ParasiteS27: While I don't agree with most of the things that Matt Slick says, to refer to him as an idiot because he would say a tree falling wouldn't make a sound absent an observer, actually makes you appear less intelligent because if you knew anything about the properties of sound, then you would know that it isn't sound until it is translated as sound by the brain. A suggestion for everybody is to know what you are talking about before speaking.
This sounds like a high level recreation of every argument for the existence of the god(s) on this show. Caller: "Prove ____ doesn't exist" Host: "The burden of proof of the non-existence of god(s) doesn't lay on me. You have to prove the existence of god(s)." Caller: "If you won't have faith in my holy book, then I feel free to insert my god(s) wherever you fail to prove a negative." Host: "You can't prove a negative, and you are failing to prove your positive statement too."
When Dillahunty gets Slick to say "then what you're doing is affirming that the law of identiy is still true whether or not you're there to know it or not" at 0:42, he could have won by arguing:
If logical absolutes are still true whether or not PEOPLE are there to know it, then they are still true whether or not GOD is there to know it; this means a universe where god exists is indistinguishable from a universe where he does not exist. Therefore, the TAG does not prove the existence of god.
The guest must not even know how to install logic into his thinking, considering he has to use a computer to debate while Matt is using nothing more then his intellectual mind.
I applaud Matt in this segment. So many times I see him tear through people just because they are idiots. It's finally nice to see a great debate, and then Matt still tears him apart. Bravo.
Dillahunty says that things, "don't exist". that's a logical fallacy. EVERYTHING exists whether we know it or not. if it didn't, there wouldn't be existence. God just IS and we finite creatures have a problem with this.
Wow. This caller doesn't get it. It's like talking to a third grader. I read the transcendental argument and immediately ran into the same problem. It doesn't matter whether or not I am here to realize that a rock is a rock...it's still a rock. It's no wonder this guy is so comfortable believing in a supreme deity. Apparently he thinks that there is no actual reality. Everything only truly exists strictly because we perceive it in our minds. How simple minded can you be?
ANSWERS: Please read the TEST and contemplate carefully before answering. I will actually post the solution in 1 week. Please post your answers thoughtfully.
(all answers are theoretically posed as a 3rd person perspective veiw of what my 1st person subjective assessment would be, if I could objectively assess my subjective position.)
TEST: Which of these statements are true? 1. "I think therefore I am." 2. "I don't think therefore I am not." 3. "I don't think therefore I am." 4. "I am therefore I think." 5. "I am." Answers below (or above, depending on how you view this.)
It can be argued that MIND precedes everything - in fact is a sort of "god", not in a creative or progenitive sense, but in a foundational sense for all argument; mind is the tacit presumption upon which all argument is based. Remove it - and there ARE no absolutes, or logic because even these are predicated by a mind. So it appears that Dillahunty is the one dealing a card from the bottom of the deck: the universe with no mind cannot be known to exist. An object cannot exist without a subject.
@axe2grind911 It doesn't matter that it cannot be "known" to exist. Whether something exists or not is not contingent upon knowledge of it's existence.
@9:45: "You are saying that our thought processes are conceptual and therefore the absolutes on which it is founded are also conceptual... fundamentally the same as saying that I have a concept of an apple and therefore the apple is conceptual." Here's the problem: as soon as a mind exists, we can both experience AND conceptualize the apple. Without the mind, there is no basis for experience OR concepts. Moreover, "foundational absolutes" for thought processes are immaterial things unlike apples
What Slick is saying is simple: You can't talk about a hypothetical universe with "no minds" without using a mind (albeit in THIS universe). This is a cheat on the part of Dillahunty: his mind is being used to hypothesize these absolutes, yet he's trying to defend they are independent of his mind.The whole argument can be neither true NOR false, but becomes fallacious because it is self-contradictory, i.e. at its essence, you can't use MIND to hypothesize NO MIND: it's self-annihilative.
Is it fair to characterize this gentleman as believing that nothing exists until a statement is made about its existence?
This simplest way I can think of to refute such logic is the nature of statements. Statements are our way of describing that which has, will, or is currently existing. Therefore, it follows that a statement on a logical absolute is a subsequent description of that which exists.
By his logic, a fatal car accident in a remote area does not exist until a new mind finds it.
if a tree falls down in the middle of a forest and no one is around to hear it does it make a sound? Matt says yes. Theist says this information is useless because without minds around to comprehend a tree falling then the sound has no purpose and therefore ceases to exist because sound is something a mind hears and a tree is something a mind perceives. Precisely what one could expect from a person who believes this was all created just for us. *eye rolls*
If Slick had skipped his "Social Sciences" and Divinity degrees and just pursued a actual Philosophy degree with a proper foundation in formal and informal logic, this conversation would not exist.
& despite this, I am thankful he didn't because this vid series has been tremendously entertaining.
if the apologist, says that there is a god, your still left with which god. there trying all sorts of things to prove their insanity by going down this philosophical road. its like if they can prove one argument, they win full stop. hey thats christianity, hood wink the illitarite. like one idiot once said to me ,give me proof of the winds exisitance. hands in head. why do we entertain these idiots
this is the very simple and basic argument of "If a tree falls but no ones around to hear it, does it make a sound" the obvious answer is yes, it still makes a sound. This idiot is trying to say it wouldn't make a sound.
@ParasiteS27 I don't think it's exactly the same thing. I think it's rather like if the tree falls but no one is around to see it, does it still fall. We can see it later and would see that it has fallen.
@hanspeterpitsch true, but the fact of the matter is we wouldnt have to see it at all for it to have happened. What ever happens still happens, regardless of whether or not you experience it having happened at all.
@fletchers4 I agree. A falling tree will indeed create the vibrations which would be transduced into sound by the presence of an ear. So sound is contingent upon the presence of an ear. No ear - no sound.
@gigisdad Sound is a mechanical wave that is an oscillation of pressure transmitted through a solid, liquid, or gas.
Thus, any movement like a tree falling WILL generate sound, wether or not any ears are present to perceive the sound being generated.
Just in the same way that we are surrounded each day by myriads of sounds that are generated, but simply resonate in frequencies that we cannot perceive, whilst other organisms can perceive other frequencies. The sounds are all there regardless.
@GronTheMighty I disagree. Take for instance, radio waves. They are all around us but the information contained within is not yet a broadcast..not until they encounter a radio receiver. No transducer/ear - no sound.
@gigisdad Disagree all you want, you are demonstrably wrong - the waves are still present wether or not they are received by anyone, otherwise you'd never get interference happening would you?
Same thing as the tree in the forest, wether or not the sound of it falling is heard, the reverberation of the sound still causes surrounding vegetation to move from the pressure differential, and will interfere with the sound of rustling leaves in neighbouring trees regardless of being heard or not.
@GronTheMighty I don't disagree that the waves are produced. But the are not yet transformed into SOUND. Here's a snippet from Scientific American magazine I found on this very subject: "Sound is vibration, transmitted to our senses through the mechanism of the ear, and recognized as sound only at our nerve centers. The falling of the tree or any other disturbance will produce vibration of the air. If there be no ears to hear, there will be no sound."
@gigisdad I see, so at least we do agree that physical reality behaves the same regardless of sound being heard or not, we merely disagree on when the label "sound" is appropriate to use in the context of the classical saying :)?
@GronTheMighty Indeed. Perhaps my initial response sounded as if it were touching too much on the philosophical aspect of the question for which I apologize profusely.
@ParasiteS27 He is making the True, yet erroneous argument that Sound is contingent upon someone to Hear it. The physics which dictate what happens when a tree falls still exists, but the Concept of sound would not. If one wishes to term preassure waves as sound, then, of course, the tree has made a sound, but if one terms it as requiring someone to hear it, then no sound was made.
@ParasiteS27 The question though, is how do you define 'sound'; the conceptualization of 'sound' is contingent upon a recipient/interpreter; and in that case the tree does not make a 'sound', because the concept of 'sound' requires an entity to 'hear' it. If you define sound as vibrations passing through a medium, as I would, then of course the tree makes the sound. This is the briar patch that Matt Slick has fallen into.
@ParasiteS27 it's not so clear, the tree makes vibration, but sound is vibration being received by an eardrum. if there are no ears, there is no sound.
@yatter1 By Matt I really hope you mean Matt Dillahunty and NOT Matt Slick. The category that the logical absolutes fall into is absolute, not conceptual. Absolute and conceptual cannot be equivalent, because that would mean any and every concept is absolute, which is NOT true. I can think of concepts that are not true and therefore cannot be absolute, demonstrating that absolute and conceptual ARE NOT the same.
@yatter1 For Matt Slick's assertions to be true the phrases logical absolutes and logical concepts would be equivalent and they are not. If they were, then why does Matt Slick call them logical absolutes rather than logical concepts? I'll tell you why, because Matt Slick knows that concepts are dependent upon minds. Logical absolutes, to qualify as absolute, cannot be dependent upon any mind, including that of a God. Matt Slick fails.
Wholly agreed; I don't understand how the caller could associate something as subjective as a mind to an absolute.
Though I am by no means a master of logic/rhetoric, I want to call this a fallacy of shifting grounds (the arguer abandons his or her original position on a particular argument and adopts a new one). It still doesn't seem a proper fit, as I don't think it addresses the proof's attempt to "slip" in a new term that completely changes the dynamics. Your thoughts?
@yatter1 That may be a bit harsh... I think the radio guy has a great command of logic, but is bested by Matt Dillahunty, probably because Dillahunty is right :) I would argue that both have an impressive command of Logic. I've learned a bit from listening to them both.
@mcdori02 I agree. The part where the radio host loses his grasp on logic is when he starts trying to twist it into proving the existence of "god". But it's the same with many theists. They're not concerned with truth, only with proving that their "god" exists, so they basically have to keep sabotaging themselves...
@Fantasticlist Well, Slick was making logical fallacies, so it makes sense for Dillahunty to disagree with him by pointing it out. Terry (I believe that is the name for the lady on the left) was laughing because Dillahunty and Slick were talking right past each other because Slick wasn't seeing the point that Dillahunty was making.
Again, Matt is talking nonsense here. There is supposed to be no statement in the non-minded-universe, yet he himself asserts that in that universe certain logical forms apply. This is a very bad case of metaphysical hypostasis - you cannot impose even logical forms (calling them 'essences' makes no difference) on entities uncapable of supporting them. For similar reasons one may not say that a piece of rock is following an algorithm. The speaker was right in trying to set this straight.
@llnoba The logic applies in a world with no minds even if there were no minds to apply the logic. That's the point that Dillahunty was making. I think the way he was trying to get the point across by using the term "essence" can be a bit confusing to some people though.
@llnoba What Matt was trying to get trough: We don't need someone assessing truth for it to be truth. Reading through point 1,2 and 4 of the argument from Matt even tells you that. What else would it mean that "logical absolutes are transcendent" and "Logical absolutes are truth statements" ?
@thargor2k Well, that's somewhat tricky. Truth - classically - is a certain relation between mind-contents and reality (adaequatio rei ad intellectum). Now how can there EXIST a relation involving mind-contents if there is no mind? In a world without minds talking about truth is superfluous. There is a rock. Period. Consider that in such a world there are no theories about rocks, no intentions directed towards rock, no memories of rocks etc. no entities requiring minds for existence.
The atheist doesn't quite get it. Without a mind to organize the subject of 'rock' from 'apple' either of these objects could just as easily be 'dodge puck-up truck with sqware tires and bat wings'.
@LothairOfLorraine The argument you present here is nothing but a game of words. Objectively, it does not matter what you call the substance. A "rock" is still what a "rock" is (i.e., petrified matter). You can call it a "dodge pick-up truck with square tires and bat wings" if you like. But regardless of what you call it, it still contains all the mineralogical components of what has been classified as a "rock." Our subjective thought processes has no effect on what already exists objectively.
@lieutenantnobody You can't even use the term 'mineralogical components' without a mind to organize the images, letters and words into a coherant denial of my argument. Also, I didn't classify anything as a rock. I am going to keep calling it [i.e., the rock] a dodge pick-up truck or a bucket of water, or a desk lamp. I find it bizzar that you can admit that a rock objectively exists as a mixture of components yet deny God exists as a mixture of attributes.
@LothairOfLorraine My dear friend, we are not talking about the term "rock." We are talking about the substance that has been classified as a rock (or a "pick-up truck," as you call it). Perhaps I should call it a pick-up truck as well so then maybe we can come to terms? But in all seriousness, like most of us, I was born; and when I was born, I knew nothing. I was completely ignorant. So what happened? Well, I proceeded to grow and experience life one day at a time. (CONT'D)
@LothairOfLorraine (CONT'D) Then one hot summer day I came into contact with a small, coarse object in the sand. I found this object interesting, so I gave it a name. “Rock.” Now, does this mean that the small, coarse object in the sand used to be a big, squishy object in the sky until I found it and gave it a name? No. My subjective experience had no impact on what the object already was objectively. If God exists, He exists as He is regardless of what I call Him or believe about Him. (CONT'D)
@LothairOfLorraine (CONT'D) The same goes for everything else. You can only experience what exists to be experienced. Common sense. Anything else is all in your mind. You cannot experience that which is not meant to be experienced, nor can you experience something that does not already exist to be experienced.
LOL! Sorry to break it to you slick, but this whole argument is pointless and meaningless. The reason why this debate is going no where is because, the subject ( god ) is not verifiable nor is it unfalsifiable.
I was waiting for them to talk about the application not the statement, but they briefly touched on the application. Of course he has to say there needs to be a mind for application.
a rock is "whatever it is". thats what the caller isnt getting. host isnt quantifying what the rock is as it is reflected within our minds, he is saying that it it was it is (whatever that may be).
a rock is "whatever it is". thats what the caller isnt getting. matt isnt quantifying what the rock is as it is reflected within our minds, he is saying that it it was it is (whatever that may be).
If a tree falls in the forest with nobody around to hear it, then the tree fell. That is the absolute. A person sees the tree fall and states the tree fell. The statement is the application of conceptual logic, but the tree falling is not contingent on the statement. It fell without the application. It's not that frickin' hard Mr. Slick.
@BeatleEDs ? What vid were you watching? Slick can't even recognize his own argument when it is spoken back to him. Matt called him on the important stuff though, "how do you know?" Slick is unable to answer that one without showing his superstition.
@joestfrancois - Maybe I missed something. Without referring to Matt Slick, can you give me Matt D argument in one comment. Perhaps it will help me. If you be so kind.
Right, Slick has no argument. We are in agreement. Without refering to Matt D. can you give me Matt Slick argument in one comment? Perhaps it will help me. If you be so kind.
Wait a second, you asked " Without referring to Matt Slick, can you give me Matt D argument in one comment" and when I declined you took that to mean that Matt d. has no argument? Because I refused to do your bidding, Matt was wrong?
Something I did or did not do nullified Matt D. argument? You argue Like Matt Slick.
@joestfrancois - No, I just really want to understand Matt D's argument from one of the people who seems to understand what it is. All I ever get is people who want to talk about Matt Slick. Cant anyone just explain Matt D position in life without referring to someones else's position.
@BeatleEDs Sounded more like you were telling me what to do. Tell you what, why don't you explain Slick's position without refering to Matt Dilahunty's position, then I will get back to you.
@joestfrancois - "Dillahunty is saying that things exist without respect to a mind to recognize that they exist." - No, I don't see the difference. Your explanation requires faith.
@BeatleEDs No, but 'samuraivagrant' can! And I quote; "If a tree falls in the forest with nobody around to hear it, then the tree fell. That is the absolute. A person sees the tree fall and states the tree fell. The statement is the application of conceptual logic, but the tree falling is not contingent on the statement. It fell without the application. It's not that frickin' hard Mr. Slick."
Now if you don't get that by now, I'd tell you to give up, and go back to school!
@theanvilcracks - You see, the thing is, you do not know the tree fell until you observe the falling tree. What state of existence the tree is in requires an observer. Until that time, all outcomes exist. This of Schrödinger's cat.
It would have been nice to hear the rest of the conversation. Somewhat disappointing that they cut off the video right when it was beginning to get good..
Wow. I knew creationists were covering their eyes and ears to block out simple contradictions, but it takes some serious mental gymnastics to make the claim that a = a when there is someone to comprehend it, but a != a when nobody is around. I guess all those stars and galaxies we haven't discovered yet are swimming around as porpoises and lawn chairs right now.
This argument is nothing but a disagreement between a man who holds that the Primacy of Existence is valid versus a man who holds that the Primacy of Consciousness is valid. The tree falling in the woods is a perfect example: does consciousness "create" the noise, or does the noise exist independent of man's consciousness?
@ExErebus exactly... it's unanswerable by any logical absolutes, the argument makes both seem thick-headed and obnoxious. This argument also proves that whether you are atheist, religious, or anything in between, you must subscribe to a form faith of on some level. I laugh at atheists because they do the same things they accuse the religious. If you want to go the "all science" route, agnosticism is the only one that makes sense. Simply say "I cannot know" and avoid these foolish arguments.
@BilboHalfling You missed the point: which is that it IS answerable. "Believing" that the world exists independent of your personal consciousness is pretty easy to test. If, when, you die (not all people, but just BilboHalfing dies) the world ceases to exist, it will be proof that consciousness creates reality. If everything continues without your personal thoughts to create it, then existence does exist--not in your head, but independently. This axiom is self-evident--no faith required.
@ExErebus ever read descartes? He suggests that the only thing I can know is that I exist. There's always a possibility that all of my observations are illusions brought on by some "malicious demon." As absurd as that seems, there is no real proof against it, and faith absolutely is required on some level for a person to believe anything beyond his/her own existence. and a big lol at what you are calling self-evident. If I died, I would not know if the world ended, now would I?
@BilboHalfling Have you ever heard of a Nihilist? That's what you are. And you're right, you wouldn't be a part of the experiment anymore would you? I guess the rest of us would know that the world kept spinning. And you are wrong about there being no other axioms:Identity and Consciousness are also self evident. "An axiom is a proposition that defeats its opponents by the fact that they have to accept it and use it in the process of any attempt to deny it" --Ayn Rand
@ExErebus The whole point is the individual's perspective. I can't prove to myself that reality doesn't depend on my consciousness. I could say if you died and the wold continued, reality did not depend on your consciousness. But then again, you can't prove to me that you're conscious, so where would that get us? OK, include identity and consciousness as axioms- but only one's own identity and consciousness. I agree it's absurd, but that's where this argument goes. It's absurd - inconsequential
@BilboHalfling The answers you arrive at when discussing these axioms become the pillars of your entire philosophy. You aren't saying that falling trees don't make noise when you aren't there to hear them, you're saying there are no trees! My question is why you don't focus your consciousness on winning the lottery, flying like superman, or winning this debate. If it's up to you, stop imposing gravity on yourself...FLY! consciousness creates reality, right? so go create.
@ExErebus damn... i keep trying to make a rebuttal to your last comment, but 500 characters doesn't seem to be enough. how about a recap... i say that it is unprovable whether reality is or is not contingent on consciousness... you reduce this to say that I am claiming that I can manipulate reality, then you suggest that I cannot manipulate reality, and show how ridiculous such a claim is. If you can name the fallacy you employ, I'll give up.
@BilboHalfling Way leads to way, and I can manipulate my consciousness if I choose to. If you can't do the same, that is your shortcoming. It isn't a straw man unless you're admitting you can't direct your consciousness.
ugh matt slick is either stupid or really thick in this part of the discussion, dillahunty's trying to make the point that the logical "absolutes" (which is the nature of existence that logical statements refer to) exist whether or not there are minds to form logical statements about them but slick keeps falling back to conceptual out of nowhere. very frustrating
@Gytrash23 An atheist tries to do the same but uses the Bible as a science book. The fact that he said a Rock is still a Rock in another universe that we do not know of, and applies the same laws from this universe to another universe is illogical.. And when Matt S answers or tries to explain Matt D doesn't stfu and he interrupts him. That's not a debate.. In a debate you know interrupt the persons claims. What a tool matt D is.
@twooffour Lol yes he did.. He did we "know" a rock is in the other universe, it would be the same thing. Clearly we wouldn't. We don't know half the crap that's in our universe let alone guess what "could or should" be in another. A lot of what ifs from atheists, scientists, and they can't even prove them, or have any basis for the theory, so why bring it to the table.
He said... an object in a universe with no minds to observe and name them, would still be what it is. It may be OUR universe, just one where no life's ever developed (let's just assume we're the only planet with life in space, and it would've been destroyed by a space collision before the first cells formed).
He also didn't say that a "rock in our universe would be the same thing in the other" - I'm sorry you can't understand basic English even when the same thought is repeated ad..
@FeralCr people dable in supernatural bullshit and ignore facts about reality. Imagine shooting urself in the face, if no ones around did the gun really kill u? Objectively Yes, it made a loud mutha fkn sound nd exploded ur head...subjectively it made no sound? and didn't explode your head? sorry for the graphic metaphor
@FeralCr I sometimes feel like society is to wishy washy for my liking about the nature of reality, everyone is encouraged to treat reality as a subjective experience where how they experience something is how it actually is and you can't prove them wrong because thats how THEY experience it.
@FeralCr I like the light bulb example because the retort would be "If you define light as proton particles flying at light speed being observed by an eye" - Whats the argument, if there was no eye to observe it would just be "protons flying around at the speed of light?" Yes aka Light Waves! Not observed doesn't mean it doesnt happen and to use wordsd as I experience it is perfectly legit. it's a test in objectivity yeah? reality at a macro level is not subjective.
This is such an annoying argument. Its not different to "If a tree falls in the words and no one is able to hear it, does it make a sound?"......YES. Next question!
Tree Falling does make a sound, if a light switch turns on in an empty room does it produce light? well, yes. if an empty room is filled with water is the room wet? yup. if the room of water is then frozen is the room cold? hmmm yeah.
If there is no one there to observe an event...does it actually happen? what u mean like the big bang, abiogenisis or the birth of the sun, "There was no one there to be hear the big bang and therefore no particles were displaced in a wave motion causing sound"
@shandcunt If you define 'sound' as the perception of waves against an ear, then, no, a tree falling with no one around does not make a sound. It makes produces the waves within the air that have the potential to be sound if and only if they are perceived.
Your statement is true only if you define sound as 'waves in the air with potential to be perceived'.
"If you don't know what they are....How can you tell me what they're not"...
There's a box in my room, it's 10 centimeters cubed in volume. My brother comes in and says "there's a person in here". I reject his claim, he then replies "what's in there then?", I say "I don't know". Then he says "if you can't tell me what's in there, you can't refuse my claim". Noooooooooooooo!
Those rocks are quick, I know they're morphing into some thing else every time I turn my back, but, no matter how fast I spin around there they are turned back into rocks, those sneaky bastards...
@MrMZaccone Yes we can. That was part of Dilla's critique. I don't think any ontological starting point applies or can change that, but this is where I am having trouble because it seems hard to justify a critique and form an argument without one. But I guess this is where Dilla would refer to 'essence' as opposed to 'truth'.
...So, again, in layman's terms, you don't need to know what a REAL object is to know what it is not. It is, however, essential that if a term is empty of any meaning at all, and/or cannot be demonstrated to exist, it is absurd talking about what it is or is not in the real world, unless you are in the art of creating fantasy - which I wouldn't dare put past you at this point.
Who's the one with the propensity to make things up again?
@harrycrumb1989 I agree with everything you've just written. "Whether conceived of or not, it must, conceptually, be attached with some categorical property." Thanks for the clarification. I was under the impression that when people said they didn't know anything about something, they meant it literally. Which is why I thought they were just making random shit up.
ParasiteS27: While I don't agree with most of the things that Matt Slick says, to refer to him as an idiot because he would say a tree falling wouldn't make a sound absent an observer, actually makes you appear less intelligent because if you knew anything about the properties of sound, then you would know that it isn't sound until it is translated as sound by the brain. A suggestion for everybody is to know what you are talking about before speaking.
devildogdude1988 14 hours ago
This sounds like a high level recreation of every argument for the existence of the god(s) on this show. Caller: "Prove ____ doesn't exist" Host: "The burden of proof of the non-existence of god(s) doesn't lay on me. You have to prove the existence of god(s)." Caller: "If you won't have faith in my holy book, then I feel free to insert my god(s) wherever you fail to prove a negative." Host: "You can't prove a negative, and you are failing to prove your positive statement too."
inspiraPaz 20 hours ago
When Dillahunty gets Slick to say "then what you're doing is affirming that the law of identiy is still true whether or not you're there to know it or not" at 0:42, he could have won by arguing:
If logical absolutes are still true whether or not PEOPLE are there to know it, then they are still true whether or not GOD is there to know it; this means a universe where god exists is indistinguishable from a universe where he does not exist. Therefore, the TAG does not prove the existence of god.
Eximietate 2 days ago
The guest must not even know how to install logic into his thinking, considering he has to use a computer to debate while Matt is using nothing more then his intellectual mind.
aprox23 2 days ago
I applaud Matt in this segment. So many times I see him tear through people just because they are idiots. It's finally nice to see a great debate, and then Matt still tears him apart. Bravo.
b1rdn05 4 days ago
If I see an apple, I could point out that it isn't a dog without knowing that it is, in fact, an apple.
Matt can say that logical absolutes are not conceptual without knowing what the essence of logical absolutes is.
Andromeggedon 2 weeks ago
Well, Matt Slick is apparently an idiot...
HeroOfTime712 2 weeks ago
If a tree falls in the forrest and nobody hears or sees it, Dillahunty says it still fucking fell.
Matt Slick seems to think it was never a tree in the first place.
pburto 3 weeks ago
Matt Dillahunty just proved he has a far greater grasp of philosophy than Matt Slick.
BrokenBard 4 weeks ago
matts on top of his shit man. and im not talkin matt slick
autopsy87 1 month ago
The logical absolutes aren't conceptual. They are a state of reality, our concepts of which are conceptual.
In the same way that if we can conceive of an apple, then the apple isn't conceptual, our CONCEPT of the apple is.
God, this debate gives me a headache.
YaleBreaker 1 month ago
If I write a note on a piece of paper, and all minds cease to exist, does that note cease to have writing?
To put it another way, Slick is claiming that because "noise" is subjective, so is "sound".
YaleBreaker 1 month ago
This is why I'm not a philosophy major anymore.
McTaggStar 1 month ago
Dillahunty says that things, "don't exist". that's a logical fallacy. EVERYTHING exists whether we know it or not. if it didn't, there wouldn't be existence. God just IS and we finite creatures have a problem with this.
knowone11111 1 month ago
@knowone11111 Spider-man just is. Superman just is... and you know what, they're more moral than God. You don't know what a logical fallacy is.
Slanguaj 1 month ago
Wow this was the worst episode of A.E ever!
tristan9812 1 month ago
omg that caller is LOST
myndzyeful 1 month ago
If it depends on a mind to process it, then it cannot be absolute =/
Sigh.
I would not have showed such restraint. Matt is a 'saint'. XP
PUBalanceTeam 1 month ago
Matt pwned that dude!
WillyT3117 1 month ago
Religious wack job
Thinkdeep420 1 month ago
i love how he almost pulled a tony soprano.
bonkuraysan 2 months ago
The caller is a strange blend of brilliance and extreme stupidity.
DoubterApe 2 months ago 7
Wow. This caller doesn't get it. It's like talking to a third grader. I read the transcendental argument and immediately ran into the same problem. It doesn't matter whether or not I am here to realize that a rock is a rock...it's still a rock. It's no wonder this guy is so comfortable believing in a supreme deity. Apparently he thinks that there is no actual reality. Everything only truly exists strictly because we perceive it in our minds. How simple minded can you be?
Egag642 2 months ago
There are not gods... but there is God in other words God is God but God is not not God
moqutpar 2 months ago
ANSWERS: Please read the TEST and contemplate carefully before answering. I will actually post the solution in 1 week. Please post your answers thoughtfully.
axe2grind911 2 months ago
@axe2grind911
1.True
2.False
3.False
4 False
5.True
(all answers are theoretically posed as a 3rd person perspective veiw of what my 1st person subjective assessment would be, if I could objectively assess my subjective position.)
Do I win?
MrLittletomdj 2 months ago
TEST: Which of these statements are true? 1. "I think therefore I am." 2. "I don't think therefore I am not." 3. "I don't think therefore I am." 4. "I am therefore I think." 5. "I am." Answers below (or above, depending on how you view this.)
axe2grind911 2 months ago
It can be argued that MIND precedes everything - in fact is a sort of "god", not in a creative or progenitive sense, but in a foundational sense for all argument; mind is the tacit presumption upon which all argument is based. Remove it - and there ARE no absolutes, or logic because even these are predicated by a mind. So it appears that Dillahunty is the one dealing a card from the bottom of the deck: the universe with no mind cannot be known to exist. An object cannot exist without a subject.
axe2grind911 2 months ago
@axe2grind911 It doesn't matter that it cannot be "known" to exist. Whether something exists or not is not contingent upon knowledge of it's existence.
MrLittletomdj 2 months ago
@9:45: "You are saying that our thought processes are conceptual and therefore the absolutes on which it is founded are also conceptual... fundamentally the same as saying that I have a concept of an apple and therefore the apple is conceptual." Here's the problem: as soon as a mind exists, we can both experience AND conceptualize the apple. Without the mind, there is no basis for experience OR concepts. Moreover, "foundational absolutes" for thought processes are immaterial things unlike apples
axe2grind911 2 months ago
What Slick is saying is simple: You can't talk about a hypothetical universe with "no minds" without using a mind (albeit in THIS universe). This is a cheat on the part of Dillahunty: his mind is being used to hypothesize these absolutes, yet he's trying to defend they are independent of his mind.The whole argument can be neither true NOR false, but becomes fallacious because it is self-contradictory, i.e. at its essence, you can't use MIND to hypothesize NO MIND: it's self-annihilative.
axe2grind911 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
i think this caller is actively trying to not understand the contradiction of his argument.
scootsmonkey 3 months ago
i think this guy is actively trying to not understand the contradiction of his argument.
scootsmonkey 3 months ago
Is it fair to characterize this gentleman as believing that nothing exists until a statement is made about its existence?
This simplest way I can think of to refute such logic is the nature of statements. Statements are our way of describing that which has, will, or is currently existing. Therefore, it follows that a statement on a logical absolute is a subsequent description of that which exists.
By his logic, a fatal car accident in a remote area does not exist until a new mind finds it.
LibertarianINT 3 months ago
Irreguardless isn't a word?
Alright then.
civwarfan 3 months ago
if a tree falls down in the middle of a forest and no one is around to hear it does it make a sound? Matt says yes. Theist says this information is useless because without minds around to comprehend a tree falling then the sound has no purpose and therefore ceases to exist because sound is something a mind hears and a tree is something a mind perceives. Precisely what one could expect from a person who believes this was all created just for us. *eye rolls*
TheMagicSandwichist 3 months ago
Apologist stands for smart-arsery.
ozweblogs 4 months ago in playlist The Atheist Experience
If Slick had skipped his "Social Sciences" and Divinity degrees and just pursued a actual Philosophy degree with a proper foundation in formal and informal logic, this conversation would not exist.
& despite this, I am thankful he didn't because this vid series has been tremendously entertaining.
jamesejudy3 4 months ago
if the apologist, says that there is a god, your still left with which god. there trying all sorts of things to prove their insanity by going down this philosophical road. its like if they can prove one argument, they win full stop. hey thats christianity, hood wink the illitarite. like one idiot once said to me ,give me proof of the winds exisitance. hands in head. why do we entertain these idiots
kram83au 4 months ago
this is the very simple and basic argument of "If a tree falls but no ones around to hear it, does it make a sound" the obvious answer is yes, it still makes a sound. This idiot is trying to say it wouldn't make a sound.
ParasiteS27 5 months ago 39
@ParasiteS27 I don't think it's exactly the same thing. I think it's rather like if the tree falls but no one is around to see it, does it still fall. We can see it later and would see that it has fallen.
hanspeterpitsch 4 months ago
@hanspeterpitsch true, but the fact of the matter is we wouldnt have to see it at all for it to have happened. What ever happens still happens, regardless of whether or not you experience it having happened at all.
ParasiteS27 2 months ago
@ParasiteS27 Actually I think the answer is no, it doesn't make a sound.
fletchers4 2 months ago
@fletchers4 I agree. A falling tree will indeed create the vibrations which would be transduced into sound by the presence of an ear. So sound is contingent upon the presence of an ear. No ear - no sound.
gigisdad 2 months ago
@gigisdad Sound is a mechanical wave that is an oscillation of pressure transmitted through a solid, liquid, or gas.
Thus, any movement like a tree falling WILL generate sound, wether or not any ears are present to perceive the sound being generated.
Just in the same way that we are surrounded each day by myriads of sounds that are generated, but simply resonate in frequencies that we cannot perceive, whilst other organisms can perceive other frequencies. The sounds are all there regardless.
GronTheMighty 2 months ago
@GronTheMighty I disagree. Take for instance, radio waves. They are all around us but the information contained within is not yet a broadcast..not until they encounter a radio receiver. No transducer/ear - no sound.
gigisdad 2 months ago
@gigisdad Disagree all you want, you are demonstrably wrong - the waves are still present wether or not they are received by anyone, otherwise you'd never get interference happening would you?
Same thing as the tree in the forest, wether or not the sound of it falling is heard, the reverberation of the sound still causes surrounding vegetation to move from the pressure differential, and will interfere with the sound of rustling leaves in neighbouring trees regardless of being heard or not.
GronTheMighty 2 months ago
@GronTheMighty I don't disagree that the waves are produced. But the are not yet transformed into SOUND. Here's a snippet from Scientific American magazine I found on this very subject: "Sound is vibration, transmitted to our senses through the mechanism of the ear, and recognized as sound only at our nerve centers. The falling of the tree or any other disturbance will produce vibration of the air. If there be no ears to hear, there will be no sound."
gigisdad 2 months ago
@gigisdad I see, so at least we do agree that physical reality behaves the same regardless of sound being heard or not, we merely disagree on when the label "sound" is appropriate to use in the context of the classical saying :)?
GronTheMighty 2 months ago
@GronTheMighty Indeed. Perhaps my initial response sounded as if it were touching too much on the philosophical aspect of the question for which I apologize profusely.
gigisdad 2 months ago
@gigisdad I too have to apologize for my slightly too ardent fervor, and slightly derogatory manners.. Glad we're able to resolve our disagreement :]
GronTheMighty 2 months ago
@ParasiteS27 Was just about to say that last video. Good man.
pythor2 1 month ago
@pythor2
Actually, he is saying 1) the sound is part of god and 2) that tree with no one around is incomprehensible or model-able by us.
aka....a Christian fuckwit.
Harizl 1 month ago
@ParasiteS27 ahahahaha exactly my thoughts!
LiftYourSkinnyFist 1 month ago
@ParasiteS27 He is making the True, yet erroneous argument that Sound is contingent upon someone to Hear it. The physics which dictate what happens when a tree falls still exists, but the Concept of sound would not. If one wishes to term preassure waves as sound, then, of course, the tree has made a sound, but if one terms it as requiring someone to hear it, then no sound was made.
ODaemienE 1 month ago
@ParasiteS27 The question though, is how do you define 'sound'; the conceptualization of 'sound' is contingent upon a recipient/interpreter; and in that case the tree does not make a 'sound', because the concept of 'sound' requires an entity to 'hear' it. If you define sound as vibrations passing through a medium, as I would, then of course the tree makes the sound. This is the briar patch that Matt Slick has fallen into.
RebelWrestler45 1 month ago
@ParasiteS27 it's not so clear, the tree makes vibration, but sound is vibration being received by an eardrum. if there are no ears, there is no sound.
maniacsonfire8 1 day ago
This conversation reminded me of this:
/watch?v=ZCg5AijnZvk
XDDDDD
MithranArkanere 5 months ago
Absolutes rock!
breaneainn 5 months ago
I´m really impressed with Matt´s command of logic, the radio guy hasn´t the first clue
yatter1 6 months ago in playlist Religion 51
@yatter1 actually i think the radio guy has a pretty decent understanding of logic. but GOD DAMN! Im impressed with Matt. love matt
omegaman20 4 months ago
@omegaman20 I can´t agree, he doesn´t seem to know when he´s being fallacious in a very elementary way.
yatter1 4 months ago
@yatter1 By Matt I really hope you mean Matt Dillahunty and NOT Matt Slick. The category that the logical absolutes fall into is absolute, not conceptual. Absolute and conceptual cannot be equivalent, because that would mean any and every concept is absolute, which is NOT true. I can think of concepts that are not true and therefore cannot be absolute, demonstrating that absolute and conceptual ARE NOT the same.
MagisterPridgen 2 months ago
@yatter1 For Matt Slick's assertions to be true the phrases logical absolutes and logical concepts would be equivalent and they are not. If they were, then why does Matt Slick call them logical absolutes rather than logical concepts? I'll tell you why, because Matt Slick knows that concepts are dependent upon minds. Logical absolutes, to qualify as absolute, cannot be dependent upon any mind, including that of a God. Matt Slick fails.
MagisterPridgen 2 months ago
@MagisterPridgen
Wholly agreed; I don't understand how the caller could associate something as subjective as a mind to an absolute.
Though I am by no means a master of logic/rhetoric, I want to call this a fallacy of shifting grounds (the arguer abandons his or her original position on a particular argument and adopts a new one). It still doesn't seem a proper fit, as I don't think it addresses the proof's attempt to "slip" in a new term that completely changes the dynamics. Your thoughts?
recalibration 1 month ago
@yatter1 That may be a bit harsh... I think the radio guy has a great command of logic, but is bested by Matt Dillahunty, probably because Dillahunty is right :) I would argue that both have an impressive command of Logic. I've learned a bit from listening to them both.
mcdori02 2 months ago
@mcdori02 I agree. The part where the radio host loses his grasp on logic is when he starts trying to twist it into proving the existence of "god". But it's the same with many theists. They're not concerned with truth, only with proving that their "god" exists, so they basically have to keep sabotaging themselves...
palerider1775 1 month ago
Matt Dillahunty disagreement = Telling Matt Slick: "thats a fallacy".
The woman in the left was laughing of what? Cant she be serious in a serious debate inasmuch as her intelligence seems not enough? -.-
Fantasticlist 6 months ago
@Fantasticlist Well, Slick was making logical fallacies, so it makes sense for Dillahunty to disagree with him by pointing it out. Terry (I believe that is the name for the lady on the left) was laughing because Dillahunty and Slick were talking right past each other because Slick wasn't seeing the point that Dillahunty was making.
ChienStrap1H 6 months ago
@ChienStrap1H Yes and then this ended with Dillahunty pushing the button off. Very good ;)
Fantasticlist 6 months ago
@Fantasticlist Well, to be fair, this show does have a time limit...
ChienStrap1H 6 months ago
@ChienStrap1H After 45min, another 2 to answer wouldnt me much...
Fantasticlist 6 months ago
Again, Matt is talking nonsense here. There is supposed to be no statement in the non-minded-universe, yet he himself asserts that in that universe certain logical forms apply. This is a very bad case of metaphysical hypostasis - you cannot impose even logical forms (calling them 'essences' makes no difference) on entities uncapable of supporting them. For similar reasons one may not say that a piece of rock is following an algorithm. The speaker was right in trying to set this straight.
llnoba 6 months ago
@llnoba The logic applies in a world with no minds even if there were no minds to apply the logic. That's the point that Dillahunty was making. I think the way he was trying to get the point across by using the term "essence" can be a bit confusing to some people though.
ChienStrap1H 6 months ago
@llnoba What Matt was trying to get trough: We don't need someone assessing truth for it to be truth. Reading through point 1,2 and 4 of the argument from Matt even tells you that. What else would it mean that "logical absolutes are transcendent" and "Logical absolutes are truth statements" ?
thargor2k 6 months ago
@thargor2k Well, that's somewhat tricky. Truth - classically - is a certain relation between mind-contents and reality (adaequatio rei ad intellectum). Now how can there EXIST a relation involving mind-contents if there is no mind? In a world without minds talking about truth is superfluous. There is a rock. Period. Consider that in such a world there are no theories about rocks, no intentions directed towards rock, no memories of rocks etc. no entities requiring minds for existence.
llnoba 5 months ago
The atheist doesn't quite get it. Without a mind to organize the subject of 'rock' from 'apple' either of these objects could just as easily be 'dodge puck-up truck with sqware tires and bat wings'.
LothairOfLorraine 6 months ago
@LothairOfLorraine The argument you present here is nothing but a game of words. Objectively, it does not matter what you call the substance. A "rock" is still what a "rock" is (i.e., petrified matter). You can call it a "dodge pick-up truck with square tires and bat wings" if you like. But regardless of what you call it, it still contains all the mineralogical components of what has been classified as a "rock." Our subjective thought processes has no effect on what already exists objectively.
lieutenantnobody 6 months ago
@lieutenantnobody You can't even use the term 'mineralogical components' without a mind to organize the images, letters and words into a coherant denial of my argument. Also, I didn't classify anything as a rock. I am going to keep calling it [i.e., the rock] a dodge pick-up truck or a bucket of water, or a desk lamp. I find it bizzar that you can admit that a rock objectively exists as a mixture of components yet deny God exists as a mixture of attributes.
LothairOfLorraine 6 months ago
@LothairOfLorraine My dear friend, we are not talking about the term "rock." We are talking about the substance that has been classified as a rock (or a "pick-up truck," as you call it). Perhaps I should call it a pick-up truck as well so then maybe we can come to terms? But in all seriousness, like most of us, I was born; and when I was born, I knew nothing. I was completely ignorant. So what happened? Well, I proceeded to grow and experience life one day at a time. (CONT'D)
lieutenantnobody 6 months ago
@LothairOfLorraine (CONT'D) Then one hot summer day I came into contact with a small, coarse object in the sand. I found this object interesting, so I gave it a name. “Rock.” Now, does this mean that the small, coarse object in the sand used to be a big, squishy object in the sky until I found it and gave it a name? No. My subjective experience had no impact on what the object already was objectively. If God exists, He exists as He is regardless of what I call Him or believe about Him. (CONT'D)
lieutenantnobody 6 months ago
Comment removed
lieutenantnobody 6 months ago
@LothairOfLorraine (CONT'D) The same goes for everything else. You can only experience what exists to be experienced. Common sense. Anything else is all in your mind. You cannot experience that which is not meant to be experienced, nor can you experience something that does not already exist to be experienced.
lieutenantnobody 6 months ago
Hey Slick, would you like one last chance to substitute "mind" for "cognition"? I'm merely asking; its your gallows, your rope, your neck.
dallaskenn 6 months ago
This is your proof of god? That's rubbish!
LOL! Sorry to break it to you slick, but this whole argument is pointless and meaningless. The reason why this debate is going no where is because, the subject ( god ) is not verifiable nor is it unfalsifiable.
12InchesUnBuffed 7 months ago
The guy on the phone should run for president. Fuck religion, politics is this mans calling.
SonOfNye 7 months ago in playlist The Atheist Experience
what tree? what is this tree? i call those things rats.
if a rat fell without an observer to observe it, then did it fall at all?
MrDneter 8 months ago
I was waiting for them to talk about the application not the statement, but they briefly touched on the application. Of course he has to say there needs to be a mind for application.
josephrl82 8 months ago
Rocks are fucking powerful.
charvelgtrs 8 months ago
Slick is not so slick
colocolo1546 8 months ago in playlist my favorite clips from the -ATHEIST EXPERIENCE-
a rock is "whatever it is". thats what the caller isnt getting. host isnt quantifying what the rock is as it is reflected within our minds, he is saying that it it was it is (whatever that may be).
FendenKrell 9 months ago
a rock is "whatever it is". thats what the caller isnt getting. matt isnt quantifying what the rock is as it is reflected within our minds, he is saying that it it was it is (whatever that may be).
FendenKrell 9 months ago
If a tree falls in the forest with nobody around to hear it, then the tree fell. That is the absolute. A person sees the tree fall and states the tree fell. The statement is the application of conceptual logic, but the tree falling is not contingent on the statement. It fell without the application. It's not that frickin' hard Mr. Slick.
samuraivagrant 9 months ago
1:55 The other host see how bad Matt D is being owned and she decides it is time for help. This is awesome.
BeatleEDs 9 months ago
Matt Slick owns Matt D. I don't care which side of the argument you are on. Matt D was owned.
BeatleEDs 9 months ago
@BeatleEDs ? What vid were you watching? Slick can't even recognize his own argument when it is spoken back to him. Matt called him on the important stuff though, "how do you know?" Slick is unable to answer that one without showing his superstition.
joestfrancois 9 months ago
@joestfrancois - Maybe I missed something. Without referring to Matt Slick, can you give me Matt D argument in one comment. Perhaps it will help me. If you be so kind.
BeatleEDs 9 months ago
@BeatleEDs Gee whizz, no. Perhaps you summ it up.
joestfrancois 9 months ago
@joestfrancois - Thats what I thought. He has no argument.
BeatleEDs 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BeatleEDs
"Thats what I thought. He has no argument."
Right, Slick has no argument. We are in agreement. Without refering to Matt D. can you give me Matt Slick argument in one comment? Perhaps it will help me. If you be so kind.
joestfrancois 9 months ago
@BeatleEDs
Wait a second, you asked " Without referring to Matt Slick, can you give me Matt D argument in one comment" and when I declined you took that to mean that Matt d. has no argument? Because I refused to do your bidding, Matt was wrong?
Something I did or did not do nullified Matt D. argument? You argue Like Matt Slick.
joestfrancois 9 months ago
@joestfrancois - No, I just really want to understand Matt D's argument from one of the people who seems to understand what it is. All I ever get is people who want to talk about Matt Slick. Cant anyone just explain Matt D position in life without referring to someones else's position.
BeatleEDs 9 months ago
@BeatleEDs Sounded more like you were telling me what to do. Tell you what, why don't you explain Slick's position without refering to Matt Dilahunty's position, then I will get back to you.
joestfrancois 8 months ago
@joestfrancois - Well, I dont really know Matt Slick but I'll give it a shot.
GOD exist. Everyone knows this is true because without GOD, there is no truth.
BeatleEDs 8 months ago
@BeatleEDs Dillahunty is saying that things exist without respect to a mind to recognize that they exist.
See the difference?
joestfrancois 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@joestfrancois - "Dillahunty is saying that things exist without respect to a mind to recognize that they exist." - No, I don't see the difference. Your explanation requires faith.
BeatleEDs 8 months ago
@BeatleEDs No, but 'samuraivagrant' can! And I quote; "If a tree falls in the forest with nobody around to hear it, then the tree fell. That is the absolute. A person sees the tree fall and states the tree fell. The statement is the application of conceptual logic, but the tree falling is not contingent on the statement. It fell without the application. It's not that frickin' hard Mr. Slick."
Now if you don't get that by now, I'd tell you to give up, and go back to school!
theanvilcracks 8 months ago
@theanvilcracks - "the tree falling is not contingent on the statement." Based on what evidence?
BeatleEDs 8 months ago
@theanvilcracks - You see, the thing is, you do not know the tree fell until you observe the falling tree. What state of existence the tree is in requires an observer. Until that time, all outcomes exist. This of Schrödinger's cat.
BeatleEDs 8 months ago
"It's a category fallacy"
"No that's a fallacy of division"
Shut the fuck up, Slick. Do you honestly think that pointing out the correct way to name the mistake you made doesn't make you smart? Fucking drivel.
TheLiberalSoup 9 months ago
a rock is a rock is not a rock is a rock. now dividing by zero...
Murdulo 9 months ago
It would have been nice to hear the rest of the conversation. Somewhat disappointing that they cut off the video right when it was beginning to get good..
TheObservationDeck 9 months ago
Wow. I knew creationists were covering their eyes and ears to block out simple contradictions, but it takes some serious mental gymnastics to make the claim that a = a when there is someone to comprehend it, but a != a when nobody is around. I guess all those stars and galaxies we haven't discovered yet are swimming around as porpoises and lawn chairs right now.
logicked 9 months ago 34
Lol this 9is so EZ! When my grandma died the mountains didn't disappear. My daughter is gonna be born, and the mountain will still be there.
Funmakinmoney 10 months ago
Matt Slick is fucking retarded. He is arguing for the sake of argument and not considering what Matt D. is saying.
EndersQuest 10 months ago
This argument is nothing but a disagreement between a man who holds that the Primacy of Existence is valid versus a man who holds that the Primacy of Consciousness is valid. The tree falling in the woods is a perfect example: does consciousness "create" the noise, or does the noise exist independent of man's consciousness?
ExErebus 10 months ago
@ExErebus exactly... it's unanswerable by any logical absolutes, the argument makes both seem thick-headed and obnoxious. This argument also proves that whether you are atheist, religious, or anything in between, you must subscribe to a form faith of on some level. I laugh at atheists because they do the same things they accuse the religious. If you want to go the "all science" route, agnosticism is the only one that makes sense. Simply say "I cannot know" and avoid these foolish arguments.
BilboHalfling 10 months ago
@BilboHalfling You missed the point: which is that it IS answerable. "Believing" that the world exists independent of your personal consciousness is pretty easy to test. If, when, you die (not all people, but just BilboHalfing dies) the world ceases to exist, it will be proof that consciousness creates reality. If everything continues without your personal thoughts to create it, then existence does exist--not in your head, but independently. This axiom is self-evident--no faith required.
ExErebus 10 months ago
@ExErebus ever read descartes? He suggests that the only thing I can know is that I exist. There's always a possibility that all of my observations are illusions brought on by some "malicious demon." As absurd as that seems, there is no real proof against it, and faith absolutely is required on some level for a person to believe anything beyond his/her own existence. and a big lol at what you are calling self-evident. If I died, I would not know if the world ended, now would I?
BilboHalfling 10 months ago
@BilboHalfling Have you ever heard of a Nihilist? That's what you are. And you're right, you wouldn't be a part of the experiment anymore would you? I guess the rest of us would know that the world kept spinning. And you are wrong about there being no other axioms:Identity and Consciousness are also self evident. "An axiom is a proposition that defeats its opponents by the fact that they have to accept it and use it in the process of any attempt to deny it" --Ayn Rand
Have a go at it.
ExErebus 10 months ago
@ExErebus The whole point is the individual's perspective. I can't prove to myself that reality doesn't depend on my consciousness. I could say if you died and the wold continued, reality did not depend on your consciousness. But then again, you can't prove to me that you're conscious, so where would that get us? OK, include identity and consciousness as axioms- but only one's own identity and consciousness. I agree it's absurd, but that's where this argument goes. It's absurd - inconsequential
BilboHalfling 10 months ago
@BilboHalfling The answers you arrive at when discussing these axioms become the pillars of your entire philosophy. You aren't saying that falling trees don't make noise when you aren't there to hear them, you're saying there are no trees! My question is why you don't focus your consciousness on winning the lottery, flying like superman, or winning this debate. If it's up to you, stop imposing gravity on yourself...FLY! consciousness creates reality, right? so go create.
ExErebus 10 months ago
@ExErebus damn... i keep trying to make a rebuttal to your last comment, but 500 characters doesn't seem to be enough. how about a recap... i say that it is unprovable whether reality is or is not contingent on consciousness... you reduce this to say that I am claiming that I can manipulate reality, then you suggest that I cannot manipulate reality, and show how ridiculous such a claim is. If you can name the fallacy you employ, I'll give up.
BilboHalfling 10 months ago
@BilboHalfling Way leads to way, and I can manipulate my consciousness if I choose to. If you can't do the same, that is your shortcoming. It isn't a straw man unless you're admitting you can't direct your consciousness.
ExErebus 10 months ago
I wonder if the rock still don't make a sound if no one is there to not hear it?
MrWrof 10 months ago
this isthe discussion I was waiting for and matt is really good
memsinan 10 months ago
ugh matt slick is either stupid or really thick in this part of the discussion, dillahunty's trying to make the point that the logical "absolutes" (which is the nature of existence that logical statements refer to) exist whether or not there are minds to form logical statements about them but slick keeps falling back to conceptual out of nowhere. very frustrating
RussianAssassin21 10 months ago
TAG demolished.
Urudrim 10 months ago
Matt is dead on but this guy just doesn't want to be wrong.
k0rps3gynd3r 10 months ago
There is no rock
Jaymaul009 10 months ago
@Jaymaul009 Blaspheme! Kill the heretic!
JackWisps 10 months ago
@Jaymaul009
Perhaps it is not the rock that is bending, but yourself.
Charmolution 9 months ago
@Charmolution Ahh! so the rock is a spoon! I get it now.
breaneainn 9 months ago
WHY does Matt care so much about --and waste so much time with-- insane philosophical garbage?
- In a universe where no minds exist is a rock still a rock?
In such a universe, no one would give a fuck. And precious few would in this universe, either.
Matt either has the patience of a SAINT or he eats up this garbage like candy.
sejembalm 10 months ago
Truth exists without a mind because False can only exist WITH a mind.
Did I win?
BlckSbthMan 10 months ago
If a tree falls and no-one's around to hear it; it still makes a sound.
NormanAngle 10 months ago
@NormanAngle Of course.
BlckSbthMan 10 months ago
@Gytrash23 An atheist tries to do the same but uses the Bible as a science book. The fact that he said a Rock is still a Rock in another universe that we do not know of, and applies the same laws from this universe to another universe is illogical.. And when Matt S answers or tries to explain Matt D doesn't stfu and he interrupts him. That's not a debate.. In a debate you know interrupt the persons claims. What a tool matt D is.
bvsandman 10 months ago
@bvsandman
He didn't apply the rock argument to "another universe we do not know of". You haven't followed the video, you haven't understood anything.
twooffour 10 months ago
@twooffour Lol yes he did.. He did we "know" a rock is in the other universe, it would be the same thing. Clearly we wouldn't. We don't know half the crap that's in our universe let alone guess what "could or should" be in another. A lot of what ifs from atheists, scientists, and they can't even prove them, or have any basis for the theory, so why bring it to the table.
bvsandman 10 months ago
@bvsandman
He said... an object in a universe with no minds to observe and name them, would still be what it is. It may be OUR universe, just one where no life's ever developed (let's just assume we're the only planet with life in space, and it would've been destroyed by a space collision before the first cells formed).
He also didn't say that a "rock in our universe would be the same thing in the other" - I'm sorry you can't understand basic English even when the same thought is repeated ad..
twooffour 10 months ago
@bvsandman
nauseum.
twooffour 10 months ago
Even if there was no one around in the universe to tell this caller he is a douche, he is still a douche.
Cougar139tweak 10 months ago
@Cougar139tweak Bahaha.
BlckSbthMan 10 months ago
Is that Slick really this dumb or is he trying to get some money off of his website? What a tool...
namnack 10 months ago
@FeralCr people dable in supernatural bullshit and ignore facts about reality. Imagine shooting urself in the face, if no ones around did the gun really kill u? Objectively Yes, it made a loud mutha fkn sound nd exploded ur head...subjectively it made no sound? and didn't explode your head? sorry for the graphic metaphor
shandcunt 11 months ago
@FeralCr I sometimes feel like society is to wishy washy for my liking about the nature of reality, everyone is encouraged to treat reality as a subjective experience where how they experience something is how it actually is and you can't prove them wrong because thats how THEY experience it.
shandcunt 11 months ago
@FeralCr I like the light bulb example because the retort would be "If you define light as proton particles flying at light speed being observed by an eye" - Whats the argument, if there was no eye to observe it would just be "protons flying around at the speed of light?" Yes aka Light Waves! Not observed doesn't mean it doesnt happen and to use wordsd as I experience it is perfectly legit. it's a test in objectivity yeah? reality at a macro level is not subjective.
shandcunt 11 months ago
I was laughing until Slick had his little conceited laugh. Then I got mad.
FeralCr 11 months ago
@FeralCr Hahahaha
BlckSbthMan 10 months ago
This is such an annoying argument. Its not different to "If a tree falls in the words and no one is able to hear it, does it make a sound?"......YES. Next question!
skywize 11 months ago
Tree Falling does make a sound, if a light switch turns on in an empty room does it produce light? well, yes. if an empty room is filled with water is the room wet? yup. if the room of water is then frozen is the room cold? hmmm yeah.
If there is no one there to observe an event...does it actually happen? what u mean like the big bang, abiogenisis or the birth of the sun, "There was no one there to be hear the big bang and therefore no particles were displaced in a wave motion causing sound"
shandcunt 11 months ago
@shandcunt If you define 'sound' as the perception of waves against an ear, then, no, a tree falling with no one around does not make a sound. It makes produces the waves within the air that have the potential to be sound if and only if they are perceived.
Your statement is true only if you define sound as 'waves in the air with potential to be perceived'.
FeralCr 11 months ago
"If you don't know what they are....How can you tell me what they're not"...
There's a box in my room, it's 10 centimeters cubed in volume. My brother comes in and says "there's a person in here". I reject his claim, he then replies "what's in there then?", I say "I don't know". Then he says "if you can't tell me what's in there, you can't refuse my claim". Noooooooooooooo!
therock27374 11 months ago
I'm not a philosopher, I have no idea what they are talking about, but it sounds interesting hahha
MGiants82 11 months ago
All i heard was if there is a tree in the woods. that falls down and there's now one around does it still make a noise, and that's about it.
kittley1984 1 year ago
Those rocks are quick, I know they're morphing into some thing else every time I turn my back, but, no matter how fast I spin around there they are turned back into rocks, those sneaky bastards...
bigfatbaataed 1 year ago 33
@bigfatbaataed hahaha :D
grindhiphop 1 year ago
truth and facts are not personal. the rock will be a rock, whether there's 0 people or 1 person thinking about it. what a stupid debate.
JohnF30Music 1 year ago
"rock" on!
ased215er 1 year ago
Can we say that the logical absolutes are "principles" or "characteristics" without that requiring a mind? I think we can.
MrMZaccone 1 year ago
@MrMZaccone Yes we can. That was part of Dilla's critique. I don't think any ontological starting point applies or can change that, but this is where I am having trouble because it seems hard to justify a critique and form an argument without one. But I guess this is where Dilla would refer to 'essence' as opposed to 'truth'.
Pigroota 1 year ago
@Pigroota Yeah, sounds about right.
MrMZaccone 1 year ago
This might be a dumb question, but is that a tattoo on Matt's right arm? If so, what is it of?
Yay248 1 year ago
...So, again, in layman's terms, you don't need to know what a REAL object is to know what it is not. It is, however, essential that if a term is empty of any meaning at all, and/or cannot be demonstrated to exist, it is absurd talking about what it is or is not in the real world, unless you are in the art of creating fantasy - which I wouldn't dare put past you at this point.
Who's the one with the propensity to make things up again?
harrycrumb1989 1 year ago
@harrycrumb1989 I agree with everything you've just written. "Whether conceived of or not, it must, conceptually, be attached with some categorical property." Thanks for the clarification. I was under the impression that when people said they didn't know anything about something, they meant it literally. Which is why I thought they were just making random shit up.
adean2 1 year ago