@khoeweijun No, because by OUR definition, A = A and nothing else. Same goes for making a 'square-circle' (also the most ignorant atheist argument I've ever heard). By our definition, a square is not a circle. A square-circle in contradictory by nature, and God cannot make contradictions since it is against his nature.
I live in Boise, Idaho which is near where Mr. Slick lives. The other day I was at a Hastings entertainment store and I could not believe what I saw. The great and perfect Matt Slick was looking at the Maxim and Playboy magazines they had. I walked right over a began looking at them as well. I said "Hello mr. Slick" and he very quickly left the store. It was very amusing.
Slick says God is outside of time and that proves God can do whatever He wants to do. Slick conveniently makes up rules about who God is and what He can do without any empirical evidence to support it. I agree with Slick that the laws of logic are universally true and something is what it is. and non contradiction. Other than that Matt hasn't got a leg to stand on. BTW, Where are the miracles today,Matt? Raising dead, amputees growing limbs, new eyes growing in eye sockets? Let God prove it.
@bluesette82 "explaining it(That true/false is not a true dichotomy) should be easy then. Right?"
I suppose he might have been looking at it like this:
True - "Not True" is a true Dichotomy because Not inverts the set of possible outcomes
False - "Not False" is a true Dichotomy for the same reason
but
when you attempt to simplify the first line, from "Not True" to "False" you are assuming that you are in fact dealing with a dichotomy. This would not be the case in tri-state logic.
@bluesette82 That conversion can also be the problem when you're dealing with a false dichotomy(That more options exist). For that reason it can sometimes be easier to view "not true" and "false" as distinct while reasoning because it will sometimes become obvious that you're on shaky ground.
But there certainly are plenty of cases where true and false is a true dichotomy. =)
Slick is a snake oil salesman. He banks on people not understanding what he says THEN assumes people are lazy and wont load up before reexamining his BS.
This little bit of spin is but the latest of his lines of silliness.
Matt Dillahunty exposed Slick for what he truly is....a conman. A double talker, a fraud, a fool.
@ThieleM Why is he all of these things? You've not said anything that disproves his line of logic. He's not trying to get your money. His talking follows one line of logic at all times. Fool? Seems quite intelligent to me.
The problem with Slick is that he dumps logic and then double talks....he makes illogical statements and contradictory statements. He defines logic then proposes arguments that piss on logical concept. He is like a lawyer....he seeks a 'gotcha' and then says 'I won'
Not valid. Slick is a snake oil salesman. When he starts losing an argument he resorts to non sequiturs and personal attacks. He is a fraud.
@ThieleM Can you please cite examples of these "llogical/contradictory statements"? When is he supposedly "pissing" as you so eloquently put it, on logical concepts?
I didn't realize this man was arguing with anyone, it seemed more like a monologue to me! Can you tell me when is it that he "starts to lose the argument"?
I'm referring to Slick in general and he does use true false as a true dichotomy in this video so my comments are to this video and the very premise of Slick's nonsensical argument. Watch the Dillahunty debate.
Because using a dichotomy that isnt valid is not logically sound. This isnt hard stuff....though Slick sure tries to make it hard. If you cant identify a dichotomy I can't help you. To be honest I dont see this exchange going on much further in a proper fashion so I'd like to put an end to it.
@ThieleM Okay, no problem. I'm sorry you haven't seen this conversation as being proper. If you can kindly indicate to me in which way it has been improper, I would be very grateful. Let me just note that you have not given me even one specific example to refute your claims of this man being illogical or contradictory. You say "in general" but that isn't a good argument. Good day to you sir! ;)
You have been referred to an example of Slick collapsing and informed that the true/false issue he has makes him unsound logically. You have been proper/polite but wont listen.
Like I said earlier if you can't look up the Dillahunty debate, which I directed you to, or the retort by 'Theoretical Bull***t' (dont let his name fool you...smart guy that Slick refuses to debate) then I cant help you. Those vids are much more useful than short paragraphs back and forth on the board.
@ThieleM I'm really sorry, but I'm truly unaware of the collapsing you are referring to. I don't see why the true/false issue should make him unsound logically simply because you declare it to be so. That's why I needed a little more info.
@ThieleM What does this Dillahunty debate have to do with this vid? Where can I find it? I am sorry that you think I won't listen, I think I'm proving myself most eager to do so, I just need you to explain yourself a bit better. I don't need your help, I just wanted you to back up your blanket statements with some sound arguments, which you don't seem to want to do?
@ThieleM I can understand your sentiments on the short paragraphs on the board, I feel the same way, if you are at all interested in pursuing, this conversation, I would be delighted if you messaged me.. In any case, cheers to ya. :)
WHen the long weekend is over I'd be glad to discuss my loathing of Matt Slick with you.
Take a look at the vids i suggested....ESPECIALLY Dillahunty's follow up. You may change your mind of this 'gentleman' after watching it.
I have no problem with God or religion, but when immoral pricks like Slick start going into used car sales tactics they give good Christians a bad name. His attacks on Mormons and Jehova's Witnesses are vulgar and offensive.
@ThieleM how can you know what mind I'm of? So far I'm just requesting YOU to back up your unjustified blanket statements. You still have not pointed to me WHERE Slick uses these "illogical" arguments in THIS particular video. You just said it was illogical "in general. Hmm. On another note, why do you need to point me to another video to justify your blanket statements on this one?
OK. It is pretty obvious that you cant comprehend wht I'm saying. I am talking about slick the person in general not just this video. He does use the true false false dichotomy in this video. I thought you were being legit here but coming out with that after you asked to go to PMs for a conversation just demonstrates that you are not being honest in this exchange. Don't reply to me anymore.
@ThieleM Again, you aren't telling me why it is a false dichotomy. You're just proclaiming it to be so! And claiming me to be dishonest because I question your blanket statement. Hmmm. Well, I've been as legit and respectful with you as I know how, in every moment. I'm sorry you feel the way you do, certainly it is your prerogative to continue or discontinue our exchange. Peace.
That is another tactic Slick uses....he goes into something pretending to be something he is not then screamsvictory when people arent willing to debate or address a person that won't be honest in a discourse.
I can see why you like Slick so much. Anyway, good luck with the snake oil.
@ThieleM I didn't scream victory, I just said I wasn't surprised. My first comment to you was a question, requesting backup information to your blanket statements. You haven't given me even a smidge of reason. You say his dichotomy is illogical, but cannot explain why. You resort to hostility and disparaging comments, where as I have maintained a level of respect at all times for you. You don't want to keep talking? No problem.
@ThieleM I just want to note, that it IS unfair by any standard, to make viscious accusations when you have no reasons or logic to back them up. It's called "slander". I'd love for you to prove me wrong, but I suspect you will just insult me more, so, I'll just say, may God bless you, friend. :)
@Hufflewaffle like I said to ThieleM, things are not true just because you declare them to be so. Your statements don't make sense just because you say they do.
Cute concept, but you've redefined the term "miracle" by redefining the concept for "supernatural." Most theorists define supernatural as something that is outside the realm of nature, not simply as something that humans haven't figured out yet. In your definition, humans may someday figure out how God worked his miracles, if in fact God just used some "laws" that humans haven't yet discovered.
Calvinist butholes like Matt Slick; using late night infomercial rhetoric and used car salesman slogans make me laugh but at the same time are quite disturbing.
One can transform flour and other ingredients into bread using a recipe that someone who is ignorant of all cooking procedures might call a miracle. But ordinarily, a miracle is understood to be wholly inexplicable by reference to any possible natural characteristics of the entities involved. So the speaker must pretend that there are other laws we just havent heard of yet. Laws of non-identity? Non-non-contradiction? Yet he pretends to accept logic and its metaphysical foundation.
The speaker is simply asserting that there is an entity who transcends natural limits and who has magical power to skirt the law of identity. The omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God of Judeo-Christian belief is a mere fantasy, however. The law of identity does not go away merely because someone asserts Well, the law of identity is valid, but theres a special being who can function as if it doesnt exist, using special supernatural technology known only to itself. This being is God.
@cubex11 you should see his other videos where he establishes that the universe came into existence by a being that was not subject to the laws of the universe since said being created the universe and its laws. I think this particular video builds on that other one.
This has been flagged as spam show
He starts going off the rails of sanity around 1:10
alianchild 2 weeks ago
He starts going off the rails of sanity around 1:10
alianchild 2 weeks ago
He starts going off the rails of sanity around 1:10
alianchild 2 weeks ago
Can God make A = not A? If he can do anything? Always hv been wonderin abt dis...email to me ur answer if u can :-)
khoeweijun 6 months ago
@khoeweijun No, because by OUR definition, A = A and nothing else. Same goes for making a 'square-circle' (also the most ignorant atheist argument I've ever heard). By our definition, a square is not a circle. A square-circle in contradictory by nature, and God cannot make contradictions since it is against his nature.
StygianWhite 1 week ago
I live in Boise, Idaho which is near where Mr. Slick lives. The other day I was at a Hastings entertainment store and I could not believe what I saw. The great and perfect Matt Slick was looking at the Maxim and Playboy magazines they had. I walked right over a began looking at them as well. I said "Hello mr. Slick" and he very quickly left the store. It was very amusing.
MrSupernova890 8 months ago
@MrSupernova890 I believe it.
WorthlessSix 5 months ago in playlist More videos from carmvideos
Interesting video.
demondagger19 1 year ago
The message of the cross is foolish to those who are perishing. I wouldn't bother arguing with people on Youtube man lol
AmbulanceProductions 1 year ago
Slick says God is outside of time and that proves God can do whatever He wants to do. Slick conveniently makes up rules about who God is and what He can do without any empirical evidence to support it. I agree with Slick that the laws of logic are universally true and something is what it is. and non contradiction. Other than that Matt hasn't got a leg to stand on. BTW, Where are the miracles today,Matt? Raising dead, amputees growing limbs, new eyes growing in eye sockets? Let God prove it.
debra53758 1 year ago
I love it when people cant figure out that true/false is a false dichotomy. It isnt rocket science.
ThieleM 1 year ago
@ThieleM explaining it should be easy then. Right?
bluesette82 1 year ago
@bluesette82 "explaining it(That true/false is not a true dichotomy) should be easy then. Right?"
I suppose he might have been looking at it like this:
True - "Not True" is a true Dichotomy because Not inverts the set of possible outcomes
False - "Not False" is a true Dichotomy for the same reason
but
when you attempt to simplify the first line, from "Not True" to "False" you are assuming that you are in fact dealing with a dichotomy. This would not be the case in tri-state logic.
Gnomefro 9 months ago
@bluesette82 That conversion can also be the problem when you're dealing with a false dichotomy(That more options exist). For that reason it can sometimes be easier to view "not true" and "false" as distinct while reasoning because it will sometimes become obvious that you're on shaky ground.
But there certainly are plenty of cases where true and false is a true dichotomy. =)
Gnomefro 9 months ago
Slick is a snake oil salesman. He banks on people not understanding what he says THEN assumes people are lazy and wont load up before reexamining his BS.
This little bit of spin is but the latest of his lines of silliness.
Matt Dillahunty exposed Slick for what he truly is....a conman. A double talker, a fraud, a fool.
ThieleM 2 years ago
@ThieleM Why is he all of these things? You've not said anything that disproves his line of logic. He's not trying to get your money. His talking follows one line of logic at all times. Fool? Seems quite intelligent to me.
bluesette82 1 year ago
@bluesette82
The problem with Slick is that he dumps logic and then double talks....he makes illogical statements and contradictory statements. He defines logic then proposes arguments that piss on logical concept. He is like a lawyer....he seeks a 'gotcha' and then says 'I won'
Not valid. Slick is a snake oil salesman. When he starts losing an argument he resorts to non sequiturs and personal attacks. He is a fraud.
ThieleM 1 year ago
@ThieleM Can you please cite examples of these "llogical/contradictory statements"? When is he supposedly "pissing" as you so eloquently put it, on logical concepts?
I didn't realize this man was arguing with anyone, it seemed more like a monologue to me! Can you tell me when is it that he "starts to lose the argument"?
Peace.
bluesette82 1 year ago
@bluesette82
Look up the Dillahunty debate and then the aftermath. From there read the comments Mr Slick posted regarding the debate.
ThieleM 1 year ago
@ThieleM are you referring to comments posted in this particular video? Before I do what you ask, can you please comply with what I've asked of you?
bluesette82 1 year ago
@bluesette82
I'm referring to Slick in general and he does use true false as a true dichotomy in this video so my comments are to this video and the very premise of Slick's nonsensical argument. Watch the Dillahunty debate.
ThieleM 1 year ago
@bluesette82
Also True/False is not a true dichotomy. His entire premise, using true/false is illogical.
ThieleM 1 year ago
@ThieleM Why?
bluesette82 1 year ago
@bluesette82
Because using a dichotomy that isnt valid is not logically sound. This isnt hard stuff....though Slick sure tries to make it hard. If you cant identify a dichotomy I can't help you. To be honest I dont see this exchange going on much further in a proper fashion so I'd like to put an end to it.
ThieleM 1 year ago
@ThieleM Okay, no problem. I'm sorry you haven't seen this conversation as being proper. If you can kindly indicate to me in which way it has been improper, I would be very grateful. Let me just note that you have not given me even one specific example to refute your claims of this man being illogical or contradictory. You say "in general" but that isn't a good argument. Good day to you sir! ;)
bluesette82 1 year ago
@bluesette82
You have been referred to an example of Slick collapsing and informed that the true/false issue he has makes him unsound logically. You have been proper/polite but wont listen.
Like I said earlier if you can't look up the Dillahunty debate, which I directed you to, or the retort by 'Theoretical Bull***t' (dont let his name fool you...smart guy that Slick refuses to debate) then I cant help you. Those vids are much more useful than short paragraphs back and forth on the board.
ThieleM 1 year ago
@ThieleM I'm really sorry, but I'm truly unaware of the collapsing you are referring to. I don't see why the true/false issue should make him unsound logically simply because you declare it to be so. That's why I needed a little more info.
bluesette82 1 year ago
@ThieleM What does this Dillahunty debate have to do with this vid? Where can I find it? I am sorry that you think I won't listen, I think I'm proving myself most eager to do so, I just need you to explain yourself a bit better. I don't need your help, I just wanted you to back up your blanket statements with some sound arguments, which you don't seem to want to do?
bluesette82 1 year ago
@ThieleM I can understand your sentiments on the short paragraphs on the board, I feel the same way, if you are at all interested in pursuing, this conversation, I would be delighted if you messaged me.. In any case, cheers to ya. :)
bluesette82 1 year ago
@bluesette82
WHen the long weekend is over I'd be glad to discuss my loathing of Matt Slick with you.
Take a look at the vids i suggested....ESPECIALLY Dillahunty's follow up. You may change your mind of this 'gentleman' after watching it.
I have no problem with God or religion, but when immoral pricks like Slick start going into used car sales tactics they give good Christians a bad name. His attacks on Mormons and Jehova's Witnesses are vulgar and offensive.
ThieleM 1 year ago
@ThieleM how can you know what mind I'm of? So far I'm just requesting YOU to back up your unjustified blanket statements. You still have not pointed to me WHERE Slick uses these "illogical" arguments in THIS particular video. You just said it was illogical "in general. Hmm. On another note, why do you need to point me to another video to justify your blanket statements on this one?
bluesette82 1 year ago
@bluesette82
OK. It is pretty obvious that you cant comprehend wht I'm saying. I am talking about slick the person in general not just this video. He does use the true false false dichotomy in this video. I thought you were being legit here but coming out with that after you asked to go to PMs for a conversation just demonstrates that you are not being honest in this exchange. Don't reply to me anymore.
ThieleM 1 year ago
@ThieleM Again, you aren't telling me why it is a false dichotomy. You're just proclaiming it to be so! And claiming me to be dishonest because I question your blanket statement. Hmmm. Well, I've been as legit and respectful with you as I know how, in every moment. I'm sorry you feel the way you do, certainly it is your prerogative to continue or discontinue our exchange. Peace.
bluesette82 1 year ago
@ThieleM I must note, however, as a p.s., that it really doesn't surprise me that you are withdrawing.
bluesette82 1 year ago
@bluesette82
That is another tactic Slick uses....he goes into something pretending to be something he is not then screamsvictory when people arent willing to debate or address a person that won't be honest in a discourse.
I can see why you like Slick so much. Anyway, good luck with the snake oil.
ThieleM 1 year ago
@ThieleM I didn't scream victory, I just said I wasn't surprised. My first comment to you was a question, requesting backup information to your blanket statements. You haven't given me even a smidge of reason. You say his dichotomy is illogical, but cannot explain why. You resort to hostility and disparaging comments, where as I have maintained a level of respect at all times for you. You don't want to keep talking? No problem.
bluesette82 1 year ago
@ThieleM I just want to note, that it IS unfair by any standard, to make viscious accusations when you have no reasons or logic to back them up. It's called "slander". I'd love for you to prove me wrong, but I suspect you will just insult me more, so, I'll just say, may God bless you, friend. :)
bluesette82 1 year ago
@ThieleM I meant "support" your claims, not "refute", sorry.
bluesette82 1 year ago
Miracles are logical because they were both created by god.
Brilliant! God wins again!!
..but then of course he also loses because he created both.
Hufflewaffle 2 years ago
@Hufflewaffle that doesn't even make sense, hun.
bluesette82 1 year ago
@bluesette82
sure it does, sweetie. lol
Hufflewaffle 1 year ago
@Hufflewaffle like I said to ThieleM, things are not true just because you declare them to be so. Your statements don't make sense just because you say they do.
"Lol". ;)
bluesette82 1 year ago
"this statement is false"....talk amongst yourselves...
SecularOpinion 2 years ago
Cute concept, but you've redefined the term "miracle" by redefining the concept for "supernatural." Most theorists define supernatural as something that is outside the realm of nature, not simply as something that humans haven't figured out yet. In your definition, humans may someday figure out how God worked his miracles, if in fact God just used some "laws" that humans haven't yet discovered.
Doggieman1111 2 years ago
Calvinist butholes like Matt Slick; using late night infomercial rhetoric and used car salesman slogans make me laugh but at the same time are quite disturbing.
Naked4Jesus 2 years ago
I love simple questions! *raises hand enthusiastically* Oooo... Ooo... I know the answer! YES!
adamredwine 2 years ago
One can transform flour and other ingredients into bread using a recipe that someone who is ignorant of all cooking procedures might call a miracle. But ordinarily, a miracle is understood to be wholly inexplicable by reference to any possible natural characteristics of the entities involved. So the speaker must pretend that there are other laws we just havent heard of yet. Laws of non-identity? Non-non-contradiction? Yet he pretends to accept logic and its metaphysical foundation.
cubex11 2 years ago
The speaker is simply asserting that there is an entity who transcends natural limits and who has magical power to skirt the law of identity. The omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God of Judeo-Christian belief is a mere fantasy, however. The law of identity does not go away merely because someone asserts Well, the law of identity is valid, but theres a special being who can function as if it doesnt exist, using special supernatural technology known only to itself. This being is God.
cubex11 2 years ago
@cubex11 cool
djchozen91 1 year ago
@cubex11 you should see his other videos where he establishes that the universe came into existence by a being that was not subject to the laws of the universe since said being created the universe and its laws. I think this particular video builds on that other one.
bluesette82 1 year ago