TheoreticalBullshit vs Matt Slick (Part 3)

[mellestad]

I bet if Slick repeats himself in a condescending tone another ten or twenty times, he'll win!

[IzzyBunneh]

matt's very rude and insulting when comapred to TBS, for example asking a question of TBS and then proclaiming that "the atheist(TBS) cannot answer this!" how about you give him a chance, you dense douchebag

[RafaelEnvoy]

In summary:

"The atheist world view cannot rationally account for logic."

Oh, and by the way, I arbitrarily define rationality in such a way to be a universe where God exists.

/Facepalm

[RPFS2008]

Just like Kalam et al, Slick's argument is persuasive only to the lazy or uncritical mind.

[ArcaneLogic]

The comments from atheists (the ones I can read) on this video are pathetic, immature, aggressive, and just plain stupid. Anyone taking part in this kind of thing as a spectator needs to show up, shut up, and pay attention to the arguments being made. Let the viewers of the argument decide for themselves what their opinion is. If you already know your position, why even watch? Show some respect (at least while the debate is still going on).

[InLucidReverie]

Matt should get into politics with his dodging all of these defeating points that TheoreticalBS brings up.

[marcotenshi]

I think Matt actually inadvertantly admitted he is wrong by saying that a thing would exist if no mind existed. To say it exists is to say it is what it is.

[DickJohnson3434]

I know, he fully admits that the thing would exist as itself whether or not there was a mind at all, then he goes on to say later that since the logical absolute statements (which TBS clearly demonstrated are merely descriptions of the consistency of existence, which Matt admitted would hold even without any minds), can't be based on human minds, simply because they are absolute.

Matt is either really stupid, or deliberately dishonest. I assume the latter.

[DickJohnson3434]

Matt's saying you need an absolute mind to account for absolute logic, even though he admits that the absoluteness of logic is entirely based on the consistency of nature, which even our limited minds can codify.

TBS repeated many times that it is the consistency of nature that is without explanation, and when Matt says God accounts for it and TBS asks how?

Matt says, by God's consistent nature.

LOL ! What a joke!

[MasterDebator809]

@DickJohnson3434 No, its for sure the former.

[IzzyBunneh]

@DickJohnson3434

i agree completely, matt's reasonably articulate, and seems to have at least a fleeting understanding of the basic principles involved, i'd suggest another possibility though, he's brain washed, he won't allow himself to draw correlation between different concessions he's made, because they debunk his arguments, and i don't think he's necessarily aware of that either

also, props to TBS for staying civil, anyone else would of gone nutts from having to repeat themselves

[Droptopcadillac]

How many times does slick have to say logic requires a mind?

The point is theoretical. If you open your mouth anything that comes out is of the mind.

You can never ever ever get past that simple fact.

Trying to separate mind from logic is self-refuting.

You may not like it but you can't refute this without a mind.

How do people not get this?

[Zoetherat]

He only has to say it once because everyone gets it. He keeps repeating it because he's dodging the distinction between conceptual statements and the reality that conceptual statements can refer to. The reality is not conceptual/ does not require a mind. His argument falls apart unless you don't make that distinction.