Did you ever by chance watch his debate? Matt actually did the debate and this dude literally brought up the same arguments from here. He TALKED THE ENTIRE TIME. Barely let matt get a word in at all.
This guy sounds like a tool. Who the fuck even is he?!? And can someone PLEASE tell me; since when does some random unknown contender get a shot at the champ?!? This is no different than some guy off the street expecting to share the ring with Mike Tyson simply because he says he’s “worthy”. Just imagine the endless fiasco if any famous athlete took on ANY comer who fancied himself worthy! It would be ridiculous.
Michael Devito Well, this guy sounds like Rocky going after his chance against Apollo instead being the other way around. And in this case, Rocky gets knocked out in the first round
truth1901 ..Who is this 'god' you speak of? What is he/she/it made of? How do we confirm his/her/its existence? How do you define 'nothing'? If god is 'something' that can effect this universe.., and something cannot come from 'nothing', then when/where/how did God get created? .. and how did gods creator get created?.. and how did gods gods creator get created?,.. and so on ad-infintium.. The truth is, nobody knows what triggered this universes existence.. It could be some result of a multi-verse, it could be the will of a ill-tempered deity, or infinite other 'reasons'.. Until someone provides evidence for such existence, the correct answer to how life and its ultimate existence is.. Wait for it.. "I dont know.." If you have evidence that suggests otherwise?, then present it for peer review..
Hercules Rockefeller Jehovah. God is an energy being. Confirmation is via the Bible. God has always been hence there has never been nothing. Nothing is : Not anything. The proof is the fulfilled prophecy found in the Bible.
truth1901 I have a bible that says Sparky the Majestic Unicorn is the one true Creator of the universe.., and that jesus and yahweh are evil trickster demon devil angels and the holy bible are only tricking you into a eternal life of trickery and torture.. Oh please wont you accept Sparky into your heart so you arn't tortured by the evil jesus forever! Repent jesus from your heart and be truely saved! REJOICE!
He started confident when he was just riding his own ego, i.e. when he was imagining the plaudits for his debating skills - a debate he hadn't even had yet. Once it was exposed to him he didn't know the basics of logical thought, he sank.
Tracie n Matt obviously didn't read that noobjob's script. It's so clear at the start that he was expecting Matt to say certain things but when he realised he wasn't that's when you could start seeing that caller's argument slowly crumble.. and oh how glorious that was.
I'm always amazed at how easily Tracie can reduce a rambling argument to a simple and clear statement or analogy. Her brain is like a machine; fast and precise.
@@raysalmon6566 I would invite you to contribute something better, if you're willing. But we've already seen many examples of your calibre of reasoning. And it's not really up to a basic junior high school level. It's not, I'm sorry. You're a stupid man with an obsession, who believes he's an intelligent man with an insight. As the saying goes, you do more harm to your case by speaking, and removing all doubt.
ixtl guul snap, as is their takedown of piece of shit 'Shane'.. ruclips.net/video/MLakJ_Z_CGk/видео.html ... And I love tracie too, She has great teeth.
ixtl guul I'm really puzzled why he didn't say "Space". Or even "darkness and void" as it says in the Bible, so I consider the guy gutless or just plain stupid. And no, I don't think Space is Nothing, it is a concept like Nothing or Time, but it is something. Reguardless, it isn't any proof of God anyway, and he got blasted on his very first point. Tracie is brilliant.
The funniest part in this clip is at 9:27, when Matt says "a single point, that we can maybe adress on the show. You know, apart from us just sitting here, jousting back and forth about nothing." Then they spend the rest of the call jousting back and forth about nothing.
I've run into this so many times. Theists so often simply do not understand the difference between "I don't accept claim A" and "claim A is false." They just *dont get it*. It's absolutely bizarre to watch. It's like their brain is broken. This guy was a perfect example.
stony tina Actually, I would disagree with that. In this case I think the concepts ("I don't believe X" and "I believe X is false") are very, very often used as equals in every day life, and we treat them, intuitivly, as the same (although I do understand that they are NOT the same). Even atheists very, very often don't get this. So, I don't think in this case it's a deliberate thing. I think it's not understood because it's not intuitive.
Freddy Scissorhands Well, in order to "don't believe X' it means that it hasn't been demonstrated. If it hasn't been demonstrated, then for all intents and purposes it is false. Especially when it is an outrageous claim. There is a difference for example not demonstrating you have 10$ in your pocket and not demonstrating you have a 1.000.000.000$ in your pocket.
Fus Ro Dah *There is a difference for example not demonstrating you have 10$ in your pocket and not demonstrating you have a 1.000.000.000$ in your pocket.* Sure. But in this case we actaully have good reason to say that we believe the claim, that somebody has 1000000000 $ in his pocket is actually false. Because we know what money is, we know how much a human pocket can hold, and so on. So, we're not coming at this blindly. We have data to go by. In this case we are justified to say that the claim is false. Not just, that we cannot believe it.
Freddy Scissorhands Ok, then what about a bank account? It's reasonable to believe there can be 1.000.000.000 dollars in a bank account. But we still need evidence, else we discard it. What I mean at the end of the day is, if there is no reason to believe in something, then we treat it as false.
@@CronoXpono And if Eric argument falls short for the existence of god because who then created god into existence god himself or a greater being then god!?”
Well, I vote that Matt won, clearly, this guy just was NOT getting it. He's either not very bright, or just so deluded that he's cordoned off certain areas of his brain to avoid ever questioning his own beliefs
Poor Eric Lounsbery comes in all butt hurt and crying about how a little 1 hour atheist public access TV show is just so unfair to Christianity.....boo hoo......then he goes on to throw a few sissy punches challenging Matt to a debate but only under Eric's rules.....tool.....gee he sounds like he's actually the one who is Cramer in the kids karate class.
@David Cowan Yeah you can say so, and yet you are here today being a hateful asshole to people, which is affecting people in your life or close to you TODAY.
He never implied "nothing" or "non-existence" was a thing that exists, which was his point. He was referring to a concept of negation i.e. an inability to refer to no thing for the concept to be meaningful. In other words, the statement something can come from nothing would be incoherent and logically impossible.
I love it when Eric says "90% of the callers(theists) have probably never studied theology or apologetics. What kind of study do you need? Once you learn some critical thinking skills, theology and apologetics can be shown to be a waste of time. :p
My Grandfather was a minister with a theology degree. The only thing he knew was the doctrine of his particular branch of protestant Christianity. Theology is just indoctrination. He was a doctor of theology and he couldn't tell you the first thing about any other religion but his own.
Theists who actually study theology are probably much more likely to realize how much of it is bullshit and stop believing in what amounts to a cosmic evil santa claus.
You tell me! I have a master degree in apologetics and the more I studied the more I realize that there is no real warrant to believe christian theism. I am not fully convinced that God does not exist for example there are other conceptions like pantheism or panentheism which I am studying. It was not a waist of time though I am much prepared to defend my positions with critical thinking plus I understand the arguments pretty good and know Christian theology. Hell, I have even been a profesor of theology for a pentecostal university in Puerto Rico. Still studying philosophy and history and planning to do doctoral work. This stopics are too important for our society to leave them unstudied and they interest me very much!
Why is it not possible for "Something to come from nothing" but an all powerful God who can just snap his fingers and create an entire universe can come from nothing and that's totally okay? Oh wait. It's because "God transcends all space and time so screw you!" What an amazing argument of special pleading. Not only that but just like Tracie and Matt said. We can't study or analyze "Nothing", so the entire argument is invalid right out of the gate. It amazes me how confident Eric is with his cut and paste 'one size fits all' argument, yet he is absolutely clueless to how useless his argument is.
There's a debate between Craig and Lawrence Krauss and it is like watching a car crash in slow motion. Actual physicist against someone who has read a bit of physics.
@Chris A Do you need to snap your fingers or otherwise act magically to dream? No, because is your nature to dream. ("Sitting quietly, doing nothing, the grass grows.") This is the ontology of the Eastern metaphysical schools commonly called pantheism. All is a manifestation of the one timelessly and eternally existing consciousness. It manifests as myriad illusory material entities. Like a Rubik’s cube, it constantly changes its face to form new patterns (which gives birth to the illusion of time) while all the while retaining its essence as one. The patterns change in accordance with metaphorical algorithms which we interpret as cause and effect. In the Advaita (non dualist) Vedanta school of Hinduism, consciousness-the fundamental ground of being that cannot be further sublated-is termed “Brahman,” the Sanskrit root of which, “Bra,” means “to grow.” Just as it is you nature to dream, so it is Brahman’s nature to spin its illusory realty that we/it experiences as manifestations of Brahman. We and all that we perceive is “Lila,” the play of God (consciousness). “I am who am.” “Let there be light.”
acg smith Probably along the lines of: everything that exists has a cause, the universe began to exist, therefore it has a cause, that cause must be outside of space-time, so the cause is timeless, it must be all powerful, etc.... therefore God.
"Nothing cannot make something" is equally likely as "There was once nothing" in my opinion. I don't think there was once nothing, because if that was the case, then it would most likely still be nothing, because "nothing can come from nothing". But what do I know?
Levi Johansen The biggest misconception is the theist idea of what nothing is vs the scientific version of what nothing is. Nothing refers to empty space according to physicist Lawrence Krauss. In empty space there’s a bubbling soup of particles popping into and out of existence all the time. Also research heat death, every second a star the size of our star the sun swells up, pulls everything in, and blows up spitting it all out, now with far less energy than the star originally had in the first place. This will happen to all stars in the universe until....given enough time there will once again be nothing at all, a zero energy state. What we do not know if this is a cycle that happens regularly, if it’s a one off. I find space and the universe cool.
Jordan Akers Where/How/When did the bumbling particles come to being? From nothing and nowhere? I assume God created a place and a time to put all the matter into place. I don’t understand it, but it’s truly amazing.
A New Rep Then who created the god? And who created the creator of the god? And that ad infinitum..... If you say "my god is eternal" then I say, "The multiverse too and we don't need an unnecessay extra variable." The end.
Sean Kincaid Quite true. At least science builds on real research and real stuff. Sadly for religious folk what they believe is built on nothing. I've always found it bizarre that they find comfort in their fantasy stories. Considering they are nothing more than stories. Science has every possibility of giving us the eternal life that so many religious people crave, religious folk are apparently over the moon thinking they're destined for some Heavenly situation ruled by a dictator who demands to be worshipped, where they must obey at all costs under threat of Hell. Science on the other hand will develop the capacity to have us live for as long as we wish with our loved ones in the landscapes and social paradises of our dreams, where options exist for living as close to perfection as we can get. The alternative to science is to drop dead and hope there is something else out there with no evidence so far that there is. Old stories just don't cut it. They hold us back. Being able to download ourselves into virtual worlds takes up very little space and would leave the Earth to heal itself.
This is one of my favorite calls because it could be taught as a class in fallacies, manipulation, and intimidation. Amazing. Simply amazing how this caller is blinded by his arrogance.
The atheists are correct. 1. "something comes from something" does not imply "something does not come from nothing." 2. Even if the caller was correct, then it could still be the case that the universe has always existed. "Something cannot come from nothing" does not imply that at one time there was nothing.
VJScope Nothing as in the philosophical abstract of non-existence. So nothing does not and has not ever existed. Not nothing as described by some modern physicists as something like bare space which does still exist.
sham shan I would probably accept Krauss' definition of nothing. But the concept of nothing is pretty much irrelevant to physics. It is more like mental gymnastics to philosophers who don't want to concentrate on science. So if we get more information, I wont be too dogmatic in defending that definition. Edit1: Religious people don't usually want to accept the definition that I use. Fine but that doesn't make Krauss' model invalid. Then we can just say: "Fine, the kind of nothingness that you describe probably doesn't exist so the universe didn't come from nothing - and you have a useless definition. But your god is still irrelevant. The universe can still come from non-existing universe." And at least one of them has admitted that his definition of nothing is useless but he still wants to use it.
If this caller still insists there is a god then he has to accept that his version of that god certainly left his ass hanging out in the breeze on this one. Matt - 1 Caller - 0
17:34 And Tracie with the Logic SLAM! Eric is speechless from 17:44 to 17:50 a full 6 seconds!!! LOL OWNED "Ohhhhh!" (audience member) And the look she gives him at 17:47 Priceless. Tracie is so good, sometimes I forget Matt is even there when she's arguing.
This was one of her finest moments ruclips.net/video/Fc3N8kBgaas/видео.html Tracie "Are you saying you think there was a state of Nonexistence that existed ?"
Saw this for the first time in 2023 and have watched it multiple times. Nothing👀 is better than watching Matt and Tracie totally clobber Eric Murphy and his sh*tty apologist argument😁
The moment this cocky guy said he had an argument with SEVEN premises that he thinks are so simple we will agree with all of them real quick it was pretty clear how this was going to go. Most apologists cannot get two premises past their opponents. The thing these clowns never seem to get is that these discussions enter such unknown territory that there is virtually no presupposition on which we can begin.
they're avoiding the begging the question fallacy which theists like to commit so often. If they have a premise that's unsupported, you shouldn't let them run with it, they should be called out on it.
***** well, until you or anyone can demonstrate that god, heaven and hell exist, let alone how long they have and will, outside of only the minds of believers like you, then your beliefs are unjustified and your arguments are nonesense. You can as well talk about Santa to people, you'll be taken about just as seriously.
***** let's just stop speculating about the made up stuff that might or might not be possible and deal with the reality we still know very little about.
It's hilariously ironic at 9:30 Matt asks him if he'd like to bring up an argument instead if "jousting back and forth about nothing", and then they proceed to joust back and forth about "nothing".
Some of the callers genuinely listen. Yes, there are those who call into speak without listening (I guess they just like the sound of their own voice or something), but you cannot say that about all of them.
Tracie nailed it. We only have evidence that "something can come from "something". It is not a demonstrable fact that "something cannot come from nothing".
Agreed. This is worse than people who know nothing about debating. He so believes he is so right that he mapped out an entire scripted argument that he thinks he can absolutely control, leading the conversation wherever he pleases. That is not a debate. As you can see, since Matt can debate, it fell apart as soon as he dissented on the first point.
It would help if he didn't use the same technique as 1/3 of the callers. He tries to get them to agree to a bunch of premises that will trap them into his conclusion. Well he didn't get very far.
No one is saying 'something can come from nothing' except for theists who say everything came from the magical wishes of some invisible magical being, which conveniently needs no explanation for where IT came from.
Gawd iz da vary complex complicated always existed magical impossible thing without a creator to them lol. It doesn't matter to da religious believers when they are hypocrites.
17:40 Tracy response here “you’ve never examined nothing so how can you make any assessment of it” Fucking…. Brilliant. And that was literally the end of his rehearsed speech. She was the star of this certain call with those logic bombs
18:35.... The exact glorious moment the caller FINALLY realizes he just labeled HIS OWN first premise "self-contradictory" 🤣 And Matt's next words are "Now he's gettin' it!" JUST A GLORIOUS MOMENT! I want to pour that moment all over my cereal and slurp it down for breakfast every morning until the end of time 😆 Hahaha
Whenever these clowns start in on the tired old "something can't come from nothing" argument, I simply interrupt with, "...then where did God come from?" When they counter with "This does not apply to God," they are tacitly admitting that God isn't something. Which means, God is nothing. Which means..... (drum roll).... God doesn't exist. End argument.
I really hope the caller realized at the end of this call that you can't just always assert that something has a direct opposite. The reason why the caller was so confused when faced with the question of "did you examine "nothing" before ?" is that many can't seem to differentiate the poorness of our languages from the "logical" statements we try to make using its limited convenience. The logical requirements of an infinite "entity" as the Primal cause ARE MET by the definition of a singularity. The rest of the statements from the bronze age about the soul, emotions being in your hearth(try telling that to a psychiatrist), or any other metaphysical "knowledge" is absurd since by definition, a metaphysical knowledge cannot be obtained by a physical thing as we are. From this, the circular argument was made that since the being(s) that created us are metaphysical and we are their "children" our minds(and soul) were thought to be that same metaphysics. We now know that even your thoughts AREN'T METAPHYSICS, the electricity in your brain emits a specific magnetic field that can be mapped. Everything that we thought was "nothing" like the air we breath, we now know to be something... but no ancient book has any answer to such an advanced understanding of our world as to provide an explanation to what IS "nothing". tl;dr: You can't state "something cannot come from nothing" before you've determine if BOTH "something" and "nothing" exists in the first place.
He was just trying to trap Matt. If he really did watch the show he would know that wouldn't work. About 100 people have already tried the same thing. He was trying to get Matt to agree to some bullshit premises that would trap him from rebutting the conclusion. He didn't even get 1.
The fact that "something can not come from nothing" DOES NOT point towards a God. if a bicycle tree miraculously appeared in front of me, I don't have the necessary evidence to bridge the gap between the tree and God. All i could say for a fact is that a bicycle tree had appeared right in front of me. I could not tell you with any certainty how it got there, who put it there or why it was there, I could only assume and come to a decision based on probability. Religious people seem to think that God fills the unanswered gaps in life. "Oh it hasn't been discovered how this was done yet, it must have been God" NO NO NO NO NO! YOU CAN NOT MAKE THAT ASSUMPTION, IT'S FLAWED!
That's exactly what I was about to say... although more along the lines of: If something appeared in front of me right now, and I have no evidence to say where it came from, I certainly have no evidence to say it came from nothing. I like that everything in this guys argument hinged on someone agreeing to a false statement.
The comment about Seinfeld is about the highest level of irony I can handle before my bones melt from the inside out. This guy has kindergarten level apologetics, probably debates uninformed internet atheists mostly, and falls apart at the slightest questioning by two people who(at the time at least) just debate this stuff in their spare time. Matt did end up eventually debating Eric and it was a reason wreck from Eric's side. For his sake, I hope they didn't vote because that would have been terribly embarrassing for him lol.
I just love the fact that he really thought he could just ramble off his '7 logical points' to own the atheists just to get stopped in his tracks at the first one😂
If there is such a thing as nothing, its inherently illogical and the conversation should end there. But lets entertain the idea for a moment. The existence of nothing is inherently a paradox and illogical, which means it operates outside of our logical framework. If "nothing" operates outside of our logical framework, then who am i to say that it cant do illogical things, such as producing a "something"
good comment. that's why religious people love it... it allows their illogical "god" and all its illogical actions to be "real" (except it doesn't really allow anything of the sort)
If the caller believes there is a state of "nothingness", shouldn't he prove that the first law of thermodinamics is flawed? (Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, impliying "something" (energy) always existed).
Indeed, if the first law of thermodynamics is demonstrably true and energy can neither be created or destroyed, what does that make energy, ie, what attribute does energy possess? In common language, wouldn't we answer that if something cannot be created or destroyed, that something is "eternal"? As a former theist, that's how I viewed God, having no beginning (uncreated) or ending (indestructible), thus being eternal. The still unclear part of this to me is, how do we arrive at the certainty of that first law of thermodynamics? How do we know, or at least confidently posit, that energy cannot be created or destroyed? By what scientific methodology do we arrive at that 'law'? If that law is incontrovertible, and we know that at least our universe is filled with energy, then is positing the eternality of our universe not a plausible or even probable idea? Would it be any less plausible than asserting the eternality of an alleged deity? What's the compelling evidence for either proposition?
I know the caller personally, he is a highly intelligent person that has incredible debating skills. He has debated several hundred atheists, and has even debated several at a time. I would call him a religious mass-debater.
Got his backside kicked pretty good here; his "debating skills" don't work as well against someone who can stop him cold and require that he support his claims before going forward. A comment attributed to Mark Twain goes, "A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." Matt and Tracy were stopping the lie to make it wait for the truth.
@@HardKore5250Matt isn't trying to disprove a god though. He won because his logic is sound. His position is that we don't know of or have evidence for any gods.
I rarely debate believers but when I do I cut to the chase. "If you can't prove a god exists then by definition, you're making shit up based on what you want to believe is true. What we believe is irrelevant. A god exists or doesn't exist independent of opinion, the bible, faith, whatever. Give me an actual god and not you!" We don't get a god, we just get humans making shit up. No argument in existence can make a god exist, no argument in existence can make a god suddenly not exist. If all you have is opinion then we're already done."A god exists!" "No it doesn't!" Right.... Now either prove I'm wrong or admit we're going on opinion and fuck all else. What WE BELIEVE is irrelevant, it's what we can PROVE. Your opinion = "I have a pet werewolf!", mine is "Fucking prove it then!" Guess what will happen then? Fuck all! Because your opinion is all you have.
So in this guy Eric's mind, the truth needs to be softened to not hurt feelings of theists. Also, he's so proud of his winning debates and having votes at the end to stroke his pride, so much that he's ignoring the fact that his debate would have no ground to stand on.
No, we've already reached the end of the argument. We can't examine "nothing" because our entire universe _is_ something. Pointing that out is just a way to show that saying "something can't come from nothing" is ignorant and honestly just stupid. The chance of our species ever reaching a point where we can examine true nothingness is extremely low, so we can only look at the situation logically. We can't know whether or not something could come from nothing, that's currently just unknowable, so anything besides simply saying "we don't know" gains a burden of proof that cannot be met. The caller kept asserting that something can't come from nothing, meaning he needed to actually empirically prove that for his point to stand. The hosts were simply saying "I don't agree with your unproven assertion, that doesn't mean I agree with the opposite assertion either."
so let's say that we could somehow assert that stuff cannot come from "nothing" that still wouldn't explain any gods, you can just argue that the universe has always been. The funny thing is that how could a god somehow exist in nothing and produce from nothing? if anything, the whole argument would also argue against the existence of a god or gods...
Exactly ! I don't know even know why they bothered refuting the caller. Just accept his premise and move on to the obvious conclusion you state. Besides pre big bang is not considered "nothing." Christian s are so confused
podingl Yeah Lol. It’s confusing and difficult to picture. This belief system that atheists have is extremely confusing. It’s like they always find an excuse to believe in Anything else except Gods work for an explanation. I seriously don’t understand these claims. Something cannot be eternal unless it’s supernatural. Nothing was before everything. Nothing means nothing and that even space, energy, matter, gravity, time..etc, simply didn’t exist therefor God. There’s nothing other that would produce such creation. The only thing that would create such a thing would be peoples delusion.
A New Rep Wrong!! Any god is not an explanation but a made up fantasy with 0 amount of evidence to back it up other than Stone Age ignorant superstition. There's literally really an infinite number of true explanations other than a magical being CREATING OUT OF NOWHERE, something you suppousedly oppose unless it backs up your pathetic superstition, the multiverse is one but there are many more.
Same thing in reverse i guess....prove that something can come out of nothing when nothing is non existent....we live in the 21st century and theres not one little puny example.....at the end if you put that on one side of the balance and on the other side things like the church movement...out of body experiences....demonic possesions etc...u can see that odds are that theres a higher chance of the existence of a god or a higher being....when i see the chick on this video say "we dont have an example of nothing" thats so contradicting.....sit in an empty room....any empty space....does random things pop out of nowhere???....has anything ever popped up...theres not one single ex of this....so when matt says "its probably true that something cant come out of nothing" thats all u need to fall back on....theres no option C or D.....its A or B and A clearly doesnt work here....so most likely the universe came from something like my car or my clothes and stuff like that....im only using logic without trying to offend anybody
Giantsfan88 I’m not following your logic. But let me put it back to you and you tell me if this is what you’re saying, ok? The existence of god is more probable...this is where I get lost. More probable than what? The Big Bang does not assert that something came from nothing. There was the singularity, then all that began expanding, and still is. Conversely, the concept of genesis from the Bible asserts that god created everything from nothing. Sorry, I changed course midstream. What were saying?
I've noticed the same. I don't know whether brains that can't process nuance are attracted to Christianity, or brains that are inflicted with Christianity lose their ability to process nuance. From my observations, I think both are true to some extent.
+BollocksUtwat Theist: "Something can't come from nothing." Atheist: "Prove that there's ever been 'nothing' that we can't come from." Theist: "That's not my responsibility" Atheist: "YOu just claimed it." Theist: "That's for you to figure out." Atheist: "Ok, so if something can't come from nothing, what did your god come from?" Theist: "God's always been there." Atheist: "So he did come from nothing?" Theist: "No, he's always been there, stop persecuting me!" Too common . . . wonder when they'll realize their bullshit doesn't make sense.
Eric makes three catastrophic errors. The first error is not to critically evaluate the premises of his arguments, as we see clearly with P1, to determine whether they are actually sound (clearly P1 isn't). The second error is to assume that winning a debate means his claim is correct and demonstrates his god exists. The third error is to believe arguments sans evidence demonstrate claims are true. They don't and they can never do this. The only time an argument alone can show a claim is false (and only false) is when the argument is shown to be logically incoherent. Such arguments are false by axiomatic definition. Poor Eric isn't smart enough to know and understand that no amount of apologetics (excuses and storytelling) can rescue a position that is fatally and fundamentally flawed. The entire enterprise is no more than a huge exercise in an argument from ignorance, as the comments in the forum below show to great effect.
Even if something in fact CANNOT come from nothing…that’s not what atheists believe, it’s was theists believe. So I don’t understand why he’s arguing so hard for that point that is more against his ideas than ours
I thought God created everything. Meaning there was just God then by some mysterious means All was created by God. How is that not only Something from absolutely Nothing but actually Everything from Nothing? Why is it atheists who are said to believe something came from nothing? Isn't that the #1 Creationist claim?
***** I've never understood why it's atheists who are expected to explain how everything came from nothing. When it's actually believers in creation who believe God created everything by willing everything to be. Why shouldn't they have to explain, in detail, how that process works? After all it is their hypothesis. If they believe it, shouldn't they have to explain what it is that they believe? As an atheist, I don't pretend to know how or even if anything came from nothingness. That's their claim.
There is a fundamental principle that these types of religious people all believe in, but won't use the proper labels because it degrades their credibility. That concept in magic (aka, the supernatural).Whenever they (or rather, you) can't explain something, they believe it was the act of something magical. Your question is not a problem for them, because in their eyes, if science cannot immediately explain something, god must have done it, and they don't have to explain how god did it, because god can do magic and magic is not bound by science and is beyond our understanding. We all know this is a form of the argument from ignorance, but I'm just saying, they are not going to be phased by this question, because magic.
@@vuho2075 Sherlock Holmes lives in London. Popeye has a girlfriend named Olive Oyl. Dumbo has an unusually long nose. God can make something from nothing.
Actual astrophycisists such as Lawrence Krauss define 'nothing' as '30% dark matter, 70% dark energy', so obviously the theist apologists and actual scientists have very different ideas about the definition of 'nothing'. BTW, where did the God of the Old Testament come from, nothing or something else? I've never heard them even attempt to explain that.
David you're obviously very stupid. In the God concept, which is what atheists claim the biblical God is, God is defined as being eternal, I.e never started, didn't "come" from anywhere, and has always existed. Therefore your assertion that the biblical God had to have come from somewhere contradicts the definition within the concept of eternal. Therefore claiming you are debating a God that had to have come from something is a straw man. You know what that is right. Its changing how something in a argument is defined and then attacking your own position. If you claim God isn't eternal, you are then talking about another God, not the biblical one.....Fairly quite simple but apparently not from you. P.s. the phrase God created everything is simple English, it implies everything was created except for God.
davids11131113 its not a question, its a straw man. The God concept is clear so acknowledging the question would be acknowledging the individual is retarded. God is eternal. Pretty basic definition within the God concept. You do think God is a concept right? You do think geometry is a concept, right? Do you ever challenge anyone to prove a straight line in geometry is 180 degree angle? (appealing to a geometry book for the proof would be analogous to appealing to the bible) There isn't any proof that a line is, it's merely a definition within a concept. When you discuss the God concept, eternal is a definition within a concept. You do understand the definition of eternal, oh wait, its apparent you do not.
I like how arrogant Eric is about debating Matt. He's so certain that he'll destroy him and convince the entire audience that God exists. You can tell just by the inflection of his voice how superior he thinks he is. Well, here we are post-debate and his argument was a complete joke, and this call right here demonstrates his stupidity very well. He's just another run of the mill apologist committing every fallacy in the book.
+AllHaiLKINGTIsHeRe3 Take note of something else. He talked as if he knew all about the show, and he went into the whole Seinfeld story just to present his arrogance claim, and yet he stated that he's only seen the show a few times. You're able to watch a few times, and from that learn all you need to know all about the show, come to a conclusion about it, call up, and go into a diatribe about how arrogant and superior the show is based on a few examples? Not even the slightest desire to confirm before you proceed, not even the slightest thought you MIGHT be mistaken? Yes, he is arrogant.
I really enjoyed the debate on the Dogma Debate podcast. Both were very cordial and articulate, but Eric's attempts in proving God's (and moreover the Christian God's) existence was superficial and, frankly, pathetic. I'm interested in hearing a second debate between the two. I propose the subject to be "The Legitimacy of the Bible", or something regarding the accuracy of biblical claims.
It might be that "nothing" cannot ever exist, because how can "nothing" exist when there is nothing there to exist? If there is a total absence of everything, then there is no container for the "nothing" to not-exist in anyway. I think it is this fear of the unimaginable that drives theists to invent a solution.
Matt is awesome and my intellectual debate hero, a worthy champion to fill the hitch debate vacuum. Time to step up Matt and inherit the burden to mattslap people with some refreshing logic!!
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
Eric wants a debate but falls apart when the person he's debating doesn't follow his script.
Did you ever by chance watch his debate? Matt actually did the debate and this dude literally brought up the same arguments from here. He TALKED THE ENTIRE TIME. Barely let matt get a word in at all.
@@T2revell That's a good strategy. Because he let Matt talk his argument would've been blown to pieces.
@@T2revell can you send the link to that please
@@ARINOXMUSIC ruclips.net/video/UiNEuz6wstM/видео.html
Yea Eric fell apart quickly here, then demanded a ‘debate’ and then declared pre-victory in that debate wow 😂
Tracie is really bright.
Tracie is hot and smart...
+G. Reid Understatement - she's a border-line genius.
She is something really, a great mind indeed.
Why dont you just go marry her MY GOD
I would try, but rumour has it she's happily married and has standards.
I love Tracie so much. She's my favorite person on the show. She doesn't mince words. She concisely makes her point and then she sits back and laughs.
Yew jest weesh shee tuch yore peapea
Tracie sat there getting unfairly ignored while Matt and Eric yell about how big their dicks are. Then she stops Eric dead in his tracks.
Best host ever
This guy sounds like he wants a fight more then a debate
He wants a yes-man.
He lost the fight. Once Matt said no to the first point, he was in uncharted teritory " yes, er, well, if, if we do this...."
not "more then" but "more than"... ESL here.
This guy sounds like a tool. Who the fuck even is he?!? And can someone PLEASE tell me; since when does some random unknown contender get a shot at the champ?!? This is no different than some guy off the street expecting to share the ring with Mike Tyson simply because he says he’s “worthy”. Just imagine the endless fiasco if any famous athlete took on ANY comer who fancied himself worthy! It would be ridiculous.
Michael Devito Well, this guy sounds like Rocky going after his chance against Apollo instead being the other way around. And in this case, Rocky gets knocked out in the first round
He has "7 proofs of God".. cant get past step 1
Awesome how Matt says he can give 1 example, Eric replies with 'OK here's 7'....yep and can't get past 1.
+Hercules Rockefeller God made something from nothing.
truth1901 ..Who is this 'god' you speak of? What is he/she/it made of? How do we confirm his/her/its existence?
How do you define 'nothing'?
If god is 'something' that can effect this universe.., and something cannot come from 'nothing', then when/where/how did God get created? .. and how did gods creator get created?.. and how did gods gods creator get created?,.. and so on ad-infintium..
The truth is, nobody knows what triggered this universes existence.. It could be some result of a multi-verse, it could be the will of a ill-tempered deity, or infinite other 'reasons'..
Until someone provides evidence for such existence, the correct answer to how life and its ultimate existence is.. Wait for it.. "I dont know.." If you have evidence that suggests otherwise?, then present it for peer review..
Hercules Rockefeller Jehovah. God is an energy being. Confirmation is via the Bible.
God has always been hence there has never been nothing.
Nothing is : Not anything.
The proof is the fulfilled prophecy found in the Bible.
truth1901 I have a bible that says Sparky the Majestic Unicorn is the one true Creator of the universe.., and that jesus and yahweh are evil trickster demon devil angels and the holy bible are only tricking you into a eternal life of trickery and torture..
Oh please wont you accept Sparky into your heart so you arn't tortured by the evil jesus forever! Repent jesus from your heart and be truely saved! REJOICE!
Started so very confident... then immediately crashed and burned lol
Tracie Harris, everybody!
truer words have never been spoken
He started confident when he was just riding his own ego, i.e. when he was imagining the plaudits for his debating skills - a debate he hadn't even had yet. Once it was exposed to him he didn't know the basics of logical thought, he sank.
Tracie n Matt obviously didn't read that noobjob's script. It's so clear at the start that he was expecting Matt to say certain things but when he realised he wasn't that's when you could start seeing that caller's argument slowly crumble.. and oh how glorious that was.
Very funny, he starts by saying that they are outgunning the callers, then the halfwit gets outgunned! 😆
I'm always amazed at how easily Tracie can reduce a rambling argument to a simple and clear statement or analogy. Her brain is like a machine; fast and precise.
it not that impressive mostly skeptic echo chamber stuff
@@raysalmon6566
I would invite you to contribute something better, if you're willing.
But we've already seen many examples of your calibre of reasoning. And it's not really up to a basic junior high school level.
It's not, I'm sorry. You're a stupid man with an obsession, who believes he's an intelligent man with an insight. As the saying goes, you do more harm to your case by speaking, and removing all doubt.
I miss Tracie.
@@raysalmon6566you should start your own show, to show her how its supposed to be done.
@@claudiasolomon1123 too old and tired for that
This Eric guy is a legend in his own mind.
Came here to comment a similar thing. This guy thinks he's the smartest guy in every room he's in.
17:39 Tracie tears caller's brain apart with one question. Long silence while he spoons his shattered cerebellum back into his cranial cavity.
It's a lovely old hymn of a clip... "don't you think the strong preponderance is..." fuck off Eric.
iggypopshot one of my favourite bits of the Atheist Experience! Tracie is a badass
ixtl guul snap, as is their takedown of piece of shit 'Shane'..
ruclips.net/video/MLakJ_Z_CGk/видео.html
... And I love tracie too, She has great teeth.
iggypopshot haven't seen that one. thanks IPS
ixtl guul I'm really puzzled why he didn't say "Space". Or even "darkness and void" as it says in the Bible, so I consider the guy gutless or just plain stupid.
And no, I don't think Space is Nothing, it is a concept like Nothing or Time, but it is something.
Reguardless, it isn't any proof of God anyway, and he got blasted on his very first point.
Tracie is brilliant.
The Dunning-Kruger Effect is strong with this one
1000%
The funniest part in this clip is at 9:27, when Matt says "a single point, that we can maybe adress on the show. You know, apart from us just sitting here, jousting back and forth about nothing."
Then they spend the rest of the call jousting back and forth about nothing.
Lol
😂😂😂😂😂😂 lmfao so true
Literally NOTHING lol
It's perfectly apropos that he brings up Seinfeld at the outset, a show about nothing
This is brilliant
9:55 "I believe you'll agree with every one of them."
"Sure. Okay, go ahead. I bet you're wrong."
...collapses on the first premise
Hilarious.
@Mitch Is Just Thinking haven't seen it. Never heard of the person. Should I have?
@Mitch Is Just Thinking Should I have heard of him?
@Mitch Is Just Thinking oh, you're just promoting your own video. Lame, bro.
@Mitch Is Just Thinking what are you talking about?
Professional Atheist: Someone who professionally does not believe in god.
I am a professional unicycle non rider.
Is there money in that profession? Cool avatar by the way.
Do you get paid to not ride a unicycle?
ChaingunCassidy Does an Atheist get paid to not believe in God?
I'm a professional keyboard warrior.
SuperDelusionist I challenge you... INTO POKEMON BATTLE, BITCH.
"From this conversation, nothing comes."
clever
As with all the conversations on this show.
I've run into this so many times. Theists so often simply do not understand the difference between "I don't accept claim A" and "claim A is false." They just *dont get it*. It's absolutely bizarre to watch. It's like their brain is broken. This guy was a perfect example.
stony tina Actually, I would disagree with that.
In this case I think the concepts ("I don't believe X" and "I believe X is false") are very, very often used as equals in every day life, and we treat them, intuitivly, as the same (although I do understand that they are NOT the same). Even atheists very, very often don't get this.
So, I don't think in this case it's a deliberate thing. I think it's not understood because it's not intuitive.
Freddy Scissorhands It's more they don't understand that one position can imply another without the latter ever implying the former.
Freddy Scissorhands Well, in order to "don't believe X' it means that it hasn't been demonstrated. If it hasn't been demonstrated, then for all intents and purposes it is false. Especially when it is an outrageous claim.
There is a difference for example not demonstrating you have 10$ in your pocket and not demonstrating you have a 1.000.000.000$ in your pocket.
Fus Ro Dah
*There is a difference for example not demonstrating you have 10$ in your pocket and not demonstrating you have a 1.000.000.000$ in your pocket.*
Sure. But in this case we actaully have good reason to say that we believe the claim, that somebody has 1000000000 $ in his pocket is actually false. Because we know what money is, we know how much a human pocket can hold, and so on.
So, we're not coming at this blindly. We have data to go by. In this case we are justified to say that the claim is false. Not just, that we cannot believe it.
Freddy Scissorhands Ok, then what about a bank account? It's reasonable to believe there can be 1.000.000.000 dollars in a bank account. But we still need evidence, else we discard it.
What I mean at the end of the day is, if there is no reason to believe in something, then we treat it as false.
Tracie's point that we don't have an example of nothing was excellent.
Not only that, you can tell that Eric’s “debating” skills boil down to pushy tactics and trying to steamroll his opposition.
@@CronoXpono And if Eric argument falls short for the existence of god because who then created god into existence god himself or a greater being
then god!?”
Well, I vote that Matt won, clearly, this guy just was NOT getting it. He's either not very bright, or just so deluded that he's cordoned off certain areas of his brain to avoid ever questioning his own beliefs
Yes. He thought he was smarter than every other caller and then realized he wasn't.
He eventually got his debate and lost his ass again!!! Modern debate channel
Matt was wrong
Poor Eric Lounsbery comes in all butt hurt and crying about how a little 1 hour atheist public access TV show is just so unfair to Christianity.....boo hoo......then he goes on to throw a few sissy punches challenging Matt to a debate but only under Eric's rules.....tool.....gee he sounds like he's actually the one who is Cramer in the kids karate class.
If you listen very closely at 17:45 you hear the sound a man realizing he has lost.
/Standing Ovation to Tracey for shutting him up for a few seconds with that.
@David Cowan Yeah you can say so, and yet you are here today being a hateful asshole to people, which is affecting people in your life or close to you TODAY.
He dismissed tracie in the beginning and she tore him up and locked him down ha ha love it love it love it
This guy was so hostile, aggressive and with a big ego. He acted so confident but he failed lol
"What I mean by 'nothing' is non-existence."
'Non-existence' doesn't _exist!_ How could it? So what the hell are you talking about?
He never implied "nothing" or "non-existence" was a thing that exists, which was his point. He was referring to a concept of negation i.e. an inability to refer to no thing for the concept to be meaningful. In other words, the statement something can come from nothing would be incoherent and logically impossible.
@@CMVMic So where did his God come from?
I love it when Eric says "90% of the callers(theists) have probably never studied theology or apologetics. What kind of study do you need? Once you learn some critical thinking skills, theology and apologetics can be shown to be a waste of time. :p
Yeah, after saying he's only seen the show "a few times" lool
And Eric's study and self proclaimed apologetics expertise didn't hold up in actual debate any better than any other apologist either.
My Grandfather was a minister with a theology degree. The only thing he knew was the doctrine of his particular branch of protestant Christianity. Theology is just indoctrination. He was a doctor of theology and he couldn't tell you the first thing about any other religion but his own.
Theists who actually study theology are probably much more likely to realize how much of it is bullshit and stop believing in what amounts to a cosmic evil santa claus.
You tell me! I have a master degree in apologetics and the more I studied the more I realize that there is no real warrant to believe christian theism. I am not fully convinced that God does not exist for example there are other conceptions like pantheism or panentheism which I am studying. It was not a waist of time though I am much prepared to defend my positions with critical thinking plus I understand the arguments pretty good and know Christian theology. Hell, I have even been a profesor of theology for a pentecostal university in Puerto Rico. Still studying philosophy and history and planning to do doctoral work. This stopics are too important for our society to leave them unstudied and they interest me very much!
If I was Matt, I wouldn't debate this guy because he'd never shut up.
Why is it not possible for "Something to come from nothing" but an all powerful God who can just snap his fingers and create an entire universe can come from nothing and that's totally okay? Oh wait. It's because "God transcends all space and time so screw you!" What an amazing argument of special pleading. Not only that but just like Tracie and Matt said. We can't study or analyze "Nothing", so the entire argument is invalid right out of the gate. It amazes me how confident Eric is with his cut and paste 'one size fits all' argument, yet he is absolutely clueless to how useless his argument is.
Yes...him and WLC both.
There's a debate between Craig and Lawrence Krauss and it is like watching a car crash in slow motion. Actual physicist against someone who has read a bit of physics.
@Chris A Do you need to snap your fingers or otherwise act magically to dream? No, because is your nature to dream. ("Sitting quietly, doing nothing, the grass grows.") This is the ontology of the Eastern metaphysical schools commonly called pantheism. All is a manifestation of the one timelessly and eternally existing consciousness. It manifests as myriad illusory material entities. Like a Rubik’s cube, it constantly changes its face to form new patterns (which gives birth to the illusion of time) while all the while retaining its essence as one. The patterns change in accordance with metaphorical algorithms which we interpret as cause and effect. In the Advaita (non dualist) Vedanta school of Hinduism, consciousness-the fundamental ground of being that cannot be further sublated-is termed “Brahman,” the Sanskrit root of which, “Bra,” means “to grow.” Just as it is you nature to dream, so it is Brahman’s nature to spin its illusory realty that we/it experiences as manifestations of Brahman. We and all that we perceive is “Lila,” the play of God (consciousness). “I am who am.” “Let there be light.”
litwriter100 wow
Now I wonder what his other 6 premises were. Kramer wins again.
acg smith
Probably along the lines of: everything that exists has a cause, the universe began to exist, therefore it has a cause, that cause must be outside of space-time, so the cause is timeless, it must be all powerful, etc.... therefore God.
which brings us back to the second premise: everything must have a cause. So what is the cause for god?
kallewirsch2263 Is that rhetorical?
sorry. Yes, it is. You know what the "answer" to that question will be, and I know it :-)
kallewirsch2263 Actually, I don't but since you have the answer... enlighten me.
"Nothing cannot make something" is equally likely as "There was once nothing" in my opinion.
I don't think there was once nothing, because if that was the case, then it would most likely still be nothing, because "nothing can come from nothing".
But what do I know?
Levi Johansen The biggest misconception is the theist idea of what nothing is vs the scientific version of what nothing is. Nothing refers to empty space according to physicist Lawrence Krauss. In empty space there’s a bubbling soup of particles popping into and out of existence all the time.
Also research heat death, every second a star the size of our star the sun swells up, pulls everything in, and blows up spitting it all out, now with far less energy than the star originally had in the first place. This will happen to all stars in the universe until....given enough time there will once again be nothing at all, a zero energy state.
What we do not know if this is a cycle that happens regularly, if it’s a one off. I find space and the universe cool.
Jordan Akers Where/How/When did the bumbling particles come to being? From nothing and nowhere? I assume God created a place and a time to put all the matter into place. I don’t understand it, but it’s truly amazing.
A New Rep Then who created the god? And who created the creator of the god? And that ad infinitum..... If you say "my god is eternal" then I say, "The multiverse too and we don't need an unnecessay extra variable." The end.
Luis De La Peña Prove there is a multiverse, otherwise you are excluding an option from bias.
Sean Kincaid Quite true. At least science builds on real research and real stuff. Sadly for religious folk what they believe is built on nothing. I've always found it bizarre that they find comfort in their fantasy stories. Considering they are nothing more than stories.
Science has every possibility of giving us the eternal life that so many religious people crave, religious folk are apparently over the moon thinking they're destined for some Heavenly situation ruled by a dictator who demands to be worshipped, where they must obey at all costs under threat of Hell. Science on the other hand will develop the capacity to have us live for as long as we wish with our loved ones in the landscapes and social paradises of our dreams, where options exist for living as close to perfection as we can get. The alternative to science is to drop dead and hope there is something else out there with no evidence so far that there is. Old stories just don't cut it. They hold us back. Being able to download ourselves into virtual worlds takes up very little space and would leave the Earth to heal itself.
Wow he's got a huge case of the Dunning Kruger Effect.
I love that when Eric finally did debate him, he got his ass destroyed.
And in it Eric was just as annoying on that debate as he is now and still smug
I think we have our vote that Eric wanted. :-)
@@starlaminde8436 do you have the link for this debate
This is one of my favorite calls because it could be taught as a class in fallacies, manipulation, and intimidation. Amazing. Simply amazing how this caller is blinded by his arrogance.
The atheists are correct.
1. "something comes from something" does not imply "something does not come from nothing."
2. Even if the caller was correct, then it could still be the case that the universe has always existed. "Something cannot come from nothing" does not imply that at one time there was nothing.
"at one time there was nothing"
At no time there was (or wasn't?) nothing ;-)
Darren Biby It depends on your definition of nothing.
VJScope Nothing as in the philosophical abstract of non-existence. So nothing does not and has not ever existed. Not nothing as described by some modern physicists as something like bare space which does still exist.
VJScope what do you mean by "nothing"?
sham shan I would probably accept Krauss' definition of nothing. But the concept of nothing is pretty much irrelevant to physics. It is more like mental gymnastics to philosophers who don't want to concentrate on science. So if we get more information, I wont be too dogmatic in defending that definition.
Edit1: Religious people don't usually want to accept the definition that I use. Fine but that doesn't make Krauss' model invalid. Then we can just say: "Fine, the kind of nothingness that you describe probably doesn't exist so the universe didn't come from nothing - and you have a useless definition. But your god is still irrelevant. The universe can still come from non-existing universe." And at least one of them has admitted that his definition of nothing is useless but he still wants to use it.
"If we ever debate...I DEMAND there be a vote tally." - Hahahahahaha! Comedy gold!!!
Typical theist trying to set up a specific formula for a debate so he can make a million ridiculous claims so the atheist can't disprove them all.
Tracie is hot.
Maybe one should bring the climatizer down a bit and bring her some cold water😒
eww
If this caller still insists there is a god then he has to accept that his version of that god certainly left his ass hanging out in the breeze on this one.
Matt - 1
Caller - 0
Matt has told more than one caller to ask their god what they should say to him to convince him. They never know what to say to that.
@@joecoolioness6399 Or worse, they get all smug and say, "only god knows lol"
“I have 7 proofs and they’re all brainless”
🤦🤣
The stunned silence after Tracie's put-down is just pure gold xD .
Yes. I love that. He’s fumbling for anything to hold onto before he falls off the cliff.
17:34 And Tracie with the Logic SLAM! Eric is speechless from 17:44 to 17:50 a full 6 seconds!!! LOL OWNED
"Ohhhhh!" (audience member)
And the look she gives him at 17:47 Priceless.
Tracie is so good, sometimes I forget Matt is even there when she's arguing.
Heath Kitchen , that was the epic highpoint of the call.
This was one of her finest moments ruclips.net/video/Fc3N8kBgaas/видео.html
Tracie "Are you saying you think there was a state of Nonexistence that existed ?"
17:40
Hello? You still there? lol..
Saw this for the first time in 2023 and have watched it multiple times. Nothing👀 is better than watching Matt and Tracie totally clobber Eric Murphy and his sh*tty apologist argument😁
The moment this cocky guy said he had an argument with SEVEN premises that he thinks are so simple we will agree with all of them real quick it was pretty clear how this was going to go. Most apologists cannot get two premises past their opponents. The thing these clowns never seem to get is that these discussions enter such unknown territory that there is virtually no presupposition on which we can begin.
Excellent conversation mostly, but it's vapid small talk until about 1:01.
I love how this creatard argument that totally ignores that they think GOD came from nothing....
they're avoiding the begging the question fallacy which theists like to commit so often. If they have a premise that's unsupported, you shouldn't let them run with it, they should be called out on it.
***** If god can be eternal, why not the universe?
*****
well, until you or anyone can demonstrate that god, heaven and hell exist, let alone how long they have and will, outside of only the minds of believers like you, then your beliefs are unjustified and your arguments are nonesense. You can as well talk about Santa to people, you'll be taken about just as seriously.
***** So... you claim to know the mind of God? That's borderline blasphemous.
*****
let's just stop speculating about the made up stuff that might or might not be possible and deal with the reality we still know very little about.
It's hilariously ironic at 9:30 Matt asks him if he'd like to bring up an argument instead if "jousting back and forth about nothing", and then they proceed to joust back and forth about "nothing".
This caller got ejected for committing the same penalty three times. Goes to show you how much they actually listen to the other person.
Some of the callers genuinely listen.
Yes, there are those who call into speak without listening (I guess they just like the sound of their own voice or something), but you cannot say that about all of them.
You're right, I change what I said to address only this guy.
It's crazy to me that people call believing "I have the facts that NO ONE has ever presented before!!!"
Tracie nailed it. We only have evidence that "something can come from "something". It is not a demonstrable fact that "something cannot come from nothing".
This caller is bottom of the class in debating technique.
And intelligence
How ironic that he's the one whining about how they only have poor debaters call them.
Agreed. This is worse than people who know nothing about debating. He so believes he is so right that he mapped out an entire scripted argument that he thinks he can absolutely control, leading the conversation wherever he pleases. That is not a debate. As you can see, since Matt can debate, it fell apart as soon as he dissented on the first point.
Yet he’s arrogant as hell
It would help if he didn't use the same technique as 1/3 of the callers. He tries to get them to agree to a bunch of premises that will trap them into his conclusion. Well he didn't get very far.
No one is saying 'something can come from nothing' except for theists who say everything came from the magical wishes of some invisible magical being, which conveniently needs no explanation for where IT came from.
Gawd iz da vary complex complicated always existed magical impossible thing without a creator to them lol. It doesn't matter to da religious believers when they are hypocrites.
17:40 Tracy response here “you’ve never examined nothing so how can you make any assessment of it”
Fucking…. Brilliant.
And that was literally the end of his rehearsed speech.
She was the star of this certain call with those logic bombs
18:35.... The exact glorious moment the caller FINALLY realizes he just labeled HIS OWN first premise "self-contradictory" 🤣
And Matt's next words are "Now he's gettin' it!"
JUST A GLORIOUS MOMENT! I want to pour that moment all over my cereal and slurp it down for breakfast every morning until the end of time 😆 Hahaha
“Something cannot come from nothing”.
Just agree with him.
‘Okay, well we have something so therefore something must have always existed.’
He was so confident until faced with logic and reasoning and then he started stuttering and trying to think of a response 🤣
Tracy's comment at 17.44 breaks his brain.
Whenever these clowns start in on the tired old "something can't come from nothing" argument, I simply interrupt with, "...then where did God come from?" When they counter with "This does not apply to God," they are tacitly admitting that God isn't something. Which means, God is nothing. Which means..... (drum roll).... God doesn't exist. End argument.
well done 😆👍
Even before they had the debate they made this caller look like a fool! lol
I feel like the next 6 points will take hours each
I really hope the caller realized at the end of this call that you can't just always assert that something has a direct opposite. The reason why the caller was so confused when faced with the question of "did you examine "nothing" before ?" is that many can't seem to differentiate the poorness of our languages from the "logical" statements we try to make using its limited convenience.
The logical requirements of an infinite "entity" as the Primal cause ARE MET by the definition of a singularity. The rest of the statements from the bronze age about the soul, emotions being in your hearth(try telling that to a psychiatrist), or any other metaphysical "knowledge" is absurd since by definition, a metaphysical knowledge cannot be obtained by a physical thing as we are. From this, the circular argument was made that since the being(s) that created us are metaphysical and we are their "children" our minds(and soul) were thought to be that same metaphysics. We now know that even your thoughts AREN'T METAPHYSICS, the electricity in your brain emits a specific magnetic field that can be mapped. Everything that we thought was "nothing" like the air we breath, we now know to be something... but no ancient book has any answer to such an advanced understanding of our world as to provide an explanation to what IS "nothing".
tl;dr: You can't state "something cannot come from nothing" before you've determine if BOTH "something" and "nothing" exists in the first place.
Did this internet nobody "Eric" just say he trounced an atheist in a shitty little unknown debate? How cute.
He was just trying to trap Matt. If he really did watch the show he would know that wouldn't work. About 100 people have already tried the same thing. He was trying to get Matt to agree to some bullshit premises that would trap him from rebutting the conclusion. He didn't even get 1.
The fact that "something can not come from nothing" DOES NOT point towards a God. if a bicycle tree miraculously appeared in front of me, I don't have the necessary evidence to bridge the gap between the tree and God. All i could say for a fact is that a bicycle tree had appeared right in front of me. I could not tell you with any certainty how it got there, who put it there or why it was there, I could only assume and come to a decision based on probability. Religious people seem to think that God fills the unanswered gaps in life. "Oh it hasn't been discovered how this was done yet, it must have been God" NO NO NO NO NO! YOU CAN NOT MAKE THAT ASSUMPTION, IT'S FLAWED!
That's exactly what I was about to say... although more along the lines of:
If something appeared in front of me right now, and I have no evidence to say where it came from, I certainly have no evidence to say it came from nothing.
I like that everything in this guys argument hinged on someone agreeing to a false statement.
God of the gaps fallacy
I agree that does not point to a God but you still have to explain how there's something in that nothing
Latest theory suggest that matter did actually come form nothing. Read up on matter, anti-Matter asymmetry.
The comment about Seinfeld is about the highest level of irony I can handle before my bones melt from the inside out. This guy has kindergarten level apologetics, probably debates uninformed internet atheists mostly, and falls apart at the slightest questioning by two people who(at the time at least) just debate this stuff in their spare time. Matt did end up eventually debating Eric and it was a reason wreck from Eric's side. For his sake, I hope they didn't vote because that would have been terribly embarrassing for him lol.
I just love the fact that he really thought he could just ramble off his '7 logical points' to own the atheists just to get stopped in his tracks at the first one😂
Everybody lets this pass: "The law of causality" does not exist, is not a law at all.
If there is such a thing as nothing, its inherently illogical and the conversation should end there. But lets entertain the idea for a moment. The existence of nothing is inherently a paradox and illogical, which means it operates outside of our logical framework. If "nothing" operates outside of our logical framework, then who am i to say that it cant do illogical things, such as producing a "something"
good comment. that's why religious people love it... it allows their illogical "god" and all its illogical actions to be "real" (except it doesn't really allow anything of the sort)
If the caller believes there is a state of "nothingness", shouldn't he prove that the first law of thermodinamics is flawed? (Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, impliying "something" (energy) always existed).
Indeed, if the first law of thermodynamics is demonstrably true and energy can neither be created or destroyed, what does that make energy, ie, what attribute does energy possess? In common language, wouldn't we answer that if something cannot be created or destroyed, that something is "eternal"? As a former theist, that's how I viewed God, having no beginning (uncreated) or ending (indestructible), thus being eternal.
The still unclear part of this to me is, how do we arrive at the certainty of that first law of thermodynamics? How do we know, or at least confidently posit, that energy cannot be created or destroyed? By what scientific methodology do we arrive at that 'law'? If that law is incontrovertible, and we know that at least our universe is filled with energy, then is positing the eternality of our universe not a plausible or even probable idea? Would it be any less plausible than asserting the eternality of an alleged deity? What's the compelling evidence for either proposition?
“I DEMAND that there be a vote tally.” I’m still laughing! Nearly made my day.
Tracieeeee, I love you! Please marry me. Even though I'm female and have a boyfriend, you're the one.
I know the caller personally, he is a highly intelligent person that has incredible debating skills. He has debated several hundred atheists, and has even debated several at a time. I would call him a religious mass-debater.
Got his backside kicked pretty good here; his "debating skills" don't work as well against someone who can stop him cold and require that he support his claims before going forward.
A comment attributed to Mark Twain goes, "A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." Matt and Tracy were stopping the lie to make it wait for the truth.
i think the joke here was massdebater
heh
Tyler Cole Aaagggghhhhhh!!!
Tracys smile @10:30 god i miss her so much
...tool.
(loved it)
Matt won the debate btw.
Heath Kitchen No one did you cannot prove or disprove a god lol.
@@HardKore5250Matt isn't trying to disprove a god though. He won because his logic is sound. His position is that we don't know of or have evidence for any gods.
Tracy kicked that guy's butt. She is the best and most intelligent host.
I rarely debate believers but when I do I cut to the chase. "If you can't prove a god exists then by definition, you're making shit up based on what you want to believe is true. What we believe is irrelevant. A god exists or doesn't exist independent of opinion, the bible, faith, whatever. Give me an actual god and not you!" We don't get a god, we just get humans making shit up. No argument in existence can make a god exist, no argument in existence can make a god suddenly not exist. If all you have is opinion then we're already done."A god exists!" "No it doesn't!" Right.... Now either prove I'm wrong or admit we're going on opinion and fuck all else. What WE BELIEVE is irrelevant, it's what we can PROVE. Your opinion = "I have a pet werewolf!", mine is "Fucking prove it then!" Guess what will happen then? Fuck all! Because your opinion is all you have.
So in this guy Eric's mind, the truth needs to be softened to not hurt feelings of theists. Also, he's so proud of his winning debates and having votes at the end to stroke his pride, so much that he's ignoring the fact that his debate would have no ground to stand on.
Christian: "Something can't come from nothing"
Then goes on to explain how god spoke the universe into existence.. from nothing.
I totally agree with you. If god made the universe, what did he make it out of?
The sun is a star did you know that
@@chadrasmussen6127
And every atom we are made of used to be a star that went supernova. Isn't science wonderfully fascinating? 😊
Yes yes it is
Exactly? What did light come from? Nothing? God magic?
"it's not like i have ducked anybody who has ever asked to debate....... unlike William Lane Craig."
Killed it !!
So if we don't have a nothing to examine..Doesn't it reach a dead end!?
No, we've already reached the end of the argument. We can't examine "nothing" because our entire universe _is_ something. Pointing that out is just a way to show that saying "something can't come from nothing" is ignorant and honestly just stupid. The chance of our species ever reaching a point where we can examine true nothingness is extremely low, so we can only look at the situation logically. We can't know whether or not something could come from nothing, that's currently just unknowable, so anything besides simply saying "we don't know" gains a burden of proof that cannot be met.
The caller kept asserting that something can't come from nothing, meaning he needed to actually empirically prove that for his point to stand. The hosts were simply saying "I don't agree with your unproven assertion, that doesn't mean I agree with the opposite assertion either."
so let's say that we could somehow assert that stuff cannot come from "nothing" that still wouldn't explain any gods, you can just argue that the universe has always been. The funny thing is that how could a god somehow exist in nothing and produce from nothing? if anything, the whole argument would also argue against the existence of a god or gods...
Exactly ! I don't know even know why they bothered refuting the caller. Just accept his premise and move on to the obvious conclusion you state. Besides pre big bang is not considered "nothing." Christian s are so confused
podingl “Pre Big Bang is not considered nothing”?
A New Rep haha yea that's a pretty awkward sentence :/
podingl Yeah Lol. It’s confusing and difficult to picture. This belief system that atheists have is extremely confusing. It’s like they always find an excuse to believe in Anything else except Gods work for an explanation. I seriously don’t understand these claims. Something cannot be eternal unless it’s supernatural. Nothing was before everything. Nothing means nothing and that even space, energy, matter, gravity, time..etc, simply didn’t exist therefor God. There’s nothing other that would produce such creation. The only thing that would create such a thing would be peoples delusion.
A New Rep Wrong!! Any god is not an explanation but a made up fantasy with 0 amount of evidence to back it up other than Stone Age ignorant superstition. There's literally really an infinite number of true explanations other than a magical being CREATING OUT OF NOWHERE, something you suppousedly oppose unless it backs up your pathetic superstition, the multiverse is one but there are many more.
Do the religious people ask the same question again and again hoping for a different answer?
Same thing in reverse i guess....prove that something can come out of nothing when nothing is non existent....we live in the 21st century and theres not one little puny example.....at the end if you put that on one side of the balance and on the other side things like the church movement...out of body experiences....demonic possesions etc...u can see that odds are that theres a higher chance of the existence of a god or a higher being....when i see the chick on this video say "we dont have an example of nothing" thats so contradicting.....sit in an empty room....any empty space....does random things pop out of nowhere???....has anything ever popped up...theres not one single ex of this....so when matt says "its probably true that something cant come out of nothing" thats all u need to fall back on....theres no option C or D.....its A or B and A clearly doesnt work here....so most likely the universe came from something like my car or my clothes and stuff like that....im only using logic without trying to offend anybody
Giantsfan88 I’m not following your logic. But let me put it back to you and you tell me if this is what you’re saying, ok? The existence of god is more probable...this is where I get lost. More probable than what? The Big Bang does not assert that something came from nothing. There was the singularity, then all that began expanding, and still is. Conversely, the concept of genesis from the Bible asserts that god created everything from nothing. Sorry, I changed course midstream. What were saying?
it appears that the part of the brain that processes nuance is rewired in Christian brains.
I've noticed the same. I don't know whether brains that can't process nuance are attracted to Christianity, or brains that are inflicted with Christianity lose their ability to process nuance. From my observations, I think both are true to some extent.
Why are religious ads attached to this atheist video.
If something can't come from nothing then why does it have to come from an agent? I've never understood that.
+BollocksUtwat
Theist: "Something can't come from nothing."
Atheist: "Prove that there's ever been 'nothing' that we can't come from."
Theist: "That's not my responsibility"
Atheist: "YOu just claimed it."
Theist: "That's for you to figure out."
Atheist: "Ok, so if something can't come from nothing, what did your god come from?"
Theist: "God's always been there."
Atheist: "So he did come from nothing?"
Theist: "No, he's always been there, stop persecuting me!"
Too common . . . wonder when they'll realize their bullshit doesn't make sense.
+BollocksUtwat Because theology is based on false dichotomies. Good, evil; heaven, hell; something, nothing etc etc.
+Xenomorpheus God created something from nothing.
truth1901
And what did he come from?
Xenomorpheus God has always been.
Eric makes three catastrophic errors.
The first error is not to critically evaluate the premises of his arguments, as we see clearly with P1, to determine whether they are actually sound (clearly P1 isn't).
The second error is to assume that winning a debate means his claim is correct and demonstrates his god exists.
The third error is to believe arguments sans evidence demonstrate claims are true. They don't and they can never do this. The only time an argument alone can show a claim is false (and only false) is when the argument is shown to be logically incoherent. Such arguments are false by axiomatic definition.
Poor Eric isn't smart enough to know and understand that no amount of apologetics (excuses and storytelling) can rescue a position that is fatally and fundamentally flawed.
The entire enterprise is no more than a huge exercise in an argument from ignorance, as the comments in the forum below show to great effect.
WOW thank GOD we did not get to step two ha ha ha
"Pride goeth before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall"... This caller was the perfect illustration of that.
Fascinating how the banter at the beginning shows that he is actually capable of talking like a normal human.
I miss Tracie.
I MUST FIND THIS DEBATE
Even if something in fact CANNOT come from nothing…that’s not what atheists believe, it’s was theists believe. So I don’t understand why he’s arguing so hard for that point that is more against his ideas than ours
Tracies mind is a beautifully constructed savage steel trap of FLAWLESS LOGIC.
I thought God created everything.
Meaning there was just God then by some mysterious means All was created by God.
How is that not only Something from absolutely Nothing but actually Everything from Nothing?
Why is it atheists who are said to believe something came from nothing?
Isn't that the #1 Creationist claim?
+Yaya Damen th for pointing that out. Why is science so hard. Information for in is literally at your fingets
***** I've never understood why it's atheists who are expected to explain how everything came from nothing.
When it's actually believers in creation who believe God created everything by willing everything to be.
Why shouldn't they have to explain, in detail, how that process works? After all it is their hypothesis. If they believe it, shouldn't they have to explain what it is that they believe?
As an atheist, I don't pretend to know how or even if anything came from nothingness.
That's their claim.
There is a fundamental principle that these types of religious people all believe in, but won't use the proper labels because it degrades their credibility. That concept in magic (aka, the supernatural).Whenever they (or rather, you) can't explain something, they believe it was the act of something magical. Your question is not a problem for them, because in their eyes, if science cannot immediately explain something, god must have done it, and they don't have to explain how god did it, because god can do magic and magic is not bound by science and is beyond our understanding. We all know this is a form of the argument from ignorance, but I'm just saying, they are not going to be phased by this question, because magic.
We know that God can make something from nothing.
So I do not accept premise number one.
Problem is that we can't prove God exists.
@@vuho2075
Sherlock Holmes lives in London.
Popeye has a girlfriend named Olive Oyl.
Dumbo has an unusually long nose.
God can make something from nothing.
I can give an example of nothing: Eric's arguments.
This might be the best theist crush I've ever seen! Matt and Tracie are beasts!!
Actual astrophycisists such as Lawrence Krauss define 'nothing' as '30% dark matter, 70% dark energy', so obviously the theist apologists and actual scientists have very different ideas about the definition of 'nothing'. BTW, where did the God of the Old Testament come from, nothing or something else? I've never heard them even attempt to explain that.
David you're obviously very stupid. In the God concept, which is what atheists claim the biblical God is, God is defined as being eternal, I.e never started, didn't "come" from anywhere, and has always existed. Therefore your assertion that the biblical God had to have come from somewhere contradicts the definition within the concept of eternal. Therefore claiming you are debating a God that had to have come from something is a straw man. You know what that is right. Its changing how something in a argument is defined and then attacking your own position. If you claim God isn't eternal, you are then talking about another God, not the biblical one.....Fairly quite simple but apparently not from you. P.s. the phrase God created everything is simple English, it implies everything was created except for God.
Btw, physicists can claim the definition of words all they want. You do know physicists aren't authorities on how words should be defined?
Vernon, you're obviously a troll.
BTW Vernon, you avoided the question.....did 'God' come from nothing, or from something? Do you have any actual answer for that other than 'magic'?
davids11131113 its not a question, its a straw man. The God concept is clear so acknowledging the question would be acknowledging the individual is retarded. God is eternal. Pretty basic definition within the God concept. You do think God is a concept right? You do think geometry is a concept, right? Do you ever challenge anyone to prove a straight line in geometry is 180 degree angle? (appealing to a geometry book for the proof would be analogous to appealing to the bible) There isn't any proof that a line is, it's merely a definition within a concept. When you discuss the God concept, eternal is a definition within a concept. You do understand the definition of eternal, oh wait, its apparent you do not.
Is that Eric Hovind?
No, his name is Eric Lounsbery, he's an aspiring apologist but even among apologists he's considered to be a real tool.
Wow. Just how stupid and asinine do your arguments have to be that people like WLC think you're a tool?
Oh yeah, THIS stupid and asinine.
No, Eric Hovind can't use the phone while in prison.
Steven C That's Kent, Eric's pappy.
Matt should of just let Tracie destroy is fallacy to begin with
I like how arrogant Eric is about debating Matt. He's so certain that he'll destroy him and convince the entire audience that God exists. You can tell just by the inflection of his voice how superior he thinks he is. Well, here we are post-debate and his argument was a complete joke, and this call right here demonstrates his stupidity very well. He's just another run of the mill apologist committing every fallacy in the book.
+AllHaiLKINGTIsHeRe3
Take note of something else. He talked as if he knew all about the show, and he went into the whole Seinfeld story just to present his arrogance claim, and yet he stated that he's only seen the show a few times. You're able to watch a few times, and from that learn all you need to know all about the show, come to a conclusion about it, call up, and go into a diatribe about how arrogant and superior the show is based on a few examples? Not even the slightest desire to confirm before you proceed, not even the slightest thought you MIGHT be mistaken?
Yes, he is arrogant.
This guy is massively triggered.
I really enjoyed the debate on the Dogma Debate podcast. Both were very cordial and articulate, but Eric's attempts in proving God's (and moreover the Christian God's) existence was superficial and, frankly, pathetic.
I'm interested in hearing a second debate between the two. I propose the subject to be "The Legitimacy of the Bible", or something regarding the accuracy of biblical claims.
It might be that "nothing" cannot ever exist, because how can "nothing" exist when there is nothing there to exist? If there is a total absence of everything, then there is no container for the "nothing" to not-exist in anyway. I think it is this fear of the unimaginable that drives theists to invent a solution.
The Seinfeld reference is ironic considering the rest of the call...
Matt is awesome and my intellectual debate hero, a worthy champion to fill the hitch debate vacuum. Time to step up Matt and inherit the burden to mattslap people with some refreshing logic!!