Eric : I’m here to prove why there is a soul. Matt : I’m here to prove why I don’t know if there’s a soul. What was the whole point of this debate??? Dilahunty basically came with a fly swatter and Eric with evidence. I’m smh reading these comments. Eric won this debate hands down. Did Dilahunty even state what it would take to convince him that there is a soul? If he didn’t, how would he know that his expectations haven’t already been met?? The audience deserved better than Matt’s argument. That was a waste of time. Eric took the W on this one. “My argument is that I don’t know” in essence 😂😂😂 and people actually clapped for that 😂😂 have mercy.
Dillahunty correctly left the burden of proof where it belonged: on the side making supernatural claims. He was very restrained and kept the higher ground by being much more relaxed and polite. Hernandez was rude and obnoxious, frequently interrupting with fallacies and unfounded assertions. Don't mistake bad manners and desperate aggression for "winning".
@@mdg4 Socrates and Plato lived literally thousands of years ago. We can't hold them to the same standard as we do modern people with access to the internet.
@@mdg4 lol true ppl love to suck off socrates and Plato. Most of their ideas about science were dumb as shit just because they didn’t have many empirical methods to study it.
@@ricasiogaming7873 That is ridiculous. We had people back then calculating the circumference of the Earth to near precision, developing atomic models and theory, theorizing the eternality of the universe, etc. These men were often great geniuses. Just because they lived long ago does NOT discredit their thoughts on whole.
@@EricHernandez You said at least twice that you can know something without evidence or reason (or maybe it was prior to evidence or reason, I forget the exact words). You began with the existence of a soul as a presupposition, and because it is presupposed to exist, that’s how you know it exists. There is a soul because there is a soul. Correct me if I’m wrong here because I really wanted you to have at least some compelling arguments for me to sit with. I still have 25 minutes left so maybe they are coming, and if they do I’ll happily amend this comment.
Wow, Eric did a really poor job in this debate. Seeing that he still thinks his 7 "arguments" are good and that Matt supposedly "never actually addressed" them (o_O), here's a quick summary/takedown: 1. Argument from identity - a belief or thought is not a region of the brain, it is an abstract concept represented and contained in a region of the brain - probably too ridiculous for Matt to even bother addressing (if he didn't) 2. Irreducibility of consciousness - Matt already talked about consciousness being an emergent property of the brain, like water being wet when a single molecule isn't; Eric presupposes that a collection of particles can't possibly contain a belief, with absolutely no justification, and yes, it can be said to be a fallacy of composition 3. Conscious states have intentionality - yes, a group of neurons can record/represent (internally) the concept of the number 7; again, Eric asserting that they can't, without any justification whatsoever 4. Unified visual field - yet another assertion ex ano: "there is no region of the brain that puts the picture back together" - I would say that there is, therefore aggregates can have a unified visual field 5. Indivisibility of personhood - Matt already mentioned split brain cases, which Eric never responded to 6. Personal identity through change - Matt already addressed this too, it depends what we label as same - the car can be said to be the same ("my car") even if replacing parts, and one can arguably become a different person over time; also see the "ship of Theseus" thought experiment 7. Argument from free will - Eric hasn't really demonstrated that he (or anybody) has absolute free will, and I doubt that he can; Matt talked extensively about this topic Moreover, Matt basically demolishes all of Eric's arguments in one shot from 39:55 to 40:38 - that is the crux of the matter. And yes, Eric kept repeating the "begging the question" claim ad nauseam towards the end, apparently failing to understand almost anything that Matt said, and probably constructing some bizarre strawman in his head. He seems incapable of understanding that he's wrong, so it's probably useless to press on.
What exactly is this "begging the question" thing? I'm still a bit fuzzy about that and the only time I hear that come back is when a creationist is out of ammo.
Check out en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question - basically it's assuming the conclusion of an argument and using it (often implicitly or in a hidden way) to support the argument, which Matt didn't do. It's a type of circular reasoning. One example would be: "the Bible is true, because it says so in the Bible". I think the name of this fallacy is quite confusing, because many people use the same words to mean raising or inviting a question (also see "modern usage" on the wikipedia page).
i guess all of us that notice Eric doesn't understand begging the question, are having a mass hallucination of ignorance lol.. it can't be that HE is actually incorrect lol
Eric: “This demonstrates why there must be some form of free will.” Matt: *Demonstrates this is false by providing an example of something that doesn’t have free will that would respond in the same way* Eric: “That’s begging the question.”
But I think that was the point. Matt believes in compatiblism which is another form of determinism. Matt then used an example of a computer that was programmed (which would be determinism) to prove no free will. That was Eric’s point. Either we have freedom of will and choice, or we don’t.
@@rangersNHL No he didn't say that as if that proves there is no free will, because it doesn't. It just demonstrates that something could respond as if it had free will, even if it didn't.
@@MarxistKnight@MarxistKnight All it proves is that material things have no free will because we know programs are deterministically created to respond some presets or pick from a series of responses for each preset digital event that occurs. It in no way simulates the actual way free will would function. Which is thousands of choices intent can drive depending on context interacting with the unified personhood and complex desire, compassion, reason, imagination, will, language, animative of a body, memory e.t.c.
When you keep saying “begging the question” and your debate opponent has to define “begging the question” for you. Then perhaps you should stop using it.
@@EricHernandez Eric you use as an argument that we can't find the color red when you open up the brain so it has to be metaphysical. If that is the case how do you explain this research: ruclips.net/video/AgbeGFYluEA/видео.html (Video by Vsauce in his mind field series) They seem to be close to being able to extract an image that someone has in his head using machine learning and neuroimaging of the brain.
Chris Clark Name calling doesn’t help any stance, it does make you look like a bully. If you wish to explain to Eric why he refused to acknowledge the fallacies he was employing, that would be great, but attacking the man is certainly not going to sway their/ other’s opinions, and will in fact make them combative in response toward yours/ people who share certain opinions you hold, therefore you hurt your own position by slinging mud at others.
It's just tragic to see this extreme case of the Dunning-Kruger effect where Eric thinks he knows something about logical fallacies but commits them more or less constantly. And most of his syllogisms were just sad and painful to watch. But the worst part of it all is Eric's desperate intellectual death spasms in this comment section. Please man, have some dignity!
sorry Eric , but you are a poor debater. You frequently look away when Matt is talking to you, .. you put words in Matt's mouth , and frequently interrupt. You are shuffling through papers as if looking for more ammunition. I have used your example to teach my year 9's what not do in a debate. I suggest you watch the video by Teach Argument .
What Matt (and all rational people do if they see a blood trail that leads to a body) search for evidence of what happened because its obvious it could have been an accident , suicide, murder,etc.. so he follows the evidence to its most logical conclusion (NON circular reasoning) regardless of the outcome... What Eric (and all delusional people do in the same scenario) conclude what happened depending on the most comfortable outcome for themselves, then try to reverse engineer the evidence to fit their conclusion (circular reasoning) because they are fixated on one possible outcome
The moderator said, two heavyweights. No, moderator, who ever you are sitting in the middle there. There is only 1 heavyweight, Matt, and 1 intellectually handicapped theist , throwing unsupported claims around. Including his love for the missuse of the begging the question fallacy.
Charango123quena Man....tons of debaters look away. Including Hitchens and Harris. So what. That's like saying when two fighters met one is looking down/away. Thus is he is scared. Wrong. But...you're correct in the rest of your comment at least.
Imagine trying to explain quantum mechanincs to Eric. He'd refute it all just by saying "Well you can't see it, so it doesn't exist. *Also, you're begging the question.* "
No, Alex Pinkney. When one walks in a long road at a fine evening and one "sees" the moon following one, does that mean the moon is following you? No. The slogan "see it to believe it" is largely false. The slogan one would be wise to take, instead of this one, was enunciated by Feynman which is the first principle of science: you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. In deriving conclusion from our actual circumstances, one needs more and better data. One needs methods of verifications and measurements, tools or rather technologies, that are proven to be plausible and worth trusting-however actively being updated and upgraded. To your remarks which seem to imply that an atheist is a nonbeliever because "they can't see [enter whatever theological] god". This is not necessarily the case. A guy can't see the happenings in another country, but does that mean the happpenings in another country weren't real or that nothing's happening there or that country isn't real? No. But if guy believes that's the case, is by no means a precursor of what an atheist would say about the matter. Because the reasoning of "if you can't see it, therefore, it isn't real" is a complete non-sequitur to atheism. Here we must define what atheism is: "Atheism is not believing in the existence of god of any religion". The reason for that is because they can't see god (i.e., Zeus, Poseidon, Thor, Yahweh, Allah) but instead they aren't convince of the existence of any gods or goddesses of any religion either because of the lack of evidence, or the absence of evidence, or that the evidences of reality points the other way. Sam Harris puts it rather well: "atheism is not being convince by “theism” (i.e. there's no good reason or rather there's no reason at all to believe in the existence of Poseidon). Atheism is simply an admission of the obvious." But if one is assert the existence of god - the Biblical god, for instance, who is an illiterate, psychopathic, genocidal wargod - then one had by default assert quality claims (god is male because it's god not goddess [Father not Mother] and whatever the things he wants you to do and not to, what're his plans and intentions, etc) and a quantity claim (that there's only one god - god not gods). Demonstrate for us your method of measurement or observation for (1) the existence of your god, (2) the number of gods and goddesses [how are you able conclude that there is "one" god, i.e., your god, and not count the hundred gods and goddesses of other religions-keep in mind that there may be hidden gods that you weren't able to count or count them as non-existent?], (3) what makes your god any less made up than all other gods and goddesses humans had invented in their religion and theological fiction, and (4) the Creation moment done by your god. Please, if you're mature enough, don't respond with more word spaghetti; I actually want to see a demonstration of creation of a universe by your god, such as: ruclips.net/video/ve0Bpmx8Fk0/видео.html
Eric: You don't know what begging the question is. Every time you invoked it (which was a dozen times at least) it was used incorrectly, prompting an actual provided definition from Matt which you subsequently ignored. In any case, rattling off logical fallacies does not absolve you from addressing your opponents arguments. If they are wrong, explain why they're wrong, don't just cite fallacies to kill the discussion.
+Ishkur23 Well most of the time I did explain why. He simply repeated what he said as if that somehow solved the problem. I don't think you understand what begging the question is. When he is assuming his position and then asserting an analogy, that is question begging to assume the analogy or illustration (that begs the question in the first place) makes his position right. That is the very definition of question begging. So when my argument, for example, was that you can't know what color someone is thinking of because it's quite possible to associate one color word with an entirely different color than me, then it becomes question begging to simply say that you can flash a color card and then associate their brain state with that color card, when colors are the very thing in question. It's called inverted qualia. That is clearly question begging. He killed the discussion by either changing the subject, repeating himself, or at some times, the time simply ran out for that round. Also, he didn't have any arguments. There wasn't much to address but rather address his fallacies. He was very unprepared for this debate.
No, you didn't explain why. You just kept interrupting him with "question begging" which was wrong because he wasn't even asserting an argument in the first place. It made you sound very foolish, like you didn't understand what he was saying so you relied on fallacies as an escape hatch. "When he is assuming his position and then asserting an analogy, that is question begging" That is actually NOT what question begging is. I implore you to look up the concept again and understand it more fully. Begging the question refers to a very specific type of argument where the conclusion is proven in the very premise. It's a type of circular argument. Really simplified examples: "The Bible is true because it says so in the Bible." or "Homosexuality is unnatural because it is against nature to be attracted to the same sex." Matt Dillahunty never did this in any of his arguments. Both of you went back and forth many times over the validity of the various analogies used so if anything you should have interjected with faulty analogy claims (that's where most of the mistakes occurred). But not question begging -- that never happened. Matt Dillahunty did have arguments, he was just arguing from a position of uniformitarianism and methodological naturalism, a worldview that you reject which is fine, however it's easily the most practical and cogent one. You actually have the harder argument -- without a requisite demonstration of your worldview in practice, all you're left with is abstract rhetoric. And you can't exactly speak things into existence. You said it yourself -- you aren't God.
+Ishkur23 I would assert he was question begging and also hoped he would follow up or clarify but much like most, he was incredibly convinced that he was right (only physical things can cause anything) that he couldn't see how it was possibly begging the question. I get that. But that is to assume once again that he is right to begin with. That is question begging. The example you gave is called circular reasoning. Where you point to the very thing you are trying to prove as proof. Where as begging the question is pointing to something else as proof, but the very thing you are pointing to (arguing for) is presupposed as true by your position. So how about rather than get into a game of "I know you are but what am I", please give me a specific example of where I erroneously used the "begging the question" claim and I'd be more than happy to elaborate. So yea, you are correct, his analogies were both begging the question AND faulty analogies. I gave you a clear example of that. I have yet to hear one from you where I mistakenly used it. Here is an article I wrote on seeing color. A point of contention for us that he evidently didn't understand, which was odd for someone who claimed that this was such a dead topic. He obviously meant "I haven't studied it" by "dead topic". www.erichernandezministries.com/questions/do-we-all-see-the-same-color-questions-on-does-the-soul-exist-debate-24/ Also, no. He was not arguing from that. He was arguing from ignorance (also a logical fallacy). He blatantly and shamelessly admitted it when I asked if his ultimate answer to the entire debate was "I don't know" and he said, "EXACTLY". See, there it goes again. By you claiming I need to "demonstrate" something already assumes that a demonstration is a sufficient or necessary condition for epistemology warrant. But I don't hold to that form of methodism. As I pointed out in the debate, its a false view of knowledge. THAT is where a lot of question begging came from as well. You can't come to a debate and simply assume that your view of epistemology, metaphysics, science, ontology and so forth is simply true and accepted by everyone and then argue from that assumption. That is what he did a lot and of course, every other atheist who believes as he does will simply swallow it hook line and sinker. That is a main issue I see with internet atheist. They come from a position of presupposing what they believe is true and then simply assert it. Here is a highlight video I made (with added humor) to express exactly what I am getting at with false views of knowledge. Also, you can download on itunes for free my post debate review "In depth review Eric Hernandez" and I elaborate on the mistakes that Matt made and explain some instances of question begging. ruclips.net/video/ZhW4SYbR6vc/видео.html
+Eric Hernandez (Eric Hernandez Ministires) Eric -- because Matt made an assertion and didn't back it up DOES NOT make it question begging. That is an entirely different type of argument. You could have accused him of slippery slope or hasty generalization or even a category fallacy if that was the case, but nothing he was doing was begging the question. In fact, at one point Matt even helped you out by identifying the fallacy he was using (reductio ad absurdum), if only to get you to stop saying "question begging". At either rate, it's usually bad form to interrupt and shut down your opponent with fallacy claims. It doesn't help your argument for one, and it just makes you seem like you're dodging his points. It's generally bad debate etiquette and even a little vindictive, and you appeared nervous and insecure whenever you did that. Instead, you could have executed a very quick internal critique of his assertion to show where his reasoning was faulty. But just bleating "question begging" over and over again does not strengthen your side of the debate. The color analogy is almost irrelevant and I don't care what point you're trying to make by bringing it up because it's not the topic of the debate. Analogies are not arguments. They can be used to clarify arguments, but they are not arguments themselves nor should they be used as the main thrust of arguments. It is a common tactic among charlatans and hustlers to argue in parables and analogies instead of facts. Proving analogies does not automatically mean you prove your argument, no matter how well justified. Matt responding "I don't know" is not an argument from ignorance. An argument from ignorance is when you replace "I don't know" with an answer that is not demonstrable or justifiable. "I don't know" is a very useful answer because it is the goal of rational inquiry to investigate until a reasonable answer can be ascertained. But using a placeholder answer just because you don't want to use the phrase "I don't know" is dishonest and at times even silly. Admitting you don't know something in a debate does not concede the debate. The topic was: Does the soul exist? You, arguing from a position of theism, said it does and you provided theological arguments for it. Matt, arguing from a position of methodological naturalism, gave the only honest answer methodological naturalism can give: I Don't Know, since science has yet to find evidence of a soul. That doesn't rule out the possibility that it could exist, just that there is no confirmation thus far. But just because Matt doesn't have an answer doesn't mean your argument is automatically correct. That, in and of itself, would be an argument from ignorance. Can you give me an example of a methodology that is more robust and accurate than practical demonstration? I would like to try it out and see if it produces any useful results. And no, once again it's NOT begging the question. You seriously need to read up on your logical fallacies. The only way it would be begging the question is if I said "Practical demonstration is the only way to acquire knowledge because knowledge needs to be practically demonstrated." But that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying practical demonstration is a very robust path to knowledge and it's the one I prefer because it has a very good track record of producing reliable results. In no way did I claim that it is the only one. All knowledge is provisional -- subject to change as new knowledge is discovered. If you prefer another methodology that is even better, by all means show me and let's compare. And by the way: I'm not an atheist. Since Munchausen's Trilemma is not solvable, ultimately we all must start from sets of presuppositions. There's no escaping that problem.
+Ishkur23 Sigh, now these are getting too long and I must get back to a project that I am working on. I encourage you to listen to the podcast debate review, you can download it for free and I explain the very example you are using. His tactic would be reductio ad absurdum IF it were true. Which it wasn't. It was presupposing he was right to begin with. I disagree. I interrupted, as he is familiar with and has said before, in order to stop someone before they proceed in an argument to point out that the point they just made is a point of disagreement which should be addressed before moving on. Seeing how his entire foundation, such as epistemology, metaphysics, scientisim and so forth are ALL positions that I claim are false, I wanted to address those before we moved on. It has nothing to do with debate etiquette or being nervous (its actually the quite opposite). It had to do with utilizing the time we had to address one thing at a time. It's not my fault that he chose to doge or that he himself could not even understand his fallacy. As I said, he often changed the subject or simply it went over his head. Wow. "It is a common tactic among charlatans and hustlers to argue in parables and analogies instead of facts. Proving analogies does not automatically mean you prove your argument, no matter how well justified." The irony in that is that i was addressing the analogy MATT used in the debate, not me. So, funny you should say that....yea.... Nope. Coming to a debate to say "I don't know" is a waste of time. That is fine for personal reflection, but not for public debate. If there were a voting poll, "Yes or No", it would make no sense for someone to go up to the poll, put "I dont know" on the ballot and then ask where the "I don't know" box is at. This is very childish and evasive for public debate. If that is his position then he could have just emailed that in and we could have had someone else do the debate. And nope. My arguments weren't theological, but philosophical dealing with metaphysics. Hence, science is irrelevant and to object with science is an argument from ignorance and a category fallacy. I addressed this many times. See this highlight video of it and Matts blatant inconsistency. ruclips.net/video/zrqHf6oWnTI/видео.html AND yes, you are right that him not having an answer to my arguments do not mean I am correct. However, if Matt cannnot adequately respond to my arguments, then it means he is unjustified in believing or lack of believing in the soul. That is the epitome of blind faith and cognitive dissonance. Yes. Can you demonstrate that demonstrations are always needed? That alone would prove that your very criteria for epistemology is necessarily false. So to keep using it would be irrational. So once again, to say, "we have no other way" is an argument from ignorance, NOT an argument to justify your view. Yet if a christian were to do this, (as matt claimed that i did), all atheist would cry out that this was irrational and shifting the burden. The inconsistency is incredible. And even an implicit claim can be question begging even if not explicitly stated. And in one breathe you claim or implicitly seem to claim that there is no way other than your methodology, and then in the next paragraph you say that you are not claiming that there is no other way. Then why ask for an example of another way if you yourself implicitly claim that you are aware of other ways? That is incredibly disingenuous and inconsistent. All knowledge is provisional? Then tell me, is the claim to know that "All knowledge is provisional", provisional? Or objectively true? That is incredibly self defeating. Equally, by your very own standard you must demonstrate this, yet this cannot be done in one life time and would require you to know everything, which by your own definition is provisional. Thus, you are by your own standard unjustified in your very foundation and the claim itself. It is false and self defeating. If you choose to respond that is fine but I doubt I will be able to read it. I must get back to my projects. I have addressed all your claims and objections and still you seem to simply disagree with out even living up to your own criteria by demonstrating why I'm at fault in my claims. Anything else we say from here on out would just be going back in a circle with different examples. Have a good day.
When I started to learn about the brain the biggest question on my mind was "Who are you when you leave your body?" There is so much you depend on with your brain, I read in the book "Change your brain change your life" about a kid who had a tumor pressing against his brain. The kid was extremely rude and aggressive, but when they found out about the tumor and removed it the kid's personality completely changed. If our actions can be manipulated by something pressing against it, 1, how can god judge us for things we have no control over? and 2, who are we when we leave our brain behind?
If you go off the bible god judges people for many things that we have no control over, like thoughts, beliefs, disability, illness, injury to certain body parts, sexuality, etc. It's something that made me question how such a god can be defined as all loving and good and also question why such a being should be worshipped or even given any attention. Who are you when you leave your brain behind? Nothing, your brain contains all of your memories and personality, your brain is you, just like the information on a computers hard drive is the contents of the computer.
1:04:38 Eric: "...knowledge can start with a belief that you don't have to verify..." Knowledge, by definition, is steeped in facts. I don't blame Matt for laughing out loud, as I did the same.
Eric Hernandez you dont know shit about those subjects either. You just make constant assertions and pretend anyone who calls you out on your assertion must magically be more ignorant than you. You are a little worm. You cant assert knowledge and not have anything to defend it, and expect other to believe you have knowledge.
_Obviously you aren't familiar with properly basic beliefs or epistemology._ Properly basic beliefs are our *starting assumptions* . They are literally assumed to be true. They cannot be justified without engaging in circular reasoning. _If_ they are true, then my subsequent beliefs can be justified and be called knowledge. For example, we all assume that our memory is reliable. To make any attempt to justify this belief requires you to _use_ your memory in order to justify its reliability. Eric, it is you who is not familiar with properly basic beliefs or epistemology. Please understand that I am under the impression that you think that properly basic beliefs are in fact knowledge claims. If I have erred, then I apologize.
Loss of parts of the soul didn't affect Lord Voldemort, he was just as evil as he ever was. All it did was make it very difficult to kill him. Putting parts of his soul in objects and creating Horcruxes to keep himself from being killed. Me, I like to think the soul will ascend to a higher level of existence and live forever there - not in heaven but as pure energy like the Ancients did in Stargate SG1, no religion, just what I would like to have happen to me.
my favorite part is when everyone claps for matt, so all the religious people randomly claps for eric a minute later, just because they feel their side can't be the only side without anyone clapping XD.
imnotdavid is the first time EVERYONE claps for Matt, religious people included, and then later the religious people clap for me too after clapping for Matt? Wow.
@@EricHernandez Wow, your replies to comments are childish, ignorant, and antagonizing. Not very righteous in my opinion, you seem to lose your composure and stoop down to the level of those that berate you.
Matt’s beautifully simple positions and arguments along with his intellectual honesty are in such stark contrast to Eric’s high sounding phrases and visuals. Matt’s arguments and positions are food for thought; Eric’s are word salad.
@@EricHernandez I came into this netral but he gave so much more substance to the debate. Sorry bro but you are the definition of verbal diarrhea, please consider toning that back.
@@EricHernandez Matt’s arguments are in the form of reasoning. A proposition was made and Matt argued this was false via reasoning. The fact that you don’t understand that is not surprising.
@@CCCBeaumont I mean no offence by saying this, but I have to question if you really do know what "correct/ reasonably/ justified" actually mean, if that's your earnest position. Perhaps we can clarify this. If you're able to provide an example of a position that Matt holds (explicitly stated, NOT inferred), that you believe is incorrect/ unreasonable/ unjustifiable, then please present it here, so that we can examine your claim.
You can all make fun of Eric all day long but he sure as hell made a lot of us look up "begging the question". Now some of us are better able to spot it in ourselves...too bad Eric isn't.
Great job Matt. I think it's a pointless debate topic, but it was a fun listen. I especially got a kick out of Erics opening statement when he said you can't use science to answer questions on the soul, then proceeds to attempt to use science to back up his claim.
Absolutely pointless, yes. Everything Eric described was something the brain "does". He just wanted to be something that "is". Nothing more than childish wishful thinking in response to the human fear of the end of the self.
@@EricHernandez Bro you used the same level of argument throughout this ...'discussion'. U put words in people's mouth, run to different points without addressing any. I just can't take you seriously man. Be better, be less stupid! U can do it!
Wow, I hope this isn’t Eric’s official RUclips page. I would do everything in my power to hide this. It goes to show how deep the delusion runs in some people. His dishonesty is evident from the first minute. He constantly tries acrobatics to trick Matt into something defeating, instead of actually offering evidence or valid arguments. He just defines and redefines Matt’s position(s) to confuscate the terrain
Man, I love Matt. Excellent points, great debate skills, and always right on point. I always try to think of what he could add, and almost always come up empty. I’m so glad he’s such a large voice for the Atheist community.
You love Matt so much ...that's good cause you both will be burning in hell....then it's to late ....JESUS IS REAL AND HIS FATHER AND I PITY THE SOUL WHO DOESNT BELIEVE THIS
Eric, I wouldn't point to Dan because either A) He is being facetious and youre too dumb to get it... or B) He is too dumb to understand satire and sarcasm because Chad wasn't in anyway begging the question. Also, your syllogisms were flawed. *Mike Drop*
Goooooooooooooooood this is so cringy. Eric keeps putting words in Matt's mouth, then accuses that strawman he's built of begging the question. It doesn't get more dishonest than that. Listen how many times Matt has had to repeat and re-explain his position after a false attack and how many times Eric has had to explain his position (spoiler alert: the vast majority was when Matt ASKED him for his position, so he wouldn't commit a straw man). Now who's the more honest debater?
Applying the charity principle to this guy. If we define belief as "being convinced of something" (Matt likes this definition) and kowledge as "a belief with sufficient evidence backing it up to justify rational believing" (this is still subjective, but I think we can work with this), and we grant that the scientific method, in its last phase (sufficient repetition and experimentation turning hypothesis into a theory) produces knowledge, then I think scientific method technically begins with a belief (hypothesis) which you don't have to verify while formulating it, even though you have to verify it afterwards in order for it to become knowledge... I am totally aware that is not what this guy is saying, but I like playing devil's advocate.
There is also another way to justify him. We rest all of our knowledge inthe laws of though: "law of non-contradiction", "law of excluded middle", "law of identity". These principles are axioms, we set them as true whatever situation there is because we have no choice, without them we cannot build knowledge. Therefore "knowledge can start with belief that you don't have to verify"... ok, this laws are verifiable by repetition and experimentation, but even Matt has stated that we do have to make the presuposition they are true and will continue to be true in order to build knowledge, which I agree with.
He's not an idiot. He's an amateur with a philosophy hobby who got into apologetics. Christian apologetics like to baby the intellect of its students so that they'll have a massive ego and make tons of errors when they do debates. It thrives on making tons of errors so that their opponent will have a hard time identifying all of them.
I had breakfast this morning. You're begging the question. I like bacon. You're begging the question. I can't fly. You're begging the question. Tea tastes good. You're begging the question. Terrible debater.
I know Matt is trying to help the world but I dont know how he debates people who will believe anything with a childlike imagination. Hearing people say and believe goofy things is torture to me. Thanks for standing up for common sense and reality Matt.
The people @ 52:40 are laughing at you because you don't understand what "begging the question" means. Also, please stop interrupting people so often. You use the tactic too much. It makes people think you don't have confidence in your argument and after watching the video I see why you do it. You make the debate unwatchable but maybe that was your intention. This was an effortless win for Matt.
Krauss's universe from "Nothing" Is total speculation! So is multiverses! And from truly NOTHING... NOTHING COMES!!! A Quantum vacuum is SOMETHING you Delusional moron! ruclips.net/video/A7I3uM-kMPI/видео.html
"If you mess with the physical then you effect the souls ability to interact." Why would that be? The soul supposedly can exist without the body at all if there is an after life that it continues in. Which means the soul doesn't need the physical at all. So why would what happens to the physical body effect any of the souls ability, if it doesn't even need the physical? How does the non physical, non material, interact with the physical and material? If it is actually my soul that is causing me to think and move, then the soul must at some level be physically interacting with the physical matter of your body. So how does something that is non physical and non material, interact with the physical and material?
I think the problem of consciousness was solved when we invented computers with the concept of hardware that runs software. Nobody would say that computers have souls and that dualism is true for computers, and yet they have a physical part and an immaterial part that "runs" on the physical. For the processor it's just electrical signals with no meaning, but we can write software that produces meaning for the computer. We can also add a camera and other sensors and write a software that controls the robot to do stuff. That is then basically the brain. No soul or dualism is needed. The neurons in the brain is the physical that runs the software that produces meaning for the brain.
I honestly think that one of the major problems with this soul hypothesis is that it generates more questions than answers, Matt tried to point that out but it was difficult to address the issue due to the multiple accusations of committing fallacies. But, this question of the soul has always intrigued me for several reasons: - As Matt pointed out, How do you know the attributes conferred to the soul are given by only one substance and not several substances? - What do mechanisms allow the soul to interact with the body? I think that despite of being a metaphysical issue it does not exclude that the interactions with the physical realm should be detectable. - Shouldn't be better for the soul to interact with different organs of the body instead of, apparently, exclusively with the brain? That would allow to the soul to show all its capacities without dependence almost exclusively in a single organ, that seems to me like a bad design. These and other questions could be arisen leading to the conclusion that the soul is a very bad explanation.
The discovery of the big bang raised more questions,, questions are problems,, not a refutation... 1. "How do you know the attributes conferred to the soul are given by only one substance and not several substances" ...you'd have to understand the arguments for God to come to this conclusion. 2. "the interactions with the physical realm should be detectable."...they are detectable, not in a lab, but certainly, ontologically, psychologically, theologically, the conscience, anthropologically..etc...just because you presuppose materialistic, or scientism (which is not a science at all), doesn't invalidate all other branches of science/knowledge. 3. "Shouldn't be better for the soul to interact with different organs" "without dependence almost exclusively in a single organ, that seems to me like a bad design."....really? It seems to work just fine. And if this is your position truly you should make the same conclusion about all our organs and feelings' "dependence almost exclusively in a single organ", the brain.
Eric you have misused the term begging the question so many times. Matt was making an analysis, not begging the question. He did not assume the conclusion but rather DEDUCED the conclusion logically from what followed.
Eric Hernandez's argument in a nutshell - there is such a thing as a soul because I say so. He equates with that unfortunate guy who has spent his life looking for a forest in a collection of trees and finding, well, a collection trees. There isn't the slightest evidence for the existence of a soul, for any entity, any action, which is independent of body and brain. If there is case for that totally illogical essence, demonstrate it, or, as Wittgenstein famously suggested in his Tractatus, "that of which we cannot speak we should pass over in silence."
Hey Eric, while I disagree with your position and disagree with your debating style, I admire your willingness to even debate this stuff let alone throw it out on the internet. you get a thumbs up from me. It was a fun, interesting video anyway!
It's really just my honest assessment.... Mostly because, the debate was about, "Does The Soul Exist?" The argument you presented is really just you running around in a big game of words and labels, and it never really even attempts to answer the question in any other way, other than playing with words and labels. Where's the demonstration? Where's the methodology? Where's the evidence? A big convoluted word and label game does nothing to support your argument. In addition, I agree with others here that your accusation that Matt is, "begging the question," as a response to what he was presenting, is incorrect. I gotta hand it to you though, you have a lot of guts putting yourself out there like this. I'm sure you learned a lot from it, and I wouldn't mind seeing you and Matt back at it for another go at demonic possession.... Just don't go any further down the Sye Ten road of responding incessantly, "That's begging the question!" as if though that is a valid response to something just because there is no current way of accounting for the laws of logic. Have a good one....
Eric do you understand what an argument from ignorance is? The argument from ignorance is that X is true until x is proven false. When you keep asking matt to provide another method, he rightly points out that he doesn't have to; that's an argument from ignorance. Then you jumped to the "Well how do you know that we need a method' fallcy, which is a complete red herring that misses the point. You tried to escape a point that you looked like you knew you were losing since you changed topics to the foundations of epistemology, even though you both already agree that relying on reason is legitimate, so why switch to epistemology?
@@hermanlemmer1968 His replies to these comments make me want to slap the shit out of him. Typical theist has no clue about reality because he's been sheltered from the real world and forced to read the same fictional stories from the same fictional book every day. What a loser.
Not trying to be mean but I don't think Eric understands Matts assertions/position. And it seems that Eric speaks with the language learned in first year college philosophy without using the words and concepts effectively
Eric love is so pleased with himself even though he gave a lot of logical fallacies including trying to shirk the burden of proof. Eric provided no arguments for his God.
Eric, are you implying that a soul exists independently of a god or "higher power"? Because you clearly think that the Christian god exists so your comment makes no sense to me. It reminds me of the christian apologetics who use the ontological argument et al. for a "maximally great being" or some such when they are absolutely arguing for THEIR brand of god and not some nebulous concept. Your comment sounds dishonest to me when you are clearly arguing for a Yahweh brand soul.
The instant Eric said the question couldn't be answered by science, he lost. If we're talking about a metaphysical concept, the debate is quite simply not worth having.
Gotta give Eric some respect for not shutting down the comment section. Sadly Eric engaging with commenters reveals how obstinately confused he is about how arguments and reality work.
I don’t know how often I watch debates with atheists where the theist/deist refused to acknowledge that to be an atheist is to say that it is ignorant to claim to know things until there is evidence for it. So often do people seem to get confused when the atheist says ”I don’t know”. That’s the whole point of being an atheist. You don’t claim to know when you can’t. I don’t understand what the statement ”science can’t prove the existence of truth” even means. Isn’t that the whole point of science? You make a hypotesis and then you try to prove if it is true or false. Can someone who watches Eric’s content explain what ”science can’t prove the existence of truth” means? In other news, this comment section is something else.
@ Eric Hernandez re: 1:07:01 Hi mate I'm a chemist (and a psychologist), so when you said that there's a problem with Matt's fantastic analogy of "wetness" being an emergent property of water, I had to point out to you how very wrong you are. "Wetness" is a property of liquid water. Gaseous water (water vapour/ steam) is not "wet" and only becomes "wet" after a phase change back to liquid water. Now, the reason that water (H2O) is a liquid at room temperature and standard pressure, while larger molecules like (N2O) remain gases is because of the interaction between water molecules. The bonds formed between the H and the O leaves the hydrogen as a bare proton. This bare proton is strongly attracted to the electron rich oxygen of other O2 atoms (within a H2O molecule). So the H of 1 molecule is strongly attracted to the O of other molecules. This inter-molecular attraction brings the molecules closer together, causing some steric hindrance, resulting in in a liquid, where we would otherwise expect to have seen a gas. Thus a single molecule of of H2O (at STP) is always a gaseous molecule and as such has no "wetness" as it is not a liquid. It's only when you have enough water molecules in close proximity to each other that the aforementioned inter-molecular attraction might reach critical mass and condense out a "wet" liquid (or drop below the latent heat of condensation). I don't know if I explained that in an understandable way, but if I did, I expect that you're now able to see that not only was Matt correct that "wetness" in fact IS an emergent property of water (arising from the inter-molecular forces between H and O atoms, due to the properties of each atom and their bonding tendencies), I dare say the analogy is perfect in representing the idea presented. I genuinely hope you'll consider studying chemistry at university. Learning about the fundamental nature of our reality opens one's mind in amazing ways and leads to further, deeper understanding. Peace
No. I was speaking in regards to properly basic beliefs, which is NOT the same thing as "unverifiable facts". For example, I know I exist, and I knew this prior to trying to verify, because trying to verify already presupposes I already exist in the first place. Are you guys familiar with a properly basic belief in epistemology?
Except that you don't just get to claim that a belief is properly basic. You still have to justify the reasoning behind the claim. In the example of "I think, therefore I am" we do not merely accept at face value that this belief is properly basic. It can be reasonably accepted, however, that this belief is foundation because we can reason that it meets the criteria of being properly basic. If you want to claim that something else is properly basic, such as "knowledge can start with a belief," you need to present your reasons to accept it. Otherwise you're just using "properly basic" to smuggle your beliefs into the argument without reason.
I felt uncomfortable watching this debate at multiple points. Eric is not only hideously bad at thinking on his feet, but he's pretentious and at times just downright offensive. The low point was when Matt said "maybe there is no such thing as truth" and Eric stuck to his guns in saying that Matt's statement was instead an assumption that there is no truth. Eric, after Matt unambiguously stated that he did not believe that, when you said "agree to disagree", you were essentially calling Matt a liar. Contrast Eric's showing with, for example, Gary Habermas. I think Habermas is wrong, but he's obviously knowledgeable and capable of having substantive debates. This debate felt like it very quickly went off the rails for Eric, which is why I think he went off on so many irrelevant tangents and went with the amateur debate tactic of just machine-gunning accusations of informal fallacies at Matt. All in all, Eric's knowledge, conduct and clarity of thought reminded me more of an uninformed but genuine youtuber, rather than someone educated on the matter. He would benefit from being more honest and objective in evaluating both his own arguments and criticisms against them.
Eric also focuses on whether he not we have souls ' we must have souls because X Y Z' but at no point does he adress the nature of the soul - other than declaring that dogs have 'dog shaped souls' and humans have 'human shaped souls' - [which refutes reincarnation]
Eric was completely outclassed. If he wants to improve, he could start by learning what "begging the question" means; he clearly has absolutely no idea. I've seen Matt stretched in debates before, even lose them. Not here. This was embarrassing.
I'd like to be a bit controversial and give Eric some props here. After realising he uploaded this in his own channel, I also realised comments are still not disabled on this video. Even though I disagree with his position and noted a lot of issues in his part of the debate, I totally appriciate anyone that doesn't moderate or shut down the public view even though they could. Especially seeing the reactions on here, which in most cases is justified, though I may not always agree with the approach.
mike mj84 I have come to the sense that no matter how Matt does, good or bad, some people will always cheer on their side and turn a blind eye to everything else. It’s amazing
Eric is a very poor public speaker and a worse debater. His prepared speech sounds like he's reading it off of cue cards someone else wrong in a different language.
Eric Hernandez congratulations on the clever retort. Your debating skills are on point within and without formal debates. Your misuse of logical fallacies is astounding.
Eric Hernandez he said . “probably not” and statistically speaking most thoughts do not manifest into objective reality. so it’s probable that something thought up doesn’t exist.
I don’t think I believe in a soul, but more importantly I don’t understand exactly what a soul is supposed to be. I mean a coherent explanation of what a soul is supposed to be. For fun I have asked religious people over and over. I have discovered (great surprise) that the religious people haven’t really thought about either. I have literally never heard a coherent, logical explanation in what they actually believe a soul is and how it works.
Eric: For all scenarios x, P(x) implies Q(x). Matt: There exists a scenario x such that P(x) is true but Q(x) is false. Therefore, it is not true that for all scenarios x, P(x) implies Q(x). Eric: That's begging the question! Matt and everyone watching: ????
Credit where it’s due, no one is better at talking in circles and dodging questions than Eric. Also if he provides a counter example to my claim he is begging the question.
Eric, you have probably been told already by others but I haven't seen any comments saying it, so here I go. Regarding an analogy you abused of, the "weight of light". You should know that light actually does have mass, very tiny, but it does as well as it exerts a measurable gravitational field. And this has been known for over 100 years now thanks to relativity. In fact the mass of light is related to the energy of light which in turn is related to the frequency/color of light. A quick search for PBS SpaceTime videos will give more insight. Regards!
@@EricHernandez E=mc^2 would show that photons have relative mass. Energy and mass are interchangable. A box with photons has relatively more mass then a box with no photons. Photons don't have measurable mass, but have energy that show it has relative mass.
"You" are not your brain and body, you are a collection of processes carried out by your brain and body. Your experience of being you is the (partially interrupted through sleep and other events) continuation of these processes. It probably doesn't even matter too much what physical parts carry out these processes, only that at no point in time too many of them are interrupted at once. Edit: The important detail I forgot is the interaction of the various processes. The "split brain" reminded me of this.
Lol. The color blue does have a quantifiable weight. The photon for the wavelengths that are called blue has zero mass. That gives it a weight of zero in a gravitational field. Therefore, blue does have weight.
And actually the knowing that people change is a main reason why prison sentences are getting more and more reasonable. Is because of the things you're trying to disprove. This is absolutely ludicrous
Eric : I’m here to prove why there is a soul.
Matt : I’m here to prove why I don’t know if there’s a soul.
What was the whole point of this debate??? Dilahunty basically came with a fly swatter and Eric with evidence.
I’m smh reading these comments. Eric won this debate hands down. Did Dilahunty even state what it would take to convince him that there is a soul? If he didn’t, how would he know that his expectations haven’t already been met?? The audience deserved better than Matt’s argument. That was a waste of time.
Eric took the W on this one.
“My argument is that I don’t know” in essence 😂😂😂 and people actually clapped for that 😂😂 have mercy.
This is probably the best summation of this debate that I’ve seen. 👏🏼
Dillahunty correctly left the burden of proof where it belonged: on the side making supernatural claims. He was very restrained and kept the higher ground by being much more relaxed and polite. Hernandez was rude and obnoxious, frequently interrupting with fallacies and unfounded assertions. Don't mistake bad manners and desperate aggression for "winning".
What evidence?
So would Matt have a better argument if he just pretended to know like eric?
@@craiggoldberg1539 It's funny how frustrated and confused they are that Matt took a sensible position.
Hernandez asserts a lot and gives zero actual evidence of the existence of a soul. Hernandez gives a masterclass on wilful misunderstanding.
I just love how useless all of his arguments are
You are begging the question!!!!
lol a masterclass on wilful misunderstanding
@J w Why? Is that going to evidence a 'soul'? Get a grip.
@J w Give me evidence Julius Caesar was descended from a God. Hope you see my point.
“Humans have human type souls, and dogs have dog-type souls.” That’s the best laugh I’ve had in a while.
When Socrates/Plato says something similar people think it's smart someone else says it and it invokes a laugh 🤔
@@mdg4 lol fair enough
@@mdg4 Socrates and Plato lived literally thousands of years ago. We can't hold them to the same standard as we do modern people with access to the internet.
@@mdg4 lol true ppl love to suck off socrates and Plato. Most of their ideas about science were dumb as shit just because they didn’t have many empirical methods to study it.
@@ricasiogaming7873 That is ridiculous. We had people back then calculating the circumference of the Earth to near precision, developing atomic models and theory, theorizing the eternality of the universe, etc. These men were often great geniuses. Just because they lived long ago does NOT discredit their thoughts on whole.
Eric's whole premise...there is a soul because there is a soul. Brilliant.
Time stamp please.’
@@EricHernandez You said at least twice that you can know something without evidence or reason (or maybe it was prior to evidence or reason, I forget the exact words). You began with the existence of a soul as a presupposition, and because it is presupposed to exist, that’s how you know it exists. There is a soul because there is a soul. Correct me if I’m wrong here because I really wanted you to have at least some compelling arguments for me to sit with. I still have 25 minutes left so maybe they are coming, and if they do I’ll happily amend this comment.
@@JesseDriftwood he never said that😂.
The foundation of belief is belief itself. It is a circular argument, with the ontological argument for the existence of God.
@@EricHernandez all the goddamn video
Wow, Eric did a really poor job in this debate. Seeing that he still thinks his 7 "arguments" are good and that Matt supposedly "never actually addressed" them (o_O), here's a quick summary/takedown:
1. Argument from identity - a belief or thought is not a region of the brain, it is an abstract concept represented and contained in a region of the brain - probably too ridiculous for Matt to even bother addressing (if he didn't)
2. Irreducibility of consciousness - Matt already talked about consciousness being an emergent property of the brain, like water being wet when a single molecule isn't; Eric presupposes that a collection of particles can't possibly contain a belief, with absolutely no justification, and yes, it can be said to be a fallacy of composition
3. Conscious states have intentionality - yes, a group of neurons can record/represent (internally) the concept of the number 7; again, Eric asserting that they can't, without any justification whatsoever
4. Unified visual field - yet another assertion ex ano: "there is no region of the brain that puts the picture back together" - I would say that there is, therefore aggregates can have a unified visual field
5. Indivisibility of personhood - Matt already mentioned split brain cases, which Eric never responded to
6. Personal identity through change - Matt already addressed this too, it depends what we label as same - the car can be said to be the same ("my car") even if replacing parts, and one can arguably become a different person over time; also see the "ship of Theseus" thought experiment
7. Argument from free will - Eric hasn't really demonstrated that he (or anybody) has absolute free will, and I doubt that he can; Matt talked extensively about this topic
Moreover, Matt basically demolishes all of Eric's arguments in one shot from 39:55 to 40:38 - that is the crux of the matter.
And yes, Eric kept repeating the "begging the question" claim ad nauseam towards the end, apparently failing to understand almost anything that Matt said, and probably constructing some bizarre strawman in his head. He seems incapable of understanding that he's wrong, so it's probably useless to press on.
What exactly is this "begging the question" thing? I'm still a bit fuzzy about that and the only time I hear that come back is when a creationist is out of ammo.
Check out en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question - basically it's assuming the conclusion of an argument and using it (often implicitly or in a hidden way) to support the argument, which Matt didn't do. It's a type of circular reasoning. One example would be: "the Bible is true, because it says so in the Bible".
I think the name of this fallacy is quite confusing, because many people use the same words to mean raising or inviting a question (also see "modern usage" on the wikipedia page).
aditsu thx for the summary - it helped break down the long debate for lazy asses like me 😆
aditsu I would love to see Eric's response to your comment.
@@faceitgmHe still has not, after 1 year.. but a comment from 4 months ago praising him? he sure as hell responded to that
Wow this guy has no idea what begging the question is, nor does he know ANY of the fallacies he tried to pin on Matt. This was cringe worthy.
i guess all of us that notice Eric doesn't understand begging the question, are having a mass hallucination of ignorance lol.. it can't be that HE is actually incorrect lol
You are just begging the question
@@dillondecal you're strawmaning what Maxx said
@@JJBitter you're both begging the strawman for an answer
I’m glad I Caught the end of that that guy’s bat shit crazy he performed an exorcism please
Eric: “This demonstrates why there must be some form of free will.”
Matt: *Demonstrates this is false by providing an example of something that doesn’t have free will that would respond in the same way*
Eric: “That’s begging the question.”
But I think that was the point. Matt believes in compatiblism which is another form of determinism. Matt then used an example of a computer that was programmed (which would be determinism) to prove no free will. That was Eric’s point. Either we have freedom of will and choice, or we don’t.
@@rangersNHL No he didn't say that as if that proves there is no free will, because it doesn't. It just demonstrates that something could respond as if it had free will, even if it didn't.
@@MarxistKnight@MarxistKnight All it proves is that material things have no free will because we know programs are deterministically created to respond some presets or pick from a series of responses for each preset digital event that occurs. It in no way simulates the actual way free will would function. Which is thousands of choices intent can drive depending on context interacting with the unified personhood and complex desire, compassion, reason, imagination, will, language, animative of a body, memory e.t.c.
When you keep saying “begging the question” and your debate opponent has to define “begging the question” for you. Then perhaps you should stop using it.
I agree. Matt should totally stop using that fallacy.
@@EricHernandez You may want to look up the principle of charity while l educating yourself on begging the question.
@@EricHernandez Eric you use as an argument that we can't find the color red when you open up the brain so it has to be metaphysical.
If that is the case how do you explain this research: ruclips.net/video/AgbeGFYluEA/видео.html (Video by Vsauce in his mind field series) They seem to be close to being able to extract an image that someone has in his head using machine learning and neuroimaging of the brain.
Chris Clark Name calling doesn’t help any stance, it does make you look like a bully. If you wish to explain to Eric why he refused to acknowledge the fallacies he was employing, that would be great, but attacking the man is certainly not going to sway their/ other’s opinions, and will in fact make them combative in response toward yours/ people who share certain opinions you hold, therefore you hurt your own position by slinging mud at others.
@@EricHernandez I wonder if you know how dishonest you truly are.
It's just tragic to see this extreme case of the Dunning-Kruger effect where Eric thinks he knows something about logical fallacies but commits them more or less constantly. And most of his syllogisms were just sad and painful to watch. But the worst part of it all is Eric's desperate intellectual death spasms in this comment section. Please man, have some dignity!
you,re begging the question
@@adamsmith4180 your mocking of him is a straw man that's begging the question. Did you freely mock him?
@@notahandle965 You,re just begging the question
@@adamsmith4180 freely begging it!
Lots of question begging in here😂😂
Eric Hernandez: The man who slept through Philosophy 101 and woke up just long enough to hear his professor say, "Begging the question."
That is so funny. Ingenious comment. Truly.
@@EricHernandez even funnier is how these get more likes than your own comments on this video.
@@LesNouvelle-Angleterreur Yep, dishonest atheists are like a swarm of locusts.
@@LesNouvelle-AngleterreurGOT EM!
That's so funny! I kept thinking of that meme, "You Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means" 😂
sorry Eric , but you are a poor debater. You frequently look away when Matt is talking to you, .. you put words in Matt's mouth , and frequently interrupt. You are shuffling through papers as if looking for more ammunition. I have used your example to teach my year 9's what not do in a debate. I suggest you watch the video by Teach Argument .
I accept your apology :)
no problem and thanks for posting the video
What Matt (and all rational people do if they see a blood trail that leads to a body)
search for evidence of what happened because its obvious it could have been an accident , suicide, murder,etc.. so he follows the evidence to its most logical conclusion (NON circular reasoning) regardless of the outcome...
What Eric (and all delusional people do in the same scenario)
conclude what happened depending on the most comfortable outcome for themselves, then try to reverse engineer the evidence to fit their conclusion (circular reasoning) because they are fixated on one possible outcome
The moderator said, two heavyweights.
No, moderator, who ever you are sitting in the middle there. There is only 1 heavyweight, Matt, and 1 intellectually handicapped theist , throwing unsupported claims around. Including his love for the missuse of the begging the question fallacy.
Charango123quena Man....tons of debaters look away. Including Hitchens and Harris. So what. That's like saying when two fighters met one is looking down/away. Thus is he is scared. Wrong.
But...you're correct in the rest of your comment at least.
Imagine trying to explain quantum mechanincs to Eric. He'd refute it all just by saying "Well you can't see it, so it doesn't exist. *Also, you're begging the question.* "
That's also a stupid tu quoque fallacy, smh
That sounds more like an Atheist
😂😂😂that is because Eric is an idiot
No, Alex Pinkney. When one walks in a long road at a fine evening and one "sees" the moon following one, does that mean the moon is following you? No. The slogan "see it to believe it" is largely false. The slogan one would be wise to take, instead of this one, was enunciated by Feynman which is the first principle of science: you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.
In deriving conclusion from our actual circumstances, one needs more and better data. One needs methods of verifications and measurements, tools or rather technologies, that are proven to be plausible and worth trusting-however actively being updated and upgraded.
To your remarks which seem to imply that an atheist is a nonbeliever because "they can't see [enter whatever theological] god". This is not necessarily the case. A guy can't see the happenings in another country, but does that mean the happpenings in another country weren't real or that nothing's happening there or that country isn't real? No. But if guy believes that's the case, is by no means a precursor of what an atheist would say about the matter. Because the reasoning of "if you can't see it, therefore, it isn't real" is a complete non-sequitur to atheism. Here we must define what atheism is: "Atheism is not believing in the existence of god of any religion". The reason for that is because they can't see god (i.e., Zeus, Poseidon, Thor, Yahweh, Allah) but instead they aren't convince of the existence of any gods or goddesses of any religion either because of the lack of evidence, or the absence of evidence, or that the evidences of reality points the other way. Sam Harris puts it rather well: "atheism is not being convince by “theism” (i.e. there's no good reason or rather there's no reason at all to believe in the existence of Poseidon). Atheism is simply an admission of the obvious."
But if one is assert the existence of god - the Biblical god, for instance, who is an illiterate, psychopathic, genocidal wargod - then one had by default assert quality claims (god is male because it's god not goddess [Father not Mother] and whatever the things he wants you to do and not to, what're his plans and intentions, etc) and a quantity claim (that there's only one god - god not gods).
Demonstrate for us your method of measurement or observation for (1) the existence of your god, (2) the number of gods and goddesses [how are you able conclude that there is "one" god, i.e., your god, and not count the hundred gods and goddesses of other religions-keep in mind that there may be hidden gods that you weren't able to count or count them as non-existent?], (3) what makes your god any less made up than all other gods and goddesses humans had invented in their religion and theological fiction, and (4) the Creation moment done by your god. Please, if you're mature enough, don't respond with more word spaghetti; I actually want to see a demonstration of creation of a universe by your god, such as: ruclips.net/video/ve0Bpmx8Fk0/видео.html
@@Tarnished_Denji theists forget that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
44:38 Eric’s question, free will
55:09 Matt’s question, free will
1:17:01 Matt’s question, soul reincarnation
1:06:06 Eric’s question, consciousness
1:27:28 Moderator’s quickfire questions
Eric: You don't know what begging the question is.
Every time you invoked it (which was a dozen times at least) it was used incorrectly, prompting an actual provided definition from Matt which you subsequently ignored. In any case, rattling off logical fallacies does not absolve you from addressing your opponents arguments. If they are wrong, explain why they're wrong, don't just cite fallacies to kill the discussion.
+Ishkur23 Well most of the time I did explain why. He simply repeated what he said as if that somehow solved the problem. I don't think you understand what begging the question is. When he is assuming his position and then asserting an analogy, that is question begging to assume the analogy or illustration (that begs the question in the first place) makes his position right. That is the very definition of question begging. So when my argument, for example, was that you can't know what color someone is thinking of because it's quite possible to associate one color word with an entirely different color than me, then it becomes question begging to simply say that you can flash a color card and then associate their brain state with that color card, when colors are the very thing in question. It's called inverted qualia. That is clearly question begging. He killed the discussion by either changing the subject, repeating himself, or at some times, the time simply ran out for that round. Also, he didn't have any arguments. There wasn't much to address but rather address his fallacies. He was very unprepared for this debate.
No, you didn't explain why. You just kept interrupting him with "question begging" which was wrong because he wasn't even asserting an argument in the first place. It made you sound very foolish, like you didn't understand what he was saying so you relied on fallacies as an escape hatch.
"When he is assuming his position and then asserting an analogy, that is question begging"
That is actually NOT what question begging is. I implore you to look up the concept again and understand it more fully. Begging the question refers to a very specific type of argument where the conclusion is proven in the very premise. It's a type of circular argument. Really simplified examples:
"The Bible is true because it says so in the Bible."
or
"Homosexuality is unnatural because it is against nature to be attracted to the same sex."
Matt Dillahunty never did this in any of his arguments. Both of you went back and forth many times over the validity of the various analogies used so if anything you should have interjected with faulty analogy claims (that's where most of the mistakes occurred). But not question begging -- that never happened.
Matt Dillahunty did have arguments, he was just arguing from a position of uniformitarianism and methodological naturalism, a worldview that you reject which is fine, however it's easily the most practical and cogent one. You actually have the harder argument -- without a requisite demonstration of your worldview in practice, all you're left with is abstract rhetoric. And you can't exactly speak things into existence. You said it yourself -- you aren't God.
+Ishkur23 I would assert he was question begging and also hoped he would follow up or clarify but much like most, he was incredibly convinced that he was right (only physical things can cause anything) that he couldn't see how it was possibly begging the question. I get that. But that is to assume once again that he is right to begin with. That is question begging. The example you gave is called circular reasoning. Where you point to the very thing you are trying to prove as proof. Where as begging the question is pointing to something else as proof, but the very thing you are pointing to (arguing for) is presupposed as true by your position.
So how about rather than get into a game of "I know you are but what am I", please give me a specific example of where I erroneously used the "begging the question" claim and I'd be more than happy to elaborate. So yea, you are correct, his analogies were both begging the question AND faulty analogies. I gave you a clear example of that. I have yet to hear one from you where I mistakenly used it.
Here is an article I wrote on seeing color. A point of contention for us that he evidently didn't understand, which was odd for someone who claimed that this was such a dead topic. He obviously meant "I haven't studied it" by "dead topic".
www.erichernandezministries.com/questions/do-we-all-see-the-same-color-questions-on-does-the-soul-exist-debate-24/
Also, no. He was not arguing from that. He was arguing from ignorance (also a logical fallacy). He blatantly and shamelessly admitted it when I asked if his ultimate answer to the entire debate was "I don't know" and he said, "EXACTLY".
See, there it goes again. By you claiming I need to "demonstrate" something already assumes that a demonstration is a sufficient or necessary condition for epistemology warrant. But I don't hold to that form of methodism. As I pointed out in the debate, its a false view of knowledge. THAT is where a lot of question begging came from as well. You can't come to a debate and simply assume that your view of epistemology, metaphysics, science, ontology and so forth is simply true and accepted by everyone and then argue from that assumption. That is what he did a lot and of course, every other atheist who believes as he does will simply swallow it hook line and sinker.
That is a main issue I see with internet atheist. They come from a position of presupposing what they believe is true and then simply assert it. Here is a highlight video I made (with added humor) to express exactly what I am getting at with false views of knowledge. Also, you can download on itunes for free my post debate review "In depth review Eric Hernandez" and I elaborate on the mistakes that Matt made and explain some instances of question begging.
ruclips.net/video/ZhW4SYbR6vc/видео.html
+Eric Hernandez (Eric Hernandez Ministires) Eric -- because Matt made an assertion and didn't back it up DOES NOT make it question begging. That is an entirely different type of argument. You could have accused him of slippery slope or hasty generalization or even a category fallacy if that was the case, but nothing he was doing was begging the question. In fact, at one point Matt even helped you out by identifying the fallacy he was using (reductio ad absurdum), if only to get you to stop saying "question begging".
At either rate, it's usually bad form to interrupt and shut down your opponent with fallacy claims. It doesn't help your argument for one, and it just makes you seem like you're dodging his points. It's generally bad debate etiquette and even a little vindictive, and you appeared nervous and insecure whenever you did that.
Instead, you could have executed a very quick internal critique of his assertion to show where his reasoning was faulty. But just bleating "question begging" over and over again does not strengthen your side of the debate.
The color analogy is almost irrelevant and I don't care what point you're trying to make by bringing it up because it's not the topic of the debate. Analogies are not arguments. They can be used to clarify arguments, but they are not arguments themselves nor should they be used as the main thrust of arguments. It is a common tactic among charlatans and hustlers to argue in parables and analogies instead of facts. Proving analogies does not automatically mean you prove your argument, no matter how well justified.
Matt responding "I don't know" is not an argument from ignorance. An argument from ignorance is when you replace "I don't know" with an answer that is not demonstrable or justifiable. "I don't know" is a very useful answer because it is the goal of rational inquiry to investigate until a reasonable answer can be ascertained. But using a placeholder answer just because you don't want to use the phrase "I don't know" is dishonest and at times even silly.
Admitting you don't know something in a debate does not concede the debate. The topic was: Does the soul exist? You, arguing from a position of theism, said it does and you provided theological arguments for it. Matt, arguing from a position of methodological naturalism, gave the only honest answer methodological naturalism can give: I Don't Know, since science has yet to find evidence of a soul. That doesn't rule out the possibility that it could exist, just that there is no confirmation thus far. But just because Matt doesn't have an answer doesn't mean your argument is automatically correct. That, in and of itself, would be an argument from ignorance.
Can you give me an example of a methodology that is more robust and accurate than practical demonstration? I would like to try it out and see if it produces any useful results.
And no, once again it's NOT begging the question. You seriously need to read up on your logical fallacies. The only way it would be begging the question is if I said "Practical demonstration is the only way to acquire knowledge because knowledge needs to be practically demonstrated." But that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying practical demonstration is a very robust path to knowledge and it's the one I prefer because it has a very good track record of producing reliable results. In no way did I claim that it is the only one. All knowledge is provisional -- subject to change as new knowledge is discovered. If you prefer another methodology that is even better, by all means show me and let's compare.
And by the way: I'm not an atheist. Since Munchausen's Trilemma is not solvable, ultimately we all must start from sets of presuppositions. There's no escaping that problem.
+Ishkur23 Sigh, now these are getting too long and I must get back to a project that I am working on. I encourage you to listen to the podcast debate review, you can download it for free and I explain the very example you are using. His tactic would be reductio ad absurdum IF it were true. Which it wasn't. It was presupposing he was right to begin with.
I disagree. I interrupted, as he is familiar with and has said before, in order to stop someone before they proceed in an argument to point out that the point they just made is a point of disagreement which should be addressed before moving on. Seeing how his entire foundation, such as epistemology, metaphysics, scientisim and so forth are ALL positions that I claim are false, I wanted to address those before we moved on. It has nothing to do with debate etiquette or being nervous (its actually the quite opposite). It had to do with utilizing the time we had to address one thing at a time. It's not my fault that he chose to doge or that he himself could not even understand his fallacy. As I said, he often changed the subject or simply it went over his head.
Wow. "It is a common tactic among charlatans and hustlers to argue in parables and analogies instead of facts. Proving analogies does not automatically mean you prove your argument, no matter how well justified." The irony in that is that i was addressing the analogy MATT used in the debate, not me. So, funny you should say that....yea....
Nope. Coming to a debate to say "I don't know" is a waste of time. That is fine for personal reflection, but not for public debate. If there were a voting poll, "Yes or No", it would make no sense for someone to go up to the poll, put "I dont know" on the ballot and then ask where the "I don't know" box is at. This is very childish and evasive for public debate. If that is his position then he could have just emailed that in and we could have had someone else do the debate.
And nope. My arguments weren't theological, but philosophical dealing with metaphysics. Hence, science is irrelevant and to object with science is an argument from ignorance and a category fallacy. I addressed this many times. See this highlight video of it and Matts blatant inconsistency.
ruclips.net/video/zrqHf6oWnTI/видео.html
AND yes, you are right that him not having an answer to my arguments do not mean I am correct. However, if Matt cannnot adequately respond to my arguments, then it means he is unjustified in believing or lack of believing in the soul. That is the epitome of blind faith and cognitive dissonance.
Yes. Can you demonstrate that demonstrations are always needed? That alone would prove that your very criteria for epistemology is necessarily false. So to keep using it would be irrational. So once again, to say, "we have no other way" is an argument from ignorance, NOT an argument to justify your view. Yet if a christian were to do this, (as matt claimed that i did), all atheist would cry out that this was irrational and shifting the burden. The inconsistency is incredible.
And even an implicit claim can be question begging even if not explicitly stated. And in one breathe you claim or implicitly seem to claim that there is no way other than your methodology, and then in the next paragraph you say that you are not claiming that there is no other way. Then why ask for an example of another way if you yourself implicitly claim that you are aware of other ways? That is incredibly disingenuous and inconsistent.
All knowledge is provisional? Then tell me, is the claim to know that "All knowledge is provisional", provisional? Or objectively true? That is incredibly self defeating. Equally, by your very own standard you must demonstrate this, yet this cannot be done in one life time and would require you to know everything, which by your own definition is provisional. Thus, you are by your own standard unjustified in your very foundation and the claim itself. It is false and self defeating.
If you choose to respond that is fine but I doubt I will be able to read it. I must get back to my projects. I have addressed all your claims and objections and still you seem to simply disagree with out even living up to your own criteria by demonstrating why I'm at fault in my claims. Anything else we say from here on out would just be going back in a circle with different examples. Have a good day.
This is the most one sided debate I've ever watch. Eric self destructed.
You're just begging the question.
You tell him Daniel!
@@danielw.1339 Is that the only thing you know what to say
@@EricHernandez As horribly as you lost the debate, your comments are fucking hilarious
Condor Man thank you...? I think 💁🏻♂️
When I started to learn about the brain the biggest question on my mind was "Who are you when you leave your body?" There is so much you depend on with your brain, I read in the book "Change your brain change your life" about a kid who had a tumor pressing against his brain. The kid was extremely rude and aggressive, but when they found out about the tumor and removed it the kid's personality completely changed. If our actions can be manipulated by something pressing against it, 1, how can god judge us for things we have no control over? and 2, who are we when we leave our brain behind?
If you go off the bible god judges people for many things that we have no control over, like thoughts, beliefs, disability, illness, injury to certain body parts, sexuality, etc. It's something that made me question how such a god can be defined as all loving and good and also question why such a being should be worshipped or even given any attention.
Who are you when you leave your brain behind? Nothing, your brain contains all of your memories and personality, your brain is you, just like the information on a computers hard drive is the contents of the computer.
your comments are too logical for the 'brain-washed'... and no one has yet demonstrated 'we leave our brain behind'... the end is the end....
1:04:38
Eric: "...knowledge can start with a belief that you don't have to verify..."
Knowledge, by definition, is steeped in facts. I don't blame Matt for laughing out loud, as I did the same.
Obviously you aren't familiar with properly basic beliefs or epistemology.
Eric Hernandez is that begging the question?
Eric Hernandez you dont know shit about those subjects either. You just make constant assertions and pretend anyone who calls you out on your assertion must magically be more ignorant than you. You are a little worm.
You cant assert knowledge and not have anything to defend it, and expect other to believe you have knowledge.
Eric Hernandez Craig’s properly basic bs argument has been crushed numerous times
_Obviously you aren't familiar with properly basic beliefs or epistemology._
Properly basic beliefs are our *starting assumptions* . They are literally assumed to be true. They cannot be justified without engaging in circular reasoning. _If_ they are true, then my subsequent beliefs can be justified and be called knowledge.
For example, we all assume that our memory is reliable. To make any attempt to justify this belief requires you to _use_ your memory in order to justify its reliability.
Eric, it is you who is not familiar with properly basic beliefs or epistemology. Please understand that I am under the impression that you think that properly basic beliefs are in fact knowledge claims. If I have erred, then I apologize.
At 32:00 - memories are part of the soul and not the brain? Really? So memory loss is due to... what, soul loss?
Did you not watch the debate...?
@@EricHernandez of course he did, which is why he asked the question. Did YOU watch the debate?
Reuben Cohn then tell me what I said LITERALLY about the very thing you’re asking
Eric Carter see my comment above
Loss of parts of the soul didn't affect Lord Voldemort, he was just as evil as he ever was. All it did was make it very difficult to kill him. Putting parts of his soul in objects and creating Horcruxes to keep himself from being killed.
Me, I like to think the soul will ascend to a higher level of existence and live forever there - not in heaven but as pure energy like the Ancients did in Stargate SG1, no religion, just what I would like to have happen to me.
"I can know something without knowing how I can know"- Eric. That's deep.
my favorite part is when everyone claps for matt, so all the religious people randomly claps for eric a minute later, just because they feel their side can't be the only side without anyone clapping XD.
imnotdavid 😂😂😂😂
imnotdavid is the first time EVERYONE claps for Matt, religious people included, and then later the religious people clap for me too after clapping for Matt? Wow.
Joseph Sekavec 😂😂😂😂
@@EricHernandezI know you like making unsubstantiated assertions but lets not pretend you know the religious persuasion of everyone in the audiance.
I swear I can see the pastor/moderator slowly turning into an atheist during the conversation. he almost looks embarrassed ....LOL.
ian philip I noticed that too.
ian philip I swear you see what you want......LOL.
S Littles I notice you noticed that too.
@@EricHernandez Wow, your replies to comments are childish, ignorant, and antagonizing. Not very righteous in my opinion, you seem to lose your composure and stoop down to the level of those that berate you.
Jordan Scarbrough, his “arguments”!were childish, and ignorant.
Matt’s beautifully simple positions and arguments along with his intellectual honesty are in such stark contrast to Eric’s high sounding phrases and visuals. Matt’s arguments and positions are food for thought; Eric’s are word salad.
Matt’s arguments?? What arguments?
@@EricHernandez I came into this netral but he gave so much more substance to the debate. Sorry bro but you are the definition of verbal diarrhea, please consider toning that back.
@@EricHernandez Offended much?
@@EricHernandez Matt’s arguments are in the form of reasoning.
A proposition was made and Matt argued this was false via reasoning.
The fact that you don’t understand that is not surprising.
haha you continue to prove to the world, but not yourself, how ignorant you are! lolololol Please continue all these years later! @@EricHernandez
*_"One does not simply, - Debate - Matt Dillahunty, and leave with their reputation intact._*
@Ian M shush, damnit, you're going to ruin it! LOL!
I watch a LOT of debates, and Matt is probably the best at it. He's not only just intelligent, he's very articulate.
@@brandonakey6616
It also helps when you only adopt the correct/ reasonably justifiable position.
@@Raz.C Not really. As I see it Matt usually wins but his positions are rarely ever correct, reasonable or justified.
@@CCCBeaumont
I mean no offence by saying this, but I have to question if you really do know what "correct/ reasonably/ justified" actually mean, if that's your earnest position.
Perhaps we can clarify this. If you're able to provide an example of a position that Matt holds (explicitly stated, NOT inferred), that you believe is incorrect/ unreasonable/ unjustifiable, then please present it here, so that we can examine your claim.
If I cut my television in half do I have 2 programs playing now, or do I have a broken television.. therefore the television has a soul.
Richard Barrow 😂😂😂😂😂😂
You can all make fun of Eric all day long but he sure as hell made a lot of us look up "begging the question".
Now some of us are better able to spot it in ourselves...too bad Eric isn't.
Lol well, thank you.
I gotta say I think you won best comment sir or madam, bravo and well done. I literally just finished looking it up 😂😂😂
Hopefully Eric has watched this debate a few times, and now realizes how silly and intellectually dishonest his positions are.
you,re begging the question
You tell him Adam!
What did he say that you think was intellectually dishonest and silly?
@@EricHernandez Now you're begging the question, what should Adam tell him?
I think you are all begging the question
Great job Matt. I think it's a pointless debate topic, but it was a fun listen. I especially got a kick out of Erics opening statement when he said you can't use science to answer questions on the soul, then proceeds to attempt to use science to back up his claim.
Nope.
@@EricHernandez Eloquent *rolls eyes
Absolutely pointless, yes. Everything Eric described was something the brain "does". He just wanted to be something that "is". Nothing more than childish wishful thinking in response to the human fear of the end of the self.
Mat is the most patient man in the universe
na ah.
@@EricHernandez You mad.
Matt is up to a point. But he's very articulate and intelligent in his words of rebuttal. He appeals to your logic and reasoning with sensibility.
@@EricHernandez Bro you used the same level of argument throughout this ...'discussion'. U put words in people's mouth, run to different points without addressing any. I just can't take you seriously man. Be better, be less stupid! U can do it!
Yes, to endure the massacre that Erick gave him and not lose his temper like he always does.
Wow, I hope this isn’t Eric’s official RUclips page. I would do everything in my power to hide this.
It goes to show how deep the delusion runs in some people. His dishonesty is evident from the first minute. He constantly tries acrobatics to trick Matt into something defeating, instead of actually offering evidence or valid arguments. He just defines and redefines Matt’s position(s) to confuscate the terrain
Telsonater wow, I hope this isn’t Telson’s official comment. I would do everything in my power to hide this comment.
@@EricHernandez wow I hope this isn't Eric's official reply. Now you're just being ignorant.
@@ragedarker Just now....?
@@dj_menyo839 WHY CAN'T I BE IN PEACE!!!??? 😭😭😭
@@ragedarker I hope this isn't Ryden's official plea for peace in his life.
This guy Hernandez just sounds like a madman if you listen to him long enough.
Just a little
a little of a lot
He's hard to listen to.
it's painful
Truth can be painful to some.
Man, I love Matt. Excellent points, great debate skills, and always right on point. I always try to think of what he could add, and almost always come up empty. I’m so glad he’s such a large voice for the Atheist community.
Lol wow we must have watched two different debates.
@@EricHernandez Or you're a moron. It's one of those lol
@@49perfectss do you know how big a loser you are
You love Matt so much ...that's good cause you both will be burning in hell....then it's to late ....JESUS IS REAL AND HIS FATHER AND I PITY THE SOUL WHO DOESNT BELIEVE THIS
@@lorindabowling3263 🤣🤣🤣
One of the people involved in this debate has some clue of what it means to be an actual thinking person the other person is named Eric
You're just begging the question.
Ouch
You misspelled Matt Dillahunty
@@EricHernandez I can see now why the consensus agrees that Matt won the debate...
Oliver Watts me too. Cause the consensus are Dillahunty fanboys.
If I cut a physical circle in half it is no longer a circle... So do circles have souls?
You're just begging the question.
Lol you really have no idea what the argument is do you?
You tell him Dan!
Eric, I wouldn't point to Dan because either A) He is being facetious and youre too dumb to get it... or B) He is too dumb to understand satire and sarcasm because Chad wasn't in anyway begging the question. Also, your syllogisms were flawed. *Mike Drop*
@@EricHernandez I think Dan making fun of you
As a psychologist, Eric arguments hurts...
My brain now weighs less after listening to Eric.
But does it weigh less than blue?
K B my brain weighs less after reading this comment
Japhy Riddle ooooooo! You tell Riddler!
@@EricHernandez you don't have a brain
@@hermanlemmer1968 that was a hilarious comment. Did you come up with that one all by yourself?
Goooooooooooooooood this is so cringy. Eric keeps putting words in Matt's mouth, then accuses that strawman he's built of begging the question. It doesn't get more dishonest than that. Listen how many times Matt has had to repeat and re-explain his position after a false attack and how many times Eric has had to explain his position (spoiler alert: the vast majority was when Matt ASKED him for his position, so he wouldn't commit a straw man). Now who's the more honest debater?
Me!
@@EricHernandez shut the fuck up
Herman Lemmer Because that’s the response of a rational “adult”. 😒 Those four likes must have been from the 10 year olds watching.
@@theconservativechristian7308 no those 4 likes was from the tooth fairy
Herman Lemmer ....why the anger here towards Eric?
"knowledge can start with a belief that you don't have to verify" - Eric Hernandez - 1:04:32
Applying the charity principle to this guy. If we define belief as "being convinced of something" (Matt likes this definition) and kowledge as "a belief with sufficient evidence backing it up to justify rational believing" (this is still subjective, but I think we can work with this), and we grant that the scientific method, in its last phase (sufficient repetition and experimentation turning hypothesis into a theory) produces knowledge, then I think scientific method technically begins with a belief (hypothesis) which you don't have to verify while formulating it, even though you have to verify it afterwards in order for it to become knowledge... I am totally aware that is not what this guy is saying, but I like playing devil's advocate.
There is also another way to justify him. We rest all of our knowledge inthe laws of though: "law of non-contradiction", "law of excluded middle", "law of identity". These principles are axioms, we set them as true whatever situation there is because we have no choice, without them we cannot build knowledge. Therefore "knowledge can start with belief that you don't have to verify"... ok, this laws are verifiable by repetition and experimentation, but even Matt has stated that we do have to make the presuposition they are true and will continue to be true in order to build knowledge, which I agree with.
Should be re titled 'Matt Debates an Idiot!'.
Stan Stevens 😂😂😂
He's not an idiot. He's an amateur with a philosophy hobby who got into apologetics. Christian apologetics like to baby the intellect of its students so that they'll have a massive ego and make tons of errors when they do debates. It thrives on making tons of errors so that their opponent will have a hard time identifying all of them.
J w I like that title.
Lu G. BMEN
@J w Accurate
I had breakfast this morning. You're begging the question. I like bacon. You're begging the question. I can't fly. You're begging the question. Tea tastes good. You're begging the question. Terrible debater.
i agree, Eric has no clue what he is doing
Jaime Fernandez That's begging the question.
David Maxwell The fact that you think his comment about begging the question is begging the question is begging the question.
No, no, not at all!
LifeLikeWeeds Did you just beg the question?
I know Matt is trying to help the world but I dont know how he debates people who will believe anything with a childlike imagination. Hearing people say and believe goofy things is torture to me. Thanks for standing up for common sense and reality Matt.
The people @ 52:40 are laughing at you because you don't understand what "begging the question" means.
Also, please stop interrupting people so often. You use the tactic too much. It makes people think you don't have confidence in your argument and after watching the video I see why you do it. You make the debate unwatchable but maybe that was your intention.
This was an effortless win for Matt.
Nope
@@EricHernandez dumbass
Another win for Matt :D
Tomas Beha yeah...
Undefeated Matt. :D
Krauss's universe from "Nothing" Is total speculation! So is multiverses! And from truly NOTHING... NOTHING COMES!!! A Quantum vacuum is SOMETHING you Delusional moron!
ruclips.net/video/A7I3uM-kMPI/видео.html
Tomas Beha big time bro
Tomas Beha you are just begging the question
I loved when Matt says “it’s a defeater” that should be Matt’s title “the defeater” because that’s clearly what he did.
Amazing how naive Eric's concept of free will is. Amazing.
Alex Crick this comments is amazing. Amazing
@@EricHernandez comment*
@@BrettCradle *comment
*continent* =)
Isn't it adorable that since Eric has no argument he has to be a child? Hahaha
Total loss for Eric
This is wild, my favourite part is near the end when Eric reveals he's performed an exorcism hahaha
I think other parts were more memorable, but thats a fair one.
This is why we cant have nice things, people believe in monsters rather then acknowledge they are the monster.
"If you mess with the physical then you effect the souls ability to interact."
Why would that be? The soul supposedly can exist without the body at all if there is an after life that it continues in. Which means the soul doesn't need the physical at all. So why would what happens to the physical body effect any of the souls ability, if it doesn't even need the physical?
How does the non physical, non material, interact with the physical and material? If it is actually my soul that is causing me to think and move, then the soul must at some level be physically interacting with the physical matter of your body. So how does something that is non physical and non material, interact with the physical and material?
One does not simply debate Matt Dillahunty after reading the first chapter of "Logic for dummies" and does not get one's ass kicked......
Jokes on you. I've never even read the first chapter!
@@EricHernandez Evidently
Oliver Watts so you agree with me. Ferryman is wrong? 😎
@@EricHernandez Nope - you're just another presuppositionalist idiot!
There's a Dog Soul??? This guy is hilarious! This Eric guy has got me in stitches!
I'm sorry for that. Can I please help cover your medical bills?
I think the problem of consciousness was solved when we invented computers with the concept of hardware that runs software. Nobody would say that computers have souls and that dualism is true for computers, and yet they have a physical part and an immaterial part that "runs" on the physical. For the processor it's just electrical signals with no meaning, but we can write software that produces meaning for the computer. We can also add a camera and other sensors and write a software that controls the robot to do stuff. That is then basically the brain. No soul or dualism is needed. The neurons in the brain is the physical that runs the software that produces meaning for the brain.
I honestly think that one of the major problems with this soul hypothesis is that it generates more questions than answers, Matt tried to point that out but it was difficult to address the issue due to the multiple accusations of committing fallacies. But, this question of the soul has always intrigued me for several reasons:
- As Matt pointed out, How do you know the attributes conferred to the soul are given by only one substance and not several substances?
- What do mechanisms allow the soul to interact with the body? I think that despite of being a metaphysical issue it does not exclude that the interactions with the physical realm should be detectable.
- Shouldn't be better for the soul to interact with different organs of the body instead of, apparently, exclusively with the brain? That would allow to the soul to show all its capacities without dependence almost exclusively in a single organ, that seems to me like a bad design.
These and other questions could be arisen leading to the conclusion that the soul is a very bad explanation.
The discovery of the big bang raised more questions,, questions are problems,, not a refutation...
1. "How do you know the attributes conferred to the soul are given by only one substance and not several substances" ...you'd have to understand the arguments for God to come to this conclusion.
2. "the interactions with the physical realm should be detectable."...they are detectable, not in a lab, but certainly, ontologically, psychologically, theologically, the conscience, anthropologically..etc...just because you presuppose materialistic, or scientism (which is not a science at all), doesn't invalidate all other branches of science/knowledge.
3. "Shouldn't be better for the soul to interact with different organs" "without dependence almost exclusively in a single organ, that seems to me like a bad design."....really? It seems to work just fine. And if this is your position truly you should make the same conclusion about all our organs and feelings' "dependence almost exclusively in a single organ", the brain.
Eric you have misused the term begging the question so many times. Matt was making an analysis, not begging the question. He did not assume the conclusion but rather DEDUCED the conclusion logically from what followed.
Eric Hernandez's argument in a nutshell - there is such a thing as a soul because I say so. He equates with that unfortunate guy who has spent his life looking for a forest in a collection of trees and finding, well, a collection trees. There isn't the slightest evidence for the existence of a soul, for any entity, any action, which is independent of body and brain. If there is case for that totally illogical essence, demonstrate it, or, as Wittgenstein famously suggested in his Tractatus, "that of which we cannot speak we should pass over in silence."
Purple Leviathan this comment in a nut shell: Eric is wrong because I say so!
J w dude you’ve got horrible arguments for the soul. How embarrassing 🙊
@@EricHernandez you are a embarrassment, look at the dislikes on this video😂
@@hermanlemmer1968 So you mean your judgment of a matter is base on popular view? Oh gosh, poor you....
@@DavidAddoteye poor me?😂oh gosh poor you, believing in fairy tales and your imaginary friend.
Man this was painful to watch. What a terrible debater Eric was. This reminds me of the kids that got C+ in logic classes when we would debate.
you,re begging the question
Adam Smith you tell em Adam!
You can do better by telling us where you think he fell short. Cos, to me you're just following the masses
Hey Eric, while I disagree with your position and disagree with your debating style, I admire your willingness to even debate this stuff let alone throw it out on the internet. you get a thumbs up from me.
It was a fun, interesting video anyway!
Thank you! I can appreciate that!
Every time Hernandez opens his mouth so much stupid comes out.
Especially when he's quoting atheist philosophers , right?
You're just begging the question.
lol
Volmire1 misquoting maybe
Daniel W. You tell em Daniel!
1:55: "when I am asleep I keep the capacity to speak english" Horray! my computer have a soul! ^^
What about Spike? He doesn't have soul yet he sleeps?
Man I hope nobody takes Eric seriously unless they don't think for themselves.
Eric. Honestly and as politely as I can put it, you're almost as bad as Sye Ten.
Ouch bro. That was very low... :(
It's really just my honest assessment.... Mostly because, the debate was about, "Does The Soul Exist?" The argument you presented is really just you running around in a big game of words and labels, and it never really even attempts to answer the question in any other way, other than playing with words and labels. Where's the demonstration? Where's the methodology? Where's the evidence? A big convoluted word and label game does nothing to support your argument. In addition, I agree with others here that your accusation that Matt is, "begging the question," as a response to what he was presenting, is incorrect.
I gotta hand it to you though, you have a lot of guts putting yourself out there like this. I'm sure you learned a lot from it, and I wouldn't mind seeing you and Matt back at it for another go at demonic possession.... Just don't go any further down the Sye Ten road of responding incessantly, "That's begging the question!" as if though that is a valid response to something just because there is no current way of accounting for the laws of logic. Have a good one....
@@2tonetony319 What? Sye is awesome. He exposes the absurdity of atheistic world views. And he is good at it.
There's no amount of aloe that will soothe that burn
@@ChessArmyCommander You are kidding, right?
Eric do you understand what an argument from ignorance is? The argument from ignorance is that X is true until x is proven false. When you keep asking matt to provide another method, he rightly points out that he doesn't have to; that's an argument from ignorance. Then you jumped to the "Well how do you know that we need a method' fallcy, which is a complete red herring that misses the point. You tried to escape a point that you looked like you knew you were losing since you changed topics to the foundations of epistemology, even though you both already agree that relying on reason is legitimate, so why switch to epistemology?
Nope.
@@EricHernandez your a idiot
This Eric guy still believes in a soul and God, grow up my guy, it's 2019, we don't fuckin live in the dark ages no more
@@hermanlemmer1968 His replies to these comments make me want to slap the shit out of him. Typical theist has no clue about reality because he's been sheltered from the real world and forced to read the same fictional stories from the same fictional book every day. What a loser.
This is a great example of what Dawkins means when he quotes Lord May and says "That would look great on your CV, not so good on mine".
Not trying to be mean but I don't think Eric understands Matts assertions/position. And it seems that Eric speaks with the language learned in first year college philosophy without using the words and concepts effectively
Doubting Thomas I don’t think this commenter understands Matt’s position
Isn't it nice of Eric to prove to you that he isn't smart enough to understand Matt in your own comment? I thought that was sweet lol
Eric love is so pleased with himself even though he gave a lot of logical fallacies including trying to shirk the burden of proof. Eric provided no arguments for his God.
This was a debate on the soul...not God...so....yea...
@Eric and you failed miserably at that as well. Thanks for the laughs Chuckles.
Eric, are you implying that a soul exists independently of a god or "higher power"? Because you clearly think that the Christian god exists so your comment makes no sense to me. It reminds me of the christian apologetics who use the ontological argument et al. for a "maximally great being" or some such when they are absolutely arguing for THEIR brand of god and not some nebulous concept. Your comment sounds dishonest to me when you are clearly arguing for a Yahweh brand soul.
Twit Chic Ah, that was 8. God is 8. Yep yep yep that's what it is. Does Eric teach math?
ur begging ze question
I don't think Eric is actually bright enough to understand Matt's points. And they aren't very complicated points.
Dillahunty is good here.
he's good everywhere
You're just begging the question.
Casparus Kruger where?
Trooper meh
Daniel W. You tell em dan!
The instant Eric said the question couldn't be answered by science, he lost. If we're talking about a metaphysical concept, the debate is quite simply not worth having.
Gotta give Eric some respect for not shutting down the comment section.
Sadly Eric engaging with commenters reveals how obstinately confused he is about how arguments and reality work.
I was thinking the same thing about the people who can’t follow an argument. Regardless, I appreciate the respect 🙏🏼
This debate should be called.. is it possible to beg the question without a soul?
I like that.
Why did you post this? I'm embarrassed for you.
Thats just simply begging the question
These comments though!!!!!!!!!!!!😭❤️😭
Eric is still reading this comment section 8 years later and responding like a child. Grow up lol
Honestly the most petty theist out there
This is what happens when you WANT to believe
I don’t know how often I watch debates with atheists where the theist/deist refused to acknowledge that to be an atheist is to say that it is ignorant to claim to know things until there is evidence for it.
So often do people seem to get confused when the atheist says ”I don’t know”.
That’s the whole point of being an atheist. You don’t claim to know when you can’t.
I don’t understand what the statement ”science can’t prove the existence of truth” even means.
Isn’t that the whole point of science?
You make a hypotesis and then you try to prove if it is true or false.
Can someone who watches Eric’s content explain what ”science can’t prove the existence of truth” means?
In other news, this comment section is something else.
@ Eric Hernandez re: 1:07:01
Hi mate
I'm a chemist (and a psychologist), so when you said that there's a problem with Matt's fantastic analogy of "wetness" being an emergent property of water, I had to point out to you how very wrong you are. "Wetness" is a property of liquid water. Gaseous water (water vapour/ steam) is not "wet" and only becomes "wet" after a phase change back to liquid water.
Now, the reason that water (H2O) is a liquid at room temperature and standard pressure, while larger molecules like (N2O) remain gases is because of the interaction between water molecules. The bonds formed between the H and the O leaves the hydrogen as a bare proton. This bare proton is strongly attracted to the electron rich oxygen of other O2 atoms (within a H2O molecule). So the H of 1 molecule is strongly attracted to the O of other molecules. This inter-molecular attraction brings the molecules closer together, causing some steric hindrance, resulting in in a liquid, where we would otherwise expect to have seen a gas.
Thus a single molecule of of H2O (at STP) is always a gaseous molecule and as such has no "wetness" as it is not a liquid. It's only when you have enough water molecules in close proximity to each other that the aforementioned inter-molecular attraction might reach critical mass and condense out a "wet" liquid (or drop below the latent heat of condensation).
I don't know if I explained that in an understandable way, but if I did, I expect that you're now able to see that not only was Matt correct that "wetness" in fact IS an emergent property of water (arising from the inter-molecular forces between H and O atoms, due to the properties of each atom and their bonding tendencies), I dare say the analogy is perfect in representing the idea presented. I genuinely hope you'll consider studying chemistry at university. Learning about the fundamental nature of our reality opens one's mind in amazing ways and leads to further, deeper understanding.
Peace
1:04:37 "I take the position that Knowledge can start with a belief that you don't have to verify" What the hell! No wonder Matt choked.
No. I was speaking in regards to properly basic beliefs, which is NOT the same thing as "unverifiable facts". For example, I know I exist, and I knew this prior to trying to verify, because trying to verify already presupposes I already exist in the first place. Are you guys familiar with a properly basic belief in epistemology?
Yes are you?
Eric Hernandez I do know that you are basic, properly.
daroe23 haha best comment!
Except that you don't just get to claim that a belief is properly basic. You still have to justify the reasoning behind the claim. In the example of "I think, therefore I am" we do not merely accept at face value that this belief is properly basic. It can be reasonably accepted, however, that this belief is foundation because we can reason that it meets the criteria of being properly basic. If you want to claim that something else is properly basic, such as "knowledge can start with a belief," you need to present your reasons to accept it. Otherwise you're just using "properly basic" to smuggle your beliefs into the argument without reason.
Eric is not interested in truth, how can you have a belief that does not require actual truth.
Marty Thompson what in God’s green earth are you talking about?
@@EricHernandez Where is this god you refer to? There isn't any evidence of one.
@@modelsteamers671 Lol I guess you didn't even bother reading the title of the debate.
@@EricHernandez I'm asking about the God you refer to in your reply to Marty.
The claim that there is a "soul" is merely a wishful attempt to make something that the brain "does" into a thing that "is".
I felt uncomfortable watching this debate at multiple points. Eric is not only hideously bad at thinking on his feet, but he's pretentious and at times just downright offensive. The low point was when Matt said "maybe there is no such thing as truth" and Eric stuck to his guns in saying that Matt's statement was instead an assumption that there is no truth. Eric, after Matt unambiguously stated that he did not believe that, when you said "agree to disagree", you were essentially calling Matt a liar.
Contrast Eric's showing with, for example, Gary Habermas. I think Habermas is wrong, but he's obviously knowledgeable and capable of having substantive debates. This debate felt like it very quickly went off the rails for Eric, which is why I think he went off on so many irrelevant tangents and went with the amateur debate tactic of just machine-gunning accusations of informal fallacies at Matt.
All in all, Eric's knowledge, conduct and clarity of thought reminded me more of an uninformed but genuine youtuber, rather than someone educated on the matter. He would benefit from being more honest and objective in evaluating both his own arguments and criticisms against them.
Too long to read so I’m gonna say. Nope
@@EricHernandez fuckin idiot
@@EricHernandez You really shouldn't have even bothered to give a comment. Do you work to be perceived as an asshole?
Eric also focuses on whether he not we have souls ' we must have souls because X Y Z' but at no point does he adress the nature of the soul - other than declaring that dogs have 'dog shaped souls' and humans have 'human shaped souls' - [which refutes reincarnation]
Eric was completely outclassed. If he wants to improve, he could start by learning what "begging the question" means; he clearly has absolutely no idea. I've seen Matt stretched in debates before, even lose them. Not here. This was embarrassing.
I'd like to be a bit controversial and give Eric some props here. After realising he uploaded this in his own channel, I also realised comments are still not disabled on this video. Even though I disagree with his position and noted a lot of issues in his part of the debate, I totally appriciate anyone that doesn't moderate or shut down the public view even though they could. Especially seeing the reactions on here, which in most cases is justified, though I may not always agree with the approach.
He does have some humility, but I'd say he put this up thinking he "won". Still it does take alot to put yourself out there.
If it's up long enough maybe he'll come to his senses?
Sam I can appreciate that!
champ8605 I disagree. I probably have no humility, and yes, I think I won. (Jk about the humility)
mike mj84 I have come to the sense that no matter how Matt does, good or bad, some people will always cheer on their side and turn a blind eye to everything else. It’s amazing
Eric is a very poor public speaker and a worse debater. His prepared speech sounds like he's reading it off of cue cards someone else wrong in a different language.
this comment sounds like you are reading it off cue cards someone else wrote in a different language...
Eric Hernandez Really? It was short and concise and no way faltering and atonal.
I think Eric meant the comment that HE used to answer you.
He's a smug prick who has way higher of an opinion of himself than he ever should imagine deserving
Eric Hernandez congratulations on the clever retort. Your debating skills are on point within and without formal debates.
Your misuse of logical fallacies is astounding.
You can see Eric's soul leave his body on multiple occasions during this interview LMAO.
Best comment lol
Does something that humans thought up exist probably not
Erin Barr so.... inventions don’t exist? Damn.
@@EricHernandez not if they are never acted upon and built
Eric Hernandez he said . “probably not” and statistically speaking most thoughts do not manifest into objective reality. so it’s probable that something thought up doesn’t exist.
@John Reynolds Not sure what you mean here
@John Reynolds that’s a fallacious argument. complexity doesn’t require consciousness to come to be.
Eric doesn't understand begging the question. Or logic. Or Philosophy in general.
Eric Hernandez is the greatest philosopher of the 11th century
Oh stop, you're making me blush!
But he still can NOT prove the existence of a soul or any god!
I'm embarrassed to be named Eric. He is a worm. I need a shower.
The-Trustees he is the worst kind of theist: completely wrong and pathetically smug about it.
Christopher Hitchens' middle name is Eric, so it balances out
Actually that's the best kind of theist. When the bs is obvious, it helps the people who are on the fence to come over to the dark side >:-D
XD
The-Trustees But your first name is The.
Eric: You're not here to debate me.
Matt: I'd debate God if he'd show up.
Eric: You're here to debate me.
Basically sums up this entire waste of time.
Nick Workman what in the blue hell are you talking about???
God is never gonna show up, ever.
I don’t think I believe in a soul, but more importantly I don’t understand exactly what a soul is supposed to be. I mean a coherent explanation of what a soul is supposed to be. For fun I have asked religious people over and over. I have discovered (great surprise) that the religious people haven’t really thought about either. I have literally never heard a coherent, logical explanation in what they actually believe a soul is and how it works.
I can only assume eric is a well practised liar as he blithely ignores what is said. cannot watch anymore.
phaerty99 this comment ignores what was said
@@EricHernandez yeah it does!!
Don't put this in your CV.
Don’t put this comment in your CV
@@EricHernandez your like a little kid, grow up
What is a CV?
@@devoncarter613 it’s another term for a resume.
Eric: For all scenarios x, P(x) implies Q(x).
Matt: There exists a scenario x such that P(x) is true but Q(x) is false. Therefore, it is not true that for all scenarios x, P(x) implies Q(x).
Eric: That's begging the question!
Matt and everyone watching: ????
I consider this debate a tie because Eric has a really nice head of hair.
Jawohl!!!!!!!!!! *SLAMS THE TABLE*
Memories aren't material?! Is this guy from the 1700's?
Credit where it’s due, no one is better at talking in circles and dodging questions than Eric. Also if he provides a counter example to my claim he is begging the question.
Eric, you have probably been told already by others but I haven't seen any comments saying it, so here I go. Regarding an analogy you abused of, the "weight of light". You should know that light actually does have mass, very tiny, but it does as well as it exerts a measurable gravitational field. And this has been known for over 100 years now thanks to relativity. In fact the mass of light is related to the energy of light which in turn is related to the frequency/color of light. A quick search for PBS SpaceTime videos will give more insight.
Regards!
Lies
@@EricHernandez this is pathetic man, literally just research it. Light has both mass and momentum.
@@EricHernandez E=mc^2 would show that photons have relative mass. Energy and mass are interchangable. A box with photons has relatively more mass then a box with no photons. Photons don't have measurable mass, but have energy that show it has relative mass.
I lost all respect I had left for Eric after this response. Jesus.
Wow you really can't make the horse drink.
I just lost respect to all people named Eric, sawwy
:( sawwy to hear that.
"You" are not your brain and body, you are a collection of processes carried out by your brain and body.
Your experience of being you is the (partially interrupted through sleep and other events) continuation of these processes. It probably doesn't even matter too much what physical parts carry out these processes, only that at no point in time too many of them are interrupted at once.
Edit: The important detail I forgot is the interaction of the various processes. The "split brain" reminded me of this.
Lol. The color blue does have a quantifiable weight. The photon for the wavelengths that are called blue has zero mass. That gives it a weight of zero in a gravitational field. Therefore, blue does have weight.
Incorrect, you chop a person in half you have half a homo sapien.
And actually the knowing that people change is a main reason why prison sentences are getting more and more reasonable. Is because of the things you're trying to disprove. This is absolutely ludicrous
The only soul l ever witnessed came from Motown.