understanding why they think this is a good method to use. In what I've seen so far they are just pulling numbers out of their ass for "D" I'm not even that smart of a guy or have researched it much more than a little time on the internet. Is there something I'm missing that lends validation to the numbers they are using? They seem very arbitrary to me.
ThrowOffYourChains bayes theorem is a sound method like statistics, but they can be misused
Philosophy of Religion Blog I'm not questioning Bayes in general just the variables used by those trying to prove god through it. It seems like they are pulling numbers out of their ass. Like one use I came across they had a 10.0 for goodness and then 2 times they used .1 and .5 for different forms of evil. Seems like anyone can make up the variables when using the method in this way and come out with something that fits whatever they want it to say. I stopped early in this video to check into Bayesian analysis and made my initial post at that time. I had not seen the Q&A guy that uses Bayesian analysis in his work regularly before my first post, and I think I already agree with him. Garbage in equals garbage out.
I genuinely really like Blake as a person, he seems very nice, honest, and engaging. My favourite videos of Matt are with him and Blake. Great matchup for eachother
Armadyl such a good alternative compared to apologists who are just painful to listen to
He's not disingenous or completely delusional, I'll give him that. It at least makes his fallacious appeals less painful to listen to.
What is really hard for me is trying to reconcile Blake's obvious intelligence and thoughtfulness with his complete inability to grasp Matt's explanations. Matt gives dozens of really simple to understand explanations throughout this conversation and even in the past with their more formal debates, but it doesn't seem like Blake is... Following? Grasping? Groking? Understanding? Internalizing...? I'm not sure what the right word is... But... I don't know hopefully what I'm saying is making sense.
Virtual: he seemed to understand very closely, to me.
I felt I really wanted to give a big hug to Blake.
Matt is so freaking rational. Blake just can't grasp Matts' sharp logic because it goes right over Blake's head. He is just waiting to go back to his script.
Blake seems like a nice guy, but I am sorry to say that his Bayesian argument is nothing but a smoke screen and should be immediately dismissed the moment he brings it up. The question his Bayesian argument is asking basically boils down to "what is the probability of X happening given the existence of a being that can do anything"? Now the answer to this question, which no doubt both Atheists and Theists would agree on, is really high if not certain. As such the only relevant question is "why should we believe that a being that can do anything exists"? Well, Blake would argue, this all comes down to the prior probability, which is based upon the background information. And what is this background information? Well we saw some examples of it in this debate. Blake's background information is things like the design argument and at least some form of the cosmological argument. In other words, it's the classic arguments for God.
Blake needs to justify why we should consider his prior probability to be anything but zero, and to do this he needs to defend his background information. When using Bayesian analysis to investigate the probability that a test for cancer is accurate we look at the base rate of cancer in the population. This is based upon prior evidence that is agreed to be accurate. As Matt has correctly said, if we have no reason to accept the prior evidence then we have no reason to accept the accuracy of the conclusion. Jumping straight to the Bayesian stuff is putting the cart before the horse. Justify why we should accept your background information, and then, and only then, can we move on.
I threw religion out the window at the age of 13. Now, some 50 years later, I haven't looked back _once_ (except for my early triumph over superstition!). In _my_ mind, I see religion(s) as being nothing but overwhelming evidence of the fact - that 'human intelligence' is _wayyyy_ overrated . . . . 😖
Lol well said! I was a Christian for 14 years, woke up at 23. Religions just show how imaginative we can be. They’re like our first odyssey’s or “epic’s” like Homer wrote. Except his stories are good, religious holy books are incoherent nonsense lol
Well :)) i remember being 6 years old ( born into a partial christian family with my grandfather being a church "slave" i would say because i can't explain it any better, the investment of money into church) and while being at the kindergarden i was often falling on the ground hurting my knees , so i was sitting on a bench asking god in my head , why , why didn't you warn me or help me , since i heard then that god helps those in need. At the age of 10 my proffessor had a history lesson and there she found out , and the rest of the class that i dont belive in god, they were kinda shocked as if i was some kind weird creature. Now i'm 20 and i understand it better and became even more obvious that "god" was just an instrument to control the people from doing anything they wanted.
@@christiantune That today - in the year 2021 - _STILL_ are living on a planet where the _vast_ majority of human inhabitants uncritically (i.e.: in willful ignorance) are letting themselves be the subjects of mind control by a myriad of utterly ludicrous, man made 'religions' are nothing short of mind boggling! . . .
To _my_ mind, this is nothing but proof positive of the fact that the term *'Human Intelligence'* is an _overrated_ term, _much_ too overrated! . . .
@@sharkamov That's why IQ exists and i assume those who desperately spread those myths are not very positive when it comes to their iq number.
@@christiantune *_BINGO!_*
This debate style is awesome! Blake's approach to understanding Matt's position was very......nice, smooth, respectful, inquisitive. Very awesome debate. I love it. Thanks to all involved.
Thanks Matt, great conversation! Is there any chance you'll perform in Germany during your world tour? I'd love to see you live.
Really good forma, the debate format usualy leaves alot to be desired, i did love the fully answered question as opposed to being limited to 2 mins reply and a 1 min reply from the other.
Shame. Blake seems like an intelligent, nice guy who's stuck in this delusion and sacrifices his intelligence for a belief that is consistently failing to be justified. Such a waste of a mind. I truly hope he finds his way out of religion.
It seems to me Blake's entire argument was based on an equivocation fallacy. He wanted to argue "it is sometimes reasonable to have confidence" and parlay that into the conclusion "belief in the Christian God is reasonable." One of those arguments is almost a tautology and the other is absolutely false, and endlessly argued in other venues.
The reason for the equivocation is obvious. Faith DOES mean belief without evidence, whenever it is used to justify a belief. It's therefore by definition not reasonable, for it isn't based on reasons.
in every debate, Blake always does that slide on the dance floor - I forget which debate it was but one time his primary argument heavily featured citing s5 modal logic and Baye's theorem in order to insist that probably true = true
Knightfall8 in fairness, if he could actually get to a decent demonstration that a god probably exists, I might stop being an atheist. But he comes nowhere near that, since his source of that probabilistic claim boils down to presupposition. His prior understanding of the world is that a god is probable, so his Bayesian model predicts a high probability of god. Shocking!
Frances Snowflake belief without evidence doesn't qualify as rational. On the other hand, I'm not sure if I'd be willing to say that it's irrational, either. But the default rational position is the null hypothesis, which is that things don't exist until they are demonstrated.
Frances Snowflake there is no rational case that has been presented for a god's existence. Without a rational case, it is not rational to believe it.
Frances Snowflake I think perhaps we disagree on what evidence counts, and therefore, we disagree on what is rational. I have no desire to debunk your particular argument for a god's existence within the confines of a comment thread. Instead let me ask you this question: if I could debunk to your satisfaction every argument you made in favor of a god's existence, would you continue to believe it was rational to believe in a god?
2:02:25 This guy does *NOT* understand the "big bang" theory. *NO WHERE* in the theory does it say where the singularity came from, nor the conditions that existed prior to the moment of it. Here's the "Big bang" in a nutshell: Everything seems to be moving away from everything else, tracking that backwards suggests that everything, at one point, was extremely close together before everything starting moving away from everything else. *PERIOD* , nothing else, nothing about "It came from nothing", that's people *adding* on to it. It is *possible* there was "nothing" before the big bang, but we have *ZERO* evidence that there was "nothing" before the big bang. It's *also* possible the "singularity" is a turd from "universe creating pixies"... but we have *zero* evidence of this. The "moment of the singularity" is the farthest back moment we have *evidence* of... that doesn't mean there was "nothing" before it, it just means we can't speak about "before the big bang" just as much as anyone reading this can't speak about what's on the counter next to me. There could be any number of things there, there could even also be "nothing" there... but the *fact* and *important* part is that you have *zero* evidence for what, if anything, is there. That's it. Just like how the theories of Evolution do *NOT* deal with "How" "life" began, but instead answer how life has "progressed" *since* it began till now. The big bang does *NOT* answer "How" the universe came into being, only what has happened since "The earliest moment we have evidence for".
SO many people get this wrong, I can't really blame them though as there's a fair number of "respectable" communicators that inaccurately explain it to the "General Public".
Agreed... It's possible that the universe had a beginning and that beginning was caused by something that didn't need a beginning... end of discussion. We still have no reason to think we know the universe had a beginning! So this is all pointless. We still don't know if a necessary being is necessary! Therefore we have no reason to believe God is necessary!!! Not to mention the necessary thing doesn't have to be necessarily conscious. The thing that pops universes out and has no beginning doesn't need to think...
Sh! Sch?
The creepy part that I don't want theists to get their hands on is this: what you're used to hearing of as a "particle" actually isn't a particle, it's a wave at a distinct location inside of a field. But worse than that is, that the "wave" we refer to as a "particle" isn't naturally a wave, and only becomes a wave at a distinct location when it is required to be, because of an interaction from another wave or field. It's natural state is to be simply the "potential" to "become" a wave/particle. Meaning when you brake down what we think of as "matter" to it's core.... It's not.... "All that we see or seem is but ..." The potential to be. All of 'reality' is merely "potentiality".
And singularities don't exist.
@@dementare , all particles do seem to really be waves, or wave-clouds, that collapse when interacted with, and many of them do appear to be constrained by other wave-clouds eg. the way atoms appear to be distinct and independent particle (wave cloud) systems.
Then there's light, that travels in wave-packets (is quantised) and can merge with or emerge from the wave-clouds. Weird.
The "potentiality" is continually bringing itself into being, so I'm not sure what use calling it a potentiality is? Except in terms of measurement problems.
The Cosmic Microwave Background seems to be evidence of the Singularity. And there is some mathematics that appears to describe the Singularity, but not all the way to a t=0. The fact that it presumes an unimaginable amount of 'compression' is already mind-boggling. Nobody seems to know the mathematics that describes t=0, that is what Unified Field Theory seems to be partly about seeking - the unification of the 4 (now apparenlty 3) fundamental forces, that would allow (mathematical) comprehension of t=0, so it's supposed.
Meanwhile, even understanding how it's possible that Andromeda is coming towards the Milky Way is difficult for the lay person. Some kind of ricochet during early formation?
And that individual galaxies form from an explosion of energy (that condenses into particles and then stars) is such a whacky thing. First we saw a mottled microwave background. Now we see filaments connecting galaxies and then stars Further signs of electromagnetic irregularities in the 'explosion', but not subject to gravity like particles. Why would those be? Very strange
I actually like Blake. Even though his method may be flawed, he sticks to it, develops actual arguments for it and doesn't flip flop into preaching when he has nothing else to say. He isn't overly pompous and self asserting like most Christian apologists. He's also doesn't strawman, asks for verification when he doesn't understand something and can admit when he's wrong for the most part. Truly a class act in debating.
Another great debate! Thanks Matt!
Saying that "faith means trust, not blind faith" is like saying "Murder means unlawful killing, not 'criminal killing'"
is audio off sync with lips for anyone else?
Independant verification given. Matt would approve. :D
The video editing uses the wrong time stamp from one camera or the other at different points in the discussion. It's kind of infuriating.
VERY frustrating. It happens, and its ok, but I ended up turning off the "video" and just listened. I wish I couldve watched the whole thing. Body language, almost always, tells alot more than spoken word.
Looks good to me.
Justin Perea couldn't tell until I read your comment
Great debate, precisely because it goes in new directions unlike most of these debates.
@ 1:00:00 I'm continually amazed at how people find it surprising that we find ourselves in a universe in which it is possible for us to exist.
Blake seems like a pretty cool dude. Half-way through it right now. I thought after the opening statements of Matt stating the problem with Blake's 'opinion poll on faith', that the rest of the discussion wouldn't be so one-sided intellectually, but Matt is pretty dominant and dismantles Blake's claims too easily. I'm kinda sad that every discussion/debate I've seen with Matt, it always appears like it's him versus a theist caller on the show. From Peterson to Blake, to that dumb morality preacher- it's very clear that they're all cut from the same cloth, which is easily torn apart.
To be honest i think this is one of the only debates where it wasn't entirely one sided for Matt, cause that's how it usually goes lol
Great debate. Editing could have benefited from using Pluraleyes 4 audio/video synch
I find that I need to have a second window open called Merriam-Webster to follow when Matt talks...now I know what epistemology means, thanks.
Haha ya first getting into these debates I had to do the same thing
I'm not complaining that you "debated" Blake again. I don't ever get as frustrated with him as many of your other opponents - it's kind of relaxing.
I would like to know how he would respond to certain questions, such as the "can my mother be in heaven if I'm in hell?" thing you've brought up before, or the "is the woman who drowns her kids to make sure they go to heaven before they can be corrupted (sacrificing her own paradise in the process) moral?" thing. Not that those dilemmas would really have been appropriate to bring up in this particular talk.
Without evidence, all you can do is feel rational.
Sea Pig got any evidence for logic? how much does it weigh?
Bluemonsoon Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying. And your challenge to prove a negative is disingenuous at best, as I'm sure you know it can't be done. Anyhoo, the onus is on you, the one making the positive claim. This silly believer dogma that _"absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"_ may sound clever to gullible rubes, but it's gobbledygook. You can't give me any evidence that The Flying Spaghetti Monster isn't real. Or Santa. Or Bigfoot. Does that make them real? Likely? Even in the realm of possibility?
You have nothing. In 2000 years of this silliness... no evidence. Absolutely nothing.
Tommy Dolan Got any evidence you have a clue? How much does it weigh?
Sea Pig rationalism uses deduction where you look forward not induction which is looking backward, rationalism eschews evidence, so ...
Sea Pig besides you cant even have evidence without God, so all evidence is evidence of God
I'm only 10 mins in, so Matt may address this, but I have to disagree slightly with Blake's assertion about what Christians mean by 'faith'. I don't disagree that if asked most Christians would agree that they mean trust when they use the word 'faith', but if you actually take the time to get them to really take a look at their assumed evidence they get to the point where they actually mean belief without evidence.
Edit: now I'm 15 mins in and yep, lol, Matt pretty much said something similar to what I was thinking.
If it was rational, it wouldn't be faith.
What a pleasant conversation. Very refreshing. I legitimately enjoyed this one as opposed to debates/conversations with dishonest people like Sye who's argument essentially boils down to "Your wrong and I'm right and I can't possibly be wrong and you secretly know it."
I also think the higgs field is a great analogy. The problem is not however some simple rule like "The higgs field doesn't violate our understanding" but the amount and quality of evidence demonstrating the proposal, The Higgs has incredibly strong and rigorous demonstrations of its existence, with an announcement of its discovery only being announced when the odds that the findings were incorrect were calculated at 1 in 3.5 million and yet science still does not claim certainty. Unlike some (many tbh) religious believers who happily claim 100% certainty
when there evidence is frankly hot garbage.
I also have no problem with the analogy but then Matt failed to ask "what data"? when Blake said he is looking at his data and saying it points to theism just like data from the particle collider points towards the higgs field.
@ about 48:00 I would say in the sciences you do have to demonstrate something is possible before you can propose it as a possibility. In physics this is usually done via math as well as using already demonstrated principles. If you just propose something with no reason to even believe it's a possibility than no one is going to take it seriously. A great example of this principle in action is in hypothesis regarding the origins of the universe. These hypothesis are based on already instantiated combinations of principles particles and laws, as well as using math to show that it's possible.
Faith: A piss poor substitute for thinking.
Wow. What a great talk. It really makes me realize how little I know. I am stoked. These guys are great.
Faith is the place where christian can hide safely from reality
I think this debate touches on the CORE issues of disconnect and deserves a complete presentation as to what constitutes rational substantiation for a claim with regard to reality as opposed to rational in the context of sociological linkages to the extent that such a separation can be done. I enjoyed this discussion, special salute to Matt & Blake!
Why assume that what came "before" the singularity was supernatural? That is just god of the gaps and an argument from ignorance.
Agreed... It's possible that the universe had a beginning and that beginning was caused by something that didn't need a beginning... end of discussion. We still have no reason to think we know the universe had a beginning! So this is all pointless. We still don't know if a necessary being is necessary! Therefore we have no reason to believe God is necessary!!! Not to mention the necessary thing doesn't have to be necessarily conscious. The thing that pops universes out and has no beginning doesn't need to think...
If the universe was created by something that didn’t need a beginning, it seems it could be either an impersonal first cause or a personal first cause. An impersonal cause would manifest its effect immediately, for if a cause is sufficient to produce its effect, then the effect will be present. But there is good evidence that the universe began to exist a finite time ago(13.7 billion years ago). The universe is not eternal in the past. So, the cause seems to be a personal cause, one that has the attributes of personhood- it can choose to make a universe a finite time ago. Those who advocate an impersonal cause have to deal with an eternal past or infinite series of causes, which seems to be impossible.
St. Luke's Central Music- There might be evidence that matter and anti-matter began to exist 13.7 bill years ago, But if you know anything about quantum physics Particles are just waves in fields... which we have no evidence came from the said big bang? ... if there is an infinite cause on the universe? Who said that cause is a thinking being? It could be a process we don't understand yet? Like natural selection picks animals who are best adapted... but natural selection doesn't think! It's just a possess.
Sh! Sch? Thanks for the response. I have heard Lawrence Krause and others describe the quantum vacuum as a sea fluctuating energy where particles pop in and out of existence. It is something they can’t completely explain. But, it is not “nothing” in the truest sense of the word. Sean Carrol says the universe may have tunneled out of the quantum vacuum. You are suggesting that the creation of the universe is a process that we don’t yet understand. That is true- we don’t understand it completely at this time. But could it be a process that regresses infinitely? This wouldn’t seem to make sense because if the process went back infinitely, we would never reach the present. The process would have to pass through infinity to reach the present, which doesn’t seem to make senses. Could an impersonal cause create the universe? Again, if the cause is eternally present, why wouldn’t the effect be eternally present as well? Why did the effect occur a finite time ago? If the cause had volitional power, then it could choose to act or not act. This would be a personal causal agent. I don’t think evolution is an apt analogy. Darwinian evolution seems to be a unrestrained, impersonal cause. Evolution seems to be finite with the creation of the universe. You could argue that evolution started with the creation of the universe.
I don't see the problem with trying to get to the present in an infinite universe? I don't see why your infinite personal causal agent waited infinity before doing anything? It seems your problem of going through an infinite past to get to the present works for your theory as well? If our universe goes from big bang to high entropy/vacuum to big bang again... the finite time between the most recent bang and the present is irrelevant. Because there have been infinite bangs before that one? And when all of the universe cools down and the universe becomes a new quantum vacuum... Another big bang will happen. I have never seen nothing in it's truest sense... So I believe in nothing as much as I believe in God... not at all! Nothing in that sense is that which only god can make something come from. My usage of nothing is nothing in the quantum fields or a quantum field vacuum... which didn't come from the big bang. Evolution seems to apply to any universe between bangs... things that are better fitted to an environment tend to stick around! So if the universe cycles for eternity Evolution is also eternal... There is a natural theory of how the universe works...adding nothing supper natural or anything extra we don't need.
If I say that when I talk about the colour green, I'm actually describing what others would define as blue, then of course I can say the sky is green and pretend I'm not talking nonsense.
Edit: 'we shouldn't bother on whether one or the other can be demonstrated'. My dude literally just used a tree as an example of knowing something is there, and now wants to have a conversation about if a tree is there without just showing someone the tree.
This is the problem with religion, it makes obviously very smart people bend over backwards to define silly ideas into existence to justify the lies they were told as children. If humans weren't so damn prideful and able to just admit the old dude in a robe was fleecing them not saving them we'd be better off.
Thank you Matt.
Please consider the use of terms like "natural" vs "artificial". The fact is that we are as natural as bees and our buildings as artificial as their hives. We are a part of nature. I've heard callers say that complexity is proof of design. Bee hives are designed in the same way humans design. Both use the capacity evolution made available. Intelligent or not. We think we can judge species with lesser intelligence. Shouldn't higher intelligence judge humans?
VcasF VcasF thanks
I like it that Matt likes talking to Blake. Their comfort level with each other is a good model for how we should interact with people that we disagree with.
Thanks to both for this vid
6:50 70 to 80% of atheist were Christians so we are well aware of what faith means, it does not mean just trust. He's not even a minute in and he's already misrepresenting and lying
Phelan okay lying is a bit strong... let's just say disingenuous, I stand corrected sir
I've watched Atheist Experience enough to know... Faith does not mean Trust.
I don't know how many times their building blocks of evidence are shattered before their eyes... And then they bring out the old Faith card.
if faith means trust... And all your evidence was just crushed before your very eyes... What trust could you possibly have?
If you mean that they were 'not true christians' because they did not believe sincerely enough, that's just, like, your opinion, man. Unless you can read their mind =)
Please give us your opinion on what a "true christian" is. Please pay no mind at the fallacious logic and mental acrobatics you're going to have to pull off to convince everyone that you KNOW FOR A FACT what a "true christian" is.
If sincerity has nothing to do with being a true christian, I think you mean then that to be a true christian means to actually have a relationship with Jesus.
Am I stating your point correctly?
Happy late 50 Matt!
You seem to have started getting younger over the last year. Must be the prayers! Thank you for all the great content and being on the front lines in the war against religion. Btw I learned recently that the root word for religion is the Latin word "religare" which means to tie down or hold back. Take care man , I'll see you on the interwebs.
Your Theist friend James.
Why do I get the feeling that this entire 2 and a half hour discussion could be replaced with two words "Bayes Theorem"?
A belief is rationally justified when there is sufficient evidence to support such a belief. END OF DEBATE
54:00 "I don't understand how theism violates *my* understanding."
wow, that is so sneaky, no wonder Matt missed that. Nobody cares about *your* personal understanding, Blake. Your personal understanding is just your subjective opinion on something. The point of understanding and knowledge is to have objective knowledge, not just a subjective opinion on something.
I can say "I don't understand how fairies violate my understanding", or "I don't understand how psychic powers violate my understating". Here is the Bayesian Proof that psychic powers are real: psychic powers don't violate my understating, therefore psychic powers are real.
How I wish that debates like this can be replicated in my country (philippines).
Also I wish Matt and Jordan Peterson could sit down and define the terms they use like what is done in this discussion. Jordan Peterson has a lot of words that he twists to his own ends, like how he defines god as being anything that defines what a person does or believes, which could be anything at all. Jordan Peterson also thinks that ideas are just as real as anything else (from what I can tell) which is debatable too. So the idea of defining the terms first is awesome!
lmao director had a real fun syncing sound and camera for 2.5 hours. The best part was when they synced it the wrong way and desynced it even more kek
What would be sufficient evidence to convince you that Q (from Star Trek) was real? In Universe Q was able to convince the crew of the Enterprise that he was both real and capable of doing all he claimed. Was the Enterprise crew being rational?
Good debate! Held my interest all the way through. I always enjoy listening to these talks.
That was unbelievably disappointing. "Blind faith" is identical to faith. It's just embarrassing to admit the "blind" part. Those things are called faith because it is the blind part of your belief. It's what a leap of faith means. The leap is exactly as a big as the blind part. The expression of faith is directly equal to the absence of information. The more info you have, the less faith you can exercise.
I have always used the word "trust" as a synonym for "faith".
55:00 "How does theism violate our understanding?"
Sure. Omniscience. Someone gets to know everything - including propositions about the inner workings of others' minds - past, present, and future. This person doesn't have to learn, go to school, or do experiments. That's a perfect violation of our understanding of how people have knowledge. I *learned that Paris is the capital of France. But how does God know that? Magic. He just does. He just gets to know everything free of charge - no learning, no calculations, no process. Rinse and repeat for omnipotence... No weight lifting, no practicing a musical instrument, no working your way up the company ladder, no food, no oxygen, no sleep. God gets to have infinite power and ability flowing from nothing, free on tap. That violates our understanding of how the world works to the Nth degree. Boom.
So you're saying god is the original Mary Sue. I agree, there's a lot of lazy writing, characterization, and world building represented in the bible.
I absolutely love the absurdity and arrogance of someone who thinks they have even the slightest clue about how a universe can come into existence that they feel not just comfortable, but confident enough to say loud and proud in front of a crowd of people, how likely or unlikely any kind of universe is based on their calculations.
I’ve only watched 6 minutes and just off the bat I’m so thankful with how rational and respectful the Christian guy seems. I had to stop the last debate I was watching because the Christians were acting like such horrible people. Way too many debates are like that. I like Matt because he finds nice people to debate. I feel safe with him. I really want to figure it out. I think Matt would be okay with me going back to Christianity as long as I really thought about it and looked at all the aspects. That’s feel REALLY good to my spirit!
This format is better than a formal debate.
My problem with Blake's argument here is two fold.
1. When he uses Bayesian Analysis on god he is committing the fallacy called Begging the Question. He never (as far as I could tell) asks the question of the prior probability of a god existing (which he should if he is to stick to the actual method) but rather ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT A GOD IS ____ (good, loving, powerful, etc) we can make a probability based on that attribute. This assumes a god exists in the first place. This is a problem because an honest application of Bayesian Analysis would show there to be no prior probability of a god. Meaning he is not using Bayesian and instead just Begging the Question and making an argument from there.
2. I really hate that the moderator interrupted when he did because Matt was about to expose the fact that the confidence Blake uses itself IS the definition of faith found in Hebrews 11:1. Namely that the "evidence" he uses (that Matt rightly pointed out is not anything that a scientist would call evidence) must be accepted on the Hebrews 11:1 definition. He must have 11:1 faith that the supernatural "evidence" he wants to point to exists and is reasonable to believe. This is again not honest.
Good conversation but I find faith to be useful only in self deception and Blake furthered that belief today.
Exactly! I was hoping Matt would point that issue with a lack of prior probability estimates, but he seemed a little lost in the Bayesian theorem topic. He was pretty close to that when he talked about some random guy being a wizard and putting the table on fire.
This debate format is SO much better than the - I talk for 7 min and then you talk for 7 min rinse and repeat format that I see too much.
I hope this geezer payed Matt for this lecture on science. Do Christians never wonder how come no Christian scientists ever get into this kind of debates with someone like Matt?
I was wrong. We are asking "Can trust be truthful?"
This was great. I really like Blake and his approach. Neither Matt nor Blake ever raised their voices: That was a pleasant surprise. Thanks for all you do Matt!
"faith" is the "oh crap Im backed up into a corner and have no way to support/justify/prove my position" word.
39:46 "is it rationally justifiable to believe in a historical fact"
Must be the the best quote of the day 😀
A fact is a fact, am I not right?
Would be silly not to believe a fact.
I agree with most people here that Blake is a generally nice guy, much better than most religious apologists. But I have to let you down gently Blake: You said you had 300 or so Korok seeds? You're not even close, buddy. Great discussion, though!
Beautiful stuff!!! I love both sides of this argument because it seemed Blake and Matt were being super honest!!!
There's a fundamental problem with the 1:49:50 Blake's assertion that because of the benevolent aspects of God he (Blake) would be justified to believe that God would aliviate the tension in the skepticism. Everyone knows skeptical theism is a well known response of many theists (Blake included) to the various perspectives and sides that the problem of evil can assume. Blake cannot be justified to pressupose that a classical theist god like his would aliviate the skeptic tension in dealing with epistemology, it may well be the case that BECAUSE of the fact that God is omnibenevolent, he has a SUFFICIENT reason to NOT aliviate any of the skeptical tension in regard to epistemological capacity.
New video title: Matt explains what science is for 2 hours
Think how far someone like Blake could go if they could just break that barrier of self delusion.
The answer is "no". Period.
Talking about whether faith can be rational is another way of avoiding the fact that theists CAN’T prove any gods exist.🤡
... and yet they emulate so intensely only that which they want to believe!
"All models are wrong, some are useful" ~ George Box
*Oh, shit. It's about to get* 🔥 *!*
As frustrating as it can be to debate apologists, Blake is hands down the single most intellectually honest apologist I've ever listened too, and it's not even close. He might be mistaken, wrong, and have biases he's unaware of, but the dude has honest conversations, isn't afraid to admit error, and tries to accurately represent his opponents position. I hope he starts getting the paid gigs to debate instead of charlatans like Craig, Strobel, Dsouza, Turek, and Bruggencate.
Blake should consider this, if he has to make all these philosophical leaps and coax out conclusions to build a jenga tower of "sound reason", it needs to be asked why would a God make it so incredibly difficult for a simple ordinary man to believe to effectively argue that case. It should be self evident, it could be agrued that a Deistic god is self evident given current knowledge but that gets you no closer to Christianity.
Blake’s a smart man but his a priori commitment to Christianity shines through bright & clear. The entire thrust of his position seems to be a criticism of scientific standards of evidence as too strict, and if we’d just relax our epistemological sphincters a little we could fit God right up in there. There are a few moments of mild obtuseness too, as if he can’t possibly comprehend that people aren’t convinced by the Bible for really simple, easy to relate reasons. By this point, Blake and Matt had had several conversations and it’s difficult for me to accept that he truly doesn’t get why people reject the gospels as factual history or reliable reportage. They just simply aren’t, even regarding many mundane details like the life & times of Herod and Pilate, and the nature & timing of that plot-crucial census. The supernatural stuff, ie the core of Christianity, is written in escalating fish-story fashion by the gospeleers, each one writing for a different audience of believers and potential converts, and is prima facie implausible.
What Christians like Blake need to do is talk to, say, Muslims, and have a back and forth about why they reject each other’s religions. Perhaps some insight may be attained regarding their own reasons for belief.
Blake is an ignoramus but at least he seems like a nice guy. This guy should also consult Richard carrier on Bayesian analysis.
かつしんりゅう人づて well by that definition he is. That is ignorance
Just a note on the Higgs field. In physics a field has a particle associated with it, for example the photon is the particle associated with the electromagnetic field. Physicists proposed the Higgs field and associated with it they predicted there would be a particle which had previously not been detected and it would have particular properties and with a mass which would be in a certain range. At CERN they looked for and found the particle that matched the predictions made by the physicists.
Those who are particularly hung up on the idea of logic - "if this then that" logic - should review the gestalt law of closure. Correlation does NOT equal causation.
Nor is logic on a par with rationality: the latter being a more superior form of conceptualization, since it incorporates logical reasoning without forcing the thinker to reach potentially false conclusions for the sake of filling in the blanks A rational person is less distraught by the unknown and is more comfortable admitting that they simply don't know. They are not as seduced by conclusions as a strictly logical person, who has a compulsory cognitive urge to reach closure, and is therefore more prone, and partial to, fallacies. For them, a false conclusion trumps the void of the unknown.
Tina G Vardanyan Logic and skepticism are two interwoven yet separate disciplines and where logic fails skepticism picks up. Faith is a guess at best and stupidity at worst. Faith is an assertion of knowledge without anything to support it. Logic will carry you only so far because existence isn't usually as simple as logic would suggest, but then skeptical thinking will keep you from asserting something must be true because it is logical.
Right, Paul, and rationality embraces both those disciplines to produce a beautiful blend of undeniable intelligence. Some children display this splendidly, although ignorant of a plethora of facts (and fictions) that are profuse in adults' minds. I've met stupid academics, logicians, and skeptics. But I have never met a rational person that sounded persistently stupid (though such privileged occasion to meet one scantily presents itself), irregardless of their age or level of formal education.
Tina G Vardanyan can something be rational, and still be wrong? I'm not saying that skepticism is bullet proof because nothing is. To be rational one must be both skeptical and logical, prior to asserting something is reliably true, and evidence is a critical component to that assertion. The belief in "The God that is..." utilizes none of those disciplines.
Paul Millbank I agree with you completely. I was intent on making the fundamental distinction, since “logical” and “rational” are very often conflated. The greater includes the lesser, and rational is the greater.
As to your question, yes a rational person CAN be wrong, and that is perfectly alright, but they won’t persist on maintaining their wrong despite evidence (positive or negative) to the contrary. Being wrong once will usually suffice, if they’re paying attention. In other words, a rational, greater being (who is at once logical AND skeptical) has room for expansion & cognitive shifting. Their mind isn’t as fixated. The limitations of logic and skepticism are neither foreign nor foe to them. I hope this makes my point clearer.
Tina G Vardanyan It does, and I agree with everything you said so I'll just leave it as a good conversation on the subject of how to be wise.
Even if faith = confidence, the problem still exists. Namely, is the following proposition rational?
"if someone subjectively feels confident about x, then that justifies x."
My point with this is that substituting the word "faith" with the word "confidence" doesnt make that proposition any more rational.
So at about 35 minutes, thy are talking about what would constitute evidence of god. Could it make sense to say that it would only count as evidence if it becomes the most likely scientific explanation? Including hallucinations, delusions, etc. (that belief would accurately and give a basis that can be used to make predictions and give reliable information about how the world works) Right now, saying “because god” is similar to saying I don’t know except that saying I don’t know implies it can become possible to know, so it would take the explanation of “because god” becoming more probable than the idea that we could learn how something works with a sufficient level of technology. It would also have to beat out any other improbable answer of “because (insert any mystical thing here)” such as “because magic”, “because an all powerful unicorn”, etc. this would have to provide a way to identify the being known as god (specifically the god a given belief system holds to) from other mythical things/beings such as Zeus (being able to discount that god as not being a “Zeus” or other god that had changed over time or otherwise). Also, this would mean that there would have to be a specific definition of the God, because even people within the same belief system can have wildly variable views on what god is, what he does or doesn’t do, his personal characteristics, etc.
Jordan Stokes science presupposes God
@@GODHATESADOPTION nope
Blake is special pleading like crazy when he rejects the flame-throwing wizard. But he is perfectly fine with the Bible's zombies, talking animals, making people out of a rib, etc.
I don't know but Faith can be boring, bailing out 10 minutes in.
No, Blake, affected humility is neither charming nor does it compensate for a lack of demonstrable evidence.