His entire argument falls apart when he says "I'm ONLY going to give you two choices" . He's setting unrealistic papameters. When he says "you can't, you can't, you can't" he's ommiting viable options in the debate. In the end, what it really boils down to is "God exists because I say so". His argument is no stronger than that. You could take his entire argument and prove the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists just as easily.
This guy says a hell of a lot, while constantly complaining that he's yet to make his point. I doubt there is a point...besides the one atop his mostly empty noggin, that is.
Wow! That is one pretentious, smug, obnoxious, smarmy motherfucker. That asshole flashed me back to suffering through the one INEVITABLE unbearable, weasely little fundamentalist that stank up EVERY Philosophy 101class. The pinch-faced hooker, defensive about having his fairy-tale blanket ruffled. He's found 'epistemological, 'transcendent' & 'teleological' in his 101 textbook & drops them to obfuscate his absolutely absurd little repackaging of St. Anselm's bullshit. I always hate that guy.
@Feydmep - exactly. This is a repackaging of St. Anselm's nonsense. He tried to define God into existence, and so is Matt Slick. Logic does not determine existence, only empirical observation can. Someone should tell him to read Kant and Hume.
@ShootNeutrality- For sure. Maybe my favorite response to that Anselm defining God into existence piss-pile was from Bertrand Russell (I'm almost positive). He was in a debate with some theist who says, 'So you don't accept St. Anselm's proof?' And Russell just dismissed that simp-ery altogether, not bothering with anything elaborate. He says something like, 'Of course. Only a fool wouldn't.' That's how I feel about it. Getting wrapped up in these endless semantic wranglings...
@ShootNeutrality-... is sometimes missing the forest for the trees. Try to bluster your way into scoring some vague, obscure, arbitrary point all you want, Matt Slick, the fact is: Christianity's foundational book is a nightmare of totally moronic mythology and ugly immorality. It's a joke! (By the way, in my last B. Russell quote- 'Only a fool wouldn't' = 'only a fool would', obviously!
i think the part i hated most was when slick(the fucker) claimed he had won the debate, that arrogant apologetic turd was farther from "winning" the debate than he was from getting any sort of neural brain activity, thick fuck...
A saw Matt Slick masturbating while looking at porn in a book store. He was doing it right where many people could see him. He has like a 2 inch penis. It was disgusting.
in terms of logical absolutes not being dependent on space and time. Im christian and i can say that im not so sure about that. I mean you do have scientific theories such as the string theory and such, that explain things outside the realm of space and time. Now, what i say personally for the existence of god is that it makes sense that a deity created the universe as much as it does that a mechanic built a car at an autoshop. But its a purely metaphysical statement
@gulbirk You are absolutely bang on, mate. That is exactly what it is. Trying to dress up known facts to present and parallel other ideas with absolutely no substance but to those who want to believe in them.
@gulbirk No, you are dead right the entire argument was "talk shit until I confuse you". It is no wonder he thinks he wins debates. Every time he said something and it was pointed out he had argued it, he turned to "no I didn't". I know I heard the argument that thought and so god are outside this universe. Debate cancelled due to poor argument and out right dishonesty in my book.
Damn.... As much as I love these guys, this vid was sort of disappointing. Matt did this debate MUCH better justice, BUT matt slick is still an idiot... :)
The logical absolutes apply to everything, including themselves. And IF any given god existed, he would be CONTINGENT ON THEM in order to exist. If any given god was NOT contingent on them, he/she/it could both exist and not exist. The logical absolutes cannot be created by anything, because things that create things cannot both exist and not exist.
I understand Matt Slick's argument (at long last). I think it is incorrect, however. Logical Absolutes are just TRUTHS about the universe. I really wish Slick would stop using the word "logical absolutes," because it connotes the tool that is known as logic. Rather, what he should say is that Truth is transcendental. A rock is a rock, even if there are no human beings around to take note of the rock. However, just because truth is transcendental does not mean that it is conceptual.
an unbreakable set of armor, and an all cutting sword cannot exist in a universe, whether or not a mind exists in that universe, besides Slick first says: The laws of thought are transcendent, then he says: the laws of thought are dependent on a mind (6:16). But in order for a mind to exist something must exist, even if your mind is an aurora like the God concept, it exists, immaterially, but it exists. So Matt Slick contradicted himself.
What he's basically saying is 'Logic exists, therefor god exists' which holds about as much water as saying 'Dogshit exists, therefor god exists.'
Just he dresses it up really elaborately in order to stump people and then declares victory if they can't cut through all the bullshit fast enough for a snappy reply.
I mean seriously... Since when is 'X exists so Y exists' a valid logical argument? X existence is proof of X existence, and that's IT.
I think the thing is with debates, I wouldn't be good at it. I think I got the mental skills, but I lack the patience. I genuinely dislike people to begin with, and especially irritating bullshitters.
Slick's argument simple takes advantage of the weakness of the language. Logical absolutes are self-reinforcing. If they weren't then everything would be everything...and nothing.
The simplest refutation of TAG is to simply apply it to god, "can god escape logical absolutes?"
If not then 'he' is not the genesis of them either. It is a stupid way to refute the argument because it concedes a ridiculous point but the whole argument is beyond juvenile to begin with.
haha logic is part of the physical universe, because the only place it forms is in thought and conversation. if there were no brains.. (taking up physical form and space) then there would be no logic.
Dude! You just came into this argument by saying you can present proof for God, stop being so childish and denying the other side just for the sake of denying the other side, and whatever critic you receive you claim you've been "interrupted" and would "get to that point later".
i conditionally agree with you in that there are chemical reactions, but thought also is based on experience as well. granted experience is "recorded" in the brain in neural pathways and is also a chemical reaction, but thought is not a process involving just one factor.
"That's not what I said." OK, well I guess that he said nothing. How embarrassing to try to use this argument. I wonder the motive of a person who knows that they are being intellectually dishonest.
At first I was annoyed that the hosts kept interjecting and wanted to hear the guy make his argument, but right at the end there I think they nailed it at the critical point, and it was on the same point that I think Matt does when addressing this same argument. Well done, sirs.
So the conclusion is that everything that physically exists is not absolute. We have a fixed reality since that everything is under the illusion of absolution because everybody sees something the same way. You and me see a table there. But everything is relative because how do we know that the table is actually there and not just an illusion. It must mean that there is a multiplying reality also. Since that reality can only be perceived by our senses!
What a crock of shit since some people can't grasp logic and logical absolutes are always right regardless and since some SHEEPLE (Matt Slick's and those who follow his flawed logic) and many others including atheists don't understand logic then it must be God.
Its like saying 2+2=4 which it will always be and always has been so if anyone thinks 2+2=3 or any other wrong answer this proves God.
Since 2+2=4 is always and always has been it isn't something humans invented there must be a God
Ive heard this christian clown before in a debate about logic being trancendendent he so on his high horse about this subject and he thinks he has something thats going to prove god.
Logic IS a property of the unviverse because logic is human logic created in a human brain which DOES exist in space and time and has a mass of approximately 1.4kg. Without a brain there can be no logic. That arguement was pointless...
Mat Slick was being very, well, slick, and they were right to point out his many unjustified assumptions.
Slick is a very disingenuous debater, constantly misusing language to buttress his claims. Notice how, e.g., he stated that the fact the laws of logic work in all places at all times means they must be "transcendent." Wrong! It means they are UNIVERSAL, which is a completely different concept.
First of all, transcendental just means supernatural. Reject any premises that rely on something transcendental "existing" (since existence usually is defined as something NATURAL... AKA: IN REALITY)
Second, logic doesn't have to be 100% absolute to warrant rational discourse. 100% certainty is not a prerequisite for belief because it's an unrealistic expectation. Similarly, being not 100% certain of any scientific theory doesn't mean that we should outright abandon it. Dumb.
"Logic is not a property of the universe if it can't be weighed or measured"
WTF?! Is he saying that logic doesn't exist within the universe or that it can't exist within our universe without a god? I can make this discussion way shorter; ask the guy why a god must exist for logic to exist. This guy is stuck in his own way of thinking and can't even imagine a world without his god, crazy. Saying that without a god, basic concepts such as either "a" or not "a" would not be true is very stupid.
Actually if brain scans were advanced enough we probably could quantize logical thought processes so they do exist in nature. We can also see that logic is based on concepts from nature, so although it cannot be "weighed" it can be applied and proven through testing; he's just presenting the argument backwards. But this guy was only interested in trying to confuse and accuse, the mantra of the apologist movement. Otherwise he's smart enough to do something more useful in life. What a waste!
You will be interested to hear that this is demonstrably true now. A person's brain waves can now be analyzed while looking at different shapes. The computer recognizes a series of synapses firing. We can then ask the person to think of any of the shapes and physically see what they are thinking with 100% repeatability.
All of these "laws of logic" were abandoned by Christianity after the Roman Empire fell, so I'm really curious as to why the Church would drop something that now "proves" their point of view. Oh wait, I know... because they hadn't figured out a way to use them to "support" their POV like this guy is trying to do now! Why do the apologists constantly use such underhanded tactics to try to get their ridiculous points across? The constant stream of intellectual dishonesty is sickening.
Most experienced debaters with a knowledge of logic and philosophy wouldn't even bother arguing the points these guys cant seem to absorb. These arguments of logic were put to rest 1000s of years ago. If they had a reasonable argument they would move on to the callers question.
Not understanding an argument or realizing that it is not debatable (or hasn't been for a 1000 years) is not something to be proud of.
HI my name is Matt Slick, I have a semantical shit sandwich of an argument for you, and I intend on being a condescending douche bag while listening to your attempts at rebuttal...HarHarHarHarHar.
I second that. These guys are idiots, and arrogant too. TAG does have a major problem though, but it's not as if these half-assed atheists would find it because they wouldn't bother to understand his argument.
I think the fundamental problem the caller overlooks, is almost nothing can be considered absolute - our perception of the universe continually changes as our powers of observation grow and expand. Since what he's describing as logic is thoroughly dependent upon our perception of what's around us, it changes as we get better at perceiving it.
It seems like he's describing a philosophical absolute, not a logical one... which is fallacious in and of itself.
Well, the problem is that if logic is absolute the only way to prove it is absolute is by observation, and if we observe it to be true then that is reason enough to believe it is true. As they said in the video, logic is descriptive, not prescriptive. Logic is simply a description of how we observe the universe to operate. One need only ask the caller why he believes in logic. His answer would have to be observation because the Bible never talks laws of logic, so his argument fails right there.
Absolutely - Essentially what I said, however poorly worded. The relationship between logic (logical deduction, anyway) and perception is perhaps the only 'absolute' here.
Heh... for that matter, the buy-bull talks of manner of ill logic. Or so we now know. If nothing else, it serves as an excellent example of what I mean: that our perception or perceptive ability changes over time.
And you even bothered to spout your same objections in the second part of teh video. Wow. How sad. By the way, they do allow him to talk for more than 10 seconds. (The first 50 seconds are his, for instance, but there are many more instances. Maybe next time, even though your obviously preset mind probably won't allow you to, you might want to pay attention next time.)
@leifey Slick keeps trying to use big words to make his argument seem solid. The problem he's running into, he's talking to people that understand what those big words mean and thus can actually interact with him about them. And so his "logic" starts to break down.
Slick is the smartest dumbass I've ever heard. lol Seriously, his argument holds no ground, and he keeps acting like their interrupting him; when he has absolutely no evidence to support his claims. Let's suppose that there was a God, who had to put these 'logical absolutes' into place; then what was God before he put these absolutes into place? And how can he prove WHAT it is God at all by asserting he created them? I could as easily assert that I did five minutes ago!
I love the poetic, scientific sound of new age philosophers. They try to confuse people and make them think they are correct. They just use the same words. (Space, time, logical absolutes, transcendent, conceptual) STFU new age philosophers
Isn't it good enough to say we don't know where the logical absolutes come from?
Like the thunder examples. How many things to we have to prove do not belong to God before we realize there is no God.
Its like the creationists. You can find a million fossils that fit the evolutionary theory. And they will still not be satisfied until you find 1 million and 1.
So Matt Slick is just an anomaly is just a creationist with big words.
I agree with you. That's what I meant when I said he was the smartest dumb ass I've ever heard. Most people, when they argue for something imaginary don't bring up logical absolutes. I guess in a way its not smart at all, the only thing that's smart about it are the parts he stole from other people who actually THOUGHT about these things, and used it as a weapon for his dogmatic rhetoric.
no your trying to make it simple so you dont want to let go of your atheistic worldview because you feel uncomfortable you just say lets settle for the one were something exist and be lazy so God doesnt exist
Here is the problem with all proofs of God, they're useless! Even if you come to a conclusion and label it god, it brings you no closer to an ideology. You could at best consider yourself a deist. You heard it from Slick at the beginning, either there is a god or there isn't. Fine, we'll call that God. Your proof does NOTHING to explain his nature. So fine, your belief in undefined God is warranted. Your belief in Christianity is still unfounded.
The guys on the show do a terrible job of defending their position. Matt clearly has a better understanding of the principals of logic; he's not necessarily correct, but of the two sides, the hosts are the ones who seem to be pulling more stuff out of their asses.
Logic is not transcendent because it is contingent on statements and statements are contingent on mind. Logic is absolute in relationship to statements. Slick confuses absolute logic with the authorship of logic. If we go back a billion years and make a statement that is self contradictory that person made an illogical statement but the logical absolutes still stand. Matt made the assumption that the speaker or thinker authors the logical absolutes if god didn't author them which in incorrect.
Actually the debate didn't come to a halt because they stopped him when he was wrong, there was just come misunderstandings. However, the next episode he gets to talk with Matt Dillahunty, who did research his argument, he understood it completely and shot it to the ground. Slick refused to accept that, of course.
I don't agree with Slick but I have say if he cooked that stuff by himself he is pretty smart not that it is correct but it is not something idiot could cook up.
I agree that Slick is smart; he may even be intelligent but when you base your argument on a fallacious premise as he did then your logic is also fallacious. He feels he has won the argument when he simply refuses to acknowledge being beaten and then proceeds to regurgitate more gibberish that he calls logic.
I agree. If logic is relative then what difference does it make if we use it or not. If an atheist calls me illogical then he is simply saying that you do not use logic the way that I do. He is not saying that you are wrong. If humans created logic then they would have had to do so illogically.
I would disagree. I believe that someones knowledge or use of logic may depend on their experiences, but that doesn't mean that logic in, and of itself is relative. If humans created logic then they would have had to do so illogically.
You seem to know less about the subject than anyone in the video. There's a (big) difference between logic and logical absolutes. Logic is the model we develop and use to understand the world around us, and is a product of the mind of the individual, and might therefore differ from one person to another. Logical absolutes can (and do) exist without the presence of a mind , which can be proven.
One might as well assert that gravity is also transcendent, because it still exists without matter or time in theory, though it applies no force. Logic, similarly applies no "force" without the universe, and if it is labeled an transcendent, so must other physical laws. In reality, none are really transcendent. The cause and effect nature of this universe also allows for logic, without this property of the universe, there would be no logic either. These laws only manifest in the physical.
the universe. If we assume the universe is the way we observe it, then saying that something is what it is is just a property of the universe, like any other property, which may be arbitrary. Then again, quantum mechanics seems to say that things sometimes are what they aren't. This premise is very unclear, Russell and Don are right to interrupt, because his definition and description of logic don't make sense, neither at first nor upon further consideration.
a point of reference. If different people saw too different things while looking at something, that law would be invalid, thus logic is dependent on human perception and does change depending on the individual mind, and Matt is wrong. If we assume that there is in fact a constant world outside of human perception, then that law is dependent on space and time, as it is physical laws of the universe that makes things what they are. Things being what they are is a method in which we observe...
Okay, this argument is kind of ridiculous, the kind where even if I couldn't disprove it, once I heard it out there is no way I'd feel in any way convinced of anything. He's pretty much forcing us to reason out where logic comes from. This has to be done by looking at what logic is, one piece at a time. 1st: something is what it is and is not what it is not. This is only true because all humans share our perception because our brains work the same way. As Russell said, it depends on...
as i told slick that if other universe's exist there is nothing that demands that the laws of physics or logic that we have will apply to it, so logic is dependant upon the universe
@AtheistAtLARGE The logical absolutes are transcendent of the universe too. They are the essence of everything. Something just cannot possibly be what it is and be what it is not at the same. This is no matter the universe or no matter the reality. Any existent thing cannot be what it is and what it is not at the same time, ever.
@RockBanned there is no absolute that another universe would follow the same rules as we do, the universe could be based on what ever dark matter and dark energy is, it could be based in an anti way thus our laws shouldnt apply
As for something not being something else, its all about perseption, if you spin a square fast enough you see a circle, what looks like a square to us being viewed from a black hole would be different, it would look as something it wasnt
@DebateFaith But i'm not talking about perception; i'm talking about essence. That spun square that is perceived as a circle is still a square. Not only is it still a square, but it is not not a square.
No matter what scenario you come up with, or whatever universe you're in, an object cannot be the essence of what it is and then also be something it is not.
@DebateFaith No, you're missing the whole entire concept of the logical absolutes. If the spun circle's essence is changed as it approches a black hole makes no consequence...it is what it is and is not what it is not.. The essence of ice changes when you heat it, but at the time it is ice it is ice and it is not "not ice", and that is the whole point.
If something's characteristics are changed, then it becomes something else, but it is not what it was before at the same time.
slick schooled these two morons...lol...the only think these 2 did was keep interupting him....they coulndt keep up with him.....now they've asked him to call back cause the couldnt answer...they needed a back up...from another moron..hahahahahahahahahahaha...ha
TAG is smoke and mirrors. It claims that since logic is not material, it must be spiritual. In reality it is neither. It is a model, accessible to physical beings with pattern recognizing and reasoning capabilities, but not dependent on them. We recognize the laws of logic held sway 4 billion years ago, even though no such beings existed then. TAG supporters would have to believe that if gods and humans didn't exist, 1+1 could equal 3. This is nuts.
i doubt that....if he had really followed the bible and understood it he wouldnt be an athiest....the bible hasnt changed and applies to all nations and generations. science changes from time to time and new scientists prove other scientists wrong, but the bible has been the problem solving book.....but thats a debate for another day....gotta go and thanks for your civility....i hardly get that from athiest.
Well if you're interested, I guess you could e-mail their show & ask the host about their experiences & why some became atheists after long years of being Christian.
The link to their site is in the description of the video. (youtube comment system doesn't allow me to post links.)
if he had really followed the bible and understood it he wouldnt be an athiest <-- When a person regards Christianity as absolute truth, they don't accept the possibility that they could be wrong. When they observe others leaving the faith, they naturally place the fault on the person who is leaving, instead of considering the possibility that Christianity itself could be at false
science changes from time to time and new scientists prove other scientists wrong <-- the only way to disprove science is with more science,i find it funny you insult science yet have no probelm enjoying the fruits of its labor,the computer your typeing on for example,
the bible hasnt changed <-- many religons and other religious text have never changed,whats your point the bible has been the problem solving book <-- the bible says the earth is flat,we have proven its not flat,therefore your bible solves nothing,it gave a false claim
@jhamel :The reason why the bible hasn't changed is because it can't "afford" the changes. Science uses a methodology which is always being improved upon.That's why you see science revising itself.The bible has a poor track record in this regard. Do you really believe there was a world wide flood, for instance?The mythology in the bible pales in comparison to the evidence scientifically.
no you guys are the problem to the world......but i understand cos salvation is not for all...you will nerver understand wisdom if you dont search. you guys dont even know the bible.
you guys dont even know the bible. <-- perhaps we do know it and found out it was a lie and christianty is false,you seem unwilling to consider the possablity you may be wrong
Yeah, Matt may have been allowing the interruptions to get to him a little to much. I think that caused him to be a bit redundant. Overall, I'd say the whole discussion was pointless haha. Thanks for the heads up on the other video, btw. I'll check it out.
In reality, what Mr. Slick is saying is totally sound. It's sad, because I don't believe that these gentlemen even truly understand what's being argued by Mr. Slick. They can only revert to diversion tactics (such as laughing, or ridiculing). They're just a couple of uneducated laymen attempting to come off as intellectuals. They're not fooling me =).
Yeah, you're right on the interruptions part. However, it seemed like Matt was taking forever to present a simple argument that could have been summed up in 2 sentences.
Btw, Matt Slick called back later during another show & there was another longer discussion. It's in my uploads, if you'd be interested watching a longer discussion.
One word: incompetency. These two guys are a joke. They're nothing but a couple of condescending, pseudo-intellectuals with a bankrupt, philosophical dead-end for a worldview.
They constantly demonstrate that they don't even understand the most basic concepts regarding logic ( concepts that are agreed upon by most atheist/theist philosophers, by the way). Instead, they arbitrarily create their own definitions and meanings for logic, while at the same time declaring the exact opposite of what their own definition warrants! On top of that, rather than hearing Slick out, they're constantly making condescending remarks as if what Matt is saying is totally unbelievable.
I prefer Matt D. he's less arrogant. He's quite a bit more respectful than these guys. seems to me that they've already made up their minds even before the debate started.
Just because two or more people agree on something doesnt make it logical. Bob, Jill, and Frank could all agree that 2+2=5. That doesn't make it logical. In fact it is completely illogical. It doesn't line up with reality.
The two guys in the vid were basically saying that logic is based upon whether or not two or more people agree on something. If they agree then it is logic...
"To me it seemed they were saying there is an outside reference for thngs, besides just in our head, that's why "logic" as a tool applies."
... which is absurd. What they are saying is that the laws of logic are based on empirical observation of the external world, rending it a posteriori instead of a priori. This is absurd because our ability to understand the external world presupposes that the laws of logic are already in place in our minds.
If logic was dependent on our minds then 2+2 would have to = 5 because bob, jill, and frank agreed on it. It was their logic. And if Jerry, John, and Joe said that 2+2= 6 then it would be true according to their logic. That's if it was dependent upon our minds. When logic is limited to the human mind, it becomes relative. When we look at reality though, logic is not relative. In reality 2+2=4. It's not a product of the human mind. The human mind is just able to recognize it.
Did Matt Slick start out as a used car salesman?
knightone57 2 weeks ago
TAG sets up a massive premise which still doesn't actually lead to the drawn conclusion.
dahuterschuter 2 weeks ago
His entire argument falls apart when he says "I'm ONLY going to give you two choices" . He's setting unrealistic papameters. When he says "you can't, you can't, you can't" he's ommiting viable options in the debate. In the end, what it really boils down to is "God exists because I say so". His argument is no stronger than that. You could take his entire argument and prove the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists just as easily.
TheThunderduck 4 weeks ago
This guy says a hell of a lot, while constantly complaining that he's yet to make his point. I doubt there is a point...besides the one atop his mostly empty noggin, that is.
TomVodkaCollins 1 month ago in playlist More videos from kyokumajr
so ..... the flying spaghetti monster created logic and the universe
so clear to me now !!
mikesomething 2 months ago
@mikesomething You understand the truth of his noodle appendage.
thesparitan 2 months ago in playlist More videos from kyokumajr
Logical absolutes don't exist at the quantum level. So this argument fails.
ApatheticOmniscience 2 months ago
Wow! That is one pretentious, smug, obnoxious, smarmy motherfucker. That asshole flashed me back to suffering through the one INEVITABLE unbearable, weasely little fundamentalist that stank up EVERY Philosophy 101class. The pinch-faced hooker, defensive about having his fairy-tale blanket ruffled. He's found 'epistemological, 'transcendent' & 'teleological' in his 101 textbook & drops them to obfuscate his absolutely absurd little repackaging of St. Anselm's bullshit. I always hate that guy.
Feydmep 2 months ago
@Feydmep - exactly. This is a repackaging of St. Anselm's nonsense. He tried to define God into existence, and so is Matt Slick. Logic does not determine existence, only empirical observation can. Someone should tell him to read Kant and Hume.
ShootNeutrality 2 months ago
@ShootNeutrality- For sure. Maybe my favorite response to that Anselm defining God into existence piss-pile was from Bertrand Russell (I'm almost positive). He was in a debate with some theist who says, 'So you don't accept St. Anselm's proof?' And Russell just dismissed that simp-ery altogether, not bothering with anything elaborate. He says something like, 'Of course. Only a fool wouldn't.' That's how I feel about it. Getting wrapped up in these endless semantic wranglings...
Feydmep 2 months ago
@ShootNeutrality-... is sometimes missing the forest for the trees. Try to bluster your way into scoring some vague, obscure, arbitrary point all you want, Matt Slick, the fact is: Christianity's foundational book is a nightmare of totally moronic mythology and ugly immorality. It's a joke! (By the way, in my last B. Russell quote- 'Only a fool wouldn't' = 'only a fool would', obviously!
Feydmep 2 months ago
@Feydmep hear hear.
thesparitan 2 months ago in playlist More videos from kyokumajr
This has been flagged as spam show
are they conceptual?
- how do you know? to define them as being conceptual is just rhetoric based on your presumption they're based on a mind
They might be abstract.
types10000 4 months ago
Logic is comparative. Logic also depends upon the existence of time. So it's pretty clear that logic is not transcendental.
djtripnosys 6 months ago
i think the part i hated most was when slick(the fucker) claimed he had won the debate, that arrogant apologetic turd was farther from "winning" the debate than he was from getting any sort of neural brain activity, thick fuck...
JuanchoMan 7 months ago
Both debates with Matt Slick are my favorite bits of the show.
felipeshide 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
A saw Matt Slick masturbating while looking at porn in a book store. He was doing it right where many people could see him. He has like a 2 inch penis. It was disgusting.
MrSupernova890 7 months ago
in terms of logical absolutes not being dependent on space and time. Im christian and i can say that im not so sure about that. I mean you do have scientific theories such as the string theory and such, that explain things outside the realm of space and time. Now, what i say personally for the existence of god is that it makes sense that a deity created the universe as much as it does that a mechanic built a car at an autoshop. But its a purely metaphysical statement
jamaicanification 8 months ago
Am I the only one who feel like apologism is basicly just stating allot of things that sound good without presenting evidence?
gulbirk 8 months ago 11
@gulbirk You are absolutely bang on, mate. That is exactly what it is. Trying to dress up known facts to present and parallel other ideas with absolutely no substance but to those who want to believe in them.
bootneckbonz 2 months ago
@gulbirk That's the definition of religion as a whole, not just apologism.
TomVodkaCollins 1 month ago in playlist More videos from kyokumajr
@gulbirk No, you are dead right the entire argument was "talk shit until I confuse you". It is no wonder he thinks he wins debates. Every time he said something and it was pointed out he had argued it, he turned to "no I didn't". I know I heard the argument that thought and so god are outside this universe. Debate cancelled due to poor argument and out right dishonesty in my book.
socioeconomicsisshit 1 month ago in playlist More videos from kyokumajr
Damn.... As much as I love these guys, this vid was sort of disappointing. Matt did this debate MUCH better justice, BUT matt slick is still an idiot... :)
crusaders36 9 months ago
matt slick sucks
stinkylettuce 9 months ago
The logical absolutes apply to everything, including themselves. And IF any given god existed, he would be CONTINGENT ON THEM in order to exist. If any given god was NOT contingent on them, he/she/it could both exist and not exist. The logical absolutes cannot be created by anything, because things that create things cannot both exist and not exist.
greyeyed123 9 months ago
I understand Matt Slick's argument (at long last). I think it is incorrect, however. Logical Absolutes are just TRUTHS about the universe. I really wish Slick would stop using the word "logical absolutes," because it connotes the tool that is known as logic. Rather, what he should say is that Truth is transcendental. A rock is a rock, even if there are no human beings around to take note of the rock. However, just because truth is transcendental does not mean that it is conceptual.
felisleo101 1 year ago
This randomly just occurred to be but...doesn't logic prove logic? o.o
Darthmas2242 1 year ago
an unbreakable set of armor, and an all cutting sword cannot exist in a universe, whether or not a mind exists in that universe, besides Slick first says: The laws of thought are transcendent, then he says: the laws of thought are dependent on a mind (6:16). But in order for a mind to exist something must exist, even if your mind is an aurora like the God concept, it exists, immaterially, but it exists. So Matt Slick contradicted himself.
MacabreManifesto 1 year ago
TAG=#FAIL
DaGavinX 1 year ago
Heh, last time I checked Transcendental applied to the TARDIS not logic.
MakoSharkX 1 year ago
Slick shows why I hate apologists.
What he's basically saying is 'Logic exists, therefor god exists' which holds about as much water as saying 'Dogshit exists, therefor god exists.'
Just he dresses it up really elaborately in order to stump people and then declares victory if they can't cut through all the bullshit fast enough for a snappy reply.
Fucking apologists.
Shavarnarak 1 year ago 15
@Shavarnarak
I mean seriously... Since when is 'X exists so Y exists' a valid logical argument? X existence is proof of X existence, and that's IT.
I think the thing is with debates, I wouldn't be good at it. I think I got the mental skills, but I lack the patience. I genuinely dislike people to begin with, and especially irritating bullshitters.
Shavarnarak 1 year ago
@Shavarnarak You need to get educated more maybe drop your ignorance.
JACOESHMT 1 month ago
Slick's argument simple takes advantage of the weakness of the language. Logical absolutes are self-reinforcing. If they weren't then everything would be everything...and nothing.
The simplest refutation of TAG is to simply apply it to god, "can god escape logical absolutes?"
If not then 'he' is not the genesis of them either. It is a stupid way to refute the argument because it concedes a ridiculous point but the whole argument is beyond juvenile to begin with.
Slick is a joke
Hopeful71 1 year ago 3
He hasn't proved God; all he did was go in circles.
beasty513 1 year ago
haha logic is part of the physical universe, because the only place it forms is in thought and conversation. if there were no brains.. (taking up physical form and space) then there would be no logic.
misnoto 1 year ago
"You're trying to find God into existence."
"No I'm not!"
Dude! You just came into this argument by saying you can present proof for God, stop being so childish and denying the other side just for the sake of denying the other side, and whatever critic you receive you claim you've been "interrupted" and would "get to that point later".
Rocky183 1 year ago
What drivel. Logic is just human thought, which is a chemical reaction, like everything it exists in the real world.
gillyssquashball 1 year ago
@gillyssquashball
i conditionally agree with you in that there are chemical reactions, but thought also is based on experience as well. granted experience is "recorded" in the brain in neural pathways and is also a chemical reaction, but thought is not a process involving just one factor.
rns13 1 year ago
matt not slick...more of a prick.
retrojaxed2 1 year ago
"That's not what I said." OK, well I guess that he said nothing. How embarrassing to try to use this argument. I wonder the motive of a person who knows that they are being intellectually dishonest.
trueleroix 1 year ago
At first I was annoyed that the hosts kept interjecting and wanted to hear the guy make his argument, but right at the end there I think they nailed it at the critical point, and it was on the same point that I think Matt does when addressing this same argument. Well done, sirs.
JustOneEarth 1 year ago
/wrist
jay81rd 1 year ago
So the conclusion is that everything that physically exists is not absolute. We have a fixed reality since that everything is under the illusion of absolution because everybody sees something the same way. You and me see a table there. But everything is relative because how do we know that the table is actually there and not just an illusion. It must mean that there is a multiplying reality also. Since that reality can only be perceived by our senses!
xxXcutmeopen15Xxx 1 year ago
Don's right on the fucking money in this clip.
CrazyBluePrime 1 year ago
This guy is so fucking stupid. He says "they're transcendent" then he says "but they're dependent on a mind.
Does he know what transcendent means?
RockBanned 1 year ago
What a crock of shit since some people can't grasp logic and logical absolutes are always right regardless and since some SHEEPLE (Matt Slick's and those who follow his flawed logic) and many others including atheists don't understand logic then it must be God.
Its like saying 2+2=4 which it will always be and always has been so if anyone thinks 2+2=3 or any other wrong answer this proves God.
Since 2+2=4 is always and always has been it isn't something humans invented there must be a God
robvlob 1 year ago
This guy is an idiot he just goes in circles over and over again until you're confused then he says therefore god MUST exist!
theaceofspades39 1 year ago
Matt Slick is a transcendental idiot.
cachimadrid 1 year ago 2
Ive heard this christian clown before in a debate about logic being trancendendent he so on his high horse about this subject and he thinks he has something thats going to prove god.
wachnathan 1 year ago
That still doesnt prove that a (god) is real. The imaganation is the reason for logic and reason with out that we would not acknowledge logic.
wachnathan 1 year ago
Logic IS a property of the unviverse because logic is human logic created in a human brain which DOES exist in space and time and has a mass of approximately 1.4kg. Without a brain there can be no logic. That arguement was pointless...
Kimmyloca0 1 year ago
That Matt must have some high levels of patients to put up with them two chuckle brothers
FeignofCordor 1 year ago
Mat Slick was being very, well, slick, and they were right to point out his many unjustified assumptions.
Slick is a very disingenuous debater, constantly misusing language to buttress his claims. Notice how, e.g., he stated that the fact the laws of logic work in all places at all times means they must be "transcendent." Wrong! It means they are UNIVERSAL, which is a completely different concept.
/watch?v=D8dePAhDMh4&feature=PlayList&p=1454A4526AF52B1A&playnext_from=PL&playnext=1&index=1
ClumsyRoot 1 year ago
Slick is huffy and weak. He tries to force his opponent into some model he thinks he can knock down and then fails to do that as well.
Shavarnarak 1 year ago
so in the end, the hosts are wrong because they disagree with the caller..lol
itzahazylife 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@itzahazylife " so in the end, the hosts are wrong because they disagree with the caller..lol "
Yes they disagree.. because he is wrong.
Slick delights in long winded, complex arguments that prove absolutely nothing.
It's insane ranting.
Roper122 1 year ago
Don has that killer mocking laugh =D
lipoicacid 1 year ago
lol @ caller.
First of all, transcendental just means supernatural. Reject any premises that rely on something transcendental "existing" (since existence usually is defined as something NATURAL... AKA: IN REALITY)
Second, logic doesn't have to be 100% absolute to warrant rational discourse. 100% certainty is not a prerequisite for belief because it's an unrealistic expectation. Similarly, being not 100% certain of any scientific theory doesn't mean that we should outright abandon it. Dumb.
jayls5 1 year ago
"Logic is not a property of the universe if it can't be weighed or measured"
WTF?! Is he saying that logic doesn't exist within the universe or that it can't exist within our universe without a god? I can make this discussion way shorter; ask the guy why a god must exist for logic to exist. This guy is stuck in his own way of thinking and can't even imagine a world without his god, crazy. Saying that without a god, basic concepts such as either "a" or not "a" would not be true is very stupid.
RussianAssassin21 1 year ago
haha "perhaps you would respect our education if we said my gosh!...."
ohmc303 2 years ago
Actually if brain scans were advanced enough we probably could quantize logical thought processes so they do exist in nature. We can also see that logic is based on concepts from nature, so although it cannot be "weighed" it can be applied and proven through testing; he's just presenting the argument backwards. But this guy was only interested in trying to confuse and accuse, the mantra of the apologist movement. Otherwise he's smart enough to do something more useful in life. What a waste!
icemachine79 2 years ago
@icemachine79
You will be interested to hear that this is demonstrably true now. A person's brain waves can now be analyzed while looking at different shapes. The computer recognizes a series of synapses firing. We can then ask the person to think of any of the shapes and physically see what they are thinking with 100% repeatability.
jayls5 1 year ago
All of these "laws of logic" were abandoned by Christianity after the Roman Empire fell, so I'm really curious as to why the Church would drop something that now "proves" their point of view. Oh wait, I know... because they hadn't figured out a way to use them to "support" their POV like this guy is trying to do now! Why do the apologists constantly use such underhanded tactics to try to get their ridiculous points across? The constant stream of intellectual dishonesty is sickening.
icemachine79 2 years ago
they don't understand what he's saying so just laugh at it in confusion and denial, then interrupt and change the topic of discussion
TheMrAlwaysRight 2 years ago
check out "TAG" debate with matt slick and matt dillahunty. you'll see why they're laughing, it's like arguing with a kid set in their way.
ohmc303 2 years ago
Ive seen it. but if you compare, matt slick has a much better attitude than these guys when debating
TheMrAlwaysRight 2 years ago
DILLAHUNTY DESTROYED SLICK
TheAndrewMan1000 1 year ago
the atheists here were being smug and ignorant...wow
TheMrAlwaysRight 2 years ago
Most experienced debaters with a knowledge of logic and philosophy wouldn't even bother arguing the points these guys cant seem to absorb. These arguments of logic were put to rest 1000s of years ago. If they had a reasonable argument they would move on to the callers question.
Not understanding an argument or realizing that it is not debatable (or hasn't been for a 1000 years) is not something to be proud of.
ageofgrace 2 years ago
HI my name is Matt Slick, I have a semantical shit sandwich of an argument for you, and I intend on being a condescending douche bag while listening to your attempts at rebuttal...HarHarHarHarHar.
gerbs96 2 years ago
Matt Slick is the worst character ever.
He's lost in his own moronic mind.
happyhappy85 2 years ago
Atheism belief= interupting a person speaking and laughing about it lol
westcoastyg 2 years ago
these guys are idiots, they dont understand what he's saying..lol
TheChrist4All 2 years ago
I second that. These guys are idiots, and arrogant too. TAG does have a major problem though, but it's not as if these half-assed atheists would find it because they wouldn't bother to understand his argument.
trollforlife 2 years ago
check out the "TAG" debate by matt slick and matt dillahunty. you'll find out why they're laughing.
ohmc303 2 years ago
What? I can measure logic...
I have X logic.
I know I'm more logical than this caller. His logic is Y.
X > Y
I have more logic than this man.
coreygames 2 years ago
TAG has a term in street lingo. Baffle them with bullshit.
ThieleM 2 years ago
I think the fundamental problem the caller overlooks, is almost nothing can be considered absolute - our perception of the universe continually changes as our powers of observation grow and expand. Since what he's describing as logic is thoroughly dependent upon our perception of what's around us, it changes as we get better at perceiving it.
It seems like he's describing a philosophical absolute, not a logical one... which is fallacious in and of itself.
Alisterwolf66 2 years ago
Well, the problem is that if logic is absolute the only way to prove it is absolute is by observation, and if we observe it to be true then that is reason enough to believe it is true. As they said in the video, logic is descriptive, not prescriptive. Logic is simply a description of how we observe the universe to operate. One need only ask the caller why he believes in logic. His answer would have to be observation because the Bible never talks laws of logic, so his argument fails right there.
ThatsTooFunnyIMO 2 years ago
Absolutely - Essentially what I said, however poorly worded. The relationship between logic (logical deduction, anyway) and perception is perhaps the only 'absolute' here.
Heh... for that matter, the buy-bull talks of manner of ill logic. Or so we now know. If nothing else, it serves as an excellent example of what I mean: that our perception or perceptive ability changes over time.
Alisterwolf66 2 years ago
okay something exists so there are facts about it certain ideas fit these facts perfectly and these are logical absolutes
Nilaikx 2 years ago
He doesn't understand the concept of a concept. People can be wrong about their models of an atom. Does that make atom's transcendent?
sakkamarra 2 years ago
No... By Matt Slicks argument, it makes them non-existent :)
gadget133 2 years ago
That was NOT a conversation. The two atheists didn't even let the caller talk for more than 10 seconds the ENTIRE time. That was incredibly rude.
DeathRattleShakes 2 years ago
so watch the re-visiting where dillahunty really did a good job debating slick
VarialProductions 2 years ago 2
And you even bothered to spout your same objections in the second part of teh video. Wow. How sad. By the way, they do allow him to talk for more than 10 seconds. (The first 50 seconds are his, for instance, but there are many more instances. Maybe next time, even though your obviously preset mind probably won't allow you to, you might want to pay attention next time.)
AernoutMJC 2 years ago
They explain very clearly why they kept interrupting him. Slick himself admits that he does the same exact thing.
leifey 2 years ago 25
@leifey Slick keeps trying to use big words to make his argument seem solid. The problem he's running into, he's talking to people that understand what those big words mean and thus can actually interact with him about them. And so his "logic" starts to break down.
Wolverazio 1 year ago
yes they did, he spoke extensively
the problem is that they have fundamentally opposing views on an issue
Slick thinks logic is transcendetal, they (and I) think its a human tool
the ancient Greeks, who invented logic, would agree with us I think ^^
handofnergal 2 years ago 20
"You have to hear me out here." "INTERRUPTION" Ridiculous.
DeathRattleShakes 2 years ago
lol, this guy was ACTING all smart but in fact he's such a retard is so funny to me.
TheAlexBS 2 years ago
calling someone a retard shows nothing thats your opinion
DeJay17Revolution 2 years ago
which is why I say it's so funny to me. Meaning it's my opinion
TheAlexBS 2 years ago
86adamleon 2 years ago
I love the poetic, scientific sound of new age philosophers. They try to confuse people and make them think they are correct. They just use the same words. (Space, time, logical absolutes, transcendent, conceptual) STFU new age philosophers
D1ZaST4R 2 years ago
hes a christian not a new ager
DeJay17Revolution 2 years ago
Isn't it good enough to say we don't know where the logical absolutes come from?
Like the thunder examples. How many things to we have to prove do not belong to God before we realize there is no God.
Its like the creationists. You can find a million fossils that fit the evolutionary theory. And they will still not be satisfied until you find 1 million and 1.
So Matt Slick is just an anomaly is just a creationist with big words.
FUCK MATT SLICK. seriously...
VarialProductions 2 years ago
86adamleon 2 years ago
no your trying to make it simple so you dont want to let go of your atheistic worldview because you feel uncomfortable you just say lets settle for the one were something exist and be lazy so God doesnt exist
DeJay17Revolution 2 years ago
Matt Slick is playing some verbal slight of hand.
He continuously mixes "logic" and "logical absolutes" to help trip up his atheist "opponents".
He says that logic is both trascendent AND conceptual...which is contradictory.
csaver 2 years ago 2
God is the sound a tree makes when no one is around.
csaver 2 years ago
Here is the problem with all proofs of God, they're useless! Even if you come to a conclusion and label it god, it brings you no closer to an ideology. You could at best consider yourself a deist. You heard it from Slick at the beginning, either there is a god or there isn't. Fine, we'll call that God. Your proof does NOTHING to explain his nature. So fine, your belief in undefined God is warranted. Your belief in Christianity is still unfounded.
Tcrowaf 2 years ago
The guys on the show do a terrible job of defending their position. Matt clearly has a better understanding of the principals of logic; he's not necessarily correct, but of the two sides, the hosts are the ones who seem to be pulling more stuff out of their asses.
m0rl0rd 2 years ago
Logic is not transcendent because it is contingent on statements and statements are contingent on mind. Logic is absolute in relationship to statements. Slick confuses absolute logic with the authorship of logic. If we go back a billion years and make a statement that is self contradictory that person made an illogical statement but the logical absolutes still stand. Matt made the assumption that the speaker or thinker authors the logical absolutes if god didn't author them which in incorrect.
lb10128 2 years ago
Actually the debate didn't come to a halt because they stopped him when he was wrong, there was just come misunderstandings. However, the next episode he gets to talk with Matt Dillahunty, who did research his argument, he understood it completely and shot it to the ground. Slick refused to accept that, of course.
ChristianScherwin 2 years ago
some*
ChristianScherwin 2 years ago
Slick is adopting the model "if you don't have evidence or facts, then dazzle them with bull shit.
MsWanderer1 2 years ago
I don't agree with Slick but I have say if he cooked that stuff by himself he is pretty smart not that it is correct but it is not something idiot could cook up.
bumfire007 2 years ago
I agree that Slick is smart; he may even be intelligent but when you base your argument on a fallacious premise as he did then your logic is also fallacious. He feels he has won the argument when he simply refuses to acknowledge being beaten and then proceeds to regurgitate more gibberish that he calls logic.
MsWanderer1 2 years ago
chrisscott2009
"what seems logical to one person, is not so to another"....according to your logic...they're both wrong.
creeman007 2 years ago
I agree. If logic is relative then what difference does it make if we use it or not. If an atheist calls me illogical then he is simply saying that you do not use logic the way that I do. He is not saying that you are wrong. If humans created logic then they would have had to do so illogically.
DiminishedStudios 2 years ago
Logic is dependant on your expeirences
It is NOT absolute as not everyone thinks the same way.
What seems logical to one person, is not so to another.
Matt Slick is wrong, wrong, wrong.
chrisscott2009 2 years ago
uhhh there are logical absolutes, although the only one i really know is
"A" is what it is and it isn't what it isn't.
Timmay123456789 2 years ago
Ye sorry, I didn't understand the point before, I do now
chrisscott2009 2 years ago
While that's true, some people are simply idiots :P
But seriously, I think they're talking about formal 'accepted' logical concepts, not the colloquial use of the word.
JasonJarred 2 years ago
I would disagree. I believe that someones knowledge or use of logic may depend on their experiences, but that doesn't mean that logic in, and of itself is relative. If humans created logic then they would have had to do so illogically.
DiminishedStudios 2 years ago
You seem to know less about the subject than anyone in the video. There's a (big) difference between logic and logical absolutes. Logic is the model we develop and use to understand the world around us, and is a product of the mind of the individual, and might therefore differ from one person to another. Logical absolutes can (and do) exist without the presence of a mind , which can be proven.
ChristianScherwin 2 years ago
That is the most flawed logic i've ever heared
GYKellner 2 years ago
One might as well assert that gravity is also transcendent, because it still exists without matter or time in theory, though it applies no force. Logic, similarly applies no "force" without the universe, and if it is labeled an transcendent, so must other physical laws. In reality, none are really transcendent. The cause and effect nature of this universe also allows for logic, without this property of the universe, there would be no logic either. These laws only manifest in the physical.
LanceDirk 2 years ago
the universe. If we assume the universe is the way we observe it, then saying that something is what it is is just a property of the universe, like any other property, which may be arbitrary. Then again, quantum mechanics seems to say that things sometimes are what they aren't. This premise is very unclear, Russell and Don are right to interrupt, because his definition and description of logic don't make sense, neither at first nor upon further consideration.
LanceDirk 2 years ago
a point of reference. If different people saw too different things while looking at something, that law would be invalid, thus logic is dependent on human perception and does change depending on the individual mind, and Matt is wrong. If we assume that there is in fact a constant world outside of human perception, then that law is dependent on space and time, as it is physical laws of the universe that makes things what they are. Things being what they are is a method in which we observe...
LanceDirk 2 years ago
Okay, this argument is kind of ridiculous, the kind where even if I couldn't disprove it, once I heard it out there is no way I'd feel in any way convinced of anything. He's pretty much forcing us to reason out where logic comes from. This has to be done by looking at what logic is, one piece at a time. 1st: something is what it is and is not what it is not. This is only true because all humans share our perception because our brains work the same way. As Russell said, it depends on...
LanceDirk 2 years ago
/watch?v=fFH0khjgA0U
TheHonestTheist 2 years ago
theeee most interesting god argument. i love it.
foolsbetrippin 2 years ago
All you have to do is go read his testimony to see what supposed super natural experience in his life has made him the way he is.
He uses big words... WOW.
SGTChuck82 2 years ago
Such an angry theist.
SGTChuck82 2 years ago
as i told slick that if other universe's exist there is nothing that demands that the laws of physics or logic that we have will apply to it, so logic is dependant upon the universe
he was stumped
AtheistAtLARGE 2 years ago
What was his reply?
But wouldn't this need other universe to exist to be true? & frankly we're not sure they do... unless he was asserting they do...
kyokumajr 2 years ago
@AtheistAtLARGE The logical absolutes are transcendent of the universe too. They are the essence of everything. Something just cannot possibly be what it is and be what it is not at the same. This is no matter the universe or no matter the reality. Any existent thing cannot be what it is and what it is not at the same time, ever.
RockBanned 1 year ago
@RockBanned there is no absolute that another universe would follow the same rules as we do, the universe could be based on what ever dark matter and dark energy is, it could be based in an anti way thus our laws shouldnt apply
As for something not being something else, its all about perseption, if you spin a square fast enough you see a circle, what looks like a square to us being viewed from a black hole would be different, it would look as something it wasnt
DebateFaith 1 year ago
@DebateFaith But i'm not talking about perception; i'm talking about essence. That spun square that is perceived as a circle is still a square. Not only is it still a square, but it is not not a square.
No matter what scenario you come up with, or whatever universe you're in, an object cannot be the essence of what it is and then also be something it is not.
RockBanned 1 year ago
@RockBanned the spun square acts as a circle, taking up the same volume and other relevant criteria, thus its essence is of a circle
What ever angulared figure you have in this gravitational field its very essence is changed as it approaches a black hole
I understand the law of identity however because mankind has an imagination there are variables that deny it
This same process allows gods to exist in the minds of people
DebateFaith 1 year ago
@DebateFaith No, you're missing the whole entire concept of the logical absolutes. If the spun circle's essence is changed as it approches a black hole makes no consequence...it is what it is and is not what it is not.. The essence of ice changes when you heat it, but at the time it is ice it is ice and it is not "not ice", and that is the whole point.
If something's characteristics are changed, then it becomes something else, but it is not what it was before at the same time.
RockBanned 1 year ago
slick schooled these two morons...lol...the only think these 2 did was keep interupting him....they coulndt keep up with him.....now they've asked him to call back cause the couldnt answer...they needed a back up...from another moron..hahahahahahahahahahaha...ha
creeman007 3 years ago
They stopped him when he assumed something that they disagreed apon
He alsp got upity when they answered his questions in a way he disagreed with.
He is a joke
chrisscott2009 2 years ago
TAG is smoke and mirrors. It claims that since logic is not material, it must be spiritual. In reality it is neither. It is a model, accessible to physical beings with pattern recognizing and reasoning capabilities, but not dependent on them. We recognize the laws of logic held sway 4 billion years ago, even though no such beings existed then. TAG supporters would have to believe that if gods and humans didn't exist, 1+1 could equal 3. This is nuts.
RunDX7 3 years ago 2
they dont allow you or everyone?
jhamel 3 years ago
On youtube? I don't think think the comments get posted if there is a link to another site in them.
Just tried, didn't work.
kyokumajr 3 years ago
jhamel, do us all a favor and go live in a cave. you have nothing to contribute to society with your god-obsessed views. fuck off, you bitch.
thisguysajerk 3 years ago
i doubt that....if he had really followed the bible and understood it he wouldnt be an athiest....the bible hasnt changed and applies to all nations and generations. science changes from time to time and new scientists prove other scientists wrong, but the bible has been the problem solving book.....but thats a debate for another day....gotta go and thanks for your civility....i hardly get that from athiest.
jhamel 3 years ago
Well if you're interested, I guess you could e-mail their show & ask the host about their experiences & why some became atheists after long years of being Christian.
The link to their site is in the description of the video. (youtube comment system doesn't allow me to post links.)
kyokumajr 3 years ago
if he had really followed the bible and understood it he wouldnt be an athiest <-- When a person regards Christianity as absolute truth, they don't accept the possibility that they could be wrong. When they observe others leaving the faith, they naturally place the fault on the person who is leaving, instead of considering the possibility that Christianity itself could be at false
1metallica1 3 years ago
science changes from time to time and new scientists prove other scientists wrong <-- the only way to disprove science is with more science,i find it funny you insult science yet have no probelm enjoying the fruits of its labor,the computer your typeing on for example,
1metallica1 3 years ago
the bible hasnt changed <-- many religons and other religious text have never changed,whats your point the bible has been the problem solving book <-- the bible says the earth is flat,we have proven its not flat,therefore your bible solves nothing,it gave a false claim
1metallica1 3 years ago
@jhamel :The reason why the bible hasn't changed is because it can't "afford" the changes. Science uses a methodology which is always being improved upon.That's why you see science revising itself.The bible has a poor track record in this regard. Do you really believe there was a world wide flood, for instance?The mythology in the bible pales in comparison to the evidence scientifically.
Wedlockvideos 1 year ago
no you guys are the problem to the world......but i understand cos salvation is not for all...you will nerver understand wisdom if you dont search. you guys dont even know the bible.
jhamel 3 years ago
Hm... Well I can bet the those atheist hosts known the Bible better than you do, especially the one that was going to become a minister.
kyokumajr 3 years ago
you guys dont even know the bible. <-- perhaps we do know it and found out it was a lie and christianty is false,you seem unwilling to consider the possablity you may be wrong
1metallica1 3 years ago
what a disease athiesm is.
jhamel 3 years ago
Well, let's just say I view believing in a talking dead guy - more problematic.
kyokumajr 3 years ago
Yeah, Matt may have been allowing the interruptions to get to him a little to much. I think that caused him to be a bit redundant. Overall, I'd say the whole discussion was pointless haha. Thanks for the heads up on the other video, btw. I'll check it out.
jmartin6514 3 years ago
In reality, what Mr. Slick is saying is totally sound. It's sad, because I don't believe that these gentlemen even truly understand what's being argued by Mr. Slick. They can only revert to diversion tactics (such as laughing, or ridiculing). They're just a couple of uneducated laymen attempting to come off as intellectuals. They're not fooling me =).
jmartin6514 3 years ago
Yeah, you're right on the interruptions part. However, it seemed like Matt was taking forever to present a simple argument that could have been summed up in 2 sentences.
Btw, Matt Slick called back later during another show & there was another longer discussion. It's in my uploads, if you'd be interested watching a longer discussion.
kyokumajr 3 years ago
Well then that's good for you :)
kyokumajr 3 years ago
One word: incompetency. These two guys are a joke. They're nothing but a couple of condescending, pseudo-intellectuals with a bankrupt, philosophical dead-end for a worldview.
jmartin6514 3 years ago
Why is that?
kyokumajr 3 years ago
They constantly demonstrate that they don't even understand the most basic concepts regarding logic ( concepts that are agreed upon by most atheist/theist philosophers, by the way). Instead, they arbitrarily create their own definitions and meanings for logic, while at the same time declaring the exact opposite of what their own definition warrants! On top of that, rather than hearing Slick out, they're constantly making condescending remarks as if what Matt is saying is totally unbelievable.
jmartin6514 3 years ago
I don't care if you're an atheist or theist. Just be respectful.
jtahalele 3 years ago
I prefer Matt D. he's less arrogant. He's quite a bit more respectful than these guys. seems to me that they've already made up their minds even before the debate started.
jtahalele 3 years ago
Just because two or more people agree on something doesnt make it logical. Bob, Jill, and Frank could all agree that 2+2=5. That doesn't make it logical. In fact it is completely illogical. It doesn't line up with reality.
jtahalele 3 years ago
Where did you pull out the argument from majority though?
kyokumajr 3 years ago
The two guys in the vid were basically saying that logic is based upon whether or not two or more people agree on something. If they agree then it is logic...
jtahalele 3 years ago
To me it seemed they were saying there is an outside reference for thngs, besides just in our head, that's why "logic" as a tool applies.
But I'd have to rewatch the vids later to be exact.
kyokumajr 3 years ago
"To me it seemed they were saying there is an outside reference for thngs, besides just in our head, that's why "logic" as a tool applies."
... which is absurd. What they are saying is that the laws of logic are based on empirical observation of the external world, rending it a posteriori instead of a priori. This is absurd because our ability to understand the external world presupposes that the laws of logic are already in place in our minds.
dancinbear7476 3 years ago
If logic was dependent on our minds then 2+2 would have to = 5 because bob, jill, and frank agreed on it. It was their logic. And if Jerry, John, and Joe said that 2+2= 6 then it would be true according to their logic. That's if it was dependent upon our minds. When logic is limited to the human mind, it becomes relative. When we look at reality though, logic is not relative. In reality 2+2=4. It's not a product of the human mind. The human mind is just able to recognize it.
jtahalele 3 years ago
Funny how Slick couldn't help but to try and claim to "win the debate" at 8:00.
What exact words did he say, I can't hear the words clearly.
razedemon 3 years ago