If you say the logical absolutes are part of his nature and his essance then you are essentialy equating the two, and creating a tautology. God is the logical absolutes. In this case we can apply occam's razor and do away with the god part because it isn't a neccessary assumption.
For atheists to think about. In quantum level, p = "the particle is moving to the right" q = "the particle is in the interval [-1,1]" r = "the particle is not in the interval [-1,1]" According to uncertainty principle: (p and q) or (p and r) = false Classical logic breaks down in quantum level. How can you trust limited human logic to reject God's existence? It is like something who live in 2D world rejects the existence of the 3rd dimension because he can't see evidence for it.
@xfraudbuster That 2D person is still justified in not believing in the 3rd dimension until evidence is presented to him. Even if it does exist and everybody else knows about it and it's obvious he is wrong, that one person is still justified in his disbelief until evidence is provided. Logic is not evidence, evidence is something you feed into logic to prove statements.
What I'm trying to say is that human is limited, not only in sensory, but in logic as well. Therefore we cannot expect science and logic to explain something that is transcendental. You cannot expect God to appear under your microscope, telescope, spectrometer, etc. That's just absurd. You also cannot expect God to follow your logic either.
In other words, science/logic is not enough to justify your disbelief.
@xfraudbuster Disbelief is enough to be justified by the fact that there is not enough evidence to believe the claim. It's called the burden of proof. There isn't enough evidence to believe the claim that God exists, therefore the disbelief is justified. If we cannot measure God in any way, shape, or form, it is indiscernable from something that does not exist.
@Lutukor That's called scientism. As I said, you cannot measure God because God is transcendental.
I agree that proof is needed, however it cannot be empirical. If you can only accept empirical proof, then I can only disagree with you.
However, if you're open-minded, I can say that your disbelief can be justified if you cannot find anything at all. I am not saying you should accept anything either. I personally believe that God should've given us a form of proof understandable with our reason.
@xfraudbuster I see. My next question is then what are the characteristics of God (obviously, being transcendental would be one) and if not empirical evidence, what else could be provided? Logic is not considered evidence, it's something used to explain already existing evidence. I don't particularly understand what's wrong with scientism either.
@Lutukor What's wrong with scientism? Well, science is a useful tool, no argument there. But it just cannot be used to measure transcendental being. Not a perfect analogy, but it's like using a steak knife to break a thick steel wall.
I can only say that atheists are already on the right track by using their reason and critical thinking. However they don't seem to realize that they (and human in general) is limited.
Someone once said to this guy, "If a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?" and he concluded, "No." That's his story and he's sticking to it.
I went to the CARM website prior to watching these video's to see what material they presented. Now, admittedly, I have about 2yrs of college and consider myself a rational thinker..I did not understand all the TAG argument however many of other things I read left me with the impression of deception and fraud. And I can say it solidified my position as an atheist.
Lets say that the universe is exactly the same as it is right now & a god does exist. If ALL minds (including gods) ceased to exist, the cup sitting in front of me would still be what it is, & not what it's not.
Is Slick saying that if all existing minds ceased to exist, the cup in front of me could possibly be a horse, or a stapler? I think he is.
He is VERY deserving of the name "Slick".
This is what apologists do, they try to confuse people.
@sammy2trees Yeah, I just recently heard of Matt Slick, and if he's the best religion has then for shame. It's seems Christians like him wrap up their definitions into a confusing web so that anyone who wants to argue has go through the grueling process of untangling it.
Wow the "Can God make A not A?" question is kind of like the Jesus is the Lord of the Sabbath debate Jesus had with the Pharisees. If Jesus is God in the flesh and the Lord of the Sabbath he can change the date of the Sabbath, what believers can do on the Sabbath & so on & so forth. I think the answer is yes, God can make A not A.
@Ca1iGurl31 The question "Can God make A not A" refers to the Law of Non-Contradiction, which basically states that X cannot be both X and not-X at the same time and in the same sense. Matt Dillahunty is asking Matt Slick if God could possibly violate this logical absolute. God could not do this, which means he is not the author of this Law of Logic. To go with your Sabbath example, could God possibly make Saturday both a holy day and not a holy day at the same time and in the same sense? No.
@nichtmuttersprachler Ok what if we applied the quotes " we are led by the spirit of God not by flesh" and "we are not under Law" to some ones life. Assuming Jesus, is God, & so is the Holy Spirit. If 1 of those 3 communicated with that person and told them their Sabbath day was now on Tuesday between 3- 4pm would that be a contradiction? I think God could make Sat. not a holy day for those led by the spirit, & a holy day for those who aren't.
@Ca1iGurl31 X can be not-X at different times and in different senses, so there's no logical contradiction in saying Saturday could be a holy day for some people but not a holy day for other people. However, it is fundamentally impossible for X to be both X and not-X *at the same time and in the same sense.* The main point is that the laws of logic are not contingent on any mind, not even God's (even if he existed), refuting Matt Slick's claim that God must exist for these laws to exist.
@nichtmuttersprachler Ok that is logical. What if the Law of Contradiction was an attribute of God or a part of his essence. It is not dependent because it is infinite like God is infinite. God is never contradictory he is always faithful for himself. I don't think its a Law. If it is not created, then it has to be infinite because it exists.
> What if the Law of Contradiction was an attribute
> of God or a part of his essence.
You can of course assert that the logical absolutes are attributes of a god but the whole point of TAG is to proof that the logical absolutes necessitates a god and NOT that they could simply coexist. And as Matt pointed out: TAG failes to proof this necessity of a god.
@dejesusluisx That is retarded on so many levels - you said "The order in conscious energy comes by virtue of His own existence." Then why can't order in the universe come about by its own existence? You cannot say that order cannot come from nothing and then simultaneously say that the "conscious energy's" order came about by virtue of its own existence (i.e. from nothing). Your argument is self-refuting.
I'm sorry, slick got owned right when dillahunty pointed out his non - sequitur regarding logical absolutes being conceptual. Silly Slick, that's pure sophistry.
God is a spirit, an immaterial conscious being. All things in the universe consists of matter and/or energy, so if God isn't matter, is energy by definition. Energy is the capacity to do work, is eternal, omnipresent, wasn't created and can't be destroyed, can create matter, was the only thing present before the BB, and the energy required to make the universe must had been powerful. All these match Biblical descriptions of God. Therefore is plausible God exists.
@dejesusluisx But it's simply fitting evidence into the empty mould of an extremely vague concept. It's also proof of an alien race who transcended their physical bodies and gained the ability to govern the law of physics.
@Bleumange "It's also proof of an alien race who transcended their physical bodies and gained the ability to govern the law of physics" No, because it wouldn't be an explanation for the first cause then, it would cause an infinite regress. The only thing in this universe that could had started it all is energy, and we say is conscious energy because of the order of the universe.
@dejesusluisx That's one hell of a leap to go from "energy" to "conscious energy". Conscious energy requires structure and order in order to house information - where did this order come from? What gave the conscious energy structure? By contrast, "normal" energy can be as chaotic as you like, so no problem...
@hmspinaforethisisspa "Conscious energy requires structure and order in order to house information - where did this order come from?" Conscious energy is ordered so He made the universe ordered, If there weren't a first order, how else could had ordered arise? to look like what? The fact that we can recognize beauty in order is another proof of how our consciousness was created in God's own consciousness image. The order in conscious energy comes by virtue of His own existence.
@Arkesus I've spoken to Slick on his chatroom, yes, he can be pretty stupid sometimes and he will not be corrected from any atheist. He called the definition of pressure esoteric when I tried to explain it to him.
Hell, even I spotted Slick's sleight of hand - conflating logical axioms/absolutes with logic is like say that houses are made of bricks, so houses ARE bricks.
In any case, WE comprehend the logical absolutes/axioms despite their universality and immutability - why do we need god's mind? They can live in OUR minds!
At 1:40, Matt Slick undermines his whole argument. If, in the TAG scheme, the absolutes are a function of "God's nature and essence", then they exist as absolutes independent of God's ability to conceive them. If that is the case, then they no longer require any mind to exist, and one can simply replace "the absolutes are what they are because of God's nature" with "the absolutes are what they are because of their own nature".
Absolutes is a human concept that makes sense from a dual perspective (evil vs good, high vs low, left vs right...) only and that is not in itself an absolute.... We are enslaved to that vision of the world and because it is the only one we know, we take it for granted. It is not possible to imagine a mind who would not be subjected to absolutes, that wouldn't grasp any object through discontinuity, opposites. And that cannot be explained by words because words are dual objects.
@FortYeah Absolutes are not concepts; they merely are. They exist independent of any mind to conceive them. A rock is a rock regardless of whether anyone is there to conclude that it is a rock. Slick maintains that for the absolutes to exist at all, a God must exist to conceive of them. However, when asked whether God can change them, he claims they are unchanging because they are part of God's nature. However, the absolutes could simply be part of the universe's nature.
I don't say that Slick is right about absolutes. And neither is Matt D. If you agree that Matt D is right, it means that you think the way we grasp the world is a neutral absolute way. I pretend that we perceive absolutes through opposites because of a mind set that isn't absolute. I also pretend that because this mind set isn't absolute, you are able to switch to a non-dual mind set where things aren't grasped through absolutes. Oriental teachings tell a lot about that...
@FortYeah I'm not entirely sure I understand your point about our necessarily viewing the world from a dual perspective. Are you saying that what we perceive as an absolute may not be so because our perceptions are skewed by the way we perceive things as dualities?
If so, I'm not sure I agree. Or, at least, I think we must take as an axiom that things are as we perceive them to be, or else we have no basis for understanding reality at all - our perceptions are all we have.
a rock is only a rock when minds exist and have defined such an object as a rock. if no minds existed, it just is. it isn't a rock, it just is. the "essence" of any object would be without nomenclature to place identity on the object. in fact, it isn't even an object, it just is. it is there. matt D may be open minded, but not willing to be wrong.
@RichT519 That easily refutable trap was answered incorrectly by Matt (Slick). God CAN make A not equal to A. Dillahunty was then prepared to say, "So if God exists then He doesn't exist?" This is where the atheist expects you to either say, "Oh no" or if you say "No" they go like: "Oh, you see, that's why I don't like Christianity." God is not subject to the laws of logic, they are to Him, and so He would exist regardles of whether "A" = A or does not equal it. Think about that: God is not A.
@LuvPeaceUnitySiberi4 So basically you just said all that to essentially make the argument "God doesn't make sense based on logic, therefor he is not subject to the laws of logic" Haha that has got to be the worst argument I've ever heard.
@LuvPeaceUnitySiberi4 No, no, you've misunderstood the point. God makes sense because He MADE logic. I'm talking about the rules of ILLOGIC, not logic. He is not subject to them and so if A does not equal A, would not make God not exist.
Maybe but God himself told that he was the alpha AND the omega so... That whole debate is caused by our incapacity to think beyond the boundaries our mind are built on. That is why the oriental spiritual teachings encourage you to get rid of the dual mode of perception in which A cannot be non-A....
@RichT519 First, I'm not religious. I was just telling that the Bible addresses that point (the fruit of knowledge of good and evil (absolutes) talks about that too....). But like I said, I prefer the oriental approach where there is no God exterior to you because you are made from that divine uncreated (no) stuff we call consciousness. We may call God a non-dual state of consciousness, free from any concept we can imagine when in a dual state. But the wave doesn't need to believe in the ocean
I really don't understand why they go into such stupid nonsense detail? There is no evidence for GOD. If it does exist then tell him to hold an interview with Larry King or something, then the whole world will follow him!
No matter how far Matt D. Dumbs it down these Theists just don't get it. Ever. Arrogant loud mouths trying to feel like they're right. Dodging questions then demanding answers.
@TheDarkknightrules92 Basically he uses the loaded word, conceptual, when describing the logical absolutes so that later he can come back to that and say that concepts must be the product of a mind. Since the logical absolutes aren't the product of human minds he says they must come from another mind (god). Its similar to labeling Earth as a creation then concluding it must have a creator.
The logical absolutes are part of Zeus's nature, and Thor cannot make a square circle because it is logically impossible, so it is a part of Jesus's nature that the logical absolutes are absolutes, because Harry Potter's nature is to be part of the logical absolutes, and Voldemort wouldn't exist if the logical absolutes didn't exist as a part of Superman. Any idiot can see this.
Wow Slick is really dense. Or maybe he isn't but just knows that his argument is flawed but refuses to admit it. You can't have something be absolute and at the same not absolute- this is an application of that very same absolute logic he himself talks about. Also, this is the first debate I saw Matt in and so far I'm really impressed by his performance.
The "universe with no minds" argument is a deductive fallacy.
This would have been more of a fair debate if both of their arguments were shared beforehand. Dillahunty had plenty of time to prepare his arguments, Slick had to come up with them on the spot for the most part.
like a tennis match. if a tree fell in a forrest would it make a sound... it cant b/c there would be know one to tell about its sound.. oh but wait yes the tree would still exist we dont need a perception of the tree to mate it real. oh wait. but if we dont exist to see the tree fall then we wouldnt know of the sound it made thus making it not real. but wait we dont need our minds to make something real. it still is and always will be until changed by somthting else and on and on and on and
Well, when a tree falls onto something, regardless of whether or not people are around, a certain amount of energy is released as sound energy; a certain sound decibel amount is released. To say that it it doesn't make a sound contradicts the law of the conservation of energy. A persons presence doesn't effect this. But I do get the whole esse est percipi thing even though I don't agree.
@rsgirl10 im not agreeing or disagreeing w/ you. my point is they are basically going back and forth one saying it does and the other saying it doesnt. every time they just give new reasons as to why a tree does or doesnt make a sound.
Dillahunty's point is that absolutes do not exist in the mind; they simply exist in nature--the mind merely RECOGNIZES them. The "mindless universe" example near the end of the video is meant to illustrate that fact. A rock in a place where there are no people to acknowledge it's existence still exists b/c it's being is not dependent on a mind's assessment of it.
A truth-statement merely points to the Truth; it is not Truth in it of itself, but the conceptual evaluation of the Truth. =)
@NiNj4xNUTZz - "Dillahunty's point is that absolutes do not exist in the mind; they simply exist in nature--the mind merely RECOGNIZES them. " Yea, and based on what evidence? The evidence actually points to the contrary.
UGH! He never gave the value of the rock minus minds. He simply said that the rock cannot be SOMETHING and NOT that SOMETHING at the same time even if minds aren't there to give it the "rock" value. The absolute is obvious. It's not the the value that is absolute it's the reality that it can't be and not be at the same time that is absolute. Listen Slick! Of course this is an old recording, but still... DAMN man!
Which is very similar to the euthyphro dilemma. If god determines it then anything is possible to god's will, but if god is bound to it then it isn't contingent upon "him."
But the conscience is not absolute at all. Sometimes the conscience accept the logic as an absolute one, sometimes denies it. Since we have a contradiction here, the logic cannot be absolute. That means the logic has a value as much as the mind exists. If the rock exists and the mind cannot evaluate the value of it, the rock is not useful and its existence is not countable so it will stay there as it is not exists at all.
If the mind doesn't exist, and the logic absolute exist, my question is who formulated the term logic and moreover the absolute logic? The answer is a mind. It says that a mind was created by this Logic, and in the beginning Logic was not a perception of the mind. During the time the minds found and used the logic of the Logic to percept and realize themselves and the nature of the reality, so the conscience was formed, which sometimes is the "enemy" of the logic.
@dianabxh - The logicall fallacy in your argument can be seen in your first sentence when you ask "who" formulated the term logic. Thats a loaded question to suppose that it was a "who". "What" is a more sound question.
@314Aurelius I did not suppose because a "who" exists, and this "who" has a mind to define terms such as a logic or absolute logic. "Keep in mind" somebody says, the absolute logic exists. Another can say, logic exists but it is not absolute, etc. You suggests "what", but it is impossible for me to use "what" because what is inanimate, and I am not talking about Pinocchio.
"IN THE OTHER UNIVERSE WHERE NO MINDS EXIST, NO TRUE STATEMENTS COULD BE MADE BUT THE ROCK IS STILL A ROCK AND STILL NOT..NOT A ROCK!" MD.
This is the kind of statement an Atheist like Matt Dillahunty has to reduced to so he can get through a brainwashed believer! What a waste of time and at the same time not a waste of time! LEM does not apply here!
Utilizing Matt Slick's reasoning, I can argue that I'm omnipotent. I am all-powerful; I can do all things. Can I fly? No, because it's not in my nature. Yet, I can do all things within my nature.
TheoreticalBullshit did an amazing job prison raping Matt Slick's TAG. He even used Matt Slick's "nature" response against him.
WTF is this bullshit??? Matt does well staying awake through all this drivel. I thought the theists used to see miracles!! Walking on water and turning water into wine!! Now all they have got is this arse hole slick and this philosophical bollocks!!! Meaningless nonsense.
Matt S. is confusing the Logical Absolutes with statement of the Logical Absolutes. Matt D. is handing Matt S. his ass. I don't know how Matt S. makes a living with this crap.
"Are you saying that a Logical Absolute is not a conceptual reality?" That is what I'm saying. The Logical Absolutes are reality period. They are that aspect/nature of reality that allow us to form conceptual logical models, including laws of nature, mathematics, etc.
@gspendlove The first question isnt answerable because it doesnt make sense, because it contradicts itself. The second one can have two answer depending on universal truth or independent truth. From the living peoples point of view mount everest can not be the tallest mountain in the world before its discovered(from a independent truth). From a universal truth mount everest is always the highest one.
@HunchbackJack I disagree, what we call "legs" wouldn't be so if a tail was called a leg. So to the person who calls a tail a leg, a dog would only have one.
So you make a movie of yourself (tripping) for fun, and during this trip you have a rock, and the rock changes into something else. Then later you go and watch the film for analysis, and in the film it didn't change. Which is correct? Satan may have messed with the film, or even the camera.
@pumpstations And if satan did indeed change the evidence you STILL aren't justified in believing it and are stupid as hell for doing so, I don't even get your argument. Wtf is the point? If you took drugs that cause you hallucinate, and you film it, then when you watch the film and the film says you're wrong...you are absolutely stupid for thinking the film is wrong...EVEN IF satan did change it.
@Delinexwow Maybe a bad analogy. OK Bad analogy. I was just trying to point out that if we are to trust miracles and not ourselves, how will we ever be able to be confident in ourselves.
@pumpstations I would argue personally that we shouldn't. This is where we are lead to believe things that aren't true. It doesn't matter what we want to see, or even sometimes do see. If evidence is provided that is to the contrary we should, if we are honest, accept said evidence and assume it is ourselves that had the misconception. Don't get me wrong we should indeed trust our senses, however we should test what we can to make sure they are properly functioning.
@pumpstations For example, we know we hallucinate, and we know that our eyes have flaws, many in fact. Just because I saw big foot on a very rainy dark day, and I ran...it doesn't mean I saw big foot. If I go back to the exact spot I supposedly saw him, and I find no foot prints, and no droppings, nothing in the mud that even indicates a human had been there...I should be honest enough to assume it's possible I saw something the resembled a large primate than actually seeing one.
@pumpstations By the way I'm still a little confused on what point you're trying to make, if you will please clarify. I'm getting the impression you are saying we can't trust our senses...then you saying we can...I'm a little confused on what the actual argument consists of.
@Delinexwow I totally agree. You must excuse me I have been sick this week. So, I'm kinda out of sorts. I wish I could disagree with you but I cant. Your "Bigfoot" is a much better way to put what I was trying to convey. I also agree the universe is stranger than we can imagine "so far" So we must be open for change in what we " think we know" to be true.
@Delinexwow I know that my reply doesn't make a sense to you because it is a continuity of the reply that I did to pumstations, but by mistake it was posted to you. Sorry!
@pumpstations You are very right. It is ashamed for some people and the media who are so enthusiastic to interpret a saving life from a tragedy where thousands people die, or a child who is born with anomalies, or a statue that is crying with blood tears, or the nature disasters, etc, as a miracle.
There's 3 more parts of this video? Matt D. has already refuted Matt S.'s argument by 3:30...what more can be said? One thing is obvious: Matt D has a clear history of getting into these incredible abstract, opaque arguments that are so far removed form the anthropomorphic, personal "God" that 3-4 billions people worship. Even if Matt S. has a completely sound argument with a sound conclusion...it doesn't prove the biblical God WHATSOEVER. That God logically fails through HIS OWN BOOK!
If the Bible is true, I think I'd rather be the dumbest person in heaven than the smartest person in hell. If it isn't true and there is no God, then nothing really matters during or after this life. But I can't absolutely know one over the other because I haven't died yet. So it takes faith, not just logical deduction, either way. I'll take my chances on the Bible because if I'm wrong, it won't matter. If I'm right, I'm okay with being dumb in heaven. I hope not all the smart ones burn in hell.
@ndelore At least you're honest when you say it requires faith: Matt S. appears to think God can be proven on logic alone, which is clearly fallacious (as Matt D. shows here). You're also wrong in your argument though: that's called Pascal's Wager and it is a faulty argument: it matters because you are very likely wasting time in church services and prayers that could be better spent actually helping the rest of humanity. What if you're wrong about the 100s of other Gods?
@bernlin2000 What is helping the rest of humanity? Does helping humanity involve volunteering in hospitals, helping out within the community during times of disaster, or providing food for needy families? What about monetary support for people who can't afford medical insurance or even groceries? If I'm wrong about the "100s of other gods" then I'll just have to take my chances. I'm convinced from experiential and logical evidence that the Bible is true.
@ndelore And this is called pascals wager, which is by far the dumbest argument ever presented for believing in god. It demonstrates a gross ignorance and lack of thought on your part. If the bible isn't true it has NOTHING to do at all with if a god exists...ONLY your version. Allah could still be correct and you're as fucked as atheists. Hell there could be a god that rewards logical thinkers and punishes people like you that cling to ignorance. Pascals wager is utterly pathetic.
@Delinexwow Any thinking person understands how illogical pascal's wager is. I didn't base my beliefs off of that system of thought. I said it to get under the skin of guys like you. Believe whatever you want, pal. It makes no difference to me. But it is hilarious to see the "logical thinkers" get all worked up and emotional over a comment. Does your logical thinking tell you how pathetic it is to make assumptions of people based on very little evidence? I'm definitely laughing at you right now.
@ndelore I'm not even slightly worked up, it is indeed amusing that you seem to think someone has to be worked up to point out utter ignorance. I also highly doubt you don't put some chips in with pascals wager. The evidence is clear, you claimed pascals wager, then went on to defend it. It's either you buy pascals wager and are now backtracking, or you lied from the start. Either way your theology would say you deserve to burn for it, that would make you a hypocrite on the rest.
@vtunes It is not a contradiction. When I say no mind exist that was referring to human mind only. In the universe where mind exist does reality depend on our mind? If your mind disappear can you conceive reality anymore? If your dead then that is the end of you. if no mind exist in the universe, then we're all dead. The universe may still be there, but why? Does it have to? What if your mind ceased to exist, and the universe ceased to exist too?
3. "If no mind exist in the universe, then we're all dead"
4. "The universe would probably still be here shape by God's mind."
I reject all these statements on the grounds that they are patently absurd. For number 3, you can't be dead if you never existed. The universe existed long before there were any minds to perceive it. The universe is not a product of any minds, rather minds are products of the universe.
@vTunes "I reject all these statements on the grounds that they are patently absurd. For number 3, you can't be dead if you never existed. The universe existed long before there were any minds to perceive it. The universe is not a product of any minds, rather minds are products of the universe."
You do exist, but I'm talking about after when you die your mind can longer conceived reality. That is the end of you. The universe exist only when mind exist for you.
@vTunes 5. Really? So the laws aren't orderly and reflects the mind of the Creator?
6. Why not? Just saying no doesn't make it true.
7. Then the universe does depend on your mind.
8. Then what does the universe depend upon? In one sense you said when mind ceased to exist then you no longer conceived reality, but here you contradict yourself and said the universe doesn't depend on our mind since it is subject to our existence.
9. "What if your mind ceased to exist, and the universe ceased to exist too?"
I doubt that will happen. As I said before, pre-dates our minds a great deal.
You seem to give "God's mind" quite a bit of undue credit. I'm sorry, but you have invented out of pure thin air, the notion that the universe is a product of a mind (God's). The whole idea of TAG is to demonstrate that a god exists, so you cannot just assert that God's mind exists, you have to demonstrate it.
@vTunes 9. It is true that the universe predates our mind, that's because creation is already here before man get here. But God is always there from the beginning. Similarly like a painter is painting the picture and his ind brought the painting into existence. The painting reflects the mind of the painter. The mind is more real than the painting. No mind, no reality.
@djcreation24 I'm really really sorry to say this, but you're an idiot! You're confusing physical reality with perceived reality as if the two are one and the same. The mental construct of reality (in your brain) is dependant on a mind, but not the reality it represents. Stop using the painting analogy, it is stupid.
@vTunes Mind is ultimate reality. Reality is shaped by mind. A painting reflects the way a painter paints the picture. The painter's mind brought the picture into existence. Reality still needs mind dude. You cant do it without a mind.
Even if no mind exist these absolutes still exists - I agreed with matt D.
However, that is because they dont depend on our mind - they dependent on God's mind. reality were brought into existence by God's mind and His logic - the world and the laws behave according to His way of thinking. ha ha hahaha
@djcreation24 No dude! What you are saying is, "If no minds exist... God's mind exists." That in itself is contradictory. Why are you placing God's mind in the hypothetical universe in which no minds exists?
@vTunes If my mind ceased to exist, there are still mind out there to conceive the universe. You still have your mind, people's mind, etc.. My mind would only effect my ability to conceived. But say if your mind and people's mind or all mind including everybody ceased to exist, then a rock is still a rock, OK... but what about the universe itself? Then how does that get here? Say If there were no human mind at all, the universe would probably still be here shape by God's mind.
@zen699 = good answer. Your hypothetical tree DOES make a sound, just as the river running by it also makes a liquid-ey, trickley sound - even though no one is around to hear it, the sound waves will, do and have happened.
Yet despite it's awesome power, a supernova makes no sound.
'talking snakes' , 'virgin births' , 'walking on water' , 'rising from the dead' etc. etc. etc.
ya don't need to be a scientist to know this is all bullshit.
A bit of 'common sense' should suffice.
fekinel 1 day ago
If you say the logical absolutes are part of his nature and his essance then you are essentialy equating the two, and creating a tautology. God is the logical absolutes. In this case we can apply occam's razor and do away with the god part because it isn't a neccessary assumption.
firstatheist 3 days ago
Wow, at that moment when he said that there would be no statement, oh Matt just knew that he had him.
nojuggernaut 5 days ago
Matt Dillahunty, Mr Butt in
Robcartl 1 week ago
xfraudbuster 2 weeks ago
@xfraudbuster That 2D person is still justified in not believing in the 3rd dimension until evidence is presented to him. Even if it does exist and everybody else knows about it and it's obvious he is wrong, that one person is still justified in his disbelief until evidence is provided. Logic is not evidence, evidence is something you feed into logic to prove statements.
Lutukor 1 week ago
@Lutukor I agree that it's not a perfect analogy.
What I'm trying to say is that human is limited, not only in sensory, but in logic as well. Therefore we cannot expect science and logic to explain something that is transcendental. You cannot expect God to appear under your microscope, telescope, spectrometer, etc. That's just absurd. You also cannot expect God to follow your logic either.
In other words, science/logic is not enough to justify your disbelief.
xfraudbuster 1 week ago
@xfraudbuster Disbelief is enough to be justified by the fact that there is not enough evidence to believe the claim. It's called the burden of proof. There isn't enough evidence to believe the claim that God exists, therefore the disbelief is justified. If we cannot measure God in any way, shape, or form, it is indiscernable from something that does not exist.
Lutukor 1 week ago
@Lutukor That's called scientism. As I said, you cannot measure God because God is transcendental.
I agree that proof is needed, however it cannot be empirical. If you can only accept empirical proof, then I can only disagree with you.
However, if you're open-minded, I can say that your disbelief can be justified if you cannot find anything at all. I am not saying you should accept anything either. I personally believe that God should've given us a form of proof understandable with our reason.
xfraudbuster 1 week ago
@xfraudbuster I see. My next question is then what are the characteristics of God (obviously, being transcendental would be one) and if not empirical evidence, what else could be provided? Logic is not considered evidence, it's something used to explain already existing evidence. I don't particularly understand what's wrong with scientism either.
Lutukor 1 week ago
@Lutukor What's wrong with scientism? Well, science is a useful tool, no argument there. But it just cannot be used to measure transcendental being. Not a perfect analogy, but it's like using a steak knife to break a thick steel wall.
I can only say that atheists are already on the right track by using their reason and critical thinking. However they don't seem to realize that they (and human in general) is limited.
xfraudbuster 1 week ago
@xfraudbuster a steak knife can break a thick steel wall if the steel wall is brittle enough.
Sunky4u 4 days ago
Comment removed
xfraudbuster 1 week ago
Comment removed
xfraudbuster 1 week ago
Someone once said to this guy, "If a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?" and he concluded, "No." That's his story and he's sticking to it.
TomVodkaCollins 3 weeks ago in playlist More videos from kyokumajr
00.40 TERMINATED
lewisner 1 month ago
I went to the CARM website prior to watching these video's to see what material they presented. Now, admittedly, I have about 2yrs of college and consider myself a rational thinker..I did not understand all the TAG argument however many of other things I read left me with the impression of deception and fraud. And I can say it solidified my position as an atheist.
Shifty8210 1 month ago
Slick keeps going back to the "truth statement".
Lets say that the universe is exactly the same as it is right now & a god does exist. If ALL minds (including gods) ceased to exist, the cup sitting in front of me would still be what it is, & not what it's not.
Is Slick saying that if all existing minds ceased to exist, the cup in front of me could possibly be a horse, or a stapler? I think he is.
He is VERY deserving of the name "Slick".
This is what apologists do, they try to confuse people.
Zentz29 1 month ago
Christian apologists sure are getting desperate! This is one of the biggest guns they've pulled out yet. Too bad it failed to go off.
LOL...you gotta love it!
sammy2trees 1 month ago 2
@sammy2trees Yeah, I just recently heard of Matt Slick, and if he's the best religion has then for shame. It's seems Christians like him wrap up their definitions into a confusing web so that anyone who wants to argue has go through the grueling process of untangling it.
TwistedLemniscate 1 month ago
Wow the "Can God make A not A?" question is kind of like the Jesus is the Lord of the Sabbath debate Jesus had with the Pharisees. If Jesus is God in the flesh and the Lord of the Sabbath he can change the date of the Sabbath, what believers can do on the Sabbath & so on & so forth. I think the answer is yes, God can make A not A.
Ca1iGurl31 2 months ago
@Ca1iGurl31 The question "Can God make A not A" refers to the Law of Non-Contradiction, which basically states that X cannot be both X and not-X at the same time and in the same sense. Matt Dillahunty is asking Matt Slick if God could possibly violate this logical absolute. God could not do this, which means he is not the author of this Law of Logic. To go with your Sabbath example, could God possibly make Saturday both a holy day and not a holy day at the same time and in the same sense? No.
nichtmuttersprachler 2 months ago
@nichtmuttersprachler Ok what if we applied the quotes " we are led by the spirit of God not by flesh" and "we are not under Law" to some ones life. Assuming Jesus, is God, & so is the Holy Spirit. If 1 of those 3 communicated with that person and told them their Sabbath day was now on Tuesday between 3- 4pm would that be a contradiction? I think God could make Sat. not a holy day for those led by the spirit, & a holy day for those who aren't.
Ca1iGurl31 2 months ago
@Ca1iGurl31 X can be not-X at different times and in different senses, so there's no logical contradiction in saying Saturday could be a holy day for some people but not a holy day for other people. However, it is fundamentally impossible for X to be both X and not-X *at the same time and in the same sense.* The main point is that the laws of logic are not contingent on any mind, not even God's (even if he existed), refuting Matt Slick's claim that God must exist for these laws to exist.
nichtmuttersprachler 2 months ago
@nichtmuttersprachler Ok that is logical. What if the Law of Contradiction was an attribute of God or a part of his essence. It is not dependent because it is infinite like God is infinite. God is never contradictory he is always faithful for himself. I don't think its a Law. If it is not created, then it has to be infinite because it exists.
Ca1iGurl31 2 months ago
@Ca1iGurl31
> What if the Law of Contradiction was an attribute
> of God or a part of his essence.
You can of course assert that the logical absolutes are attributes of a god but the whole point of TAG is to proof that the logical absolutes necessitates a god and NOT that they could simply coexist. And as Matt pointed out: TAG failes to proof this necessity of a god.
Rawlsrocks 1 month ago
i wonder if slick supports st anselm's ontological wordgames argument? seems like he would.
mebe84 2 months ago
slick seems to have a hard time understanding the difference betweeen a concept and what the concept refers to,or represents.
mebe84 2 months ago
Slick could out dance Valentino,Astaire,MJ,That Russian dude....
hunkallgood73 2 months ago
Sounds like the classic: If a tree falls in the woods when no one's around, does it make any sound?
killiefan24 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dejesusluisx That is retarded on so many levels - you said "The order in conscious energy comes by virtue of His own existence." Then why can't order in the universe come about by its own existence? You cannot say that order cannot come from nothing and then simultaneously say that the "conscious energy's" order came about by virtue of its own existence (i.e. from nothing). Your argument is self-refuting.
hmspinaforethisisspa 2 months ago
I'm sorry, slick got owned right when dillahunty pointed out his non - sequitur regarding logical absolutes being conceptual. Silly Slick, that's pure sophistry.
fLcGambit 3 months ago
God is a spirit, an immaterial conscious being. All things in the universe consists of matter and/or energy, so if God isn't matter, is energy by definition. Energy is the capacity to do work, is eternal, omnipresent, wasn't created and can't be destroyed, can create matter, was the only thing present before the BB, and the energy required to make the universe must had been powerful. All these match Biblical descriptions of God. Therefore is plausible God exists.
dejesusluisx 3 months ago
@dejesusluisx But it's simply fitting evidence into the empty mould of an extremely vague concept. It's also proof of an alien race who transcended their physical bodies and gained the ability to govern the law of physics.
Bleumange 3 months ago
@Bleumange "It's also proof of an alien race who transcended their physical bodies and gained the ability to govern the law of physics" No, because it wouldn't be an explanation for the first cause then, it would cause an infinite regress. The only thing in this universe that could had started it all is energy, and we say is conscious energy because of the order of the universe.
dejesusluisx 3 months ago
@dejesusluisx That's one hell of a leap to go from "energy" to "conscious energy". Conscious energy requires structure and order in order to house information - where did this order come from? What gave the conscious energy structure? By contrast, "normal" energy can be as chaotic as you like, so no problem...
hmspinaforethisisspa 2 months ago
@hmspinaforethisisspa "Conscious energy requires structure and order in order to house information - where did this order come from?" Conscious energy is ordered so He made the universe ordered, If there weren't a first order, how else could had ordered arise? to look like what? The fact that we can recognize beauty in order is another proof of how our consciousness was created in God's own consciousness image. The order in conscious energy comes by virtue of His own existence.
dejesusluisx 2 months ago
8.50 should have been argument over, end of. . . .
dixon97a 3 months ago
This conversation got pretty deep... I don't think I was inebriated enough to fully grasp.
ludogogo 3 months ago 5
@ludogogo LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOOLO!!!! Understand completely!!!!!
hunkallgood73 2 months ago
@ludogogo Try grass instead. X^D
TomVodkaCollins 3 weeks ago in playlist More videos from kyokumajr
@TomVodkaCollins Believe me brother, I've walked through the meadows....
ludogogo 3 weeks ago
oh what a whining baby, dillahunty asks if god is subject to the laws of logic and slick bitches about being interrupted
alexporterfield 3 months ago
I have to give Dillahunty some credit for this part.
HolyRevelation 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
right at the end there D lays the smackdown. that motherf*cker got game!
types10000 4 months ago
Matt´s command of logic is pretty good I have to say.
yatter1 5 months ago
@yatter1
Is that a joke? I think it is "D
truckcompany 4 months ago
@truckcompany No it isn´t, yours I suspect isn´t.
yatter1 4 months ago
@yatter1
Both of them are called Matt, so which Matt are you referring to?
This is why I ask if it was a joke.... (Unless you are trolling me)
truckcompany 4 months ago
@truckcompany Me trolling you? I never said a word!!! I was referring to Matt Dillahunty. His logic is fairly impeccable and that isn´t a joke.
yatter1 4 months ago
I just don't get how Matt Slick couldn't understand the difference between a statement and a rock.
Arkesus 5 months ago
@Arkesus
If you did, you would solve religion.
truckcompany 4 months ago
@Arkesus I've spoken to Slick on his chatroom, yes, he can be pretty stupid sometimes and he will not be corrected from any atheist. He called the definition of pressure esoteric when I tried to explain it to him.
huntmatuk 4 months ago
Hell, even I spotted Slick's sleight of hand - conflating logical axioms/absolutes with logic is like say that houses are made of bricks, so houses ARE bricks.
In any case, WE comprehend the logical absolutes/axioms despite their universality and immutability - why do we need god's mind? They can live in OUR minds!
JMUDoc 6 months ago
At 1:40, Matt Slick undermines his whole argument. If, in the TAG scheme, the absolutes are a function of "God's nature and essence", then they exist as absolutes independent of God's ability to conceive them. If that is the case, then they no longer require any mind to exist, and one can simply replace "the absolutes are what they are because of God's nature" with "the absolutes are what they are because of their own nature".
HBJ
HunchbackJack 7 months ago in playlist Dillahunty vs Slick
@HunchbackJack
Absolutes is a human concept that makes sense from a dual perspective (evil vs good, high vs low, left vs right...) only and that is not in itself an absolute.... We are enslaved to that vision of the world and because it is the only one we know, we take it for granted. It is not possible to imagine a mind who would not be subjected to absolutes, that wouldn't grasp any object through discontinuity, opposites. And that cannot be explained by words because words are dual objects.
FortYeah 5 months ago
@FortYeah Absolutes are not concepts; they merely are. They exist independent of any mind to conceive them. A rock is a rock regardless of whether anyone is there to conclude that it is a rock. Slick maintains that for the absolutes to exist at all, a God must exist to conceive of them. However, when asked whether God can change them, he claims they are unchanging because they are part of God's nature. However, the absolutes could simply be part of the universe's nature.
HBJ
HunchbackJack 3 months ago
@HunchbackJack
I don't say that Slick is right about absolutes. And neither is Matt D. If you agree that Matt D is right, it means that you think the way we grasp the world is a neutral absolute way. I pretend that we perceive absolutes through opposites because of a mind set that isn't absolute. I also pretend that because this mind set isn't absolute, you are able to switch to a non-dual mind set where things aren't grasped through absolutes. Oriental teachings tell a lot about that...
FortYeah 3 months ago
@FortYeah I'm not entirely sure I understand your point about our necessarily viewing the world from a dual perspective. Are you saying that what we perceive as an absolute may not be so because our perceptions are skewed by the way we perceive things as dualities?
If so, I'm not sure I agree. Or, at least, I think we must take as an axiom that things are as we perceive them to be, or else we have no basis for understanding reality at all - our perceptions are all we have.
HBJ
HunchbackJack 3 months ago
Matt Dillahunty: Masterdebator
MrTraumaMan 7 months ago
a rock is only a rock when minds exist and have defined such an object as a rock. if no minds existed, it just is. it isn't a rock, it just is. the "essence" of any object would be without nomenclature to place identity on the object. in fact, it isn't even an object, it just is. it is there. matt D may be open minded, but not willing to be wrong.
llahwen 7 months ago
that trap Matt set at 0:40 was absolutely brilliant
RichT519 8 months ago
@RichT519 That easily refutable trap was answered incorrectly by Matt (Slick). God CAN make A not equal to A. Dillahunty was then prepared to say, "So if God exists then He doesn't exist?" This is where the atheist expects you to either say, "Oh no" or if you say "No" they go like: "Oh, you see, that's why I don't like Christianity." God is not subject to the laws of logic, they are to Him, and so He would exist regardles of whether "A" = A or does not equal it. Think about that: God is not A.
LuvPeaceUnitySiberi4 6 months ago
@LuvPeaceUnitySiberi4 So basically you just said all that to essentially make the argument "God doesn't make sense based on logic, therefor he is not subject to the laws of logic" Haha that has got to be the worst argument I've ever heard.
RichT519 6 months ago
@LuvPeaceUnitySiberi4 No, no, you've misunderstood the point. God makes sense because He MADE logic. I'm talking about the rules of ILLOGIC, not logic. He is not subject to them and so if A does not equal A, would not make God not exist.
LuvPeaceUnitySiberi4 6 months ago
@RichT519
Maybe but God himself told that he was the alpha AND the omega so... That whole debate is caused by our incapacity to think beyond the boundaries our mind are built on. That is why the oriental spiritual teachings encourage you to get rid of the dual mode of perception in which A cannot be non-A....
FortYeah 5 months ago
@FortYeah Why would God expect us to believe in him if his very existence can not be comprehended by our limited brainpower.
RichT519 5 months ago
@RichT519 First, I'm not religious. I was just telling that the Bible addresses that point (the fruit of knowledge of good and evil (absolutes) talks about that too....). But like I said, I prefer the oriental approach where there is no God exterior to you because you are made from that divine uncreated (no) stuff we call consciousness. We may call God a non-dual state of consciousness, free from any concept we can imagine when in a dual state. But the wave doesn't need to believe in the ocean
FortYeah 5 months ago
What a liar...the show hes referring to they allowed him plenty of time to talk..and Im sure its was more like christians not atheist who complained!
CHARLESTHEATHEIST 8 months ago in playlist Dillahunty vs Slick
@jacarandas82 ahh, thanks
runesapien 8 months ago
i don't understand anything they're saying ;_;
runesapien 8 months ago
I really don't understand why they go into such stupid nonsense detail? There is no evidence for GOD. If it does exist then tell him to hold an interview with Larry King or something, then the whole world will follow him!
attractivue 8 months ago
No matter how far Matt D. Dumbs it down these Theists just don't get it. Ever. Arrogant loud mouths trying to feel like they're right. Dodging questions then demanding answers.
Pantera4LifeXTX 8 months ago
Matt Slick is a perfect example of what religion does to a mind.
stevehayes13 8 months ago
Matt Slick was boned as soon at Matt Dillahunty asked "Can god make A not A?"
TacoBurgher327 8 months ago 22
@TacoBurgher327 Yeah, he totally ran off subject to gain time. It's pretty funny.
ApatheticOmniscience 2 months ago
Matt, you're bald. If I didn't say that Matt is bald, he'd still be bald.
Matt Slick is really trying hard to avoid responding to the notion that something can be true without an assessment of its truth.
They either are or they aren't. No mind required. No conceptual understanding required.
MrOttopants 8 months ago
i don't understand how any of Matt Slick's arguments are meant prove the existence of God.
TheDarkknightrules92 9 months ago
@TheDarkknightrules92 Basically he uses the loaded word, conceptual, when describing the logical absolutes so that later he can come back to that and say that concepts must be the product of a mind. Since the logical absolutes aren't the product of human minds he says they must come from another mind (god). Its similar to labeling Earth as a creation then concluding it must have a creator.
RichT519 8 months ago
The logical absolutes are part of Zeus's nature, and Thor cannot make a square circle because it is logically impossible, so it is a part of Jesus's nature that the logical absolutes are absolutes, because Harry Potter's nature is to be part of the logical absolutes, and Voldemort wouldn't exist if the logical absolutes didn't exist as a part of Superman. Any idiot can see this.
greyeyed123 9 months ago
@greyeyed123 I can turn a square into a circle. All I need is Adobe Illustrator. So behold me, mortals, I AM GOD.
LesPaul2006 8 months ago
Wow, Matt Slick is the densest intellectual on YouTube. His arguments are as useful as a mud fence.
Take note smart people: This is what happens when you are born intelligent, but are trained by your parents/authority-figures to persist in delusion.
drgoldteef 9 months ago
"almost metaphorical" I'm pretty sure Dillahunty is an apologist in disguise.
joshutup 9 months ago
Wow Slick is really dense. Or maybe he isn't but just knows that his argument is flawed but refuses to admit it. You can't have something be absolute and at the same not absolute- this is an application of that very same absolute logic he himself talks about. Also, this is the first debate I saw Matt in and so far I'm really impressed by his performance.
RaggedM88 9 months ago
The "universe with no minds" argument is a deductive fallacy.
This would have been more of a fair debate if both of their arguments were shared beforehand. Dillahunty had plenty of time to prepare his arguments, Slick had to come up with them on the spot for the most part.
joshutup 9 months ago
like a tennis match. if a tree fell in a forrest would it make a sound... it cant b/c there would be know one to tell about its sound.. oh but wait yes the tree would still exist we dont need a perception of the tree to mate it real. oh wait. but if we dont exist to see the tree fall then we wouldnt know of the sound it made thus making it not real. but wait we dont need our minds to make something real. it still is and always will be until changed by somthting else and on and on and on and
sariglenn 10 months ago
@sariglenn
Well, when a tree falls onto something, regardless of whether or not people are around, a certain amount of energy is released as sound energy; a certain sound decibel amount is released. To say that it it doesn't make a sound contradicts the law of the conservation of energy. A persons presence doesn't effect this. But I do get the whole esse est percipi thing even though I don't agree.
rsgirl10 10 months ago
@rsgirl10 im not agreeing or disagreeing w/ you. my point is they are basically going back and forth one saying it does and the other saying it doesnt. every time they just give new reasons as to why a tree does or doesnt make a sound.
sariglenn 10 months ago
Comment removed
sariglenn 10 months ago
4:15 Matt Dillahunty falls apart right here and I need go no further in his logic to see he is illogical.
BeatleEDs 10 months ago
@BeatleEDs (condescending voice) Rrrriiiiiiggghht!
NiNj4xNUTZz 10 months ago
@NiNj4xNUTZz - If you don't agree, than defend his point.
BeatleEDs 10 months ago
@BeatleEDs Slick argued that logical laws "are conceptual in the sense that they exist in the mind."
NiNj4xNUTZz 10 months ago
Dillahunty's point is that absolutes do not exist in the mind; they simply exist in nature--the mind merely RECOGNIZES them. The "mindless universe" example near the end of the video is meant to illustrate that fact. A rock in a place where there are no people to acknowledge it's existence still exists b/c it's being is not dependent on a mind's assessment of it.
A truth-statement merely points to the Truth; it is not Truth in it of itself, but the conceptual evaluation of the Truth. =)
NiNj4xNUTZz 10 months ago
@NiNj4xNUTZz - What evidence backs up your, his, position? The evidence points to the opposite? How does a wave become a particle?
BeatleEDs 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@NiNj4xNUTZz - "Dillahunty's point is that absolutes do not exist in the mind; they simply exist in nature--the mind merely RECOGNIZES them. " Yea, and based on what evidence? The evidence actually points to the contrary.
BeatleEDs 10 months ago
UGH! He never gave the value of the rock minus minds. He simply said that the rock cannot be SOMETHING and NOT that SOMETHING at the same time even if minds aren't there to give it the "rock" value. The absolute is obvious. It's not the the value that is absolute it's the reality that it can't be and not be at the same time that is absolute. Listen Slick! Of course this is an old recording, but still... DAMN man!
Thayer79 10 months ago
Which is very similar to the euthyphro dilemma. If god determines it then anything is possible to god's will, but if god is bound to it then it isn't contingent upon "him."
Just like the dilemma of god's "goodness."
If I'm wrong please help me understand.
Thayer79 10 months ago
"Palmed a card." Will be using that one.
wideheadofknowledge 10 months ago 12
But the conscience is not absolute at all. Sometimes the conscience accept the logic as an absolute one, sometimes denies it. Since we have a contradiction here, the logic cannot be absolute. That means the logic has a value as much as the mind exists. If the rock exists and the mind cannot evaluate the value of it, the rock is not useful and its existence is not countable so it will stay there as it is not exists at all.
dianabxh 10 months ago
If the mind doesn't exist, and the logic absolute exist, my question is who formulated the term logic and moreover the absolute logic? The answer is a mind. It says that a mind was created by this Logic, and in the beginning Logic was not a perception of the mind. During the time the minds found and used the logic of the Logic to percept and realize themselves and the nature of the reality, so the conscience was formed, which sometimes is the "enemy" of the logic.
dianabxh 10 months ago
@dianabxh - The logicall fallacy in your argument can be seen in your first sentence when you ask "who" formulated the term logic. Thats a loaded question to suppose that it was a "who". "What" is a more sound question.
314Aurelius 10 months ago
@314Aurelius I did not suppose because a "who" exists, and this "who" has a mind to define terms such as a logic or absolute logic. "Keep in mind" somebody says, the absolute logic exists. Another can say, logic exists but it is not absolute, etc. You suggests "what", but it is impossible for me to use "what" because what is inanimate, and I am not talking about Pinocchio.
dianabxh 10 months ago
God cant make a squared circle?
I can. O²
Oldspiceguyshorse 10 months ago
@Oldspiceguyshorse Haha. Epic!
Vessoland 10 months ago
@Oldspiceguyshorse Now I fall on my knees and worship you, oh holy Oldspiceguyshorse. Hallelujah!
LesPaul2006 8 months ago
"IN THE OTHER UNIVERSE WHERE NO MINDS EXIST, NO TRUE STATEMENTS COULD BE MADE BUT THE ROCK IS STILL A ROCK AND STILL NOT..NOT A ROCK!" MD.
This is the kind of statement an Atheist like Matt Dillahunty has to reduced to so he can get through a brainwashed believer! What a waste of time and at the same time not a waste of time! LEM does not apply here!
mytv80 11 months ago
Utilizing Matt Slick's reasoning, I can argue that I'm omnipotent. I am all-powerful; I can do all things. Can I fly? No, because it's not in my nature. Yet, I can do all things within my nature.
TheoreticalBullshit did an amazing job prison raping Matt Slick's TAG. He even used Matt Slick's "nature" response against him.
RefutingStupidity 11 months ago
WTF is this bullshit??? Matt does well staying awake through all this drivel. I thought the theists used to see miracles!! Walking on water and turning water into wine!! Now all they have got is this arse hole slick and this philosophical bollocks!!! Meaningless nonsense.
greeny202a 11 months ago
Matt S. is confusing the Logical Absolutes with statement of the Logical Absolutes. Matt D. is handing Matt S. his ass. I don't know how Matt S. makes a living with this crap.
Kailoa36 11 months ago
"Are you saying that a Logical Absolute is not a conceptual reality?" That is what I'm saying. The Logical Absolutes are reality period. They are that aspect/nature of reality that allow us to form conceptual logical models, including laws of nature, mathematics, etc.
Kailoa36 11 months ago
This debate reminded me of two really great riddles:
Q: How many legs does a dog have, if you call the tail a leg?
Q: Before Mount Everest was discovered, what was the tallest mountain on earth?
gspendlove 11 months ago 18
@gspendlove The first question isnt answerable because it doesnt make sense, because it contradicts itself. The second one can have two answer depending on universal truth or independent truth. From the living peoples point of view mount everest can not be the tallest mountain in the world before its discovered(from a independent truth). From a universal truth mount everest is always the highest one.
gulbirk 10 months ago
@gspendlove um..... 1 and Mt Everest?
TheDcac 7 months ago
@TheDcac I think perhaps that should be "4 and Mt Everest". The dog still has 4 legs no matter what you call them (or anything else).
HBJ
HunchbackJack 7 months ago
@HunchbackJack I disagree, what we call "legs" wouldn't be so if a tail was called a leg. So to the person who calls a tail a leg, a dog would only have one.
TheDcac 7 months ago
Comment removed
MrAwesomesauce7 5 months ago
@MrAwesomesauce7 A dog has four legs and a tail. If you call the tail a leg, how many legs does the dog have now?
gspendlove 5 months ago
Comment removed
MrAwesomesauce7 5 months ago
I like how Slick freaks out at 1:16.
IJUSTLOVETURTLES 1 year ago
@IJUSTLOVETURTLES Lol it's just pure panic eh? Hahaha
Twinroads 11 months ago
That Matt's a slick bastard.
Larvemannenz001 1 year ago
@Larvemannenz001 That one? Or the other?
Thunderios 11 months ago
So you make a movie of yourself (tripping) for fun, and during this trip you have a rock, and the rock changes into something else. Then later you go and watch the film for analysis, and in the film it didn't change. Which is correct? Satan may have messed with the film, or even the camera.
pumpstations 1 year ago
@pumpstations And if satan did indeed change the evidence you STILL aren't justified in believing it and are stupid as hell for doing so, I don't even get your argument. Wtf is the point? If you took drugs that cause you hallucinate, and you film it, then when you watch the film and the film says you're wrong...you are absolutely stupid for thinking the film is wrong...EVEN IF satan did change it.
Delinexwow 1 year ago
@Delinexwow Maybe a bad analogy. OK Bad analogy. I was just trying to point out that if we are to trust miracles and not ourselves, how will we ever be able to be confident in ourselves.
pumpstations 1 year ago
@pumpstations I would argue personally that we shouldn't. This is where we are lead to believe things that aren't true. It doesn't matter what we want to see, or even sometimes do see. If evidence is provided that is to the contrary we should, if we are honest, accept said evidence and assume it is ourselves that had the misconception. Don't get me wrong we should indeed trust our senses, however we should test what we can to make sure they are properly functioning.
Delinexwow 1 year ago
@pumpstations For example, we know we hallucinate, and we know that our eyes have flaws, many in fact. Just because I saw big foot on a very rainy dark day, and I ran...it doesn't mean I saw big foot. If I go back to the exact spot I supposedly saw him, and I find no foot prints, and no droppings, nothing in the mud that even indicates a human had been there...I should be honest enough to assume it's possible I saw something the resembled a large primate than actually seeing one.
Delinexwow 1 year ago
@pumpstations By the way I'm still a little confused on what point you're trying to make, if you will please clarify. I'm getting the impression you are saying we can't trust our senses...then you saying we can...I'm a little confused on what the actual argument consists of.
Delinexwow 1 year ago
@Delinexwow I totally agree. You must excuse me I have been sick this week. So, I'm kinda out of sorts. I wish I could disagree with you but I cant. Your "Bigfoot" is a much better way to put what I was trying to convey. I also agree the universe is stranger than we can imagine "so far" So we must be open for change in what we " think we know" to be true.
pumpstations 1 year ago
@pumpstations Lol ok, guess that works to end the confusion. Sorry to hear you're sick and hope you get well soon.
Delinexwow 1 year ago
@Delinexwow It seems the same as communist idea that state "one for all, and all for One"!
dianabxh 10 months ago
@dianabxh Come again?
Delinexwow 10 months ago
@Delinexwow I know that my reply doesn't make a sense to you because it is a continuity of the reply that I did to pumstations, but by mistake it was posted to you. Sorry!
dianabxh 10 months ago
@pumpstations You are very right. It is ashamed for some people and the media who are so enthusiastic to interpret a saving life from a tragedy where thousands people die, or a child who is born with anomalies, or a statue that is crying with blood tears, or the nature disasters, etc, as a miracle.
dianabxh 10 months ago
There's 3 more parts of this video? Matt D. has already refuted Matt S.'s argument by 3:30...what more can be said? One thing is obvious: Matt D has a clear history of getting into these incredible abstract, opaque arguments that are so far removed form the anthropomorphic, personal "God" that 3-4 billions people worship. Even if Matt S. has a completely sound argument with a sound conclusion...it doesn't prove the biblical God WHATSOEVER. That God logically fails through HIS OWN BOOK!
bernlin2000 1 year ago
If the Bible is true, I think I'd rather be the dumbest person in heaven than the smartest person in hell. If it isn't true and there is no God, then nothing really matters during or after this life. But I can't absolutely know one over the other because I haven't died yet. So it takes faith, not just logical deduction, either way. I'll take my chances on the Bible because if I'm wrong, it won't matter. If I'm right, I'm okay with being dumb in heaven. I hope not all the smart ones burn in hell.
ndelore 1 year ago
@ndelore At least you're honest when you say it requires faith: Matt S. appears to think God can be proven on logic alone, which is clearly fallacious (as Matt D. shows here). You're also wrong in your argument though: that's called Pascal's Wager and it is a faulty argument: it matters because you are very likely wasting time in church services and prayers that could be better spent actually helping the rest of humanity. What if you're wrong about the 100s of other Gods?
bernlin2000 1 year ago
@bernlin2000 What is helping the rest of humanity? Does helping humanity involve volunteering in hospitals, helping out within the community during times of disaster, or providing food for needy families? What about monetary support for people who can't afford medical insurance or even groceries? If I'm wrong about the "100s of other gods" then I'll just have to take my chances. I'm convinced from experiential and logical evidence that the Bible is true.
ndelore 1 year ago
@ndelore And this is called pascals wager, which is by far the dumbest argument ever presented for believing in god. It demonstrates a gross ignorance and lack of thought on your part. If the bible isn't true it has NOTHING to do at all with if a god exists...ONLY your version. Allah could still be correct and you're as fucked as atheists. Hell there could be a god that rewards logical thinkers and punishes people like you that cling to ignorance. Pascals wager is utterly pathetic.
Delinexwow 1 year ago
@Delinexwow Any thinking person understands how illogical pascal's wager is. I didn't base my beliefs off of that system of thought. I said it to get under the skin of guys like you. Believe whatever you want, pal. It makes no difference to me. But it is hilarious to see the "logical thinkers" get all worked up and emotional over a comment. Does your logical thinking tell you how pathetic it is to make assumptions of people based on very little evidence? I'm definitely laughing at you right now.
ndelore 1 year ago
@ndelore I'm not even slightly worked up, it is indeed amusing that you seem to think someone has to be worked up to point out utter ignorance. I also highly doubt you don't put some chips in with pascals wager. The evidence is clear, you claimed pascals wager, then went on to defend it. It's either you buy pascals wager and are now backtracking, or you lied from the start. Either way your theology would say you deserve to burn for it, that would make you a hypocrite on the rest.
Delinexwow 1 year ago
@Delinexwow I'm still laughing at you.
ndelore 1 year ago
@ndelore mmhmm, Have fun with that, you still look like an idiot, which in turn lets everyone else laugh at you. This includes myself.
Delinexwow 1 year ago
i saw how slick argument crumbled and contradicted itself and im a fucking retard
Hemouth 1 year ago
@Hemouth You don't have to be a fucking retard to have your brain get knotted by TAG...it is an incredibly abstruse argument.
bernlin2000 1 year ago
@vtunes It is not a contradiction. When I say no mind exist that was referring to human mind only. In the universe where mind exist does reality depend on our mind? If your mind disappear can you conceive reality anymore? If your dead then that is the end of you. if no mind exist in the universe, then we're all dead. The universe may still be there, but why? Does it have to? What if your mind ceased to exist, and the universe ceased to exist too?
djcreation24 1 year ago
@djcreation24
1. "Reality is shaped by mind"
2. "Reality still needs mind dude"
3. "If no mind exist in the universe, then we're all dead"
4. "The universe would probably still be here shape by God's mind."
I reject all these statements on the grounds that they are patently absurd. For number 3, you can't be dead if you never existed. The universe existed long before there were any minds to perceive it. The universe is not a product of any minds, rather minds are products of the universe.
vTunes 1 year ago
@vTunes "I reject all these statements on the grounds that they are patently absurd. For number 3, you can't be dead if you never existed. The universe existed long before there were any minds to perceive it. The universe is not a product of any minds, rather minds are products of the universe."
You do exist, but I'm talking about after when you die your mind can longer conceived reality. That is the end of you. The universe exist only when mind exist for you.
djcreation24 1 year ago
@djcreation24
5. "Then how does that get here?"
There is no evidence that a mind ever created any universe, or is remotely capable of doing so.
6. "In the universe where mind exist does reality depend on our mind?"
No.
7. "If your mind disappear can you conceive reality anymore?"
No.
8. "The universe may still be there, but why? Does it have to?"
The universe is not subject to our whims, and does not exist so that we may exist. The second part is nonsensical.
vTunes 1 year ago
@vTunes 5. Really? So the laws aren't orderly and reflects the mind of the Creator?
6. Why not? Just saying no doesn't make it true.
7. Then the universe does depend on your mind.
8. Then what does the universe depend upon? In one sense you said when mind ceased to exist then you no longer conceived reality, but here you contradict yourself and said the universe doesn't depend on our mind since it is subject to our existence.
djcreation24 1 year ago
@djcreation24
9. "What if your mind ceased to exist, and the universe ceased to exist too?"
I doubt that will happen. As I said before, pre-dates our minds a great deal.
You seem to give "God's mind" quite a bit of undue credit. I'm sorry, but you have invented out of pure thin air, the notion that the universe is a product of a mind (God's). The whole idea of TAG is to demonstrate that a god exists, so you cannot just assert that God's mind exists, you have to demonstrate it.
vTunes 1 year ago
@vTunes 9. It is true that the universe predates our mind, that's because creation is already here before man get here. But God is always there from the beginning. Similarly like a painter is painting the picture and his ind brought the painting into existence. The painting reflects the mind of the painter. The mind is more real than the painting. No mind, no reality.
djcreation24 1 year ago
@djcreation24 I'm really really sorry to say this, but you're an idiot! You're confusing physical reality with perceived reality as if the two are one and the same. The mental construct of reality (in your brain) is dependant on a mind, but not the reality it represents. Stop using the painting analogy, it is stupid.
vTunes 1 year ago
@vTunes Mind is ultimate reality. Reality is shaped by mind. A painting reflects the way a painter paints the picture. The painter's mind brought the picture into existence. Reality still needs mind dude. You cant do it without a mind.
djcreation24 1 year ago
Even if no mind exist these absolutes still exists - I agreed with matt D.
However, that is because they dont depend on our mind - they dependent on God's mind. reality were brought into existence by God's mind and His logic - the world and the laws behave according to His way of thinking. ha ha hahaha
djcreation24 1 year ago
@djcreation24 No dude! What you are saying is, "If no minds exist... God's mind exists." That in itself is contradictory. Why are you placing God's mind in the hypothetical universe in which no minds exists?
vTunes 1 year ago
@vTunes If my mind ceased to exist, there are still mind out there to conceive the universe. You still have your mind, people's mind, etc.. My mind would only effect my ability to conceived. But say if your mind and people's mind or all mind including everybody ceased to exist, then a rock is still a rock, OK... but what about the universe itself? Then how does that get here? Say If there were no human mind at all, the universe would probably still be here shape by God's mind.
djcreation24 1 year ago
00:40
get fucked slick
SessileNomad 1 year ago
its amazing that slick doesn't seem to understand the difference between a concept and the reality the concept describes.
mebe84 1 year ago
If a tree falls in a forest and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound?
zen699 1 year ago
@zen699 - yes. Because this can be proven scientifically (and sound waves are actually a rather easy-to-understand science).
Now here is a question for YOU.
If a star explodes into a supernova, does it make a sound?
freakystyley4000 1 year ago
@freakystyley4000 no
zen699 1 year ago
@zen699 = good answer. Your hypothetical tree DOES make a sound, just as the river running by it also makes a liquid-ey, trickley sound - even though no one is around to hear it, the sound waves will, do and have happened.
Yet despite it's awesome power, a supernova makes no sound.
Isn't science wonderful?
freakystyley4000 1 year ago
@freakystyley4000 that wonderful trickley sound you hear is your mind.
zen699 1 year ago