You can now become a PANGBURN PRODUCER on our RUclips channel. Check out the PERKS! 🤓 Exclusive access to live streams, live chat, custom emojis & more! This is a great way to directly contribute to our future live discussions ☺ ✌ ruclips.net/channel/UCm5J1Fu_dHgBcMTpXu-NXUwjoin
Take A Moment I would never join a club that would have me as a member. I would like you, or anyone else, to donate $142.1 to Dr's Without Borders directly to them, I will give the highest bidder a picture wot I dun. Stay Silly Stay Safe and Stay Free ❤😂
"I know that I know nothing" ~Plato. Your comment itself although I agree with where you are coming from can lead to a whole other philosophical discussion. We could debate whether anyone knows anything at all about anything. I personally don't think we have any answers, we just like to think we do as a species because we were gifted with a level of awareness that most animals were not. We spend our lives choosing what to question and what to accept as objectivity but in the end, none of it matters when you get face to face with creation.
@@WinksontheWeekend Dinesh? His comment only "leads" that way, if you are desperate for it to. We have plenty of "answers" none are absolute, but plenty come close enough for practical purposes.
@Jacob Car desperation isn't even part of it. When you say nothing is absolute, you reaffirm my point. Nothing can be proven to be objective because everything is subjective to our own personal experiences, whether it's science or theology. Jung is the only one that has ever come close to "evidence" of the archetypes buried in the human subconscious. Lots of things can be practical yes you're correct on that part but even practicality is debated and that's pretty much what I'm saying. Even science is just a history of constant state of revision and rethinking what we thought we knew.Don't think so? OK, I challenge you to give me one example of an idea that 100% of people would agree with and no one could debate. You may not see my point and that's ok because it just further proves my point.
Dinesh: Begging the question, Begging the question, Begging the question Matt: Nope. If this is the best you got Dinesh, Matt's future tombstone will win over you.
I find more comfort in saying I don't know than just make stuff up to fill my gap in knowledge and understanding, that way I'm still open to find the truth based on evidence.
Every time Matt makes a point, Dinesh says, "Okay I'll come back to that in a minute." It's exasperating. When Dinesh admitted he doesn't have any proof, that should have been the end of the evening. Why waste any more time?
yeah the whole time it seems like he tries to create senario's he can fot God into. but at least he admids he believes because he wants to or feels like it. instead of for good reasons
Yes, because he interrupted DeSouza to make that point while DeSouza was half way through making his point, what else would you say only, we'll come back to that.
@@cazkelly because the question was simple: What argument do you have that would make it reasonable for me to believe in God? D'Souza goes on for four minutes, not giving an argument, but talking about how there are unanswered questions, and in a couple of instances D'Souza stops to ask if Matt is in agreement with his propositions and it is only then that Matt "interrupts." D'Souza's first "I'll come back to that" comes at the four minute mark. By the time the clip ends, DD still hasn't even come close to providing anything resembling an argument for the existence of God. Matt was more patient than DD deserved. Please don't start a back and forth, without providing an actual answer. I expressed my opinion. You apparently have a different one and that's fine. Bye
Matt: What are the best arguments that you can produce for accepting the proposition that God exists? Dinesh: Okay, I can do this. 1) Here we are, flung into the world with no clear understanding of: A) where the universe came from; B) Why we're here and what our purpose is; and C) What if anything happens to us when we die. So three of the most important questions we could possibly ask we have no answer to. Therefore, the only possible reason this could be is that there exists a god, a creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; a supreme being; a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes. Convinced? 🤷🏻♂ Matt: Nope. 🤦🏻♂
Such a good start, but so soon deep into the weeds. 1) We're here. [Yes.] We don't understand everything. [Yes.] A) Where did the universe come from? [You're begging the question that it came from anything other than itself.] B1) Why are we here? [Begging the question. What justifies assuming that there is a reason?] B2) What is our purpose? [Really begging the question. This presumption of purpose seems the most bizarre idea of all.] C) What, if anything, happens to us when we die? [This is not a deep question, and we can also dispense with the insertion of "if anything" as if the question is innocuously open minded. What happens is that our biological processes break down and decay, and with them our cognitive processes. This is hardly a mystery.] And nowhere in any of this is there any scrap of possible evidence that a SUPERNATURAL MIND must be responsible for orchestrating it all. That idea may be fine to contemplate on its own; that's a separate discussion, but it's irrelevant here. It does nothing to illuminate these (remarkably stupid) questions. I mean,.Dinesh, really? This is your way of expressing humanity's search for meaning? And this is how you propose to answer it? It's as if you were working on your tax return, trying to see if you might qualify for some deduction, and your partner says to you, "Couldn't you just say that the voices in your head commanded you? That's a tax deduction, surely." And you agree? Um, no Dinesh. If this is your best, we're not going to get you to help with our tax returns this year.
@@starfishsystems I was just about to post the same thing. Where did the assumption of "purpose" come from? It's both ludicrous and arrogant to think that human life has to have some over-arching purpose.
Does life require a meaning? I am not talking about your life or my life. I am talking about the very concept of "life", and whether "meaning" is a necessary component to that concept. Compare to what taste a color has or what the square root of a hamburger is. You might immediately think; "Now you are just being silly" - which is a perfectly reasonable and valid response, because *_it is_* silly to talk about the taste of a color or the square root of a hamburger. I am just not convinced, that it isn't equally silly to talk about the meaning or purpose of things like life (the concept) or the Universe, for example. I have yet to be presented with compelling arguments, that meaning and/or purpose is an inherent fundamental necessary component to life. Do you have any such arguments?
So many people think Matt is just an irritable bully when they just listen to his call-in show but in formal debate forums like these he is one of the most eloquent, articulate, logical, intelligent minds I've ever listened to...
He is not a bully on the show. He asks question and the caller ignores the question just like D'Souza does, "well get back to that later." They mistake bully for flat out frustration.
@@ONLINEMARTY Nah, he was a petulant bully on the show. He acts so much better in exchanges like this, when he wants to impress larger audiences and be seen as a big time player on the international atheist thinkers scene. And I must say, I want him to keep acting better. It got to where I had to stop watching anything from his show because he does not do well with power going to his head.
@@ONLINEMARTY *Nope. He's a complete irritable bully when it comes to the transgender issue. He's an utterly repugnant scumbag when it comes to the gender ideology madness.*
A lot of business people and managers also can't say, "I don't know". Boring manager story redacted. And he was getting more agitated until he said what would do. ( without adequate information)
@@Zheeraffa1 This is childish - youre basically saying all theists are ignorant and dogmatic tyrants. There are theists that never go to church, ones that work as nurses, etc etc... Calm down the vitriol.
@@warrencolegrove1 Take that key from inside your self-imposed jail cell, and unlock your brain. Accept the reality of God. You cannot create a "simple" cell, let alone an organ or organism.
@@davidmears1705 dinesh has been convicted of campaign funds misuse , plead guilty, did his time, paid his fines and then said he didn’t do it. Then trump says he pardoned him; not sure how that works. That sounds like an honest person to you? Get back to me if you find out Matt did anything like this in life and we can compare the definition(s) of honest. Right now, I don’t understand you exclaiming how honest dinesh is, especially more honest than matt.
D'Souza is so out of his depth. His position is so weak that it only just rises to an argument from ignorance. Dillahunty is eminently reasonable and displays generousity of spirit in dealing with him politely.
He's so prolifically begging questions that it's hard to keep count. I really do feel sorry for people whose minds have become so accustomed to delusion that it's nowvtheir epistemic baseline. It's not a good look.
@@gsp3428apparently so! That must be so frustrating watching someone who holds at least some similar beliefs, be so educated, and still flounder so horribly.
also i would never fully trust maps. at least not of a reasonably big area. because they are usually approximately what the real thing is like. altho they do get more accurate the more modern they are.
'We should believe in God because we exist and don't know what our purpose is.' To my mind, the answers of science in general and evolution in particular are deeply satisfying compared to some supposed mysterious ultimate purpose. Purpose slash pie-in-the-sky.
How can you say that believing God and science are mutually exclusive? If God created everything, he created science and by admiring science you are admiring God's work. Regardless, simply "trusting" in science is the same thing as "believing". You might argue that science is indifferent and calculated but that's obviously not true especially with what we know of quantum mechanics. However, even if we push quantum mechanics off to the side, all scientific principles are a leap of faith. You might argue that gravity dictates that everything must fall to the ground, and suppose it's true - you don't even have the slightest clue on how that works. Even if we were able to prove how gravity works definitely and unequivocally, you would ultimately be trusting your mortal eyes and mind - that is you would have to trust what you see is true, which is simply a leap of faith. You are no different than a person who believes that there's a "sky daddy" who is pulling levers or a person who believes that the world is being held by turtles. The only difference is that your arrogance leads you to believe you are different.
Why is it so hard for poeple to look around and realize we are a part of nature just like other animals. WE exist simply to reproduce and we exist not bc of god but bc our fathers knocked up our mothers lol. No religion needed.
@@kimwit1307 "magical sky-daddy" - this is what happends when marxists brainwash you with the IDEOLOGY of atheism. Completely ignorant of thousands and thousands of years of ancient texts. GO TO INDIA, LIVE WITH THE MASTERS, then you tell me there is "nothing else". Lmfao
I think if Matt can sit tight without interrupting D'Souza and let him make his point, we would actually KNOW his point. Now we can only speculate what his point is, because he was never given the chance to make it, and therefore we don't have evidence to how he was going to express his logic. Ohh, but we're only agnostic when it comes to God right? It's perfectly right to believe and have faith in the assumption that believers don't have a valid point. Sorry, my bad...
@@snaptrap5558 Yeah, but Matt was. Besides, you can demonstrate the same behaviour when you're reading. Objective analysis and uninteruppted perception are skills beyond reading.
Matt's arguments are just as silly. Matt thinks that miracles are by definition the most unlikely thing to happen compared to everything else (which is not the definition btw but w/e), and he thinks when considering something that is unlikely to have happened, we are more reasonable to conclude that it never happened. Except as soon as you throw him the example of first time events or events that have never happened before even if they are not miraculous, they are in equal standing on the "unliklihood" scale as miracles are, even if they aren't miracles, because they have the same amount (if not less) of historical occurrences of happening as a miracle does.. meaning in order to be consistent, Matt would have to disbelieve the occurrence of all non-miraculous first time events.. it's a reductio-ad absurdum.
@@toughbiblepassages9082 The point is that miracles were never independently verified and there is no way of knowing if it was actually a miracle or just something that we cannot yet explain as natural. The notion of miracle is just intellectual laziness. If something looks like a miracle, the best position is "I don't know how that happened, let's try to find out". What is miracle anyway? Magic? Magic done by a God = miracle? Let's prove this God exists first (the agent), then we advance to study his actions and effects.
Either the universe just randomly came into existence and then life just “happened” from the tiniest of building blocks into a single cell which will fail if any one of trillions of things goes wrong (which to me is a suspicious belief to hold) or, a creator who paid painstaking attention to detail, made the universe, earth, the building blocks of life, and many other systems in order to make life possible. Out of the two faith systems, I always settle on creation over abiogenesis and evolution.
@@James-ms2mx There are not just these two options. The universe might just have always existed. And life happened in a situation where it could happen, failing in trillions of other planets. Note that you didn't explain anything. You just said, the science way is to hard, so my magic man made it perfect. Easy, right?
It’s difficult to argue for something that needs be accepted purely on assertion with no evidence to substantiate it. Why people need to force it as true is beyond me, instead of accepting it for what it is.
The conservative grift is a lucrative one. The point of this was never for him to bring anything to you. It's for him to take money without producing anything of value. A NEET-at-heart if I ever saw one.
Dinesh D'Souza coming in strong with the "You don't have an answer, therefore my answer is correct by default" fallacy. After all of this time these people are using the same dead arguments.
@@chrisking6695 I disagree.. Dinesh is a great intellectual. He is pretty good in some areas of expertise, just like many intellectuals, scientists, philosophers, etc., regardless of his belief in a god. I mean, Isaac Newton was a genius, and yet he was bipolar, insufferable, depressive, superstitious, and a highly religious person. Kurt Gödel (1906-1978): Gödel was a renowned Austrian mathematician and logician who made significant contributions to the fields of mathematical logic and the philosophy of mathematics. He was a devout Christian and held a strong belief in an afterlife. However, he struggled with mental health issues throughout his life and died by suicide. Francisco Varela (1946-2001): Varela was a Chilean biologist and neuroscientist known for his work in cognitive science and the study of consciousness. He was also a practicing Buddhist. Varela battled with depression for many years and died by suicide at the age of 55. I can post all day long about brilliant people who are incredibly smart and yet in some areas of their lives are extremely wrong.
@@juliusfishman7222 That's ok, you're welcome to project and betray yourself as an individual who pretends make-believe is concordant with objective reality. Which is sad on a different more terrible level.
After that debate, D’Souza is probably still in the same spot today mumbling incoherently and hitting his head against some object in confusion. Mental destruction by Matt.
Every time Matt Dillahunty speaks the response is always I don't want to grow up I want to play pretend every Sunday I get to go to church and pretend again
@ceceroxy I'm 42 and I stop playing video games when I beat super Mario bros and no money printed out of it ...thanks to racism lead by God Believers. Children with dark skin are forced to grow up early helping mom with bills at 10 years old cuz some Christian cop shot and killed my father in the picture u see because right wing Christians think they are God...thank Jesus for Fent@nyl I love seeing homeless ₩Hite folks on every corner payback is beautiful
I doubt Dinesh is a true believer. A lot of these religious debaters are also professional hucksters. If Dinesh’s books are any sign of his honesty, you can’t blame me for doubting he’s just an actor selling himself to the American right.
@@ceceroxy2227It’s a matter of perspective. Whats worse, playing video games at 54, or lying to kids and telling them “act right or you’re going to hell”?
If you think dinesh was bad for strawmanning, you should check out Matts debate with David Robertson, it eventually descended to David responding to nothing than dishonest misrepresentations of what Matt actually said, David clearly already knew that interacting honestly would not serve him well.
Begging the question is an extremely popular tactic of his ilk. Along with appeal to fear and straw-man arguments, I'd say those are the three cardinal tenants of his debate style.
Love that D’Souza is speaking on behalf of god and morality while being a corrupt political contributor . On May 20, 2014, D'Souza pleaded guilty to one felony count of making illegal contributions in the names of others. On September 23, 2014, the court sentenced D'Souza to five years' probation, eight months in a halfway house (referred to as a "community confinement
Hi Mr Zombie, perhaps you might be ashamed of your common humanity but being of Indian origin has no bearing at all!. We could claim that your comment is of a racist nature and as a simple statement that might be true but what really matters is whether or not that attitude would prejudice any working relationship with him!. Racism is one small thing, however widespread, racial prejudice is quite another. Cheers, Richard.
One individual does not represent a whole people, no matter how well or poorly behaved. Dinesh is also an American - but, as a fellow countryman, he is not my voice
@@Mostopinionatedmanofalltime what ad hominem? It's not ad hominem to call a guy names. It is if we're in a structured debate, but since we're in a comment section and casual conversation, it's not ad hominem.
Note that deSouza doesn’t say that horses and bacteria are flung into the world. No religionist ever wonders about the origins of other species, their “purpose”, their life after death. Instead of inventing gods and collecting money to decorate shrines or line the pockets of preachers, I think religious folk should endeavour to understand consciousness and, more important, self-consciousness. If like the other animals we did not think about our own extinction, we would be fine not knowing our origin, our purpose, our destiny after death. Dennett has written a good book about Consciousness.
I'd argue that I wasn't "flung I to existing" I was pushed out of my female human mother's bottom and was also alive beforehand. Which is also when my gender was observed before birth and RECORDED AT BIRTH due to the original observation in utero and upon delivery it was definitely confirmed and the written down to reflect the truth. 😅As were all of us minus the people born of cesarean birth diverted from the birthing canal. But, the rest does count for us all.
@@jrskp3677 Yup. Except for intersex cases, this describes the average birth. Moreover, the cells in the body will all reflect the sex chromosomes. So yes sex in this physical sense is determined by biology. I think we can easily allow that people experience gender differently. I suspect that there is a lot of fashionable uproar about the question today. I think there are people who are miserable in the sex they are born into, believe they would be happier if surgically and medically reassigned. There are no guarantees reassignment will bring happiness. Any surgery is traumatic: I think cost/benefit analysis called for. Also, in less wealthy or in more egalitarian societies, we must weigh the use of medical resources.
@@oldpossum57 You may not be aware of this and I'll inform you thusly; You've adopted an apologist's style of arguing for a position where these things are excuses and using feelings as it's basis instead of simply taking the facts as fact. Feelings do not dictate gender, biology does. Sexuality is a biproduct of gender and is determined by chromosomes. And is done upon the eggs fertilization. Which is how IVF Doctors are able to give the parents the sex/gender child/children they desire. The fertilized eggs are tested and the findings recorded. Humans are incapable of switching genders atall whatsoever in a purely biological manner naturally. If we were, feelings still would have ZERO effect on this. The "sequential hermaphrodites" which are themselves able to make this transition do so whenever there's a lack in males of the species to produce viable offspring. The largest and eldest female will begin to develop male characteristics and then are able to fertilize the eggs of the other females which will subsequently produce both male and female animals that can go on to continue to breed successfully. Humans are not on this list. These "intersex" cases aren't evidence of humans capabilities of this feat. And are abnormalities as per the dichotomy between male/female. Using soft language to subvert this actual truth is not going to have the outcome desired. Never in human history has a female human (one sexual reproductive organ possessor) ever actually impregnated another female human with her sperm. Never in human history has a male human been impregnated by either a male or female as males lack thereof in the eggs and uterus where gestation occurs. "Intersex" isn't another gender. Unless a group of them collect together and breed successfully with each other producing viable offspring afterwards whom carry this as a dominant trait. Then if speciation happens they'll be a different form of homosapiens like neanderthals/denisovans were as compared to homosapiens like us. Because we're still primates since we never outgrown our parents clade taxonomically. And we're apes due to this, and mammals, placental mammals, vertabrates and so on to eukaryote and such.🤔
It never ceases to amaze me how in 2023 at the age that he is that someone as smart as D'Souza is having to be educated on the difference between "not believing something is true" and "believing something isn't true". Even after this distinction is explained, I'm regretfully not confident it will modify his future presentations one bit. Well, it's unprepared people like this who provide endless opportunities for Matt to repeat this basic point to a new audience.
Eritrean formed from the oath to the well-read through diligent study and logical reasoning. Anyone can do this if they want to. He did it because he wanted to know that his beliefs were true and not false. Totally the opposite of Christians.
A. Where does the universe come from? And your first guess is an omnipotent being.. B. What purpose does our life have? Purpose is man-made ideology and there isn't an actual purpose to existence. C. What happens to us after we die? Most likely the same thing that happened to us before we are born (non-existence of mind/body). We're organized matter that can process thoughts for a while and then we're not.
On the battlefield that's known as bravado and leads to the death of combatants who lack knowledge, wisdom and skills needed to engage in battle. Meaning he's untrained, untested, unarmed and basically cannon fodder in the open theatre 😅 He'd be at best, the whirling dervish leading the Van in a futile attempt at breaking the enemies lines and lists. Due to his unearned confidence. Although these sorts of people do have their uses mainly as a distraction while the real strategy is playing out from the flanks and elsewhere while they're paying attention to the fanatical zealots sudden rush on the enemy encampment. While the real warriors come with actual intelligence and skill make a sortie planned for the aftermath of that vanguards sudden strike😅
I can see how the temptation arises to anthropomorphise the biggest questions we face, but then I'm also aware that it's kinda coded into us as pattern-seeking mammals. No, we need to have good reasons for the things we believe.
Yes, or else there aren't any good reasons to believe. It's really quite something to hear people argue without good credible evidence that supports those arguments as they're trying hard to demonstrate the truth of their position in lieu of the good reason being produced, that those arguments are goo ones and somehow lead to their own proposition in a circular fashion. Circular reasoning leads to circular arguments that are evidently flawed initially before the proposed idea is even started from. Thanks to religion, this is somehow rational even though there's no way to rationalize it. Paradoxically speaking it's nonsensical at best.😅
Again, nothing more than the Argument from Ignorance, and the God of the Gaps. The usual. “God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance.......that's getting smaller and smaller and smaller as time moves on” -- Neil deGrasse Tyson (he said this is true if your claim for a god is “well, you can't explain how XXXX works, so God must have done it!”)
If you step on a slug where does it go? Is their life after death for slugs? A slug fairy at the bottom of the garden? I can’t say for sure that there isn’t, but we can say the slug fairy is just an arbitrary speculation amongst a near infinity of other such possible speculations and 1/X approaches zero as X approaches infinity.
so on countless occasions over the past 8 or 9 years that I've been watching and listening to Matt speak, debate, etc., I've heard him refer to himself asan "uneducated oaf", or something similar. I love that he's so humble...but he's seriously underselling himself. I have NEVER seen Matt be stumped by a question. I've rarely seen him have to stop and think for more than maybe 5 seconds before responding to something. I've seen him debate literally ALL of the top theist AND atheist scholars...and in my opinion, he has never "lost" a debate. Perhaps a few have ended in something of a draw...but never a loss on his part. He knows the Bible better than any theist (of the Abrahamic religions) that I've ever come across. No one who is able to win every debate with a multitude of famous scolars can be described as an "uneducated oaf". Also...this debate in its' entirety surprised me. I pretty much loathe Dinesh D'Souza. His documentaries are absolute garbage. Poisonous garbage. In one, he focuses on justifying American slavery...and also argues that it was right for native American land to have been stolen by European settlers, AND that it was great for America to literally STEAL Mexico, and acts like those who did so are heroes, because they gave half of Mexico back to the Mexicans (in case you didn't know, the southwestern United States used to be a part of Mexico). He even makes the case that most Mexicans are GRATEFUL that we stole half of their country. Anyway...he's a truly awful person...but I found him to be shockingly easy to watch in this debate. He was one of the most tolerable theist scholars I've ever seen in a debate. That surprised me. A LOT. Definitely a debate worth watching. Spoiler alert: despite D'Souza being tolerable to watch...he still loses the debate. Matt is unbeatable.
To be convinced that God exists, we must first have the need for God. In other words, if we do not have the need for God, then we cannot be convinced that God exists.
“I’ve found proof the election was stolen! Here’s a map of Moscow Russia that I edited. This is proof that fraud took place in Gwinnett County. Now I’m going to flip this same map of Moscow 90 degrees. This is now proof that election fraud took place in other places in the US. Now here’s footage of people taking “just voted” selfies. Definitely election fraud.” Yeah I don’t see why anyone would take anything he says seriously at this point. 😂 Fitting that his arguments for god are just as weak as his arguments for conspiracy theories though.
If a person claimed to talk to the dead, and could give me information that I knew, the dead person knower,and nobody else knew, that would be evidence of life after death…. it’s just that we don’t have anything like that.
How on earth can he say that we have no idea what happens to us after we die? We either rot or are cremated, we've observed that millions of times, how more clear can it be???
OMG...people.... just because something cannot be proven does not mean that it doesn't exist. For those of you who have a narrow-minded skeptical view of life after death, think again ...the world we currently live in, and what comes after is bigger than we all know... you can sit here and debate the issue till the cows come home. Dinesh D'Souza has a logical and open-minded view on the subject I can't say the same for any of you..
Why would you post that? Almost nobody argues god doesn't exist because one can't be proven. Instead, you have to decide if you value truth. If so, you must not believe unknowns or falsehoods. Well all ideas start unknown. It's only by evidence that they "graduate" to knowns. We don't have evidence of gods. Well that's basically it: without a good reason to think a god actually exists, we shouldn't believe in them. Does that mean they definitely don't exist? No. It just means we definitely shouldn't believe in them unless we have good reason to (and if truth is our goal, "good reason" means we require evidence).
Dsouza is a pardoned and convicted felon who was pardoned by the guy who is possibly about to be a convicted felon himself, so why are we giving Dsouza any credibility?
Krausse was fired from his job for sexual allegations. Travis Pangburn was accused of not paying the people back who bought tickets to his cancelled shows by Sam Harris, pretty sure there are a billion other atheists who have either gone to prison, or been accused of crime.
@@gsp3428 "...there are a billion other atheists who have either gone to prison,..." Atheists are the smallest community of our prison system here in the U.S., the religious- minded dominates that landscape and more importantly, adherents of Islam are on the rise in that very system.
@@wet-read Not really. It's straight up asking "Why are we treating a known fraud and convicted felon as a trustworthy source on anything?" Granted, you're right, that technically doesn't mean DD is gonne be a liar or fraud in This Specific Context. But if my opponent in a debate was "Liar McFraud: Famous Conman" with a history of fraud and misinformation and willfully lying to get his way, that's gonna impact my opinion of the trustworthiness of my opponent.
The idea that no one has been to the other side of the curtain and been able to report back implies that there is another side to the curtain, and we can’t even say that Much less know if something is there.
Exactly what I was thinking. It's like saying "we don't know what words are written on the other side of this sheet of paper", when the other side could very well be entirely blank.
D'Souza is the master of the "We don't know this bit of information, therefore God" argument, also known as the "God of the gaps" theory. He's also really good at deflection and misdirection. I remember a debate he was in once where someone from the audience asked something along the lines of, "Don't you think you would have different beliefs if you had been born in some other part of the world?" to which he answered, essentially, "Well, there are 17 religions in India where I'm from and I ended up a Christian" which of course did not answer the question. Religious people don't like really thinking about that question because it really is a nail in the "what we believe is the absolute truth!" coffin. How can there be a universal truth if what you believe to be the truth is so dependent on where you were born and who raised you?
Dinesh D-Souza who was convicted of misusing campaign funding is who we should believe about God? Someone who can't even be honest in this realm, claims to know what happens in a God-based realm. Riiiight.
I honestly think that people like Dinesh MUST have realised by now, having had to think more about these questions than many people and to have responses from people like Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens and now Matt Dillahunty, that they don’t have a good basis for thinking what they think. But they can’t ever admit that because this is their livelihood.
Howdy. What is the meaning of life ? So phrased difficult to answer. I would split the question into three subquestions. 1. What is life ? 2. What does it mean to be alive ? 3. What is the purpose of life ? My answers. 1. The capability of amino acids to replicate. 2. To be aware. 3. To be humane. Regards.
Watch the way D’Souza maneuvers in this conversation. He pushes Matt to clarify his position - this gives the audience the impression that he’s trying to get to the “truth” of what’s being said. Then he bides his time, looking for the right moment to obfuscate. He works hard to present a “sincere” front, batting the discussion back and forth, all while trying to direct the framing of the discussion into territory that confuses the audience. Once he can accomplish his that, then he knows he can dupe some audience members with one of his carefully crafted talking points that are intentionally designed to mislead by duplicitously blurring distinctions. Even though he’s an incredibly well-practiced liar, he’s struggling to find his opening with Matt, who is quite good at anticipating where D’Souza is trying to take the conversation. Matt is also struggling a bit, only because he doesn’t usually have to debate someone so professionally disingenuous. Nevertheless, the conversation will be a win for Dinesh. There are inevitably always going to be enough debate attendees who aren’t mentally equipped enough to follow Matt’s clear line of reasoning and who will fall for some of Dinesh’s tricks. They’re the ones who will pick up a copy of Dinesh’s latest joke of a book that he’s no doubt selling in the room next to the auditorium.
Hi Gruelich Kulsheim9445, there is nothing ever 'wrong' with a hypothetical proposition based on imagination or speculation the errors only kick in when the additional assertion of truth is used to enforce fallacious conclusions. As long as the proper rigorous investigation and testing of the hypothesis is conducted in an appropriate logical and consistent manner if and when some empirical evidence emerges that refutes the hypothesis it may continue to be useful as a working appliance without having to be true. My entire mental map and philosophy is based on some fundamental axioms, like 'there is a physical existential reality' of which I have no knowledge or certainty, what it gives me is access to a mental toolbox that allows me to predict the outcome from joining two pieces of wood with the appropriate screws and end up with a suitable shelf to test my coffee mug on. This leave me as an adherent of utilitarianism, all I need is to understand the differences between what appears to work and what does not!, as far as I 'know' all of this could just be my imagination or al of it simply a figment of yours, I do not know and do not need to 'know' the 'truth', nor do I feel the need to 'believe' anything.. Cheers, Richard.
@@richardharvey1732 I commented on the specific position explained by Dinesh. What rigorous investigation and testing do you think Dinesh has done or has the ability to do that proves the point he was trying, IMO, failing, to make? How does one go about testing the "god" hypothesis which is by all accounts that I know of untestable? And I didn't hear, nor have I ever heard, Dinesh ever describe any testing of his hypothesis but rather just his conclusion that the best reason to believe in "his" god is because we don't know.... That should give everyone pause. The idea that we should believe a proposition to be true, conform with reality, and act on that proposition as though it were true, because we don't have any good reason or way to know at this time...... I submit is a bad method for determining what reality is.
@@gruelichkulsheim9445 Hi Gruelich Kulsheim, thank you very much for taking the time to respond to my comments, when I post mine I have no idea who might read them and cannot really expect any sort of response, however ones like yours help to make it worthwhile!. I am always aware every time that to avoid going to extreme lengths and becoming even more tedious I have to keep on leaving out all sorts of bits that might be important, the entire chain of coherent logical progression involves all sorts of relevant side chains. One book that I read decades ago was written with such exquisite attention to every little detail that apart from the sense of respect, nay awe that I felt I knew then that for me such effort is beyond me, I just don't have that sort of mind, much more the grasshopper type. That author was of course Karl Popper, his 'Logic of scientific discovery' completely changed my life. I knew then as I know now that such careful methodical effort is always rewarded and any omissions or failures compromise the results. From then on I resolved to apply that methodology to anything that I feel matters to me but at the same time I have always been aware that much of the time in haste or in hope attempt short-cuts because I resent the time and effort required to think it through properly!. Just like everybody else I get away with it usually because we do not live in a hostile environment, I do not have to know exactly why my tea tastes better when the water boiled, knowledge confers no power!. Much more recently having been introduced to the concept of cognitive delusion I now see that all of us share similar capacities for rational thought and sheer speculation, the main difference being the time-lines, anyone can latch on the the latest popular myth and act without thought, this is why so many myths pervade our culture, the ability to respond quickly being so much more popular than the ability to get anything right. Cheers, Richard.
They are cardinal questions, but in the day-to-day OBVIOUSLY from the entirety of human history they don't ACTUALLY matter all that much. Nobody has risen in their deathbed going "But I never found out where the universe came from. Therefore my life is nothing." Love to see DD get a good shellacking. And brown shoes with black-n-white socks, DD? Please. Who dresses you--Jill Biden's stylist?
Who care if some dumbass remains an atheist despite all reason? You have no excuse for your intellectual laziness and no arguments or evidence for your atheist position.
I agree with Dinesh on one point. I don’t know if God exists. I also don’t know if the tooth fairy exists, but unlike Dinesh i don’t believe in either one until there is decent evidence to do so.
Dinesh, whether knowingly or not, gave a great statement about agnosticism. “There is a difference between belief and knowledge”….well yes, which is why when it comes to religion, EVERYONE is agnostic, it’s the theism part that people can’t wrap their heads around.
@@PeterS123101 For example, the Kalam Argument is not sound. I am sure you find him intelligent and well spoken but he often makes huge logical blunders. He said something I recall about lowering his standards of evidence.
@@PeterS123101 Paraphrased: "Even if there is evidence to the contrary, I will believe wholeheartedly." -WLC. He also uses similar ambiguous terms to sneak in equivocations, a logical fallacy. He argues often from incredulity, a logical fallacy. He tries to reconstruct einsteinian relativity to suit his fantasy of (absolute god-)time. He is not logical. He is a very well spoken grifter, who is good at pretending to be logical.
Remember when D'Souza went to prison for campaign finance violations when he got other people to donate money on his behalf to skirt the rules of donation limits
"We're flung . . . " Sometimes poetic language is OK, but I think, since a literal God is the topic, I note Dinesh is assuming a flnger before getting past his third word.
Law of causality proves God instantly. Every effect has a cause and as the universe has a cause too, it means it is created, which means has a beginning. Everything that begins is created and not uncreated. Only intelligent beings can create. Therefore if everything that is created has a beginning, and so it is, it is logical to understand that an infinite chain of causation would mean nothing would exist, but since a lot of things exist, we have a mandatory uncreated cause, which everyone understands to be God. CHRIST IS KING.
If something exists, then it is part of nature, i.e. natural. By definition, then, to describe something as "supernatural" is to concede that it does not exist.
I think that religious claims about the supernatural often presuppose the truth of their claims. For instance, Christians claim that their god created nature and thus the anything beyond that specific creation is supernatural, but you have to accept their claim about that creation to accept that the supernatural could exist in the first place.
You claim that something cannot exist outside of nature. A claim requires evidence. Just claiming it because you cannot "envisage" it is not an argument. Being able to exist outside of the natural could still comprise being able to have an effect on the natural. BTW, I am not a theist and I also do not believe in anything supernatural. I just don't claim to *know* that there *cannot* exist something supernatural.
@@landsgevaer, I guess that depends on definitions. "Nature" simply means "the way something is". Theists are happy to talk about "god's nature" and that really is what nature is. We've morphed the meaning a bit these days but that's the derivation, so when we talk about "nature" we are talking about the way the world is, the way the universe is, the way the cosmos is, the way existence is. In order to distinguish between natural and supernatural, you need to place some sort of limit on what nature is. Theists presuppose that that limit is defined by the creation of their god(s). Without that presupposition, why should there be any distinction made? If there is something more that we don't know about that violates what we understand to be the laws of nature then, without that presupposition, it is more appropriate to expand our notion of nature to encompass it rather than smack the label "supernatutal" on it and consider it distinct. That is how I interpret the OP and that is something that I've thought myself in the past. Can you justify a distinction without the presupposition that nature is something created by a god?
@@wunnell It definitely is a semantic issue to a large extent. By the natural I mean everything that phenomenalizes, that is reprodicibly known to exist based on our senses (not a native speaker here, there may be more exact wording). There may be stuff that exists but is not apparent to us. A parallel universe with different physical laws could exist. I would call that supernatural (until it were to be demonstrated). It might even have an effect on our universe, even without being otherwise apparent. Maybe it triggered the origin of our universe. Another example could be consciousness (as in the hard problem of consciousness, not as in responsiveness). Currently, that seems to be arguably a supernatural phenomenon to me, since you cannot demonstrate it to exist to someone else (so far). I don't believe in deities, so don't ask me to defend that. But most importantly, even if we cannot agree on any example of something supernatural, then still that is no evidence that it doesn't exist. (Although it is a reason to not include it in our scientific theories, for sure.) I also think the supernatural, as a term, is fluid. There may be stuff that we consider supernatural now, that may appear to us and become natural later. Like dragons maybe, if they should ever be found to exist in the real world (unlikely, sure). Regarding "justifying" the distinction. I was arguing against a claim, the claim that you can know that something supernatural *cannot* exist. I asked for evidence. I am not claiming that something supernatural must exist, merely that it can be conceived to exist. I don't think that requires justification: "it might be the case but I don't know" should be the default until evidence to a different position emerges.
@@landsgevaer, I asked you to justify a distinction between natural and supernatural without presupposing that nature was created and you did. We are all entitled to your own opinion, of course, but I don't really accept what you proposed. You are basically saying that whether or not something is natural or supernatural depends on our understanding of it. You're basically saying that whether something is natural or supernatural is not a property of the thing itself but of us. This is not the first time I've heard this and it's not an idea I can get behind. It's certainly not what theists mean when they talk about the supernatural. It's like saying that bacteria used to be supernatural but now they're natural. Maybe you're OK with that but I'm not. To my mind, that's not really a useful distinction because it doesn't tell us anything about the thing itself.
Dinesh D'Souza is using a different definition of "belief", or at least a different context, and that's not the intent of the Bible. "Belief", as the Bible puts it, seems to have multiple facets to it, one of which is the most common definition of "relational trust", of which he would have a type of relationship with his brother to trust him and therefore the term "belief" would be correct even though he does know his brother, but there are several more definitions which apply in their respective areas, another being in reference to "hope", and there's an analogy to clarify what context this is: If a person is failing at in math and will fail the year unless he passes a certain math test, he may suffer from a great deal of anxiety. However, due to this anxiety, he finds a tutor to teach him math more clearly. As he's learning, he finally *understands* a particular concept that the tutor is trying to convey. His mind is able to connect the dots until he finally says "I understand it! I understand it!". His heart and mind are flooded with *hope,* and his strength returns to him. As you can see, this "hope" is not just ignorant belief, *it is based on knowledge.* There's another definition that pertains to "Faith". It's the same definition that can be found In The Matrix films 🔴🔵. "Neo" becoming "The One" is not about blind believing, It's about *separating The illusion of the world of the Matrix 🔵with that of the real world 🔴.* The blue pill represents *the surface appearance 🔵.* Surface appearances are not necessarily in themselves "false observations" because can even be true. However, these observations *are not ULTIMATELY true,* because in order to receive "ultimate truth", it requires moral excellence with each individual person, to make a freewill choice 🔴🔵 to observe the full spectrum of truth, to not use half truths, and to also place truth in its proper order. If any of these things are out of place, it leads to a false perception 🔵. However, the red pill 🔴 *(Faith)* Is the ability to have insight to see a situation for what it truly is 🔴, rather than how it merely appears 🔵. Example: 1. Faith is believing without evidence 🔵 2. Faith is having insights to understand and recognize the underlying hidden truth 🔴 The first view of faith categorizes faith this way because it doesn't understand faith and cannot relate with it because it only understands material things. However, The other type of person uses a different set of eyes to understand underlying truths, even truths that cannot be physically seen, of which a person, through Revelation, breaks the illusion of the surface appearance, ultimately finding God. It's not based on "blind belief", It's based *on an understanding of something.* It's based on knowledge, on Revelation. When Neo broke the illusion in the hallway scene and saw the Matrix code on the walls, This wasn't blind belief, he *knew* it, and not only is this example "knowing", It portrays the highest level of "knowing" anything, to know, that you know, that you know. It was impossible for Neo to be deceived, because he saw it precisely for what it was, and this is what gave him power over Agent Smith. That's how faith works. This is the true definition. However, either a believer has to conceal this aspect from the unbeliever because the unbeliever cannot relate with it to where the believer has to use more conservative language that the unbeliever will accept, or a believer who observes other believers defining "faith" this way Also may not have an understanding faith and therefore define faith this way as well by copying other people. Keep an eye on believers that are not like other believers. Keep an eye on believers who are unique, whose position or grounding as a Christian is not dependent on other Christians. Whoever a person chooses to listen to, they will gain that person's strengths *and weaknesses,* but if a person chooses to seek God for himself alone, then he will break those limitations set on his mind by the reasoning of the person he is mimicking. This is why each person needs to find God for himself, and that includes the atheist or unbeliever. If they wait for the Christian to give him an answer, They might receive the answer, or they might not, but they will also receive the limitations of the mindset of a person they listen to, unless they make the choice themselves to pursue God. This is why if it is the Christian's fault for not informing the atheist, it's also the atheist's fault, because his very request for the Christian to answer his question *assumes The Christian has taken the initiative upon himself to find the answer on behalf of the atheist.* Therefore, by the atheist's very request, he is actually *legitimizing that pursuit.* It therefore follows that the atheist should become the very person he's asking the Christian to be on his behalf. This means that if the atheist does not receive the answer from another Christian and wishes to blame the Christian, note that it would be the atheist's fault above Christian's, because the atheist himself has legitimized that pursuit for himself, but attempts to place blame on someone else even though he should become that very person. This is not about shifting blame at all. This is about a humble way of thinking to allow oneself to see. Sometimes we don't allow ourselves to go further because we do not want to look at ourselves outside of the self-image we have constructed in our minds, and the path to God also involved self-reflection to find out who oneself truly is, and what they are doing to sabotage their own success in finding God.
Having been on a jury, the burden of proof rests on the prosecution, not the defendant. Not being able to prove the case against the defendant is because the prosecution didn't prove without a reasonable doubt that the defendant was actually guilty. Supernatural claims require extraordinary evidence, which of course holds true for religion and jury trials as well.
I remember when late Christopher Hitchens obliterated him 10-15 years ago, you can find the debate on YT. he must have flattest character arc if he was a character in a story. No evolution in thought... dead flat 😂
Dinesh is grasping at the straws....and the first 3 questions he posed are directly from Hindu Vedanta...which he must have read when he was in India. He has nothing new to add. I like Matt because he is clear, rational and very well articulated
Interestingly enough, D'Souza was actually holding to skepticism to a greater extent than Matt when he attempted to differentiate between direct and indirect experience/interaction with evidence. And Matt almost made fun of him for holding that skepticism. That was unexpected.
There's no direct/indirect interaction with evidence. There is empirical evidence and other evidence. When evidence (empirical or otherwise) meets its burden of proof, then the thing or concept is proven until the evidence fails to continue meeting that burden. To remain skeptical about the thing or concept because of the type of evidence (drawing a distinction between empirical v. other types of evidence) when the burden of proof is met is just irrational.
Hi Colas Falon6470, one of the identifying characteristics of the cognitive delusional is the ability to carry two or more entirely contradictory concept in the same mind, this now known as cognitive dissonance. The fundamental issues here is that in all cases cognitive delusions are beyond debate or critical examination thus the carrier will never be aware of the contradictions. Toward the end of the video the host speaks of the distinction between 'knowing' and 'belief' here he entirely fails to grasp the nettle part of which that stings the most is that none of us ever 'know' anything is 'true', fortunately that does not preclude knowledge altogether because based on simple empirical evidence we can know for absolute certainty the particular propositions are false!. As our lives progress along the time line of experience we become increasingly familiar with events and circumstances that seem to be entirely reliable and predictable, the fact that we may never know exactly how and why that happens does not affect their reality. By now it should be clear that as far as I am concerned there is far more going on in the world around me than I will ever know or understand luckily its continued functions do not depend on me or on some imaginary deity. Cheers, Richard.
@@stephenolan5539 This is true. In William Lane Craig's estimation the fact that something is appealing to the listener is reason enough to lower the burden 😂.
It’s unfortunate that Dinesh didn’t finish laying out his argument. The direction it seemed to be headed in is that because science can’t (currently) answer his “big 3” questions that that is reason enough to posit the existence of God. If that is indeed where he was headed, that’s just the “god of gaps” argument all over again.
I keep on thinking, oh come on now. Surely you've got something going here, some secret weapon. Surely you can't be that credulous or that mendacious. But I've been waiting for fifty years now, and I'm beginning to wonder if they have anything at all. I mean ANYTHING. And there's nothing. Even a weak argument, if it were true, could eventually be developed into something compelling, by carefully collecting and validating the evidence, using clear reason, showing your work, being replicated by independent labs, that sort of thing. But there isn't even a weak argument. There's nothing at all. Indeed, as you say, it seems that theists have no good argument. Not even close.
"We have no answer to..." OK, so let's agree with Dinesh on this one point. We don't know, so we will not take simple guesses. So why then guess that there must be a God, and that the God in one of 1,000s that man has guessed at for centuries.
Dinesh is full of ****. After he veers the discussion wildly off course, he suddenly brings up trans people to make an argument that has nothing to do with what he was discussing, then accused Matt of changing the subject! 😂 What a dolt.
My basic question to any theist would be (assuming what ever god you think exists, actually exists) what do you think makes the god you believe in worthy of your reverence? Do you worship it to avoid a punishment if you don't (what punishment do you find the most frightening) Do you worship it to get a reward if you do (what reward do you think you will get) Do you worship because it can do things that you cannot (what do you think is god's most impressive attribute) What do you think god gets out of the deal, (what do you have to offer an all knowing all powerful being would want or need from you that you think will enough to keep it interested in keeping you sentient and happy for eternity)
@@anthonymorris5084 The whole "does it doesn't it" argument is a total dead end since neither side has anything close to evidence, but exploring the attributes their own understanding of god and why they think a god doing what a god can do without effort or learning is something to revere quickly leads to some rather disturbing conclusions (or at least it has for any theist I have managed to answer these very very basic questions) I am always hopeful that a theist can present a better version of god than has been presented to me so far.
@@davebrown6552 Ya, it's fascinating because all of these Gods are psychopathic serial killers. They all exhibit infantile, hypocritical and violent behavior. They exhibit the worst of humanity within themselves. I'm an anti theist and from what I've been seeing, there aren't any Gods that I would even hope to exist. Even the human justice system is superior to this supposed all knowing being.
The question "why are we here"/what purpose do we have is not exclusive to a universe where a deity exists. It could be that we have that question and there is no answer that's "universal"
The reason why so many believe in God is because it conceivably represents the *best option available.* Modern science offers only a particle-based, deterministic type of existence void of any meaning or purpose to which there is no hope for your continued existence upon physical death. Theism offers you "continued existence" via an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, and omnipresent God who considers you of the highest importance. ... So, theists have two options: *(1)* Commit to a scientific understanding of our existence that's constantly changing from a single universe to a multiverse, to many worlds, to branes, to simulations, to pocket universes, or to some other "new theory" that still results in a finite, purposeless existence. *(2)* Stick with the highest possible level of conceivability (God) that holds the promise of eternal life emersed in unimaginable love. *Summary:* It is *logical* that if nobody has an incontrovertible answer to the "mystery of existence," then to align oneself to the highest conceivable construct to ever emerge is a _smart move._
Making something up in order to assuage one's discomfort is never "the best option available." And the "smart move" is to withhold judgment while continuing to investigate.
@@ctpaul1261 *"Making something up in order to assuage one's discomfort is never "the best option available."* ... Something that represents the *highest possible level of conceivability* is not the same as "making something up." The construct of God that theism presents cannot be supplanted by any other construct. Theism was the first to produce an unsurpassable construct. You might note that science's "Multiverse" is like "God lite:" All the trappings of theism but without the deity! When science starts tossing out theories involving an infinite stream of infinitely existing, infinitely wide universes to where an infinite number of "you's" and "me's" are populating said universes while executing all possible outcomes to all possible situations is not that much different than theism, wouldn't you agree? *"And the "smart move" is to withhold judgment while continuing to investigate."* ... Someone who takes that approach runs the risk of aimlessly walking through life without having any platform of understanding. When data is limited, it is logical to align oneself with the very best until something can come along to replace it. We don't "know" which baseball team will win the MLB World Series, but we can all hold a "belief" on who we "think" will win.
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC "The reason why so many believe in Santa is because it conceivably represents the best option available. Modern science offers only a particle-based, deterministic type of existence void of any magic presents. Santa offers you presents via a jolly St Nick who considers you of the highest importance with all the other good little boys and girls." Are you convinced Santa is real now because Santa being real means you get presents? 1) Scientific understanding improves. It doesn't arbitrarily change. Would you like to improve your knowledge, or stagnate? 2) So, do you then pick your religion based on the nicest God, or the meanest God? After all, some of them will send you to Hell if you don't obey them. Whereas other Gods don't do that. Now what? "Summary: It is logical that if nobody has an incontrovertible answer to the "mystery of existence," then to align oneself to the highest conceivable construct to ever emerge is a smart move." This is Pascal's Wager, and has many refutations. I provided one above. Here's the thing about meaning, though. We give ourselves meaning. We matter to each other. That's enough :)
"...because it (gods) conceivably represents the best option available". This is a very bold statement. The god explanation is a really poor one and maybe one of the worst options. Even if "taking the best optional available" was a sound means of epistemology, which it definitely is not, the god story is one of the weakest options. I'll take Universe has always existed, string theory, multi-dimensions, quantum fluctuations, etc. as stronger options any day. But the only sound option is to refrain from believing in any of them until evidence is sufficient to warrant belief.
@@brutusmaximumus *""...because it (gods) conceivably represents the best option available". This is a very bold statement. "* ... Yes, it is. Sports motto: _"Go big or go home!"_ Theism's motto, _"Go biggest or go home!"_ *"The god explanation is a really poor one and maybe one of the worst options"* ... What other construct can supplant an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving, ubiquitous construct? Will you share that with me, please? *"I'll take Universe has always existed, string theory, multi-dimensions, quantum fluctuations, etc. as stronger options any day."* ... Science is not far from theism in that they both posit something with an *"infinite origin:* an _always-existing_ God and an _always-existing_ Multiverse. Both violate the "2nd law of Existence" and therefore cannot exist. But since you believe the Multiverse to be the "stronger option," then maybe you can answer this question: *_"How can something exist without coming into existence?"_* Note that *_"It just does!"_* is an unacceptable answer, ... unless you are willing to admit that you think like a theist. *"But the only sound option is to refrain from believing in any of them until evidence is sufficient to warrant belief."* ... You and so many others have already moved your chips to the center of the table betting on the Multiverse. You simply don't want to admit it.
We are not "flung" into the universe. Like any other animal, we are born. Like every animal, we have the same questions. Of course, for what we know, other species don't ask these questions. Many in our own species don't ask them. That doesn't presuppose any answers (much less likeable answers) to them.
The simplest answer is that the cumulative weight of the many good arguments for God is quite compelling: God is the best explanation for a number of things we know and observe: Objective moral values and duties, the universe coming into existence from nothing, fine-tuning of the universe, fundamental constants, etc.
Those aren't arguments. Those are just things you assume A) are true, and I would argue most of them, and B) that no other explanation than a sky daddy can provide them.
"Values" are SUBJECTIVE BY DEFINITION dear and can we use *ANY* "God" as the basis for this "objective" moral standard you speak of.?? Or just the SPECIFIC SUBJECTIVE invisible being *YOU* determined to be the "correct" one out of the many thousands man has preposed. If its the latter then in actuality its *YOU* and YOUR SUBJECTIVE OPINION that is determining morality dear. if its the former, then asserting objectivity to any moral claim based upon a "God" becomes a completely vacuous useless concept 👍 The claim that theistic morality is somehow superior because its "objective" is ridiculous. Theists are merely substituting their own subjective moral standards with the morals standards of the god they subjectively determine represents the "correct objective" morality. 🙄
The only ones who say the universe "came into existence from nothing" are theists dear. They think their imaginary friend just "magiced " the universe out of nothing. 😂😂😂😂
You can now become a PANGBURN PRODUCER on our RUclips channel. Check out the PERKS! 🤓 Exclusive access to live streams, live chat, custom emojis & more! This is a great way to directly contribute to our future live discussions ☺ ✌ ruclips.net/channel/UCm5J1Fu_dHgBcMTpXu-NXUwjoin
Take A Moment
I would never join a club that would have me as a member.
I would like you, or anyone else, to donate $142.1 to Dr's Without Borders directly to them, I will give the highest bidder a picture wot I dun.
Stay Silly Stay Safe and Stay Free ❤😂
"I would rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned."
~Richard Feynman
Ur never gonna have what you’d “rather have”. don’t you guys view skepticism as a high value? You’re either inane or a hypocrite quite frankly
I've never read this quote anywhere else. Thank you.
"I know that I know nothing" ~Plato. Your comment itself although I agree with where you are coming from can lead to a whole other philosophical discussion. We could debate whether anyone knows anything at all about anything. I personally don't think we have any answers, we just like to think we do as a species because we were gifted with a level of awareness that most animals were not. We spend our lives choosing what to question and what to accept as objectivity but in the end, none of it matters when you get face to face with creation.
@@WinksontheWeekend Dinesh?
His comment only "leads" that way, if you are desperate for it to.
We have plenty of "answers" none are absolute, but plenty come close enough for practical purposes.
@Jacob Car desperation isn't even part of it. When you say nothing is absolute, you reaffirm my point. Nothing can be proven to be objective because everything is subjective to our own personal experiences, whether it's science or theology. Jung is the only one that has ever come close to "evidence" of the archetypes buried in the human subconscious. Lots of things can be practical yes you're correct on that part but even practicality is debated and that's pretty much what I'm saying. Even science is just a history of constant state of revision and rethinking what we thought we knew.Don't think so? OK, I challenge you to give me one example of an idea that 100% of people would agree with and no one could debate. You may not see my point and that's ok because it just further proves my point.
Dinesh: Begging the question, Begging the question, Begging the question
Matt: Nope.
If this is the best you got Dinesh, Matt's future tombstone will win over you.
I find more comfort in saying I don't know than just make stuff up to fill my gap in knowledge and understanding, that way I'm still open to find the truth based on evidence.
Its your gap of knowledge, not ours.
I don't think things are true without evidence and despite evidence of the contrary
@@dited358 This is extremely arrogant. No wonder less people are religious lol
You don't know everything. You're a spec.
@@dited358
Then share your knowledge.
But I predict that you have low standards for knowing something.
Every time Matt makes a point, Dinesh says, "Okay I'll come back to that in a minute."
It's exasperating. When Dinesh admitted he doesn't have any proof, that should have been the end of the evening. Why waste any more time?
yeah the whole time it seems like he tries to create senario's he can fot God into. but at least he admids he believes because he wants to or feels like it. instead of for good reasons
Yes, because he interrupted DeSouza to make that point while DeSouza was half way through making his point, what else would you say only, we'll come back to that.
@@cazkelly because the question was simple: What argument do you have that would make it reasonable for me to believe in God?
D'Souza goes on for four minutes, not giving an argument, but talking about how there are unanswered questions, and in a couple of instances D'Souza stops to ask if Matt is in agreement with his propositions and it is only then that Matt "interrupts."
D'Souza's first "I'll come back to that" comes at the four minute mark. By the time the clip ends, DD still hasn't even come close to providing anything resembling an argument for the existence of God.
Matt was more patient than DD deserved. Please don't start a back and forth, without providing an actual answer.
I expressed my opinion. You apparently have a different one and that's fine. Bye
@@benjamintrevino325 YES, I feel I just wasted 7 minutes of my life. I am not surprised!
@@benjamintrevino325 Neo-Atheists be like, prove god exists in under 4 minutes.
Matt: What are the best arguments that you can produce for accepting the proposition that God exists?
Dinesh: Okay, I can do this. 1) Here we are, flung into the world with no clear understanding of: A) where the universe came from; B) Why we're here and what our purpose is; and C) What if anything happens to us when we die. So three of the most important questions we could possibly ask we have no answer to. Therefore, the only possible reason this could be is that there exists a god, a creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; a supreme being; a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes. Convinced? 🤷🏻♂
Matt: Nope. 🤦🏻♂
Such a good start, but so soon deep into the weeds.
1) We're here. [Yes.] We don't understand everything. [Yes.]
A) Where did the universe come from? [You're begging the question that it came from anything other than itself.]
B1) Why are we here? [Begging the question. What justifies assuming that there is a reason?]
B2) What is our purpose? [Really begging the question. This presumption of purpose seems the most bizarre idea of all.]
C) What, if anything, happens to us when we die? [This is not a deep question, and we can also dispense with the insertion of "if anything" as if the question is innocuously open minded. What happens is that our biological processes break down and decay, and with them our cognitive processes. This is hardly a mystery.]
And nowhere in any of this is there any scrap of possible evidence that a SUPERNATURAL MIND must be responsible for orchestrating it all. That idea may be fine to contemplate on its own; that's a separate discussion, but it's irrelevant here. It does nothing to illuminate these (remarkably stupid) questions. I mean,.Dinesh, really? This is your way of expressing humanity's search for meaning? And this is how you propose to answer it?
It's as if you were working on your tax return, trying to see if you might qualify for some deduction, and your partner says to you, "Couldn't you just say that the voices in your head commanded you? That's a tax deduction, surely." And you agree?
Um, no Dinesh. If this is your best, we're not going to get you to help with our tax returns this year.
@@starfishsystems I was just about to post the same thing. Where did the assumption of "purpose" come from? It's both ludicrous and arrogant to think that human life has to have some over-arching purpose.
Does life require a meaning?
I am not talking about your life or my life. I am talking about the very concept of "life", and whether "meaning" is a necessary component to that concept.
Compare to what taste a color has or what the square root of a hamburger is.
You might immediately think; "Now you are just being silly" - which is a perfectly reasonable and valid response, because *_it is_* silly to talk about the taste of a color or the square root of a hamburger.
I am just not convinced, that it isn't equally silly to talk about the meaning or purpose of things like life (the concept) or the Universe, for example.
I have yet to be presented with compelling arguments, that meaning and/or purpose is an inherent fundamental necessary component to life.
Do you have any such arguments?
So your argument is, god must exist because I have questions. Righhhhhhhht, good argument dude 👍
Government papers talking about the firmament. We live in a ~terrarium according to government papers, who/what made it?
So many people think Matt is just an irritable bully when they just listen to his call-in show but in formal debate forums like these he is one of the most eloquent, articulate, logical, intelligent minds I've ever listened to...
He is not a bully on the show. He asks question and the caller ignores the question just like D'Souza does, "well get back to that later." They mistake bully for flat out frustration.
@@ONLINEMARTY I totally agree.
@@ONLINEMARTY Nah, he was a petulant bully on the show. He acts so much better in exchanges like this, when he wants to impress larger audiences and be seen as a big time player on the international atheist thinkers scene. And I must say, I want him to keep acting better. It got to where I had to stop watching anything from his show because he does not do well with power going to his head.
I agree. He has one of the best minds dealing with this subject.
@@ONLINEMARTY *Nope. He's a complete irritable bully when it comes to the transgender issue. He's an utterly repugnant scumbag when it comes to the gender ideology madness.*
It is really hard for theists to live in uncertainty.
Admitting "I don't know" is an abomination to them.
The phrase "I don't know" and "God" have identical uses and explanatory power for a theist.
That’s the first step to becoming a person who learns and becomes more knowledgeable…
@@smaakjeks Not really. "I don't know" doesn't give you the power to subjugate others to your ignorant dogmas.
A lot of business people and managers also can't say, "I don't know".
Boring manager story redacted.
And he was getting more agitated until he said what would do. ( without adequate information)
@@Zheeraffa1 This is childish - youre basically saying all theists are ignorant and dogmatic tyrants. There are theists that never go to church, ones that work as nurses, etc etc... Calm down the vitriol.
There’s no competition. Matt is on a higher level and 100 times more honest.
Actually, Matt comes off as a pompous fool.
@@rac7773 pompous yes, sometimes I think. A fool? That’s strictly reserved for the religious.
@@warrencolegrove1 Take that key from inside your self-imposed jail cell, and unlock your brain. Accept the reality of God. You cannot create a "simple" cell, let alone an organ or organism.
@@davidmears1705 huh???
@@davidmears1705 dinesh has been convicted of campaign funds misuse , plead guilty, did his time, paid his fines and then said he didn’t do it. Then trump says he pardoned him; not sure how that works. That sounds like an honest person to you? Get back to me if you find out Matt did anything like this in life and we can compare the definition(s) of honest. Right now, I don’t understand you exclaiming how honest dinesh is, especially more honest than matt.
D'Souza is so out of his depth. His position is so weak that it only just rises to an argument from ignorance. Dillahunty is eminently reasonable and displays generousity of spirit in dealing with him politely.
Love his attempt to dive off into a straw man argument.
Hard to know with him how much is bad faith tactics and how much is old fashioned idiocy
He's so prolifically begging questions that it's hard to keep count.
I really do feel sorry for people whose minds have become so accustomed to delusion that it's nowvtheir epistemic baseline. It's not a good look.
D'Souza is a con artist who thinks he's the real deal.
Ya, the Dartmouth graduate is so out of his depth, from the 54 year old man who still plays video games and cant tell you what a woman is.
@@gsp3428apparently so! That must be so frustrating watching someone who holds at least some similar beliefs, be so educated, and still flounder so horribly.
Had to laugh when D’Souza said he “trusts maps”.
The same guy who used an edited map of Moscow Russia to “prove” election fraud in America. 😂
twice, one is just rotated 90degrees lol
How much direct knowledge of anything do we have?, We trust authority I.e. maps, reference works, doctors scientist that hav e proved to be mistaken.
@@joemahony4198 I checked that water boils at 212 degrees Fahrenheit
The only maps he actually trusts are minor attracted persons
also i would never fully trust maps. at least not of a reasonably big area. because they are usually approximately what the real thing is like. altho they do get more accurate the more modern they are.
Dinesh "God of the Gaps" D'Souza
Not just god of the gaps, but the christian god of the gaps.
It means the same thing.
But I love how it pissess them off when I say, argument from ignorance to imply God of the gaps.
Which denomination? 😂
'We should believe in God because we exist and don't know what our purpose is.' To my mind, the answers of science in general and evolution in particular are deeply satisfying compared to some supposed mysterious ultimate purpose. Purpose slash pie-in-the-sky.
How can you say that believing God and science are mutually exclusive? If God created everything, he created science and by admiring science you are admiring God's work.
Regardless, simply "trusting" in science is the same thing as "believing". You might argue that science is indifferent and calculated but that's obviously not true especially with what we know of quantum mechanics.
However, even if we push quantum mechanics off to the side, all scientific principles are a leap of faith. You might argue that gravity dictates that everything must fall to the ground, and suppose it's true - you don't even have the slightest clue on how that works. Even if we were able to prove how gravity works definitely and unequivocally, you would ultimately be trusting your mortal eyes and mind - that is you would have to trust what you see is true, which is simply a leap of faith.
You are no different than a person who believes that there's a "sky daddy" who is pulling levers or a person who believes that the world is being held by turtles. The only difference is that your arrogance leads you to believe you are different.
Why is it so hard for poeple to look around and realize we are a part of nature just like other animals. WE exist simply to reproduce and we exist not bc of god but bc our fathers knocked up our mothers lol. No religion needed.
yea, we coming from a rock is much more believeable. LMFAO
@@sundvallen As opposed to being poofed into existence by some magical sky-daddy?
@@kimwit1307 "magical sky-daddy" - this is what happends when marxists brainwash you with the IDEOLOGY of atheism. Completely ignorant of thousands and thousands of years of ancient texts.
GO TO INDIA, LIVE WITH THE MASTERS, then you tell me there is "nothing else".
Lmfao
I think D'Souza's questions are a perfect illustration of how theists believe in the universe that they need to have.
I think if Matt can sit tight without interrupting D'Souza and let him make his point, we would actually KNOW his point. Now we can only speculate what his point is, because he was never given the chance to make it, and therefore we don't have evidence to how he was going to express his logic.
Ohh, but we're only agnostic when it comes to God right? It's perfectly right to believe and have faith in the assumption that believers don't have a valid point. Sorry, my bad...
@@ibrahimkayikci2146 I've actually read D'Souza's books.
@@snaptrap5558 I don't see how that relates to my comment.
@@ibrahimkayikci2146 Meaning that I'm not just speculating about D'Souza's points
@@snaptrap5558 Yeah, but Matt was. Besides, you can demonstrate the same behaviour when you're reading.
Objective analysis and uninteruppted perception are skills beyond reading.
Matt was being to nice. Dinesh's arguments are "I don't know, so God"
Matt's arguments are just as silly. Matt thinks that miracles are by definition the most unlikely thing to happen compared to everything else (which is not the definition btw but w/e), and he thinks when considering something that is unlikely to have happened, we are more reasonable to conclude that it never happened. Except as soon as you throw him the example of first time events or events that have never happened before even if they are not miraculous, they are in equal standing on the "unliklihood" scale as miracles are, even if they aren't miracles, because they have the same amount (if not less) of historical occurrences of happening as a miracle does.. meaning in order to be consistent, Matt would have to disbelieve the occurrence of all non-miraculous first time events.. it's a reductio-ad absurdum.
@@toughbiblepassages9082 The point is that miracles were never independently verified and there is no way of knowing if it was actually a miracle or just something that we cannot yet explain as natural. The notion of miracle is just intellectual laziness. If something looks like a miracle, the best position is "I don't know how that happened, let's try to find out". What is miracle anyway? Magic? Magic done by a God = miracle? Let's prove this God exists first (the agent), then we advance to study his actions and effects.
@@toughbiblepassages9082 Miracles are the most unlikely scenario. That´s why they MUST be extremely rare
Either the universe just randomly came into existence and then life just “happened” from the tiniest of building blocks into a single cell which will fail if any one of trillions of things goes wrong (which to me is a suspicious belief to hold) or, a creator who paid painstaking attention to detail, made the universe, earth, the building blocks of life, and many other systems in order to make life possible.
Out of the two faith systems, I always settle on creation over abiogenesis and evolution.
@@James-ms2mx There are not just these two options. The universe might just have always existed. And life happened in a situation where it could happen, failing in trillions of other planets. Note that you didn't explain anything. You just said, the science way is to hard, so my magic man made it perfect. Easy, right?
Nothing Burger from D'Souza. As always.
It’s difficult to argue for something that needs be accepted purely on assertion with no evidence to substantiate it. Why people need to force it as true is beyond me, instead of accepting it for what it is.
A big 'ol nothing burger with a side of word salad.
@@robertt9342 accept it for what it is….. just a bunch of goofy fairytales 😂😂
You are way too generous. D’Souza has a burger alright but it’s a s*** burger.
The conservative grift is a lucrative one. The point of this was never for him to bring anything to you. It's for him to take money without producing anything of value. A NEET-at-heart if I ever saw one.
Dinesh D'Souza coming in strong with the "You don't have an answer, therefore my answer is correct by default" fallacy. After all of this time these people are using the same dead arguments.
Argument from incredulity.
Wouldn't that not apply to atheists as well.
You don't have proof of God, therefore my position that God does not exist, is correct.
What to you expect from a pseudo intellectual
@@chrisking6695 I disagree.. Dinesh is a great intellectual. He is pretty good in some areas of expertise, just like many intellectuals, scientists, philosophers, etc., regardless of his belief in a god. I mean, Isaac Newton was a genius, and yet he was bipolar, insufferable, depressive, superstitious, and a highly religious person. Kurt Gödel (1906-1978): Gödel was a renowned Austrian mathematician and logician who made significant contributions to the fields of mathematical logic and the philosophy of mathematics. He was a devout Christian and held a strong belief in an afterlife. However, he struggled with mental health issues throughout his life and died by suicide. Francisco Varela (1946-2001): Varela was a Chilean biologist and neuroscientist known for his work in cognitive science and the study of consciousness. He was also a practicing Buddhist. Varela battled with depression for many years and died by suicide at the age of 55. I can post all day long about brilliant people who are incredibly smart and yet in some areas of their lives are extremely wrong.
@@aerospacesystems8658 Sounds like you can prove God doesn't exist. Please tell how you know.
With so few gaps left to put god in, it seems they now try to go at it with a crowbar
underrated statement
Poetic, just like theists endless need for life/the universe to have a "meaning" or "purpose"
@@Paradoxonification jeez you sound so sadistic and also sad
@@juliusfishman7222
That's ok, you're welcome to project and betray yourself as an individual who pretends make-believe is concordant with objective reality.
Which is sad on a different more terrible level.
@@jrskp3677 lol okay, I think we both know who is actually sad. Good luck
After that debate, D’Souza is probably still in the same spot today mumbling incoherently and hitting his head against some object in confusion. Mental destruction by Matt.
Every time Matt Dillahunty speaks the response is always I don't want to grow up I want to play pretend every Sunday I get to go to church and pretend again
Coming from a 54 year old man who plays video games
@ceceroxy I'm 42 and I stop playing video games when I beat super Mario bros and no money printed out of it ...thanks to racism lead by God Believers. Children with dark skin are forced to grow up early helping mom with bills at 10 years old cuz some Christian cop shot and killed my father in the picture u see because right wing Christians think they are God...thank Jesus for Fent@nyl I love seeing homeless ₩Hite folks on every corner payback is beautiful
@@ceceroxy2227 ...Was there an insult there?
Or just airing out your Boomer status in thinking "playing videogames" is in any way negative?
I doubt Dinesh is a true believer. A lot of these religious debaters are also professional hucksters. If Dinesh’s books are any sign of his honesty, you can’t blame me for doubting he’s just an actor selling himself to the American right.
@@ceceroxy2227It’s a matter of perspective. Whats worse, playing video games at 54, or lying to kids and telling them “act right or you’re going to hell”?
dinesh: "what you are saying is..."
matt: i didnt say that at all
"Here, let me reasonably summarize your actual point" is too seldom their actual point.
Dinesh is Cathy Newman while Matt is Jordan Peterson.
@@EmperorTyrael no way it's Matt Jordan Peterson since Peterson is pure garbage who changes his position on who pays him the most
If you think dinesh was bad for strawmanning, you should check out Matts debate with David Robertson, it eventually descended to David responding to nothing than dishonest misrepresentations of what Matt actually said, David clearly already knew that interacting honestly would not serve him well.
Begging the question is an extremely popular tactic of his ilk. Along with appeal to fear and straw-man arguments, I'd say those are the three cardinal tenants of his debate style.
Love that D’Souza is speaking on behalf of god and morality while being a corrupt political contributor . On May 20, 2014, D'Souza pleaded guilty to one felony count of making illegal contributions in the names of others. On September 23, 2014, the court sentenced D'Souza to five years' probation, eight months in a halfway house (referred to as a "community confinement
just because we don't know doesn't mean god is a possible alternative
Wow. As an Indian, I'm quite ashamed.
Be at peace mate. You're not responsible for Dinesh.
Hi Mr Zombie, perhaps you might be ashamed of your common humanity but being of Indian origin has no bearing at all!.
We could claim that your comment is of a racist nature and as a simple statement that might be true but what really matters is whether or not that attitude would prejudice any working relationship with him!. Racism is one small thing, however widespread, racial prejudice is quite another.
Cheers, Richard.
Clown mentality. You’re only responsible for your individual self
One individual does not represent a whole people, no matter how well or poorly behaved. Dinesh is also an American - but, as a fellow countryman, he is not my voice
Your atheist ⚛️
How does anyone think Dinesh isn't just a bag of wind? Lol.
He isn’t just a big bag of wind; he’s a felonious big bag of wind.
Pile of shat is what comes to mind for me.
I don’t agree with Dinesh, but I like him. Why the ad hominem attacks?
@@Mostopinionatedmanofalltime why are you a milk toast limp dck?
@@Mostopinionatedmanofalltime what ad hominem?
It's not ad hominem to call a guy names. It is if we're in a structured debate, but since we're in a comment section and casual conversation, it's not ad hominem.
Dillahunty asked for evidence. Dinesh replies with - "We appear to be flung into the world." Good God, man.
This made my day
Note that deSouza doesn’t say that horses and bacteria are flung into the world. No religionist ever wonders about the origins of other species, their “purpose”, their life after death. Instead of inventing gods and collecting money to decorate shrines or line the pockets of preachers, I think religious folk should endeavour to understand consciousness and, more important, self-consciousness. If like the other animals we did not think about our own extinction, we would be fine not knowing our origin, our purpose, our destiny after death. Dennett has written a good book about Consciousness.
I'd argue that I wasn't "flung I to existing" I was pushed out of my female human mother's bottom and was also alive beforehand.
Which is also when my gender was observed before birth and RECORDED AT BIRTH due to the original observation in utero and upon delivery it was definitely confirmed and the written down to reflect the truth.
😅As were all of us minus the people born of cesarean birth diverted from the birthing canal. But, the rest does count for us all.
@@jrskp3677 Yup. Except for intersex cases, this describes the average birth. Moreover, the cells in the body will all reflect the sex chromosomes. So yes sex in this physical sense is determined by biology. I think we can easily allow that people experience gender differently. I suspect that there is a lot of fashionable uproar about the question today. I think there are people who are miserable in the sex they are born into, believe they would be happier if surgically and medically reassigned. There are no guarantees reassignment will bring happiness. Any surgery is traumatic: I think cost/benefit analysis called for. Also, in less wealthy or in more egalitarian societies, we must weigh the use of medical resources.
@@oldpossum57
You may not be aware of this and I'll inform you thusly;
You've adopted an apologist's style of arguing for a position where these things are excuses and using feelings as it's basis instead of simply taking the facts as fact.
Feelings do not dictate gender, biology does.
Sexuality is a biproduct of gender and is determined by chromosomes. And is done upon the eggs fertilization. Which is how IVF Doctors are able to give the parents the sex/gender child/children they desire. The fertilized eggs are tested and the findings recorded.
Humans are incapable of switching genders atall whatsoever in a purely biological manner naturally. If we were, feelings still would have ZERO effect on this.
The "sequential hermaphrodites" which are themselves able to make this transition do so whenever there's a lack in males of the species to produce viable offspring.
The largest and eldest female will begin to develop male characteristics and then are able to fertilize the eggs of the other females which will subsequently produce both male and female animals that can go on to continue to breed successfully.
Humans are not on this list.
These "intersex" cases aren't evidence of humans capabilities of this feat. And are abnormalities as per the dichotomy between male/female.
Using soft language to subvert this actual truth is not going to have the outcome desired.
Never in human history has a female human (one sexual reproductive organ possessor) ever actually impregnated another female human with her sperm.
Never in human history has a male human been impregnated by either a male or female as males lack thereof in the eggs and uterus where gestation occurs.
"Intersex" isn't another gender.
Unless a group of them collect together and breed successfully with each other producing viable offspring afterwards whom carry this as a dominant trait.
Then if speciation happens they'll be a different form of homosapiens like neanderthals/denisovans were as compared to homosapiens like us.
Because we're still primates since we never outgrown our parents clade taxonomically.
And we're apes due to this, and mammals, placental mammals, vertabrates and so on to eukaryote and such.🤔
It never ceases to amaze me how in 2023 at the age that he is that someone as smart as D'Souza is having to be educated on the difference between "not believing something is true" and "believing something isn't true".
Even after this distinction is explained, I'm regretfully not confident it will modify his future presentations one bit.
Well, it's unprepared people like this who provide endless opportunities for Matt to repeat this basic point to a new audience.
Dillahunty is far from an uneducated oaf. Hes articulate and thoughtful with the work that he does.
Eritrean formed from the oath to the well-read through diligent study and logical reasoning. Anyone can do this if they want to. He did it because he wanted to know that his beliefs were true and not false. Totally the opposite of Christians.
He is very uneducated
A. Where does the universe come from? And your first guess is an omnipotent being..
B. What purpose does our life have? Purpose is man-made ideology and there isn't an actual purpose to existence.
C. What happens to us after we die? Most likely the same thing that happened to us before we are born (non-existence of mind/body). We're organized matter that can process thoughts for a while and then we're not.
What D'Souza lacks in coherent argumentation he makes up for in unearned confidence and unmerited condescension.
lets not forget my man D'Souza was convicted of campaign finance fraud, and spent five years on probation.
On the battlefield that's known as bravado and leads to the death of combatants who lack knowledge, wisdom and skills needed to engage in battle.
Meaning he's untrained, untested, unarmed and basically cannon fodder in the open theatre 😅
He'd be at best, the whirling dervish leading the Van in a futile attempt at breaking the enemies lines and lists. Due to his unearned confidence.
Although these sorts of people do have their uses mainly as a distraction while the real strategy is playing out from the flanks and elsewhere while they're paying attention to the fanatical zealots sudden rush on the enemy encampment.
While the real warriors come with actual intelligence and skill make a sortie planned for the aftermath of that vanguards sudden strike😅
When I was born I knew the first thing I wanted to know was WTF? Dinesh is a legend in his own mind.
I remember one of the first things I wanted to know was "what's that?"
And then a monitor lizard bit me.
Silliness is your forte. You are a dim bulb trying to shed extra light on a white flare.
I can see how the temptation arises to anthropomorphise the biggest questions we face, but then I'm also aware that it's kinda coded into us as pattern-seeking mammals. No, we need to have good reasons for the things we believe.
Yes, or else there aren't any good reasons to believe.
It's really quite something to hear people argue without good credible evidence that supports those arguments as they're trying hard to demonstrate the truth of their position in lieu of the good reason being produced, that those arguments are goo ones and somehow lead to their own proposition in a circular fashion.
Circular reasoning leads to circular arguments that are evidently flawed initially before the proposed idea is even started from. Thanks to religion, this is somehow rational even though there's no way to rationalize it.
Paradoxically speaking it's nonsensical at best.😅
Again, nothing more than the Argument from Ignorance, and the God of the Gaps. The usual.
“God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance.......that's getting smaller and smaller and smaller as time moves on” -- Neil deGrasse Tyson (he said this is true if your claim for a god is “well, you can't explain how XXXX works, so God must have done it!”)
Just because someone hasn't been to the other side of the curtain (death) doesn't mean a damn thing else. It just means that.
Is there another side at all? There is no good evidence that there is.
@@machintelligenceThe other side so far is rip. Recycle In Pieces.
@@machintelligence
Houdini gave it a good shot. But didn't get his message through from the other side.
@@stephenolan5539 So either the curtain is impenetrable or there is nothing on the "other side."
@@machintelligence
I think he was the best shot.
But it doesn't prove anything.
It's as if Dinesh has never debated any of these things ever before.
Dinesh is not a clown.
He is the entire circus.
He sounds more arrogant than Matt.
Every like and subscription contributes to our future discussions. This full discussion can be found here: ruclips.net/video/yR_ueXuBiww/видео.html
He is a crazy Evangelical and Trump lover.
He say they dont know in front atheist but preach Christianity as truth
If you step on a slug where does it go? Is their life after death for slugs? A slug fairy at the bottom of the garden? I can’t say for sure that there isn’t, but we can say the slug fairy is just an arbitrary speculation amongst a near infinity of other such possible speculations and 1/X approaches zero as X approaches infinity.
In Zen Buddhism it's the old koan; "does a dog have a soul"?
so on countless occasions over the past 8 or 9 years that I've been watching and listening to Matt speak, debate, etc., I've heard him refer to himself asan "uneducated oaf", or something similar. I love that he's so humble...but he's seriously underselling himself. I have NEVER seen Matt be stumped by a question. I've rarely seen him have to stop and think for more than maybe 5 seconds before responding to something. I've seen him debate literally ALL of the top theist AND atheist scholars...and in my opinion, he has never "lost" a debate. Perhaps a few have ended in something of a draw...but never a loss on his part. He knows the Bible better than any theist (of the Abrahamic religions) that I've ever come across. No one who is able to win every debate with a multitude of famous scolars can be described as an "uneducated oaf". Also...this debate in its' entirety surprised me. I pretty much loathe Dinesh D'Souza. His documentaries are absolute garbage. Poisonous garbage. In one, he focuses on justifying American slavery...and also argues that it was right for native American land to have been stolen by European settlers, AND that it was great for America to literally STEAL Mexico, and acts like those who did so are heroes, because they gave half of Mexico back to the Mexicans (in case you didn't know, the southwestern United States used to be a part of Mexico). He even makes the case that most Mexicans are GRATEFUL that we stole half of their country. Anyway...he's a truly awful person...but I found him to be shockingly easy to watch in this debate. He was one of the most tolerable theist scholars I've ever seen in a debate. That surprised me. A LOT. Definitely a debate worth watching. Spoiler alert: despite D'Souza being tolerable to watch...he still loses the debate. Matt is unbeatable.
Dinesh: I don’t understand therefore God. Bad argument, convict!
Convict
To be convinced that God exists, we must first have the need for God. In other words, if we do not have the need for God, then we cannot be convinced that God exists.
Dinesh: 'I'm not saying that I have definitive proof that god exists' - no shit... And we're done.
Your regular reminder that Dinesh D'Souza claims to be against communism, but gets publicly owned on the regular.
DSouzas involvement with garbage docs like 2000 Mules just demonstrates his total lack of intellectual honesty.
“I’ve found proof the election was stolen! Here’s a map of Moscow Russia that I edited. This is proof that fraud took place in Gwinnett County.
Now I’m going to flip this same map of Moscow 90 degrees. This is now proof that election fraud took place in other places in the US.
Now here’s footage of people taking “just voted” selfies. Definitely election fraud.”
Yeah I don’t see why anyone would take anything he says seriously at this point. 😂
Fitting that his arguments for god are just as weak as his arguments for conspiracy theories though.
If a person claimed to talk to the dead, and could give me information that I knew, the dead person knower,and nobody else knew, that would be evidence of life after death…. it’s just that we don’t have anything like that.
How on earth can he say that we have no idea what happens to us after we die? We either rot or are cremated, we've observed that millions of times, how more clear can it be???
OMG...people.... just because something cannot be proven does not mean that it doesn't exist. For those of you who have a narrow-minded skeptical view of life after death, think again ...the world we currently live in, and what comes after is bigger than we all know... you can sit here and debate the issue till the cows come home. Dinesh D'Souza has a logical and open-minded view on the subject I can't say the same for any of you..
Why would you post that? Almost nobody argues god doesn't exist because one can't be proven. Instead, you have to decide if you value truth. If so, you must not believe unknowns or falsehoods. Well all ideas start unknown. It's only by evidence that they "graduate" to knowns. We don't have evidence of gods.
Well that's basically it: without a good reason to think a god actually exists, we shouldn't believe in them. Does that mean they definitely don't exist? No. It just means we definitely shouldn't believe in them unless we have good reason to (and if truth is our goal, "good reason" means we require evidence).
Dsouza is a pardoned and convicted felon who was pardoned by the guy who is possibly about to be a convicted felon himself, so why are we giving Dsouza any credibility?
Krausse was fired from his job for sexual allegations. Travis Pangburn was accused of not paying the people back who bought tickets to his cancelled shows by Sam Harris, pretty sure there are a billion other atheists who have either gone to prison, or been accused of crime.
@@gsp3428 "...there are a billion other atheists who have either gone to prison,..."
Atheists are the smallest community of our prison system here in the U.S., the religious- minded dominates that landscape and more importantly, adherents of Islam are on the rise in that very system.
Much as I dislike D'Souza, this is technically a non sequitur.
@@wet-read Not really. It's straight up asking "Why are we treating a known fraud and convicted felon as a trustworthy source on anything?"
Granted, you're right, that technically doesn't mean DD is gonne be a liar or fraud in This Specific Context. But if my opponent in a debate was "Liar McFraud: Famous Conman" with a history of fraud and misinformation and willfully lying to get his way, that's gonna impact my opinion of the trustworthiness of my opponent.
"I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it." M. Twain
The idea that no one has been to the other side of the curtain and been able to report back implies that there is another side to the curtain, and we can’t even say that
Much less know if something is there.
Curtain implies a Kurt?
Exactly what I was thinking. It's like saying "we don't know what words are written on the other side of this sheet of paper", when the other side could very well be entirely blank.
Curtain the box?
Cat in the box
D'Souza is the master of the "We don't know this bit of information, therefore God" argument, also known as the "God of the gaps" theory. He's also really good at deflection and misdirection. I remember a debate he was in once where someone from the audience asked something along the lines of, "Don't you think you would have different beliefs if you had been born in some other part of the world?" to which he answered, essentially, "Well, there are 17 religions in India where I'm from and I ended up a Christian" which of course did not answer the question. Religious people don't like really thinking about that question because it really is a nail in the "what we believe is the absolute truth!" coffin. How can there be a universal truth if what you believe to be the truth is so dependent on where you were born and who raised you?
Did D'Souza ever answer the question?
Dinesh D-Souza who was convicted of misusing campaign funding is who we should believe about God? Someone who can't even be honest in this realm, claims to know what happens in a God-based realm. Riiiight.
Watching this debate, it's easy to see why Dinesh has been confused about so many things during his life: he's just not very bright.
If God isn’t real he couldn’t have been at the Holocaust , but if God is real he was at the Holocaust but did nothing.
God of the gaps 4.0 d'Souza
We have no idea if these are the most important questions in human history.
This was over when He answered truthfully,
"I'll try"
Everything else is gibberish 😅
I honestly think that people like Dinesh MUST have realised by now, having had to think more about these questions than many people and to have responses from people like Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens and now Matt Dillahunty, that they don’t have a good basis for thinking what they think. But they can’t ever admit that because this is their livelihood.
Matt Dillahunty, listening to you is a privilege, Sir. Rationality is at its higher level.
I appreciated the tone of this conversation. Thx!
Dinesh doesn't know what he knows
Howdy.
What is the meaning of life ? So phrased difficult to answer.
I would split the question into three subquestions.
1. What is life ?
2. What does it mean to be alive ?
3. What is the purpose of life ?
My answers.
1. The capability of amino acids to replicate.
2. To be aware.
3. To be humane.
Regards.
0:29 "Flung into the world". Oh, boy...this is going to be good!
Watch the way D’Souza maneuvers in this conversation. He pushes Matt to clarify his position - this gives the audience the impression that he’s trying to get to the “truth” of what’s being said. Then he bides his time, looking for the right moment to obfuscate. He works hard to present a “sincere” front, batting the discussion back and forth, all while trying to direct the framing of the discussion into territory that confuses the audience. Once he can accomplish his that, then he knows he can dupe some audience members with one of his carefully crafted talking points that are intentionally designed to mislead by duplicitously blurring distinctions. Even though he’s an incredibly well-practiced liar, he’s struggling to find his opening with Matt, who is quite good at anticipating where D’Souza is trying to take the conversation. Matt is also struggling a bit, only because he doesn’t usually have to debate someone so professionally disingenuous. Nevertheless, the conversation will be a win for Dinesh. There are inevitably always going to be enough debate attendees who aren’t mentally equipped enough to follow Matt’s clear line of reasoning and who will fall for some of Dinesh’s tricks. They’re the ones who will pick up a copy of Dinesh’s latest joke of a book that he’s no doubt selling in the room next to the auditorium.
Why even argue with someone who believes in an invisible man that can’t even proof that exists.
In other words Dinesh doesn't have a good reason, therefore let's pretend a god since we don't know..... terrible
Hi Gruelich Kulsheim9445, there is nothing ever 'wrong' with a hypothetical proposition based on imagination or speculation the errors only kick in when the additional assertion of truth is used to enforce fallacious conclusions.
As long as the proper rigorous investigation and testing of the hypothesis is conducted in an appropriate logical and consistent manner if and when some empirical evidence emerges that refutes the hypothesis it may continue to be useful as a working appliance without having to be true.
My entire mental map and philosophy is based on some fundamental axioms, like 'there is a physical existential reality' of which I have no knowledge or certainty, what it gives me is access to a mental toolbox that allows me to predict the outcome from joining two pieces of wood with the appropriate screws and end up with a suitable shelf to test my coffee mug on. This leave me as an adherent of utilitarianism, all I need is to understand the differences between what appears to work and what does not!, as far as I 'know' all of this could just be my imagination or al of it simply a figment of yours, I do not know and do not need to 'know' the 'truth', nor do I feel the need to 'believe' anything..
Cheers, Richard.
@@richardharvey1732 I commented on the specific position explained by Dinesh. What rigorous investigation and testing do you think Dinesh has done or has the ability to do that proves the point he was trying, IMO, failing, to make? How does one go about testing the "god" hypothesis which is by all accounts that I know of untestable? And I didn't hear, nor have I ever heard, Dinesh ever describe any testing of his hypothesis but rather just his conclusion that the best reason to believe in "his" god is because we don't know.... That should give everyone pause. The idea that we should believe a proposition to be true, conform with reality, and act on that proposition as though it were true, because we don't have any good reason or way to know at this time...... I submit is a bad method for determining what reality is.
@@gruelichkulsheim9445 Hi Gruelich Kulsheim, thank you very much for taking the time to respond to my comments, when I post mine I have no idea who might read them and cannot really expect any sort of response, however ones like yours help to make it worthwhile!.
I am always aware every time that to avoid going to extreme lengths and becoming even more tedious I have to keep on leaving out all sorts of bits that might be important, the entire chain of coherent logical progression involves all sorts of relevant side chains.
One book that I read decades ago was written with such exquisite attention to every little detail that apart from the sense of respect, nay awe that I felt I knew then that for me such effort is beyond me, I just don't have that sort of mind, much more the grasshopper type. That author was of course Karl Popper, his 'Logic of scientific discovery' completely changed my life.
I knew then as I know now that such careful methodical effort is always rewarded and any omissions or failures compromise the results.
From then on I resolved to apply that methodology to anything that I feel matters to me but at the same time I have always been aware that much of the time in haste or in hope attempt short-cuts because I resent the time and effort required to think it through properly!. Just like everybody else I get away with it usually because we do not live in a hostile environment, I do not have to know exactly why my tea tastes better when the water boiled, knowledge confers no power!.
Much more recently having been introduced to the concept of cognitive delusion I now see that all of us share similar capacities for rational thought and sheer speculation, the main difference being the time-lines, anyone can latch on the the latest popular myth and act without thought, this is why so many myths pervade our culture, the ability to respond quickly being so much more popular than the ability to get anything right.
Cheers, Richard.
And here I thought Dinesh was a logical and rational person 🙄
They are cardinal questions, but in the day-to-day OBVIOUSLY from the entirety of human history they don't ACTUALLY matter all that much. Nobody has risen in their deathbed going "But I never found out where the universe came from. Therefore my life is nothing." Love to see DD get a good shellacking. And brown shoes with black-n-white socks, DD? Please. Who dresses you--Jill Biden's stylist?
Well Dinesh, I'm still an atheist. Nice try though. Didn't Christopher Hitchens blast you into irrelevance 15 years ago?
That was a classic. Dinesh didn't deserve to sit on the same stage as Hitch.
Who care if some dumbass remains an atheist despite all reason? You have no excuse for your intellectual laziness and no arguments or evidence for your atheist position.
"We don't know...so God"
Argument from ignorance fallacy, always.🤦🏻
I agree with Dinesh on one point. I don’t know if God exists. I also don’t know if the tooth fairy exists, but unlike Dinesh i don’t believe in either one until there is decent evidence to do so.
Dinesh, whether knowingly or not, gave a great statement about agnosticism.
“There is a difference between belief and knowledge”….well yes, which is why when it comes to religion, EVERYONE is agnostic, it’s the theism part that people can’t wrap their heads around.
Just like William Lane Craig, speaks well, confident, but highly irrational and illogical. Humans can be fascinating.
I am not a Christian, but I find William Craig very logical.
@@PeterS123101 For example, the Kalam Argument is not sound. I am sure you find him intelligent and well spoken but he often makes huge logical blunders.
He said something I recall about lowering his standards of evidence.
@@PeterS123101
Paraphrased: "Even if there is evidence to the contrary, I will believe wholeheartedly." -WLC.
He also uses similar ambiguous terms to sneak in equivocations, a logical fallacy. He argues often from incredulity, a logical fallacy. He tries to reconstruct einsteinian relativity to suit his fantasy of (absolute god-)time.
He is not logical. He is a very well spoken grifter, who is good at pretending to be logical.
Remember when D'Souza went to prison for campaign finance violations when he got other people to donate money on his behalf to skirt the rules of donation limits
"We're flung . . . "
Sometimes poetic language is OK, but I think, since a literal God is the topic, I note Dinesh is assuming a flnger before getting past his third word.
Indeed.
Law of causality proves God instantly. Every effect has a cause and as the universe has a cause too, it means it is created, which means has a beginning. Everything that begins is created and not uncreated. Only intelligent beings can create. Therefore if everything that is created has a beginning, and so it is, it is logical to understand that an infinite chain of causation would mean nothing would exist, but since a lot of things exist, we have a mandatory uncreated cause, which everyone understands to be God. CHRIST IS KING.
That's good but difficult to grasp how God began in the first place
@@anthonym3351 God did not began, He always existed.
If something exists, then it is part of nature, i.e. natural.
By definition, then, to describe something as "supernatural" is to concede that it does not exist.
I think that religious claims about the supernatural often presuppose the truth of their claims. For instance, Christians claim that their god created nature and thus the anything beyond that specific creation is supernatural, but you have to accept their claim about that creation to accept that the supernatural could exist in the first place.
You claim that something cannot exist outside of nature. A claim requires evidence. Just claiming it because you cannot "envisage" it is not an argument.
Being able to exist outside of the natural could still comprise being able to have an effect on the natural.
BTW, I am not a theist and I also do not believe in anything supernatural. I just don't claim to *know* that there *cannot* exist something supernatural.
@@landsgevaer, I guess that depends on definitions. "Nature" simply means "the way something is". Theists are happy to talk about "god's nature" and that really is what nature is. We've morphed the meaning a bit these days but that's the derivation, so when we talk about "nature" we are talking about the way the world is, the way the universe is, the way the cosmos is, the way existence is. In order to distinguish between natural and supernatural, you need to place some sort of limit on what nature is. Theists presuppose that that limit is defined by the creation of their god(s). Without that presupposition, why should there be any distinction made? If there is something more that we don't know about that violates what we understand to be the laws of nature then, without that presupposition, it is more appropriate to expand our notion of nature to encompass it rather than smack the label "supernatutal" on it and consider it distinct. That is how I interpret the OP and that is something that I've thought myself in the past. Can you justify a distinction without the presupposition that nature is something created by a god?
@@wunnell It definitely is a semantic issue to a large extent.
By the natural I mean everything that phenomenalizes, that is reprodicibly known to exist based on our senses (not a native speaker here, there may be more exact wording). There may be stuff that exists but is not apparent to us. A parallel universe with different physical laws could exist. I would call that supernatural (until it were to be demonstrated). It might even have an effect on our universe, even without being otherwise apparent. Maybe it triggered the origin of our universe. Another example could be consciousness (as in the hard problem of consciousness, not as in responsiveness). Currently, that seems to be arguably a supernatural phenomenon to me, since you cannot demonstrate it to exist to someone else (so far). I don't believe in deities, so don't ask me to defend that. But most importantly, even if we cannot agree on any example of something supernatural, then still that is no evidence that it doesn't exist. (Although it is a reason to not include it in our scientific theories, for sure.)
I also think the supernatural, as a term, is fluid. There may be stuff that we consider supernatural now, that may appear to us and become natural later. Like dragons maybe, if they should ever be found to exist in the real world (unlikely, sure).
Regarding "justifying" the distinction. I was arguing against a claim, the claim that you can know that something supernatural *cannot* exist. I asked for evidence. I am not claiming that something supernatural must exist, merely that it can be conceived to exist. I don't think that requires justification: "it might be the case but I don't know" should be the default until evidence to a different position emerges.
@@landsgevaer, I asked you to justify a distinction between natural and supernatural without presupposing that nature was created and you did. We are all entitled to your own opinion, of course, but I don't really accept what you proposed. You are basically saying that whether or not something is natural or supernatural depends on our understanding of it. You're basically saying that whether something is natural or supernatural is not a property of the thing itself but of us. This is not the first time I've heard this and it's not an idea I can get behind. It's certainly not what theists mean when they talk about the supernatural. It's like saying that bacteria used to be supernatural but now they're natural. Maybe you're OK with that but I'm not. To my mind, that's not really a useful distinction because it doesn't tell us anything about the thing itself.
Dinesh D'Souza is using a different definition of "belief", or at least a different context, and that's not the intent of the Bible. "Belief", as the Bible puts it, seems to have multiple facets to it, one of which is the most common definition of "relational trust", of which he would have a type of relationship with his brother to trust him and therefore the term "belief" would be correct even though he does know his brother, but there are several more definitions which apply in their respective areas, another being in reference to "hope", and there's an analogy to clarify what context this is:
If a person is failing at in math and will fail the year unless he passes a certain math test, he may suffer from a great deal of anxiety. However, due to this anxiety, he finds a tutor to teach him math more clearly. As he's learning, he finally *understands* a particular concept that the tutor is trying to convey. His mind is able to connect the dots until he finally says "I understand it! I understand it!". His heart and mind are flooded with *hope,* and his strength returns to him. As you can see, this "hope" is not just ignorant belief, *it is based on knowledge.*
There's another definition that pertains to "Faith". It's the same definition that can be found In The Matrix films 🔴🔵. "Neo" becoming "The One" is not about blind believing, It's about *separating The illusion of the world of the Matrix 🔵with that of the real world 🔴.*
The blue pill represents *the surface appearance 🔵.* Surface appearances are not necessarily in themselves "false observations" because can even be true. However, these observations *are not ULTIMATELY true,* because in order to receive "ultimate truth", it requires moral excellence with each individual person, to make a freewill choice 🔴🔵 to observe the full spectrum of truth, to not use half truths, and to also place truth in its proper order. If any of these things are out of place, it leads to a false perception 🔵.
However, the red pill 🔴 *(Faith)* Is the ability to have insight to see a situation for what it truly is 🔴, rather than how it merely appears 🔵.
Example:
1. Faith is believing without evidence 🔵
2. Faith is having insights to understand and recognize the underlying hidden truth 🔴
The first view of faith categorizes faith this way because it doesn't understand faith and cannot relate with it because it only understands material things. However, The other type of person uses a different set of eyes to understand underlying truths, even truths that cannot be physically seen, of which a person, through Revelation, breaks the illusion of the surface appearance, ultimately finding God.
It's not based on "blind belief", It's based *on an understanding of something.* It's based on knowledge, on Revelation.
When Neo broke the illusion in the hallway scene and saw the Matrix code on the walls, This wasn't blind belief, he *knew* it, and not only is this example "knowing", It portrays the highest level of "knowing" anything, to know, that you know, that you know. It was impossible for Neo to be deceived, because he saw it precisely for what it was, and this is what gave him power over Agent Smith.
That's how faith works. This is the true definition.
However, either a believer has to conceal this aspect from the unbeliever because the unbeliever cannot relate with it to where the believer has to use more conservative language that the unbeliever will accept, or a believer who observes other believers defining "faith" this way Also may not have an understanding faith and therefore define faith this way as well by copying other people.
Keep an eye on believers that are not like other believers. Keep an eye on believers who are unique, whose position or grounding as a Christian is not dependent on other Christians. Whoever a person chooses to listen to, they will gain that person's strengths *and weaknesses,* but if a person chooses to seek God for himself alone, then he will break those limitations set on his mind by the reasoning of the person he is mimicking.
This is why each person needs to find God for himself, and that includes the atheist or unbeliever. If they wait for the Christian to give him an answer, They might receive the answer, or they might not, but they will also receive the limitations of the mindset of a person they listen to, unless they make the choice themselves to pursue God.
This is why if it is the Christian's fault for not informing the atheist, it's also the atheist's fault, because his very request for the Christian to answer his question *assumes The Christian has taken the initiative upon himself to find the answer on behalf of the atheist.* Therefore, by the atheist's very request, he is actually *legitimizing that pursuit.* It therefore follows that the atheist should become the very person he's asking the Christian to be on his behalf. This means that if the atheist does not receive the answer from another Christian and wishes to blame the Christian, note that it would be the atheist's fault above Christian's, because the atheist himself has legitimized that pursuit for himself, but attempts to place blame on someone else even though he should become that very person.
This is not about shifting blame at all. This is about a humble way of thinking to allow oneself to see. Sometimes we don't allow ourselves to go further because we do not want to look at ourselves outside of the self-image we have constructed in our minds, and the path to God also involved self-reflection to find out who oneself truly is, and what they are doing to sabotage their own success in finding God.
Dillahunty has an excellent argument and can articulate it so clearly, it is impressive.
Having been on a jury, the burden of proof rests on the prosecution, not the defendant. Not being able to prove the case against the defendant is because the prosecution didn't prove without a reasonable doubt that the defendant was actually guilty. Supernatural claims require extraordinary evidence, which of course holds true for religion and jury trials as well.
I remember when late Christopher Hitchens obliterated him 10-15 years ago, you can find the debate on YT. he must have flattest character arc if he was a character in a story. No evolution in thought... dead flat 😂
Dinesh is grasping at the straws....and the first 3 questions he posed are directly from Hindu Vedanta...which he must have read when he was in India. He has nothing new to add. I like Matt because he is clear, rational and very well articulated
Interestingly enough, D'Souza was actually holding to skepticism to a greater extent than Matt when he attempted to differentiate between direct and indirect experience/interaction with evidence. And Matt almost made fun of him for holding that skepticism. That was unexpected.
D'Souza could be suffering a delusion and actually not have a brother.
There's no direct/indirect interaction with evidence. There is empirical evidence and other evidence.
When evidence (empirical or otherwise) meets its burden of proof, then the thing or concept is proven until the evidence fails to continue meeting that burden.
To remain skeptical about the thing or concept because of the type of evidence (drawing a distinction between empirical v. other types of evidence) when the burden of proof is met is just irrational.
Hi Colas Falon6470, one of the identifying characteristics of the cognitive delusional is the ability to carry two or more entirely contradictory concept in the same mind, this now known as cognitive dissonance.
The fundamental issues here is that in all cases cognitive delusions are beyond debate or critical examination thus the carrier will never be aware of the contradictions.
Toward the end of the video the host speaks of the distinction between 'knowing' and 'belief' here he entirely fails to grasp the nettle part of which that stings the most is that none of us ever 'know' anything is 'true', fortunately that does not preclude knowledge altogether because based on simple empirical evidence we can know for absolute certainty the particular propositions are false!. As our lives progress along the time line of experience we become increasingly familiar with events and circumstances that seem to be entirely reliable and predictable, the fact that we may never know exactly how and why that happens does not affect their reality.
By now it should be clear that as far as I am concerned there is far more going on in the world around me than I will ever know or understand luckily its continued functions do not depend on me or on some imaginary deity.
Cheers, Richard.
@@adamchristensen8566
Some people have standards of proof that are so low as to be nonexistent.
Their evidence does not meet any reasonable standard.
@@stephenolan5539 This is true. In William Lane Craig's estimation the fact that something is appealing to the listener is reason enough to lower the burden 😂.
It’s unfortunate that Dinesh didn’t finish laying out his argument. The direction it seemed to be headed in is that because science can’t (currently) answer his “big 3” questions that that is reason enough to posit the existence of God. If that is indeed where he was headed, that’s just the “god of gaps” argument all over again.
Theists have no good argument.
Except you are lying. You cannot defeat anything Dr Craig argues. Nobody can.
Atheists have no evidence. Just lies and double-standards.
I keep on thinking, oh come on now. Surely you've got something going here, some secret weapon. Surely you can't be that credulous or that mendacious.
But I've been waiting for fifty years now, and I'm beginning to wonder if they have anything at all. I mean ANYTHING. And there's nothing.
Even a weak argument, if it were true, could eventually be developed into something compelling, by carefully collecting and validating the evidence, using clear reason, showing your work, being replicated by independent labs, that sort of thing.
But there isn't even a weak argument. There's nothing at all. Indeed, as you say, it seems that theists have no good argument. Not even close.
And they know, don't they?
claims are not evidence
@@gsp3428 oh their is plenty of evidence that theists have no good arguments.
"We have no answer to..." OK, so let's agree with Dinesh on this one point. We don't know, so we will not take simple guesses. So why then guess that there must be a God, and that the God in one of 1,000s that man has guessed at for centuries.
One thing I think we can all agree we weren't flung into this universe to do was commit felonies. Dinesh, comment?
wrong. Atheists have no moral reference point to say that a felony is something wrong.
Dinesh is full of ****. After he veers the discussion wildly off course, he suddenly brings up trans people to make an argument that has nothing to do with what he was discussing, then accused Matt of changing the subject! 😂
What a dolt.
My basic question to any theist would be (assuming what ever god you think exists, actually exists) what do you think makes the god you believe in worthy of your reverence?
Do you worship it to avoid a punishment if you don't (what punishment do you find the most frightening)
Do you worship it to get a reward if you do (what reward do you think you will get)
Do you worship because it can do things that you cannot (what do you think is god's most impressive attribute)
What do you think god gets out of the deal, (what do you have to offer an all knowing all powerful being would want or need from you that you think will enough to keep it interested in keeping you sentient and happy for eternity)
Interesting perspective.
@@anthonymorris5084 The whole "does it doesn't it" argument is a total dead end since neither side has anything close to evidence, but exploring the attributes their own understanding of god and why they think a god doing what a god can do without effort or learning is something to revere quickly leads to some rather disturbing conclusions (or at least it has for any theist I have managed to answer these very very basic questions) I am always hopeful that a theist can present a better version of god than has been presented to me so far.
@@davebrown6552 Ya, it's fascinating because all of these Gods are psychopathic serial killers. They all exhibit infantile, hypocritical and violent behavior. They exhibit the worst of humanity within themselves. I'm an anti theist and from what I've been seeing, there aren't any Gods that I would even hope to exist. Even the human justice system is superior to this supposed all knowing being.
"We're flung into the world" 🤦🏿♂️
just because you imagine a creator DOES NOT MAKE HIM REAL.... holly shit
The question "why are we here"/what purpose do we have is not exclusive to a universe where a deity exists. It could be that we have that question and there is no answer that's "universal"
The reason why so many believe in God is because it conceivably represents the *best option available.* Modern science offers only a particle-based, deterministic type of existence void of any meaning or purpose to which there is no hope for your continued existence upon physical death. Theism offers you "continued existence" via an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, and omnipresent God who considers you of the highest importance.
... So, theists have two options:
*(1)* Commit to a scientific understanding of our existence that's constantly changing from a single universe to a multiverse, to many worlds, to branes, to simulations, to pocket universes, or to some other "new theory" that still results in a finite, purposeless existence.
*(2)* Stick with the highest possible level of conceivability (God) that holds the promise of eternal life emersed in unimaginable love.
*Summary:* It is *logical* that if nobody has an incontrovertible answer to the "mystery of existence," then to align oneself to the highest conceivable construct to ever emerge is a _smart move._
Making something up in order to assuage one's discomfort is never "the best option available." And the "smart move" is to withhold judgment while continuing to investigate.
@@ctpaul1261 *"Making something up in order to assuage one's discomfort is never "the best option available."*
... Something that represents the *highest possible level of conceivability* is not the same as "making something up." The construct of God that theism presents cannot be supplanted by any other construct. Theism was the first to produce an unsurpassable construct.
You might note that science's "Multiverse" is like "God lite:" All the trappings of theism but without the deity! When science starts tossing out theories involving an infinite stream of infinitely existing, infinitely wide universes to where an infinite number of "you's" and "me's" are populating said universes while executing all possible outcomes to all possible situations is not that much different than theism, wouldn't you agree?
*"And the "smart move" is to withhold judgment while continuing to investigate."*
... Someone who takes that approach runs the risk of aimlessly walking through life without having any platform of understanding. When data is limited, it is logical to align oneself with the very best until something can come along to replace it.
We don't "know" which baseball team will win the MLB World Series, but we can all hold a "belief" on who we "think" will win.
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC "The reason why so many believe in Santa is because it conceivably represents the best option available. Modern science offers only a particle-based, deterministic type of existence void of any magic presents. Santa offers you presents via a jolly St Nick who considers you of the highest importance with all the other good little boys and girls."
Are you convinced Santa is real now because Santa being real means you get presents?
1) Scientific understanding improves. It doesn't arbitrarily change. Would you like to improve your knowledge, or stagnate?
2) So, do you then pick your religion based on the nicest God, or the meanest God? After all, some of them will send you to Hell if you don't obey them. Whereas other Gods don't do that. Now what?
"Summary: It is logical that if nobody has an incontrovertible answer to the "mystery of existence," then to align oneself to the highest conceivable construct to ever emerge is a smart move."
This is Pascal's Wager, and has many refutations. I provided one above.
Here's the thing about meaning, though. We give ourselves meaning. We matter to each other. That's enough :)
"...because it (gods) conceivably represents the best option available". This is a very bold statement.
The god explanation is a really poor one and maybe one of the worst options. Even if "taking the best optional available" was a sound means of epistemology, which it definitely is not, the god story is one of the weakest options. I'll take Universe has always existed, string theory, multi-dimensions, quantum fluctuations, etc. as stronger options any day.
But the only sound option is to refrain from believing in any of them until evidence is sufficient to warrant belief.
@@brutusmaximumus *""...because it (gods) conceivably represents the best option available". This is a very bold statement. "*
... Yes, it is. Sports motto: _"Go big or go home!"_ Theism's motto, _"Go biggest or go home!"_
*"The god explanation is a really poor one and maybe one of the worst options"*
... What other construct can supplant an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving, ubiquitous construct? Will you share that with me, please?
*"I'll take Universe has always existed, string theory, multi-dimensions, quantum fluctuations, etc. as stronger options any day."*
... Science is not far from theism in that they both posit something with an *"infinite origin:* an _always-existing_ God and an _always-existing_ Multiverse. Both violate the "2nd law of Existence" and therefore cannot exist. But since you believe the Multiverse to be the "stronger option," then maybe you can answer this question: *_"How can something exist without coming into existence?"_*
Note that *_"It just does!"_* is an unacceptable answer, ... unless you are willing to admit that you think like a theist.
*"But the only sound option is to refrain from believing in any of them until evidence is sufficient to warrant belief."*
... You and so many others have already moved your chips to the center of the table betting on the Multiverse. You simply don't want to admit it.
A religious person will never manage to back Matt in a corner !
We are not "flung" into the universe. Like any other animal, we are born. Like every animal, we have the same questions. Of course, for what we know, other species don't ask these questions. Many in our own species don't ask them. That doesn't presuppose any answers (much less likeable answers) to them.
The simplest answer is that the cumulative weight of the many good arguments for God is quite compelling: God is the best explanation for a number of things we know and observe: Objective moral values and duties, the universe coming into existence from nothing, fine-tuning of the universe, fundamental constants, etc.
Those aren't arguments. Those are just things you assume A) are true, and I would argue most of them, and B) that no other explanation than a sky daddy can provide them.
"Values" are SUBJECTIVE BY DEFINITION dear and can we use *ANY* "God" as the basis for this "objective" moral standard you speak of.?? Or just the SPECIFIC SUBJECTIVE invisible being *YOU* determined to be the "correct" one out of the many thousands man has preposed.
If its the latter then in actuality its *YOU* and YOUR SUBJECTIVE OPINION that is determining morality dear. if its the former, then asserting objectivity to any moral claim based upon a "God" becomes a completely vacuous useless concept 👍
The claim that theistic morality is somehow superior because its "objective" is ridiculous. Theists are merely substituting their own subjective moral standards with the morals standards of the god they subjectively determine represents the "correct objective" morality. 🙄
The only ones who say the universe "came into existence from nothing" are theists dear. They think their imaginary friend just "magiced " the universe out of nothing. 😂😂😂😂
5:26 And Matt wins the debate. Wishing something to be true without good evidence is NOT a way ANYONE goes about the entire rest of their lives...
Dinesh forgets that his list of three unanswerable questions used to be MUCH, much longer.