Funny, that's all people ever have asked about Atheism. Atheist haven't yet figured out that it's only because they have labeled themselves that people ask them questions. Basically your saying don't ask us about us. But the fact is, if it has a label, then it has a definition and before you use any defining words, you need to define the definition of the word so that the definition of the word is valid as something observable beyond language in reality. I am the only one who should be talking.
Slick ASSERTED that physical/conceptual is a dichotomy; Matt D. pointed out that this assertion had not been demonstrated. Slick demanded a third alternative, and intimated that if Matt D. couldn't come up with one, his dichotomy should stand. No. Just no.
Matt Slick failed here - badly. A versed logician either didn't see, or hoped to glaze over, an argument from ignorance ("it must be X because you can't come up with anything else.").
Time is neither physical nor conceptual, by the way.
Matt Diallhunty made the claim there was a third option, therefore he was himself, also making a claim. In fact, it was Matt Dillahunty who made the claim first that there was a third option....therefore, it is HE that bears the burden of proof, not Matt Slick. In fact, it was Matt Dillahunty that claimed that there was a flaw in Matt Slick's TAG argument, yet he could not prove this.
> Matt Diallhunty made the claim there was a third option
That's not how I understood it. In my understanding he simply pointed out that Slick hasn't given any proof that physical and conceptual are the only two categories and that there couldn't be a third one and not that there definitely is a third option. He pointed out that Slick simply asserted that "physical+conseptual" is a true dichotomy instead of actually proving it.
@Autumn6 "Matt Diallhunty made the claim there was a third option"
No, he did not. Matt Slick asserted that Matt needed to provide a third option, shifting his current burden of proof. He could not justify his premise that absolutes were conceptual. Matt D. tried many times to show why they aren't. Matt S's response was to say "if they aren't, then tell me what they are". That's not a valid response.
Nope, watch the video again. Slick asserted that there was a dichotomy and Dillahunty said "how do you know there aren't other options?" Asserting that a dichotomy exists isn't proof, as Dillahunty pointed out. Slick got OWNED and OWNED HARD.
we might snicker about apologists and their wildly convoluted misuse of reason .logic and semantics . their casual butchery of linguistic meanings and their caviler attitudes towards honesty and ethical debate .but try to imagine their dilemma , they are handed an ancient odious ,badly written ,epically dull ,virtually unreadable , iron age text ,full of contradictions,errors and unlikely events ,then they must peddle the salvation loophole as if it is "good news "..surely it is debate hell,
matt slick ... matt dick :) .. he wasnt even close to wining anything .. i cant believe he didnt even get the thing about the rock !! even if the rock has no name without a mind to say it is a rock , in a universe without a mind , its still something , the same as , in the begining of the universe , there was no minds , BUT the universe was still something and still existed , whats not to understand !!
Your problem isn't with God, is with man made dogmas created in our quest to understand God. You're confused because you try to get all the answers at the same time. You need to solve one problem at a time. Solve the first one and then we can move to the others. Could an immaterial conscious being, or a form of conscious energy, create the universe? Is there any possibility for that? yes/no? If not, why not.
Is there any possibility of God existing in any possible world?
Your problem isn't with God, is with man made dogmas created in our quest to understand God. You're confused because you try to get all the answers at the same time. You need to solve one problem at a time. Solve the first one and then we can move to the others. Could an immaterial conscious being, or a form of conscious energy, create the universe? Is there any possibility for that? yes/no? If not, why not.
Is there any possibility of God existing in any possible world?
there IS a third option! you said it yourself Matt earlier, then again in another guise right at the end while talking to Tracy..'abstract' you say, then 'quality', or 'property would come close to.
an apple physically exists. a property or quality of this physical object is 'spherical-ness'. we possess a concept of this property, but the property is not dependent on our conceptualisation, nor is it physical itself, but it is rather part of the structure or form of physicality. tadah.
Law of Excluded Middle: Every well-defined proposition is either true or false, and nothing in between.
Matt Dillahunty: No! That's a false dichotomy! I can't THINK of what the third option would be, but just because I don't have a word for it, it doesn't mean it's not there and therefore I logically can say that the dichotomy is false!
@geniusboy1380 " Matt Dillahunty: No! That's a false dichotomy! I can't THINK of what the third option would be, but just because I don't have a word for it, "
- No, actually what Matt said was
" I can think of what the third option is "
Not having a word for it, doesn't mean he didn't have an option.. that was the whole point!
Whether or not you have a label for something does not logically prove anything.
Slick propsed the dichotomy, so the burden of proof is on him to demonstrate it. Matt D. doesn't HAVE to be able to think of a third option; Slick has to prove that there AREN'T any.
For the record, I don't think time is physical or conceptual - opinions?
@JMUDoc I'm not disputing that the burden is on him to demonstrate the dichotomy stands. However, Dillahunty's methodology of disputing it is irrefutably fallacious. In a logical argument, you have to present a reason for not accepting a premise, and not simply state "I know it's wrong, even though I can't show why" which reduces to "It's wrong because I say so" which is a tautology. Also, time is not physical, it is conceptual; the dichotomy stands. The significance of "time" is in the mind.
I'd argue that time is neither physical nor conceptual. If it were conceptual the removal of all minds from the universe would mean that nothing could move - time is necessary for motion. (The Uncertainty Principle requires particles to be in constant motion.) Time is OBSERVED by minds, yes, but CREATED by minds? No - things move without minds.
Also, if you agree that there was a period before minds (i.e. you subscribe to evolution), how did minds arrive without time?
"you have to present a reason for not accepting a premise" Matt D did so: the reason for not excepting it was Slick's lack of verification.
"Dillahunty's methodology of disputing it is irrefutably fallacious. " Matt D doesn't HAVE to DISprove it - this is shifting the burden again. Allowing Slick's dichotomy through would open the floodgates to ANY non-falsifiable premise.
@JMUDoc I agree; with matt slick's logic one could argue that the laws of physics were conceptual because humans conceptualized them. The problem is that the laws of physics existed before we conceptualized them; the same can be applied logicly (no pun) to logical deduction and inference. Good point on time; it is definitely neither physical or conceptual.
Slick would then say "time is a concept in god's mind". Ho hum. (His proof of THAT would be very interesting, though...)
There are any number of "neithers" - space, magnetism, velocity, mass... loosely, anything non-physical that existed before human minds. Note that "manifests physically" isn't the same as "physical".
@woodenmajor Knowingly with-holding information to further your agenda is the same as Lying. Lying is just one word in the english language. Dishonesty describes both. Lair sounds worse because it is more direct. I pose that Matt Slick is a Liar.
@Hanahleia then youve never heard matt question the myth of how buddah was born. i think if you reject something like that then it would be a big u-turn to then follow that religion (and yes it is a religion)
Matt Slick is a complete IDIOT! He is a pervert who is addicted to porn and tells anyone who disagrees with him that they have no understanding of logic. Obviously the opposite is true. He likes to have his lovers have abortions. You are a naughty naughty man Mr. Slick. GO SUCK A FUCKING DICK!!!!
the irony here is matt d is proving there is a god by coming up with this 3rd state that things can exist in.(making room for something to exist w/ out being measurable) besides conceptual and physical. and slick is disproving god by saying things only exist in 2 states physical and conceptual. anything physical can be measured and tested. anything conceptual would not exist w/ out the mind.
slick was trying to confuse matt d by saying the thought of something is what makes it real. when in reality something will exist even if nobody is there to observe it. so if u "see" a rock ur brain processing that information ( thought) is real and the rock is real. but they are 2 different items.one is measurable and one is not.if u did not exist that thought would not exist.but the rock would.if god is not physical then hes conceptual only existing as thought.
@BeatleEDs . thoughts are not physical but it doesnt mean they arent and a thought about something not real is real even though the actual object of the thought is not real. the argument here is if god is real. slick is saying b/c we came up with the idea of god it makes it real. when really only the thought itself is real. slick states things exist as physical or conceptual. if god was physical we could measure him. since hes conceptual he would not exist w/ out humans.matt d saw these flaws
@BeatleEDs if u listen to matt d he suggests that something can exist and not considered to be physical or conceptual. i believe he coined it as anything else.
@BeatleEDs watch matt d vs matt slick part 5. slick was trying to get matt d to agree that e/thing exists as conceptual or physical and matt wouldnt. he stated that there could be an unknown way that things exist. thoughts arent physical b/c u cant measure them or prove they exist accept in ur mind .(and they arent conceptual b/c they exist).but the subject of the thought is physical b/c it can be measured , unless the subject is not real. things not man made will exist w/out man and vice verse
@BeatleEDs so.. since matt d claims s/thing can exist and not be physical this leaves room for a non physical god to be real and yet not be able to be measured. and since slick states that s/thing can only be pyisical or conceptual this doesnt leave any room for a god to exist accept as a thought which is not physical. meaning god is only conceptual. both matts are proving them selves wrong by suggesting in what states thiings can exist.
@sariglenn - "this leaves room for a non physical god " How do you leave room for something that does not exist? This undermines Matt D world view as an atheist. How can anything be something. How can nothing be anything? How can any come from nothing.
@BeatleEDs i agree it leaves room for a non physical god but this is the god christians believe in.if god was physical he could be measured . christians claim he exists outside the confides of the universe and is not bound by the physical laws.
@sariglenn - Yes, but atheist (e.g. Matt D) claim that if something can not be observed and measured, it does not exist. Thats why they ask for evidence. But evidence is circular since it requires a definition and all definitions require other definitions. Godel showed this in math. What my point? Matt D is basing his entire world-view and show on circular reasoning. But all reasoning is circular so why spend any time debating it. Well, I guess it is entertaining.
@BeatleEDs ok but when matt d suggests that something can exist as non physical and non conceptual in part 5 of matt vs slick. what is he talking about?. b/c we know if something is physical it can be measured. is he contradicting himself? he is implying by this statement that something can exist and not be measured. if i am interpreting him wrong by all means correct me.
@sariglenn - "is he contradicting himself?" Yes, but all atheist contradict themselves. To profess a position and claim it is not a position is a contradiction. For example, atheist like to say that their position is not a belief yet we all know it is a belief in the negative. With regard to this debate, I dont support either side (and I get the Matts confused) but I find the atheist position to be the weakest position. Just for the reasons you cite. But I only watched this debate once.
@sariglenn - I enjoyed this debate between the Matt's. I find this atheist show fascinating and don't often see this guys open himself up to a debate like this (not normal from what i've seen). I'm not in full support of the other Matt but he did win this debate.
@BeatleEDs i watched another debate (15 parts) entitled CARM Debate 2008. "Does God Exist". In this debate slick goes up against edwin kagin. slick lost the 1st half..he focuses way too much on the logical absolute all the while edwin chugs away w/ point after point. slick makes a good come back in the 2nd half when it became more philosophical. the debate didnt sway me one way or the other but i gave a slight win to edwin. it was way better than matt vs matt. u should watch it.
Not1delusion has a playlist entitled "Lies Christians tell". You've told one of those lies. Lie # 2 to be exact.
You know the definition of atheism I assume and it's not the definition of a belief. It is the definition of a non-belief, an absence of a certain belief. Anti-theism is the opposite belief of theism.
@Quintinohthree - Well, all logic relies on definitions. By we all know this is circular reasoning since each word is but a symbol that represents an idea. However, each definition relies on other definitions and other symbols. Think of it like Godel's theorems. Your reasoning that defines your position as a non-belief requires belief.
Just because atheism depends on beliefs doesn't mean atheism is a belief though. I mean you can avoid it but when it comes down to it it's simply a false statement that atheists do believe something because you can't know this of everyone and I'd even say newborn babies have no beliefs at all.
And if you'd consider all reasoning circular reasoning, how would you know that conclusion is correct. The conclusion itself is fallacious after all.
@Quintinohthree - "how would you know that conclusion is correct." - That is my point. How do you know atheism is a reasonable and correct position. You don't. Its no different then any other position or belief.
Actually with that statement I was responding to your idea that logic is inherently circular which would mean that all conclusions would be fallacious and therefore you can't know whether the conclusion "all logic is circular" is actually true. Even this would be a fallacious conclusion.
I consider atheism the only real reasonable position on the issue of gods unless evidence to the contrary surfaces. There is and can be no way to know whether it's the correct position though.
And how did you come to that conclusion if all reasoning is circular? Would your own conclusion not be fallacious. When applying the conclusion to the premises, the premises are deemed fallacious.
I see atheism as not an end-position but a temporary position and as the reasonable position because it is a position of not making any claims, unless it's anti-theism.
@Quintinohthree - I come the conclusion because the evidence suggest it is true. Think of this way; I think therefore I am. Lets look at the mathematically. Tale Godels theorems as an example. How is it that you see Godels premises as fallacious?
To say that atheism is a temporary position suggest a claim. Its suggest any and all positions are temporary which reverts back to my point.
But again, you need logic to deduce more than just the evidence because without logic, evidence only proves itself. If all logic is circular, all conclusions beyond the original evidence are fallacious.
I do not see Godels premises as fallacious, I haven't even seen the theorem. It is you who says that all logic is circular and because circular logic is fallacious, all logic is fallacious. This conclusion must be fallacious or one of the premises is false.
Circular logic is when you prove a premise with a line of arguments upon arguments which ends in the argument that the premise is in. Or would this not be the kind of circularity you are speaking of.
But something never-ending is not necessarily circular. It's only circular when you return must where you've started after some time. There is a never ending string of numbers, but it's no circular string.
I think we can agree that a system is circular when you can start at any given point x, moving in a given direction and never end but returning to x after a given amount of steps. Is this what you meant when you said that all logic is circular?
@Quintinohthree - No, I don't agree. All systems (of logic and reason) are withing the circle and can not be proved true with referring to something outside the circle. Something we see as true but can not prove it is true.
Well yes, that's the statement making a statement about itself. You are however claiming that eventually all statements make a statement about themselves, are you not? And more importantly, it's not circular reasoning, It's a circular statement.
A position of true or false you mean? Well if it's true it's also false and if it's false it's true so it is either both which can not be because false is in the category not true making them mutually exclusive, or it's neither. Neither it is then
@Quintinohthree - Well first, let me say you're a good sport. Some of my answers are funny when I read them now because usually I have had a few when I'm talking about these topics. With that said, your answer is incorrect. Godel's theorems blow my mind and they are hard to understand. I will send you a link to an explanation that is the simplest one that I have found. But I must say, this is some really tough shit to understand. He was amazing. There are always truths than can be proved.
My mind is having a hard time making sense of this. Anyway that's been fun but of course we had original argument and I have to know whether we've come to an agreement. So my question is: is atheism a belief? This was what we started with and I think we should end with it, be it now or after some more argument.
So what is your definition of atheism? Mine is "without theism" being the affix "a" added to the word "theism". It can be that you use the other definition "the belief that there is no god" being the suffix "ism" added to the stem "athe".
Well we know the answer to that. Sadly in this world dominated by philatelists we are a small minority but thankfully not constantly busy with those stamps. I mean come on, we have e-mail today. Those stamps are out of date and do no good to this world any more.
Fans of both Matt Dillahunty and Theoreticalbullshit (another youtube user who mopped the floor with Matt Slick) should start a "why won't he debate them?" campaign against William Lane Craig , the same way William Lane Craig's fans did against Richard Dawkins.
I personally would LOVE to see Matt or Scott make a mockery of Slick and Craig's bullshit, dishonest tactics.
William Lane Craig is to philosophy what Kent Hovind is to science.
@DickJohnson3434 - Well maybe I missed something. Perhaps you can summarize Matt D's argument so I can be sure I just want understand it. It seems very complicated.
@seanhall2006 A true dichotomy would be physical, and not physical. Although conceptual is included in not physical, it's not the only option. Ergo, it is not a true dichotomy. Matt provided the third option as neither and in the second part of this video intrinsic and transcendental were also provided.
@notnowchief8 A conceptual thing is not a non physical thing. If you look up "non Physical" on wikipedia, it talks about supernatural entities. What other options are there? Intrinsic, transcendental and conceptual both mean the same thing in this situation.
@seanhall2006 No, because conceptual is necessarily dependent upon a mind, and that is where the argument fails. Intrinsic and transcendental do not mean the same thing because if he had used either of those words in his dichotomy he could not lead to the conclusion that this mind is god. So no, they do not all mean that same thing in this situation.
@notnowchief8 They both agreed that they were conceptual, transcendant and intrinsic. I know that a concept is dependant upon a mind, which is why the argument succeeds.
@seanhall2006 No it is not. Conceptual is dependent upon a mind, transcendental and intrinsic are not. I've already pointed this out. Dillahunty argues this point, and for good reason. The only reason you say they are the same is so that the rest of the argument can lead to that the mind it depends on is god. It's a false dichotomy.
@seanhall2006 Buddy my best friend is a believer, I enjoy having discussions about this stuff. But Im not going to be a babysitter to people who know nothing about anything.
@seanhall2006 Buddy my best friend is a believer, I enjoy having discussions about this stuff. But Im not going to be a babysitter to people who know nothing about anything.
@seanhall2006 They didn't agree they were conceptual, and that was the entire point of the 45 min convo. If you don't realize they didn't agree, you didn't pay attention.
@seanhall2006 I'll also point out that you're making the same mistake as Matt Slick in asking the question "what other options are there?". That's an argument from ignorance.
This is pure nonsense apart from anything else he commits the adhominen fallacy not just with slick but with all apologists by talking about their "dishonesty"
@seanhall2006 Your statement of "God is spiritual" disproves Slicks dichotomy of either physical or conceptual, and proves that Matt D. was correct in denying him that premise whether or not he was able to provide a third option.
The Laws of Logic being either physical or conceptual? I really have to prove that to be a true dichotomy? The Laws of Logic transcend physical reality, they are absolute truths. Truth is information, it is conceptual by nature, a concept requires a mind. The truth of the philosophy of realism teaches us that truth cannot be dependent upon our minds
@seanhall2006 If the Laws of Logic transcend physical reality then they are not dependent upon a mind. They are true regardless if there is a mind to access them or not.
@seanhall2006 And for examples of other options of this dichotomy check out part 2 at 1:50. One of these was transcendent which you actually used yourself when describing the Laws of Logic.
@notnowchief8 I really dont get what youre saying Matt Slick used the words conceptual and transcendant to describe the nature of the Laws of Logic transcendant is not another option its just another way of getting the point across
God bless us all, in part two 1:50 dillahunty says they agreed that they were intrinsic and transcendant. They also agreed that they were abstract. These three words all describe the nature of the Laws of Logic, on which Slick's argument was based. Buddy my best friend is a non believer, I enjoy having discussions about this stuff. But Im not going to be a babysitter to people who know nothing about philosophy.
@notnowchief8 In 3:15 Matt D says that the Laws of Logic are "dependant upon the physical because a concept requires a mind." I agree with that, but the laws of logic do not stop being true if we think they are false, so they are not dependant upon any human mind. He says also that there is also an option of something being either physical or non physical, but gives no examples of a non physical thing.
@seanhall2006 and Matt D never claims that the Laws of Logic require a mind. In the debate with Slick he argues this exact point by saying that even without a mind the laws still exist even if there is no mind to assess them.
3) At no point did dillahunty come up with a legitimate argument against TAG.
4) Slick called Dillahunty intelligent on two occasions in the debate. He simply asked Dillahunty was he a materialistic naturalistic. At no point did he commit the adhominem fallacy.
i was not trying to rebut the argument, I was simply commenting on the fact that you made a comment based on a personal bias. Because if you had listened to the debate neutrally you would have heard them talking about that answer you brought up for the entire 2nd half of the debate
@etertnalsword Um, no. The very point I was making is that the discussion following the point I highlighted was nothing more than Slick backpedaling and using faulty logic to try to hide the fallacy of his argument. If you're not ready to have a debate of any form, then you should probably refrain from posting stupid shit.
The dumbest part was when Slick was in so much denial that he couldn't even admit the fact that it is possible to know that something is not a particular thing without knowing what that something is.
Matt Dillahunty had an unconvincing argument against Slick's assertion concerning the laws of logic. Dillahunty stated that the laws of logic were NOT conceptual yet he couldn't explain what other possiblities it COULD be.
Atheists have the burden of proof with respect to the existence of logical absolutes, the things we base logical discourse on. I challenge any atheist to provide ANY proof of logical absolutes. To save you time it is impossible. Therefore to be an atheist and believe logical absolutes exist is to have FAITH. That’s right faith. Faith meaning believing something without having a shred of evidence. So I'm wondering what does it feel like having faith?
@ghjurx452 What laflugantabastardo said. Not only that, but the fact that most of what you have said has been shown to be false using logic demonstrates the fact that logical absolutes not only exist, but also destroy your argument. So in essence, you have asked for proof of something which fundamentally invalidates such a request.
@TearTheRoofOff or rather, you have made a claim that proof is required, where the thing that requires proof fundamentally invalidates the claim that it is required.
Doesn't slick already give you a word for not physical and not conceptual: "transcendant". He says it's transcendant therefore it has to be something else too! (though transcendant is a pretty crappy word, it does fit).
Matt's debate against Slick was awesome and flawless. Screw debating Ray comfort, debate Dr Craig I would like to see Craig get owned. It is great to see matt debate against someone worth debating with. His debate with Slick was proof of how great he is, he seemed to enjoy this debate more than debating retards.
@TheAndrewMan1000 yes your so right on letting him debate Dr Craig i would love to see the athiest even try but he is far to scared to try and debate william lane craig because this athiest would just get destroyed but please dillahunty debate craig.
Funny, that's all people ever have asked about Atheism. Atheist haven't yet figured out that it's only because they have labeled themselves that people ask them questions. Basically your saying don't ask us about us. But the fact is, if it has a label, then it has a definition and before you use any defining words, you need to define the definition of the word so that the definition of the word is valid as something observable beyond language in reality. I am the only one who should be talking.
StarApostle 1 week ago
Comment removed
MrAwesomesauce7 1 month ago
Slick ASSERTED that physical/conceptual is a dichotomy; Matt D. pointed out that this assertion had not been demonstrated. Slick demanded a third alternative, and intimated that if Matt D. couldn't come up with one, his dichotomy should stand. No. Just no.
Matt Slick failed here - badly. A versed logician either didn't see, or hoped to glaze over, an argument from ignorance ("it must be X because you can't come up with anything else.").
Time is neither physical nor conceptual, by the way.
JMUDoc 1 month ago
Matt Diallhunty made the claim there was a third option, therefore he was himself, also making a claim. In fact, it was Matt Dillahunty who made the claim first that there was a third option....therefore, it is HE that bears the burden of proof, not Matt Slick. In fact, it was Matt Dillahunty that claimed that there was a flaw in Matt Slick's TAG argument, yet he could not prove this.
Autumn6 2 months ago
@Autumn6 I'm not saying that anybody "won" this...I'm just saying that Matt Dillahunty certainly did NOT.
Autumn6 2 months ago
@Autumn6
> Matt Diallhunty made the claim there was a third option
That's not how I understood it. In my understanding he simply pointed out that Slick hasn't given any proof that physical and conceptual are the only two categories and that there couldn't be a third one and not that there definitely is a third option. He pointed out that Slick simply asserted that "physical+conseptual" is a true dichotomy instead of actually proving it.
Rawlsrocks 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Autumn6 "Matt Diallhunty made the claim there was a third option"
No, he did not. Matt Slick asserted that Matt needed to provide a third option, shifting his current burden of proof. He could not justify his premise that absolutes were conceptual. Matt D. tried many times to show why they aren't. Matt S's response was to say "if they aren't, then tell me what they are". That's not a valid response.
devious21 1 month ago
@Autumn6
Nope, watch the video again. Slick asserted that there was a dichotomy and Dillahunty said "how do you know there aren't other options?" Asserting that a dichotomy exists isn't proof, as Dillahunty pointed out. Slick got OWNED and OWNED HARD.
mikeyanagita1 1 month ago
we might snicker about apologists and their wildly convoluted misuse of reason .logic and semantics . their casual butchery of linguistic meanings and their caviler attitudes towards honesty and ethical debate .but try to imagine their dilemma , they are handed an ancient odious ,badly written ,epically dull ,virtually unreadable , iron age text ,full of contradictions,errors and unlikely events ,then they must peddle the salvation loophole as if it is "good news "..surely it is debate hell,
woodenmajor 2 months ago
@woodenmajor Well said.
JimmyCrlc 2 weeks ago
"stop and restructure the element do thats.... " thats changing it to what you want to hear, this is just .... Ugh!!!!!!
TheFaafia 2 months ago
matt slick ... matt dick :) .. he wasnt even close to wining anything .. i cant believe he didnt even get the thing about the rock !! even if the rock has no name without a mind to say it is a rock , in a universe without a mind , its still something , the same as , in the begining of the universe , there was no minds , BUT the universe was still something and still existed , whats not to understand !!
dkinetik 4 months ago
Your problem isn't with God, is with man made dogmas created in our quest to understand God. You're confused because you try to get all the answers at the same time. You need to solve one problem at a time. Solve the first one and then we can move to the others. Could an immaterial conscious being, or a form of conscious energy, create the universe? Is there any possibility for that? yes/no? If not, why not.
Is there any possibility of God existing in any possible world?
dejesusluisx 5 months ago
Your problem isn't with God, is with man made dogmas created in our quest to understand God. You're confused because you try to get all the answers at the same time. You need to solve one problem at a time. Solve the first one and then we can move to the others. Could an immaterial conscious being, or a form of conscious energy, create the universe? Is there any possibility for that? yes/no? If not, why not.
Is there any possibility of God existing in any possible world?
dejesusluisx 5 months ago
there IS a third option! you said it yourself Matt earlier, then again in another guise right at the end while talking to Tracy..'abstract' you say, then 'quality', or 'property would come close to.
an apple physically exists. a property or quality of this physical object is 'spherical-ness'. we possess a concept of this property, but the property is not dependent on our conceptualisation, nor is it physical itself, but it is rather part of the structure or form of physicality. tadah.
xIgniteTheAirwavesx 5 months ago
@xIgniteTheAirwavesx Matt won't read this comment. He states that he doesn't spend much time on Youtube.
PowBlock96 4 months ago
Law of Excluded Middle: Every well-defined proposition is either true or false, and nothing in between.
Matt Dillahunty: No! That's a false dichotomy! I can't THINK of what the third option would be, but just because I don't have a word for it, it doesn't mean it's not there and therefore I logically can say that the dichotomy is false!
^^Talk about an argument from ignorance
geniusboy1380 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@geniusboy1380 " Matt Dillahunty: No! That's a false dichotomy! I can't THINK of what the third option would be, but just because I don't have a word for it, "
- No, actually what Matt said was
" I can think of what the third option is "
Not having a word for it, doesn't mean he didn't have an option.. that was the whole point!
Whether or not you have a label for something does not logically prove anything.
Nice Try : )
Roper122 6 months ago
@geniusboy1380
Slick propsed the dichotomy, so the burden of proof is on him to demonstrate it. Matt D. doesn't HAVE to be able to think of a third option; Slick has to prove that there AREN'T any.
For the record, I don't think time is physical or conceptual - opinions?
JMUDoc 6 months ago
@JMUDoc I'm not disputing that the burden is on him to demonstrate the dichotomy stands. However, Dillahunty's methodology of disputing it is irrefutably fallacious. In a logical argument, you have to present a reason for not accepting a premise, and not simply state "I know it's wrong, even though I can't show why" which reduces to "It's wrong because I say so" which is a tautology. Also, time is not physical, it is conceptual; the dichotomy stands. The significance of "time" is in the mind.
geniusboy1380 6 months ago
@geniusboy1380
I'd argue that time is neither physical nor conceptual. If it were conceptual the removal of all minds from the universe would mean that nothing could move - time is necessary for motion. (The Uncertainty Principle requires particles to be in constant motion.) Time is OBSERVED by minds, yes, but CREATED by minds? No - things move without minds.
Also, if you agree that there was a period before minds (i.e. you subscribe to evolution), how did minds arrive without time?
(cont.)
JMUDoc 6 months ago
@geniusboy1380
(cont.)
"you have to present a reason for not accepting a premise" Matt D did so: the reason for not excepting it was Slick's lack of verification.
"Dillahunty's methodology of disputing it is irrefutably fallacious. " Matt D doesn't HAVE to DISprove it - this is shifting the burden again. Allowing Slick's dichotomy through would open the floodgates to ANY non-falsifiable premise.
JMUDoc 6 months ago
@JMUDoc I agree; with matt slick's logic one could argue that the laws of physics were conceptual because humans conceptualized them. The problem is that the laws of physics existed before we conceptualized them; the same can be applied logicly (no pun) to logical deduction and inference. Good point on time; it is definitely neither physical or conceptual.
ludogogo 3 months ago
@ludogogo
Slick would then say "time is a concept in god's mind". Ho hum. (His proof of THAT would be very interesting, though...)
There are any number of "neithers" - space, magnetism, velocity, mass... loosely, anything non-physical that existed before human minds. Note that "manifests physically" isn't the same as "physical".
JMUDoc 3 months ago
matt slick isnt a liar per say ,he is merely dishonest as a routine matter of course as are virtually all apologists as far as i can determine .
woodenmajor 6 months ago 7
@woodenmajor Knowingly with-holding information to further your agenda is the same as Lying. Lying is just one word in the english language. Dishonesty describes both. Lair sounds worse because it is more direct. I pose that Matt Slick is a Liar.
V0nAnglesmith 2 months ago
@Hanahleia then youve never heard matt question the myth of how buddah was born. i think if you reject something like that then it would be a big u-turn to then follow that religion (and yes it is a religion)
quirkyrecords 7 months ago
Eloquent.
Rhoky 7 months ago
Minds are not physical. Brains are, but minds are not.
IamGarySimpson 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Matt Slick is a complete IDIOT! He is a pervert who is addicted to porn and tells anyone who disagrees with him that they have no understanding of logic. Obviously the opposite is true. He likes to have his lovers have abortions. You are a naughty naughty man Mr. Slick. GO SUCK A FUCKING DICK!!!!
MrSupernova890 7 months ago
I've got an intuition that Matt will one day adopt the view of Buddhism.
/watch?v=iih7QsbuVLM
Hanahleia 8 months ago
if im wrong on any of my thoughts please correct me b/c this is a tricky topic which is easy to mess up.
sariglenn 10 months ago
the irony here is matt d is proving there is a god by coming up with this 3rd state that things can exist in.(making room for something to exist w/ out being measurable) besides conceptual and physical. and slick is disproving god by saying things only exist in 2 states physical and conceptual. anything physical can be measured and tested. anything conceptual would not exist w/ out the mind.
sariglenn 10 months ago
slick was trying to confuse matt d by saying the thought of something is what makes it real. when in reality something will exist even if nobody is there to observe it. so if u "see" a rock ur brain processing that information ( thought) is real and the rock is real. but they are 2 different items.one is measurable and one is not.if u did not exist that thought would not exist.but the rock would.if god is not physical then hes conceptual only existing as thought.
sariglenn 10 months ago
Is not everything physical? What is the evidence otherwise?
BeatleEDs 10 months ago
@BeatleEDs . thoughts are not physical but it doesnt mean they arent and a thought about something not real is real even though the actual object of the thought is not real. the argument here is if god is real. slick is saying b/c we came up with the idea of god it makes it real. when really only the thought itself is real. slick states things exist as physical or conceptual. if god was physical we could measure him. since hes conceptual he would not exist w/ out humans.matt d saw these flaws
sariglenn 10 months ago
@sariglenn "thoughts are not physical" - Well, yes the are. If they dont exit in the physical world, where do you suggest the exist?
BeatleEDs 10 months ago
@BeatleEDs if u listen to matt d he suggests that something can exist and not considered to be physical or conceptual. i believe he coined it as anything else.
sariglenn 10 months ago
@sariglenn Well, like what? How is that possible.
BeatleEDs 10 months ago
@BeatleEDs im gonna try and find exactly where it was.. and this was the same question matt slick asked.
sariglenn 10 months ago
@BeatleEDs watch matt d vs matt slick part 5. slick was trying to get matt d to agree that e/thing exists as conceptual or physical and matt wouldnt. he stated that there could be an unknown way that things exist. thoughts arent physical b/c u cant measure them or prove they exist accept in ur mind .(and they arent conceptual b/c they exist).but the subject of the thought is physical b/c it can be measured , unless the subject is not real. things not man made will exist w/out man and vice verse
sariglenn 10 months ago
@BeatleEDs so.. since matt d claims s/thing can exist and not be physical this leaves room for a non physical god to be real and yet not be able to be measured. and since slick states that s/thing can only be pyisical or conceptual this doesnt leave any room for a god to exist accept as a thought which is not physical. meaning god is only conceptual. both matts are proving them selves wrong by suggesting in what states thiings can exist.
sariglenn 10 months ago
@sariglenn - "this leaves room for a non physical god " How do you leave room for something that does not exist? This undermines Matt D world view as an atheist. How can anything be something. How can nothing be anything? How can any come from nothing.
BeatleEDs 10 months ago
@BeatleEDs i agree it leaves room for a non physical god but this is the god christians believe in.if god was physical he could be measured . christians claim he exists outside the confides of the universe and is not bound by the physical laws.
sariglenn 10 months ago
@sariglenn - Yes, but atheist (e.g. Matt D) claim that if something can not be observed and measured, it does not exist. Thats why they ask for evidence. But evidence is circular since it requires a definition and all definitions require other definitions. Godel showed this in math. What my point? Matt D is basing his entire world-view and show on circular reasoning. But all reasoning is circular so why spend any time debating it. Well, I guess it is entertaining.
BeatleEDs 10 months ago
@BeatleEDs ok but when matt d suggests that something can exist as non physical and non conceptual in part 5 of matt vs slick. what is he talking about?. b/c we know if something is physical it can be measured. is he contradicting himself? he is implying by this statement that something can exist and not be measured. if i am interpreting him wrong by all means correct me.
sariglenn 10 months ago
@sariglenn - "is he contradicting himself?" Yes, but all atheist contradict themselves. To profess a position and claim it is not a position is a contradiction. For example, atheist like to say that their position is not a belief yet we all know it is a belief in the negative. With regard to this debate, I dont support either side (and I get the Matts confused) but I find the atheist position to be the weakest position. Just for the reasons you cite. But I only watched this debate once.
BeatleEDs 10 months ago
@BeatleEDs im gonna have to agree with u on this one
sariglenn 10 months ago
@sariglenn - I enjoyed this debate between the Matt's. I find this atheist show fascinating and don't often see this guys open himself up to a debate like this (not normal from what i've seen). I'm not in full support of the other Matt but he did win this debate.
BeatleEDs 10 months ago
@BeatleEDs i watched another debate (15 parts) entitled CARM Debate 2008. "Does God Exist". In this debate slick goes up against edwin kagin. slick lost the 1st half..he focuses way too much on the logical absolute all the while edwin chugs away w/ point after point. slick makes a good come back in the 2nd half when it became more philosophical. the debate didnt sway me one way or the other but i gave a slight win to edwin. it was way better than matt vs matt. u should watch it.
sariglenn 10 months ago
@BeatleEDs
Not1delusion has a playlist entitled "Lies Christians tell". You've told one of those lies. Lie # 2 to be exact.
You know the definition of atheism I assume and it's not the definition of a belief. It is the definition of a non-belief, an absence of a certain belief. Anti-theism is the opposite belief of theism.
Quintinohthree 9 months ago
@Quintinohthree - Well, all logic relies on definitions. By we all know this is circular reasoning since each word is but a symbol that represents an idea. However, each definition relies on other definitions and other symbols. Think of it like Godel's theorems. Your reasoning that defines your position as a non-belief requires belief.
BeatleEDs 9 months ago
@BeatleEDs
Just because atheism depends on beliefs doesn't mean atheism is a belief though. I mean you can avoid it but when it comes down to it it's simply a false statement that atheists do believe something because you can't know this of everyone and I'd even say newborn babies have no beliefs at all.
And if you'd consider all reasoning circular reasoning, how would you know that conclusion is correct. The conclusion itself is fallacious after all.
Quintinohthree 9 months ago
@Quintinohthree - "how would you know that conclusion is correct." - That is my point. How do you know atheism is a reasonable and correct position. You don't. Its no different then any other position or belief.
BeatleEDs 9 months ago
@BeatleEDs
Actually with that statement I was responding to your idea that logic is inherently circular which would mean that all conclusions would be fallacious and therefore you can't know whether the conclusion "all logic is circular" is actually true. Even this would be a fallacious conclusion.
I consider atheism the only real reasonable position on the issue of gods unless evidence to the contrary surfaces. There is and can be no way to know whether it's the correct position though.
Quintinohthree 9 months ago
@Quintinohthree - That is correct, all logical positions are circular, and therefore there is no reasonable position. This includes atheism.
BeatleEDs 9 months ago
@BeatleEDs
And how did you come to that conclusion if all reasoning is circular? Would your own conclusion not be fallacious. When applying the conclusion to the premises, the premises are deemed fallacious.
I see atheism as not an end-position but a temporary position and as the reasonable position because it is a position of not making any claims, unless it's anti-theism.
Quintinohthree 9 months ago
@Quintinohthree - I come the conclusion because the evidence suggest it is true. Think of this way; I think therefore I am. Lets look at the mathematically. Tale Godels theorems as an example. How is it that you see Godels premises as fallacious?
To say that atheism is a temporary position suggest a claim. Its suggest any and all positions are temporary which reverts back to my point.
BeatleEDs 9 months ago
@BeatleEDs
But again, you need logic to deduce more than just the evidence because without logic, evidence only proves itself. If all logic is circular, all conclusions beyond the original evidence are fallacious.
I do not see Godels premises as fallacious, I haven't even seen the theorem. It is you who says that all logic is circular and because circular logic is fallacious, all logic is fallacious. This conclusion must be fallacious or one of the premises is false.
Quintinohthree 9 months ago
@Quintinohthree - Who said circular logic is fallacious? You should read about Godel's theorems. Very interesting stuff.
BeatleEDs 9 months ago
@BeatleEDs
Circular logic is when you prove a premise with a line of arguments upon arguments which ends in the argument that the premise is in. Or would this not be the kind of circularity you are speaking of.
Quintinohthree 9 months ago
@Quintinohthree - No, it shows that the premise in not fallacious. It shows the opposite.
BeatleEDs 9 months ago
@BeatleEDs
Wait a sec. Is circular logic as I presented it fallacious or not and is it what you meant?
Quintinohthree 9 months ago
@Quintinohthree - No, because it does not end. Thus, its circular. Its never endiing.
BeatleEDs 9 months ago
@BeatleEDs
But something never-ending is not necessarily circular. It's only circular when you return must where you've started after some time. There is a never ending string of numbers, but it's no circular string.
Quintinohthree 9 months ago
@Quintinohthree - You make a good point but this comes down to the definition of circular. All formal number system rely on axioms.
BeatleEDs 9 months ago
@BeatleEDs
I think we can agree that a system is circular when you can start at any given point x, moving in a given direction and never end but returning to x after a given amount of steps. Is this what you meant when you said that all logic is circular?
Quintinohthree 9 months ago
@Quintinohthree - No, I don't agree. All systems (of logic and reason) are withing the circle and can not be proved true with referring to something outside the circle. Something we see as true but can not prove it is true.
BeatleEDs 9 months ago
@BeatleEDs
Care to clarify this? Or justify your claim?
Quintinohthree 9 months ago
@Quintinohthree - I am lying.
BeatleEDs 9 months ago
@BeatleEDs
Thanks for that then.
Quintinohthree 9 months ago
@Quintinohthree - lol, no, the statement itself speaks to the claim. Think about it logically. Can that statement be true?
BeatleEDs 9 months ago
@BeatleEDs
Well yes, that's the statement making a statement about itself. You are however claiming that eventually all statements make a statement about themselves, are you not? And more importantly, it's not circular reasoning, It's a circular statement.
Quintinohthree 9 months ago
@Quintinohthree - Give me an example that in your view is circular reasoning.
BeatleEDs 9 months ago
@BeatleEDs
Watch "Oh, what a tangled web!" by antybu86. It's a perfect example of circular reasoning.
Quintinohthree 9 months ago
@Quintinohthree - Ok, thanks
BeatleEDs 9 months ago
@Quintinohthree - And can you provide a logical position that does not fit into that statement. "I am lying".
BeatleEDs 9 months ago
@BeatleEDs
A position of true or false you mean? Well if it's true it's also false and if it's false it's true so it is either both which can not be because false is in the category not true making them mutually exclusive, or it's neither. Neither it is then
Quintinohthree 9 months ago
@Quintinohthree - NO! Think about this. Look up Godel. Its fascinating, really.
BeatleEDs 9 months ago
@BeatleEDs
So what's wrong with my answer? Was it the wrong kind of answer or is it actually incorrect?
Quintinohthree 9 months ago
@Quintinohthree - Well first, let me say you're a good sport. Some of my answers are funny when I read them now because usually I have had a few when I'm talking about these topics. With that said, your answer is incorrect. Godel's theorems blow my mind and they are hard to understand. I will send you a link to an explanation that is the simplest one that I have found. But I must say, this is some really tough shit to understand. He was amazing. There are always truths than can be proved.
BeatleEDs 9 months ago
@Quintinohthree - That is, there are always more truths than can be proved.
BeatleEDs 9 months ago
@BeatleEDs
My mind is having a hard time making sense of this. Anyway that's been fun but of course we had original argument and I have to know whether we've come to an agreement. So my question is: is atheism a belief? This was what we started with and I think we should end with it, be it now or after some more argument.
Quintinohthree 9 months ago
@Quintinohthree - "atheism a belief?" YES
BeatleEDs 9 months ago
@BeatleEDs
So what is your definition of atheism? Mine is "without theism" being the affix "a" added to the word "theism". It can be that you use the other definition "the belief that there is no god" being the suffix "ism" added to the stem "athe".
Quintinohthree 9 months ago
@Quintinohthree - I would select your first definition.
BeatleEDs 9 months ago
@Quintinohthree
"Is atheism a belief...?"
Is *not* collecting stamps a hobby?
Nihm420 8 months ago 30
@Nihm420
Well we know the answer to that. Sadly in this world dominated by philatelists we are a small minority but thankfully not constantly busy with those stamps. I mean come on, we have e-mail today. Those stamps are out of date and do no good to this world any more.
/hypothetical
Quintinohthree 8 months ago
@Quintinohthree
..... huh...?
Nihm420 8 months ago
@Nihm420
It's a "what if" situation.
Quintinohthree 8 months ago
@Nihm420 lol
mufcrulz 7 months ago
@Nihm420 ROFL, good point!
theZoen69 7 months ago
@Nihm420 Is Atheism a belief ?
Is NOT collecting stamps a hobby ?
Is Abstinence a Sexual activity ?
tranquility4all 7 months ago
@Nihm420 Yes, atheism is a belief. But it's not a belief in the same sense as religion..
ApatheticOmniscience 2 months ago
@ApatheticOmniscience
a - no
theism - belief
Nihm420 2 months ago
@Nihm420 Atheism is the belief that god doesn't exist. It's a belief because it isn't a factual statement.
I believe fairies don't exist. Could I be wrong? Yes.
I believe gods don't exist. Could I be wrong? Yes.
So it's a belief, but it doesn't require a burden of proof unless it's introduced as a factual statement ("God doesn't exist").
ApatheticOmniscience 2 months ago
@ApatheticOmniscience
Then in your meaning of the word, all agnostics are also athiests.
Nihm420 2 months ago
@Nihm420 Nope, an agnostic is simply neutral on the position but atheism is the default.
ApatheticOmniscience 2 months ago
@ApatheticOmniscience
a - gnostic = not knowing a - theist = not believing
I have no belief in a god
I do not know if a god exists
My non belief in a god is no more a *belief* than my not collecting stamps is a *hobby*
Nihm420 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ApatheticOmniscience incorrect.
You said - "Atheism is the belief that god doesn't exist."
When actually - Atheism is no belief that a god exists...
Do you see the difference?
Nihm420 2 months ago
Fans of both Matt Dillahunty and Theoreticalbullshit (another youtube user who mopped the floor with Matt Slick) should start a "why won't he debate them?" campaign against William Lane Craig , the same way William Lane Craig's fans did against Richard Dawkins.
I personally would LOVE to see Matt or Scott make a mockery of Slick and Craig's bullshit, dishonest tactics.
William Lane Craig is to philosophy what Kent Hovind is to science.
DickJohnson3434 10 months ago
@DickJohnson3434 - Huh? I watched that debate between Matt and Matt, Dillahunty was very weak.
BeatleEDs 10 months ago
@BeatleEDs
What did Dillahunty say that was wrong? And what did Slick say that wasn't completely dishonest sleaze?
DickJohnson3434 10 months ago 9
@DickJohnson3434 - Well maybe I missed something. Perhaps you can summarize Matt D's argument so I can be sure I just want understand it. It seems very complicated.
BeatleEDs 10 months ago
HUMAN BEINGS ARE PATHETIC....................
nrgshkl093 11 months ago
There is a word for it. It's not conceptual, it's not physical, it's axiomatic.
jb1262 1 year ago
I would like to see Matt dillahunty debate Craig, that would be brilliant. Or even for WLC to call in to the show, that would also be good.
huntmatuk 1 year ago
Matt Dillahunty won the debate, hands down.
Anduril919 1 year ago
You claim to be educated in philosophy yet you believe that physical and conceptual is a true dichotomy...?
notnowchief8 1 year ago
@notnowchief8
In relation to the Laws of Logic yes
seanhall2006 1 year ago
@seanhall2006 A true dichotomy would be physical, and not physical. Although conceptual is included in not physical, it's not the only option. Ergo, it is not a true dichotomy. Matt provided the third option as neither and in the second part of this video intrinsic and transcendental were also provided.
notnowchief8 1 year ago
@notnowchief8 A conceptual thing is not a non physical thing. If you look up "non Physical" on wikipedia, it talks about supernatural entities. What other options are there? Intrinsic, transcendental and conceptual both mean the same thing in this situation.
seanhall2006 1 year ago
@seanhall2006 No, because conceptual is necessarily dependent upon a mind, and that is where the argument fails. Intrinsic and transcendental do not mean the same thing because if he had used either of those words in his dichotomy he could not lead to the conclusion that this mind is god. So no, they do not all mean that same thing in this situation.
notnowchief8 1 year ago
@notnowchief8 They both agreed that they were conceptual, transcendant and intrinsic. I know that a concept is dependant upon a mind, which is why the argument succeeds.
seanhall2006 1 year ago
@seanhall2006 Show me video and time where Matt Dillahunty agrees that they are conceptual.
notnowchief8 1 year ago
@notnowchief8 He agrees that they are transcendental, intrinsic, which mean the same as conceptual in this case
seanhall2006 1 year ago
@seanhall2006 No it is not. Conceptual is dependent upon a mind, transcendental and intrinsic are not. I've already pointed this out. Dillahunty argues this point, and for good reason. The only reason you say they are the same is so that the rest of the argument can lead to that the mind it depends on is god. It's a false dichotomy.
notnowchief8 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@seanhall2006 Buddy my best friend is a believer, I enjoy having discussions about this stuff. But Im not going to be a babysitter to people who know nothing about anything.
notnowchief8 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@seanhall2006 Buddy my best friend is a believer, I enjoy having discussions about this stuff. But Im not going to be a babysitter to people who know nothing about anything.
notnowchief8 1 year ago
@seanhall2006 They didn't agree they were conceptual, and that was the entire point of the 45 min convo. If you don't realize they didn't agree, you didn't pay attention.
Delinexwow 1 year ago
@seanhall2006 Also, wikipedia is far from a reliable source.
notnowchief8 1 year ago
@seanhall2006 I'll also point out that you're making the same mistake as Matt Slick in asking the question "what other options are there?". That's an argument from ignorance.
notnowchief8 1 year ago
Arrogance is ignorance matured Mr. Dillahunty
seanhall2006 1 year ago
This is pure nonsense apart from anything else he commits the adhominen fallacy not just with slick but with all apologists by talking about their "dishonesty"
seanhall2006 1 year ago
This is pure nonsense
seanhall2006 1 year ago
5) Dillahunty commited the Straw man fallacy. At no point did Slick say that the Laws of Logic are god.
6) Obviously, God is not physical. How can he be conceptual when his existence is not dependant upon our minds? Of course God is spiritual.
seanhall2006 1 year ago
@seanhall2006 Your statement of "God is spiritual" disproves Slicks dichotomy of either physical or conceptual, and proves that Matt D. was correct in denying him that premise whether or not he was able to provide a third option.
notnowchief8 1 year ago
@seanhall2006 You still have yet to prove Slick's dichotomy to be true. Without that his argument falls apart once again.
notnowchief8 1 year ago
@notnowchief8
The Laws of Logic being either physical or conceptual? I really have to prove that to be a true dichotomy? The Laws of Logic transcend physical reality, they are absolute truths. Truth is information, it is conceptual by nature, a concept requires a mind. The truth of the philosophy of realism teaches us that truth cannot be dependent upon our minds
seanhall2006 1 year ago
@seanhall2006 If the Laws of Logic transcend physical reality then they are not dependent upon a mind. They are true regardless if there is a mind to access them or not.
notnowchief8 1 year ago
@notnowchief8 You havent actually addressed any of the points I made in my last comment Im not repeating myself
seanhall2006 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@seanhall2006 And you have yet to prove Slick's dichotomy, simply pointing out how.
notnowchief8 1 year ago
@seanhall2006 And you still haven't proven Slick's dichotomy to be true. Just go to 3:15 in the video and actually watch it this time.
notnowchief8 1 year ago
@seanhall2006 And for examples of other options of this dichotomy check out part 2 at 1:50. One of these was transcendent which you actually used yourself when describing the Laws of Logic.
notnowchief8 1 year ago
@notnowchief8 I really dont get what youre saying Matt Slick used the words conceptual and transcendant to describe the nature of the Laws of Logic transcendant is not another option its just another way of getting the point across
seanhall2006 1 year ago
@seanhall2006 Still haven't watched the other parts, have you? You're wasting my time.
notnowchief8 1 year ago
@notnowchief8
God bless us all, in part two 1:50 dillahunty says they agreed that they were intrinsic and transcendant. They also agreed that they were abstract. These three words all describe the nature of the Laws of Logic, on which Slick's argument was based. Buddy my best friend is a non believer, I enjoy having discussions about this stuff. But Im not going to be a babysitter to people who know nothing about philosophy.
seanhall2006 1 year ago
@seanhall2006 Tu quoque.
notnowchief8 1 year ago
@notnowchief8 In 3:15 Matt D says that the Laws of Logic are "dependant upon the physical because a concept requires a mind." I agree with that, but the laws of logic do not stop being true if we think they are false, so they are not dependant upon any human mind. He says also that there is also an option of something being either physical or non physical, but gives no examples of a non physical thing.
seanhall2006 1 year ago
@seanhall2006 and Matt D never claims that the Laws of Logic require a mind. In the debate with Slick he argues this exact point by saying that even without a mind the laws still exist even if there is no mind to assess them.
notnowchief8 1 year ago
3) At no point did dillahunty come up with a legitimate argument against TAG.
4) Slick called Dillahunty intelligent on two occasions in the debate. He simply asked Dillahunty was he a materialistic naturalistic. At no point did he commit the adhominem fallacy.
seanhall2006 1 year ago
1) I have never seen a video or read anything of MAtt Slick's where he claims to have won the debate.
2) Slick cant come on the know until he changes TAG to dillahuntys liking>? talk about intellectual arrogance...
3
seanhall2006 1 year ago
If you are asking what other option is there it is by definition a inductive argument.
willforrhall 1 year ago
i was not trying to rebut the argument, I was simply commenting on the fact that you made a comment based on a personal bias. Because if you had listened to the debate neutrally you would have heard them talking about that answer you brought up for the entire 2nd half of the debate
etertnalsword 1 year ago
@etertnalsword Um, no. The very point I was making is that the discussion following the point I highlighted was nothing more than Slick backpedaling and using faulty logic to try to hide the fallacy of his argument. If you're not ready to have a debate of any form, then you should probably refrain from posting stupid shit.
bronx43 1 year ago
The dumbest part was when Slick was in so much denial that he couldn't even admit the fact that it is possible to know that something is not a particular thing without knowing what that something is.
itarethetroll 1 year ago
Matt Dillahunty had an unconvincing argument against Slick's assertion concerning the laws of logic. Dillahunty stated that the laws of logic were NOT conceptual yet he couldn't explain what other possiblities it COULD be.
VIPSoundCircleTV 1 year ago
Comment removed
MrSchnuffs 1 year ago
@VIPSoundCircleTV Yes he did. He said it wasn't conceptual and not physical. Which is what the logical absolute is.
DexxterMorgan 1 year ago
Atheists have the burden of proof with respect to the existence of logical absolutes, the things we base logical discourse on. I challenge any atheist to provide ANY proof of logical absolutes. To save you time it is impossible. Therefore to be an atheist and believe logical absolutes exist is to have FAITH. That’s right faith. Faith meaning believing something without having a shred of evidence. So I'm wondering what does it feel like having faith?
ghjurx452 1 year ago
@ghjurx452
By using logic you have just demonstrated that logical absolutes exist.
Thanks for the evidence.
laflugantabastardo 1 year ago
@ghjurx452 What laflugantabastardo said. Not only that, but the fact that most of what you have said has been shown to be false using logic demonstrates the fact that logical absolutes not only exist, but also destroy your argument. So in essence, you have asked for proof of something which fundamentally invalidates such a request.
TearTheRoofOff 1 year ago
@TearTheRoofOff or rather, you have made a claim that proof is required, where the thing that requires proof fundamentally invalidates the claim that it is required.
TearTheRoofOff 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Slick can't get it through his head that there is a fundamental difference between a concept of a thing and the thing itself".
Because you can do this? When you'll meet something or someone that exists by itself, make me a sign...
FortYeah 1 year ago
I'm becoming more and more disappointed that I only have one thumb that I can "up"
Ultracity6060 1 year ago
@Ultracity6060 You could always refresh the page.
UnderlordZ 1 year ago
1. The sky is red.
2. Therefore, the apple is red.
A true conclusion derived from a false premise, everybody.
progrockcoffee 1 year ago
@progrockcoffee Or is the apple just percieved as red because of the light from the red sky?
hmmm...
ProfessorMacintosh 1 year ago
@ProfessorMacintosh You're just biased against non-red apples because your username is ProfessorMacintosh! :D
progrockcoffee 1 year ago 2
@progrockcoffee
Haha, nice one! :P
ProfessorMacintosh 1 year ago
Doesn't slick already give you a word for not physical and not conceptual: "transcendant". He says it's transcendant therefore it has to be something else too! (though transcendant is a pretty crappy word, it does fit).
symsee 1 year ago
the word you were looking for is "moronic".
lbrex78 1 year ago
you didn't declare it but i'll declare it for ya. Matt D you came, you saw, you kicked some TAG ass.
kalyoub 1 year ago
Matt's debate against Slick was awesome and flawless. Screw debating Ray comfort, debate Dr Craig I would like to see Craig get owned. It is great to see matt debate against someone worth debating with. His debate with Slick was proof of how great he is, he seemed to enjoy this debate more than debating retards.
TheAndrewMan1000 1 year ago 18
@TheAndrewMan1000 yes your so right on letting him debate Dr Craig i would love to see the athiest even try but he is far to scared to try and debate william lane craig because this athiest would just get destroyed but please dillahunty debate craig.
Penguins9526 1 year ago