Since humans stepped out of the caves, we were constantly expanding our circle of love to include more people. We now reject genocide, racism and incest, things common centuries ago. We're in a crucial point in our development. Becoming completely spiritual by rejecting all selfish instincts and materialism is the next step. Rejecting Jesus, which represents 100% love, as a role model, is a step back for our consciousness. The time has come to raise our consciousness to the next level. Wake up!
Well, with the fact that you've pointed that out, and with some of the things you've said after that you've proofen yourself wrong about that... you're both a bit childish...
I think people who say are atheist, choose a lack of belief, because that = no God, no judgement, ect. I have a lack of belief in your lack of belief ,because every thing points otherwise. I coul'd not live with my self , choosing to belive in nothing. Those who leave without God really die.
Why do idiots like you keep pushing this pathetic, ignorant, pointless lie that atheists "believe in nothing". How can you people be so fucking stupid? Why do you have to lie to try and make someone look bad? Educate your sad, pathetic little self...
You said: "everything points otherwise". What does? Quit makeing shit up about people and demonstrate that "everythiing points otherwise". I didn't think so...dumb fuck...So sick of stupid people...
@Zentz29 I really don't know why i'm responding, in fact i couldn't care less what you think of me or people like me. But as far as being stupid, i think someone like you as to stop and think befor flowing shit out like it was water. Logically you either believe in something or you don't. "I belive in a lack of belife'' = what?
@Zentz29 But, if you're going to say you belive there is no God, well where is you're evidence? You shouldn't be arguing with people who believe in God , since you can't prove them wrong. The argument is simply point less. If you think otherwise, well i really don't care.
@Hadasah2Nehemiah I agree that I can't "prove" there is no god. The lack evidence FOR god is the evidence AGAINST god. I refuse to believe things that I have no good reason to. YOU made the claim that "everythiing points otherwise"...why did you say that? What reason do you have to believe that?
@Zentz29 " alll I'm saying is I don't belive you" really? because I'm saying I don't belive YOU. Tell me how no evidence suddenly becomes evidence? Good job! You based you're belife on what made you feel better; and you're asking me a question, when you're not actually listening. If you were really willing to find out, you wouldn't have to ask me. Its to late, and honestly point less.
@Hadasah2Nehemiah Yes, the lack of evidence for a god is evidence that there isn't one. Why don't most people believe in things like fairies, werewolves, vampires etc etc?
Obviously nobody can show that they exist. Most people don't accept that they exist because of the lack of evidence. I'm applying the same logic to a god. You do the same thing with things you choose to deny as real, except with your god. There is no more good reason to believe in a god, than vampires.
@Zentz29 You're logic is based on what you choose to belive. There is evidence Of a God .You just choose to deny it, because you like the idea " no God." And like I said, i'ts point less.
@Hadasah2Nehemiah Actually, I would like to believe that it's possible for us to live in eternal bliss after we die. I'm not forcing myself to believe what I want, I'm rejecting what I want because there are no good reasons to believe it.
You keep acting like there is so much evidence, but can't tell me any...What is the evidence?
@Zentz29 Like I said there is plenty of evidence,but you choose to deny it. I'm beginning to think you never really listened to "Richard dawkins," atheists love this guy; anyway if you go back step by step what created that ,what madethis happen, ect. Well, let me say even he, admited that their could be a God behind it all. Only, he said " it could be an alian." What? Don't belive me? go check it out, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. If that dosen't help, well, it's seriously point less
@Zentz29 Adn of coourse you would like to belive that it's possible to live in eternal bliss, you just don't like the Hell part that follows right after.
I don't like the concept of eternal suffering...YEP...
Neither has ANYTHING to do with the reason I do not believe in a god. I don't know how to make this anymore simple. The concept of bliss, or suffering has NOTHING to do with why I reject the idea of a god...
I don't believe for the EXACT thing that is happening with our little chat...You can't give me a good reason to believe what you say....neither can anyone else...comprendo?
@Zentz29 " Comprendo" you're self , this little chat as to do with you NOT having evidence for what you believe. And like I said, you made you're own logic , for what makes you feel better, and you know it. Again , you are not really listening, but for that I honestly don't think I care.
What makes me feel better is that there IS a god...Do you fucking understand? Do you understand that I wish there WAS A GOD? Do you understand this SIMPLE point I'm trying to explain to you?
Do you understand that? It's very simple...kind of like you are...
I'm sorry that I'm not good at talking to simple morons...
@Zentz29 For you're own sake STOP lying to you're self. If you truly wished there was a God, you would look deeper into the subject ,and like me you would realize that their is a God.
@Hadasah2Nehemiah Evidence against a god: People of ALL religions claim that prayer works. How do you know who is right?
Hindu people claim that their prayers come true...why don't you believe in the hindu gods? Muslims claim that allah grants their prayers...why don't you believe in allah?
The evidence against your nonsense is self evident, you just lie to yourself because it makes you feel good you liar...stop fucking lying..Grow the fuck up...
@Zentz29 You're asking if i question my beliefes? The answer is simply NO.I found the answers to my questions. And why the God of the bible? There are many reasons, but at this point i doubt you could understand; however here is a simple one, the bible is the only book that can answer all you're question. Did you know it even says that the earth is not sitting on any thing? when people of those days thought otherwise. And NO, they did not have a satellite to tell them. God gave you free will.
@Zentz29 Do You? Thats totally a question you can answer for you're self. If you look at life, it's full of reasons. But, if you choose not to see them, well let's say you had a choice, and you made it. And, just for the fun of it, What reason do I have to believe their is no God?
@Zentz29 I see you didn't bother answering mine. But, see I'm done trying to explain things to someone who chooses NOT to be mentally there. Like I said from the start, it's point less. Do you see how you contradict you're self?, let me quote," What makes me feel better is that there is a God; I wish there was a God." And a little while later, " What reason do I have?" Word of advice please try and find you're self. This is honestly point less.
@Hadasah2Nehemiah Do you have a question or not? What question of my own should I answer? You are a pathetic little peice of work...
What is your question you fucking moron?
OH! Did I offend you now? Now you have a excuse to end this nonsense...I just want you to be honest for once in your life and ask the fucking question you say I should answer.
Do you have a fucking question or not you sad little sack of shit?
@Zentz29 You see you are mentally not there. If you really whanted to answer my question all you had to do was SCROLL THE PAGE DOWN. And the question was only to show you that you can answer you're own DAM questions. And on another note, you are right I'm ending this none sense.
@Zentz29 Hmmmm.. very interesting. Again like I said before, you can totally answer this for you're self. How? Well, I think you know, but how about you start by looking back at you're own statement, " What makes me feel better is that their is a God; I wish there was a God" I think you should start by figuring out what made you say that. next time do you're self a favor, try answering you're own questions.
@Zentz29 I almost forgot, just in case you're wandering, you did not insoult me in any way. Like I said before, I could not care less what you think of me. anyway .. Goodbye.
@Hadasah2Nehemiah I want to believe in a different god than you. That's what I want...
Should I believe it?
The god you believe in is immoral. I want to believe in a moral god.
Should I believe in a different god than you do because I want to?
You're such a sad little sack of fear. You are a dog. You're a dog that doesn't understand what thunder is, and doesn't question it out of pathetic fear.
Do you have a question yet dog?
I think you're to afraid to even reply again...pathetic coward... SIT!
@Zentz29 Big pretender, if you really wanted my opinion on you're questions, all you had to do was look back at some of my first previous coments. You're an idiot. Ho, and if you ever miss talking to someone, well why don't you go stand in front of a mirror and talk to you're own Dog like reflection, well at least he will be there 24/7. This is seriously Dum.
@Zentz29 God gives grace, but it only lasts until we die. life is short; it's not time to rely on what makes us feel better. I hope some day you realize that. Again Goodbye.
@Hadasah2Nehemiah I'm sorry for being so rude. I know I was being a jerk...
It was only because I wanted to come to an understanding and you refused to speak honestly.
What I said was very harsh, and I apologize.
I still think you're disonest, but we are done here. I wish nothing but the best for you, and hope you can have good reasons for what you believe to be true.
I don't honestly know why you bother with all these word speaches; like if any of this wins an argument? you don't need all these blabla stuf. lets just be logical ok real plain. Your a human being just like i am, You never dided and rose to life to know 100% without adoubt that there is no God, and neither did I. You would ask me why I belive there is a God? Why do you think , when you look back at history, every nation had some form of God they belived in? why were't they atheists?
Matt D., the whole structure of Rev. Slicks' logical prove for existence of god is as valid of Baron Munchausen’s story who dragged himself out of the water by puling his own hair up. He accepts a priori existence of transcendental logic and posteriori that logic is given by god. So his proof is a based on a false argument: logic can be created by a transcendent being; we observe existence of transcendent logic; hence, god exists. Neither the premise, nor the argument is obviously true.
Matt D., the whole structure of Rev. Slicks logical prove for existence of god is as valid of Baron Munchausen’s as the story who dragged himself out of the water by puling his own hair up. He accepts a priori existence of transcendental logic and posteriori that logic is given by god. So his proof is a based on a false argument: logic can be created by a transcendent being; we observe existence of transcendent logic; hence, god exists. Neither the premise, nor the argument is obviously true.
It's like the laws of physics I guess? They can be represented physically, they are still in effect if there are no minds to conceive of them (so not conceptual), but (the laws themselves) are not physical.
Also, I want to point put that in a universe in which Matt Slick were right it does not prove his faith as a Christian which is dependent on the physical man Jesus. He can say he believes in a "higher power" but that is the extent of it (I assume he labels himself a Christian).
You have: Physical or Conceptual or Physical and Conceptual or Non-Physical and Conceptual or Physical and Non-Conceptual or Non-Physical and Non-Conceptual ...the point is, non-physical and non-conceptual leaves the "neither" option perfectly valid.
@TheOmegajuice there really is no difference but given the wording of his explinations in the vid,,,, I just thought it was funny...........it wasnt meant to be taken seriously, just to get a laugh.....
with regards to the whole "if you cant tell me what it is you cant tell me what its not"::
if i ask you to pick 2 2 digit numbers and multiply them, i dont know what number you will get, i DO know that i cant be 100000000 or anything like that, showing that you can know what something isnt w/o knowing exactly what that thing is.
I was listening to the whole debate on my way to work on my phone and man I'm no philosopher but even I understood how the argument was flawed.
Would a force qualify as a third option? Gravity, magnetism etc. These are dependant of the physical but are the forces themselves physical? Asking because I'm genuinly interested :P
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Normally I am a fan of Matt Dillahunty. The only time I saw him rattled was towards the end of his debate with Matt Slick on 'The Atheist Experience' . Slick did win that debate in my view. Which of course doesn't mean that his arguments were correct. It only means that Mat D. wasn't able to effectively counter them. This unusual follow-up video is Matt D's attempt to 'win' after all - but it's a pretty poor attempt, with the opponent absent. We atheists are not above childish tactics :).
@rubinood How did he win that debate?.. Matt showed him where he was wrong on multiple occassions, slick just didnt accept he was wrong. Anyone can win a debate if not accepting you're wrong means you win..
@steadrick according to Matt D, he was wrong on multiple occasions. Every point Mr. Slick offered was correct, though at the end there was a debate about the false dichotomy. For it to be a false dichotomy, there are more options than what is being offered. IF YOU CLAIM to say neither A or B, then you must know of some other option. Merely not accepting either claim, does not MEAN it is a false dichotomy, because if that were the case, then any claim could be a false dichotomy. He cannot counter
@RlCHART The problem was.. To argue for god, you cannot have just physical and conceptual. God has to exist outside of both. Therefore, If Mr. Slick denies the third option, he essentially denies God. If he is a concept, he cannot have been the creator as someone must have conceptualised him? If he is physical he can't have existed before the universe was created to create it? So even though he doesn't have to prove the dichotemy is false, if it is or isn't, he wins the debate anyway?
@RlCHART Matt D. does NOT have to come up with a 3rd option, if Matt D. sees no reason to accept either A or B then he is free to do so, if Slick wants to make this a dichotomy then it is up to HIM to demonstrate that there is no 3rd option, the burden of proof lies with him since HE is the one making the dichotomy. if i say that you are either an alien from Mars or an alien from Venus then you don't have to do anything until i demonstrate that those are the only 2 options, get it?
@rubinood I disagree. I thought Slick started very strongly but was absolutely got much worse by the end of the debate. And what killed him was his stubborn approach to the silly, non-existent dichotomy!
@rubinood@steadrick Slick's argument if he does not know of any other options. All Matt D is doing is denying A and B, without reason, without logic. T
my arguiment is flawed, that makes everyone but me a victor. hold yopur chins up high and be proud people. my inability to form an argument is a reflection of your greatness
He's just dribble drabbling about mindless aspects of the argument in his favour.. Matt Slick may have diclared victory which is stupid, but this is even worse wining and bitching about it within 2 videos.. obviously trying to poke fun at him and belittle him in 'polite' and friendly 'masking'-type ways.. while also having the assistant just non-chalontly sit there, giving smirky little grins and chuckles in his favor.. pathetic
@turtlen "He's just dribble drabbling about mindless aspects of the argument in his favour" Hmmm well if God is neither than like MD said MS agreed his own argument is invalid it isn't dribble drabble it is the core of the original argument.
So its perfectly fine for MS to claim victory but not okay for MD to point out to MS argument is flawed and his victory claim is wrong?
So in other words let the sheep believe MS claim of victory is correct and not point out the BS TAG argument is flawed.
@lardhat A they are both named Matt, and B. it was not a victory in the same sense that if someone was planning to robb your house but crashed their vehicle down the street into a cop car and get arrested, hence your house not getting robbed, would ot be a "victory". it would just be a failed attempt
According to Slick, Physical/Conceptual is a true dichotomy, and refuses to accept "neither" as a 3rd option, but when asked which one is God, he says "neither".
@AbbeyNormal You know, your statement here reminds me another one I always found profound. Amarillo Preston is often credited with sourcing this quote. "If you can't tell who the sucker is at the poker table, it's you." My guess is that Matt S is definitely the sucker and he's trying really hard not to appear that way. xD
Thank you for proving my point Mr. or Semantics Expert
Also, you don't know my gender, and don't know if I am addressing guys or girls. You nonetheless immediately jump to the conclusion that I must be a man addressing men
Therefore not only do you never get any action, but you are sexist, and clearly a homophobe
If you'll forgive my playing Sherlock Holmes, I'm willing to bet you're a Christian man in his 50s who's had sex 3 or 4 times in his life and occasionally watches gay porn
Because he was trying to have a TAG debate, and I guess he had to get past the first step.
If I were having the debate in writing, I wouldn't allow someone to get past their definition of "exist" in reference to the logical absolutes. Of course, the argument is so terrible that there are MANY places to poke at it, and I guess Matt D. decided to go at it from deeper in the argument, which makes for better TV. :)
I say Jen needs to let Matt hit it. It got cut off how taken she looked by him.
People better be blowing Matt at the AA. Russell or someone. Every day when he comes in, blow job. Just before he starts each show. It'll make him friendlier to the callers.
The last line of dillahunty is kind of telling .... his world view doesn't allow for a 3rd kind. Things either exist physically or they do not exist at all. That's his dichotomy as a naturalist/materialist. For him to claim something is neither ... is just a contradiction to his world view. Someone who was not a naturalist/materialist could easily claim a 3rd kind ... but Matt can't.
Hello, Mr. Strawman :) Did you not actually understand anything Matt said?
Slick proposed that physical/conceptual is a true dichotomy. Matt said that is not true, as logical absolutes occupy a category that is neither physical or conceptual. He proposed that these absolutes exist irrespective of physical reality or minds.
I agree with you AND Dill that's Slick Dichotomy is false. The problem is Dill's world view. (materialism: Philosophy The theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena.). If you're going to say absolutes exist non-physically and non-dependent on physical phenomena (apart from mind/concepts), then you are contradicting yourself (and your world view / materialism).
The logical absolutes isn't dependent on minds to interpret them, that just mean that they are what they are, despite if we were here to interpret them or not. How can you draw the conclusion that because of that they are supernatural? that doesn't follow at all.
What is a "logical absolute" made of? How much does a logical absolute weigh?
At some point you're going to have to claim they are not "natural" in a material sense ... but if you claim they exist, they must exist in some "super" natural way. What other existence is there?
What is a thought made of? How much does a thought weigh? What does a thought look like? Are our thoughts also supernatural?
And yes, I realize that thoughts are basically electrical signals in our brains, but so is our interpretation of the logical absolutes
In my view such things as logical absolutes is simply our interpretation of reality, no more no less. If you don't want to claim that out thought-process is supernatural you can't claim that the logical absolutes are supernatural either
you just changed categories though ... you went from "A" logical absolute to "A perception" of an absolute.
The question isn't about the physicality of our "interpretation of the logical absolutes" ... it's about the existence of the logical absolutes themselves.
How do they exist (not our "thinking" of them)? Or do they not exist?
You kind of contradict yourself here. You say they exist "in our minds" but that they still exist "if we weren't here". That's a contradiction. Which is it?
(to your question: I believe things like apples really exist and I also believe that our perception of an apple exists. in that case, neither the apple or the perception of an apple are "super" natural. I'm not sure about the nature of logical absolutes, but I believe my perception of them is natural. This would apply to "thoughts" as well)
What I mean is: they "exist" independent of us, but without us they are meaningless, because there would be no one around to interpret them and discuss them, right? So in a sense, they could be said to exist independent of our minds, but then they would be meaningless
Our perception is what it's all about. If there is an apple in the other room which I don't know about, the apple is there, but in my mind the apple doesn't exist, because I haven't interpreted that information yet
So now the question is: If logical absolutes exist (meaninglessly as you say) apart from us, what is the nature of their existence? If it is not "natural" (in a material sense), what is it?
Well, they may be dependent on the natural world to exist, but that doesn't mean they are material. Yes, to me they are immaterial, but that's just my view and I'm not an expert on this
But that's doesn't matter anyway, because if you're the one who says that they are supernatural, then it's you who has to demonstrate to me why that is true
It is your view that things (like absolutes) exist immaterially ("not" naturally in a material/physical sense). You're the one making the knowledge claim ...
(It seems that you believe "supernatural" means something other than what I do. What do you think "supernatural" means if not "immaterial" or "non physical" existence?)
To your claim above:
What is your evidence for believing that "non" natural, immaterial, or non physical things can and do exist?
I don't claim anything actually. I'm just saying that: "to the best of my knowledge this is the case". I don't claim do be an expert or to "know" that the logical absolutes are immaterial; these are really deep and complex arguments by the way, not easily understood
Supernatural = beyond space and time basically. Not dependent on the natural world. I reject this concept as I'm sure you know by now
And I don't need to provide evidencde because I'm not making a claim to know this, right?
well, you're just wrong! I don't know this, I BELIEVE that this is the case, because that is the conclusion my intellect has led me to. Now, I can be wrong, I'm perfectly willing to be wrong.... but until I come to a different conclusion, for whatever reason, this is what I believe about the logical absolutes
And by the way, I have yet to hear your point of view, where do you think the logical absolutes came from? God?
It's quite simple. The is no absolute fastest ( the c limit may include such things as can't go slower than c) hence we extrapolate to infinity and say perfect speed is being there.
Morality can not exist without society so at the minimum of one person there is zero morality.
haha. (then don't use that kind of wording ... "to the best of my knowledge" ... if you don't know anything about absolutes, then just say that)
What evidence has "led" you to come to this "conclusion"? (the conclusion that logical absolutes exist "beyond space"/immaterially)
(can you give me an example of something you believe but don't think you know ... I would think you wouldn't believe anything unless you thought you knew it to be true)
I didn't say I was clueless about this topic, don't put words in my mouth please!
Yes, I THINK that I know, that's very different from claiming to know for certain, do you get that? To think you know something is actually the definition of belief, and that's why i said that I don't claim to know this for certain
The arguments about this that I've read or heard about has led me to this conclusion - that the logical absolutes seem to be immaterial, not dependent upon minds. Period!
well, the rules of logic is: The law of identity, the law on non-contradiction and the law of exluded middle, right? So that's what we've got to work with
These are just truths about the world, these are human constructs about the nature of reality. It's just a description about the nature of the universe
The nature of the universe will probably always be the same, and we use logic to describe that nature
does the statement "a rock is a rock" have a truth value? (ie. it is true that a rock is a rock)
or is it without value until we conceptualize it?
(it seems that your belief is that an absolute is true whether or not humans exist ... but truth itself is meaningless unless humans exist ... i'm deducing this from your belief that a tree still makes sound but it is meaningless unless ears are there to hear it)
Yes, it is true that the rock is a rock regardless
But it has no meaning if no one is there to say "look at the rock"
As Matt Dillahunty said in the debate: The truth-statement doesn't exist until we phrase it, but the truth of the logical absolute is still the same wether the statement is made or not
The logical absolutes doesn't "exist" in that way. It's simply a truth, not a "thing"
The construct points to that truth about the universe, the nature of the universe, but the construct has nothing to do with the absolute itself
The logical absolute isn't a construct, it's a truth. It's like asking "who constructed the law of gravity?" The law of gravity is simply how the universe works
Yes, to me Slick's logic is totally illogical! Even if the Tag-argument was sound, he's done nothing more than show that there is logical absolutes in the universe. He's done nothing to show where these absolutes came from, much less that they came fro a god, much less that they came from HIS version of god!
To me Tag is a ridiculous argument, it doesn't prove anything
Well I think his argument does serve to put a materialistic naturalist on very uneasy ground.
It makes them out to either deny the existence of logical absolutes or to somehow promote the existence of them in some non-physical sense ... which contradicts their world view.
I'd like to see someone like you (not a materialistic naturalist) attempt give some kind of account for the existence of Log Abs. Which is why i was trying to get at your view of their nature.
Well, I'm fine with not knowing the answer to this, and I have no reason to believe that they are of supernatural origin
The logical absolutes exists to me, but simply as truths about the universe, not as "things" that we can see or touch. To me they are simply our attempts to interpret the universe
That's my take on it anyways. Thanks for the stimulating discussion!
Logical absolutes don't "exist" in the way people claim "God" exists, and they don't serve to prove that "God" exists in the way people claim anything else in the universe exists. This is the shift in definition/scope that Matt D. pointed out as one of the major flaws in TAG.
Matt Slick, the ultimate pseudo-intellectual.
haycockjeff 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Since humans stepped out of the caves, we were constantly expanding our circle of love to include more people. We now reject genocide, racism and incest, things common centuries ago. We're in a crucial point in our development. Becoming completely spiritual by rejecting all selfish instincts and materialism is the next step. Rejecting Jesus, which represents 100% love, as a role model, is a step back for our consciousness. The time has come to raise our consciousness to the next level. Wake up!
dejesusluisx 4 months ago
You win at the point of maturity...?
Well, with the fact that you've pointed that out, and with some of the things you've said after that you've proofen yourself wrong about that... you're both a bit childish...
TheTruggsess 5 months ago
@TheTruggsess - Care to make any sense in that statement? You've "proofen" that you may be incapable of such a task.
314Aurelius 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheTruggsess - - Care to make any sense in that statement? You've "proofen" that you may be incapable of such a task.
314Aurelius 1 month ago
All this is useless. For any argument that you can ever made to "prove" the existence of god, there is another counter argument that anulates it...
If there is a god, its up to you. And that for me, it means that we created god.
Aguijon1982 8 months ago
I think people who say are atheist, choose a lack of belief, because that = no God, no judgement, ect. I have a lack of belief in your lack of belief ,because every thing points otherwise. I coul'd not live with my self , choosing to belive in nothing. Those who leave without God really die.
Hadasah2Nehemiah 8 months ago
@Hadasah2Nehemiah God damn morons...
Why do idiots like you keep pushing this pathetic, ignorant, pointless lie that atheists "believe in nothing". How can you people be so fucking stupid? Why do you have to lie to try and make someone look bad? Educate your sad, pathetic little self...
You said: "everything points otherwise". What does? Quit makeing shit up about people and demonstrate that "everythiing points otherwise". I didn't think so...dumb fuck...So sick of stupid people...
Zentz29 7 months ago
@Zentz29 I really don't know why i'm responding, in fact i couldn't care less what you think of me or people like me. But as far as being stupid, i think someone like you as to stop and think befor flowing shit out like it was water. Logically you either believe in something or you don't. "I belive in a lack of belife'' = what?
Hadasah2Nehemiah 7 months ago
@Zentz29 But, if you're going to say you belive there is no God, well where is you're evidence? You shouldn't be arguing with people who believe in God , since you can't prove them wrong. The argument is simply point less. If you think otherwise, well i really don't care.
Hadasah2Nehemiah 7 months ago
@Hadasah2Nehemiah I agree that I can't "prove" there is no god. The lack evidence FOR god is the evidence AGAINST god. I refuse to believe things that I have no good reason to. YOU made the claim that "everythiing points otherwise"...why did you say that? What reason do you have to believe that?
All I'm doing is saying I don't believe you...
Zentz29 7 months ago
@Zentz29 " alll I'm saying is I don't belive you" really? because I'm saying I don't belive YOU. Tell me how no evidence suddenly becomes evidence? Good job! You based you're belife on what made you feel better; and you're asking me a question, when you're not actually listening. If you were really willing to find out, you wouldn't have to ask me. Its to late, and honestly point less.
Hadasah2Nehemiah 7 months ago
@Hadasah2Nehemiah Yes, the lack of evidence for a god is evidence that there isn't one. Why don't most people believe in things like fairies, werewolves, vampires etc etc?
Obviously nobody can show that they exist. Most people don't accept that they exist because of the lack of evidence. I'm applying the same logic to a god. You do the same thing with things you choose to deny as real, except with your god. There is no more good reason to believe in a god, than vampires.
Zentz29 7 months ago
@Zentz29 You're logic is based on what you choose to belive. There is evidence Of a God .You just choose to deny it, because you like the idea " no God." And like I said, i'ts point less.
Hadasah2Nehemiah 7 months ago
@Hadasah2Nehemiah Actually, I would like to believe that it's possible for us to live in eternal bliss after we die. I'm not forcing myself to believe what I want, I'm rejecting what I want because there are no good reasons to believe it.
You keep acting like there is so much evidence, but can't tell me any...What is the evidence?
Zentz29 7 months ago
@Zentz29 Like I said there is plenty of evidence,but you choose to deny it. I'm beginning to think you never really listened to "Richard dawkins," atheists love this guy; anyway if you go back step by step what created that ,what madethis happen, ect. Well, let me say even he, admited that their could be a God behind it all. Only, he said " it could be an alian." What? Don't belive me? go check it out, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. If that dosen't help, well, it's seriously point less
Hadasah2Nehemiah 7 months ago
@Zentz29 Adn of coourse you would like to belive that it's possible to live in eternal bliss, you just don't like the Hell part that follows right after.
Hadasah2Nehemiah 7 months ago
@Hadasah2Nehemiah I like the idea of eternal bliss...YEP...
I don't like the concept of eternal suffering...YEP...
Neither has ANYTHING to do with the reason I do not believe in a god. I don't know how to make this anymore simple. The concept of bliss, or suffering has NOTHING to do with why I reject the idea of a god...
I don't believe for the EXACT thing that is happening with our little chat...You can't give me a good reason to believe what you say....neither can anyone else...comprendo?
Zentz29 7 months ago
@Zentz29 " Comprendo" you're self , this little chat as to do with you NOT having evidence for what you believe. And like I said, you made you're own logic , for what makes you feel better, and you know it. Again , you are not really listening, but for that I honestly don't think I care.
Hadasah2Nehemiah 7 months ago
@Hadasah2Nehemiah No retard...
What makes me feel better is that there IS a god...Do you fucking understand? Do you understand that I wish there WAS A GOD? Do you understand this SIMPLE point I'm trying to explain to you?
Do you understand that? It's very simple...kind of like you are...
I'm sorry that I'm not good at talking to simple morons...
Zentz29 7 months ago
@Zentz29 For you're own sake STOP lying to you're self. If you truly wished there was a God, you would look deeper into the subject ,and like me you would realize that their is a God.
Hadasah2Nehemiah 7 months ago
Comment removed
Zentz29 7 months ago
@Hadasah2Nehemiah I'm not lying to myself. I'm questioning my own beliefs. That something you're to afraid to do.
You are sick...
Zentz29 7 months ago
@Hadasah2Nehemiah Evidence against a god: People of ALL religions claim that prayer works. How do you know who is right?
Hindu people claim that their prayers come true...why don't you believe in the hindu gods? Muslims claim that allah grants their prayers...why don't you believe in allah?
The evidence against your nonsense is self evident, you just lie to yourself because it makes you feel good you liar...stop fucking lying..Grow the fuck up...
Zentz29 7 months ago
@Zentz29 You're asking if i question my beliefes? The answer is simply NO.I found the answers to my questions. And why the God of the bible? There are many reasons, but at this point i doubt you could understand; however here is a simple one, the bible is the only book that can answer all you're question. Did you know it even says that the earth is not sitting on any thing? when people of those days thought otherwise. And NO, they did not have a satellite to tell them. God gave you free will.
Hadasah2Nehemiah 7 months ago
@Zentz29 And tell me how you not knowing whether other peoples prayres workmakes this evidence? You make you're own evidence and you know it.
Hadasah2Nehemiah 7 months ago
@Hadasah2Nehemiah All religions can't be true, but they can all be false.
Zentz29 7 months ago
@Zentz29 You're belife in NO GOD can be false. Seriously , What is this?
Hadasah2Nehemiah 7 months ago
@Hadasah2Nehemiah Yes, I might be wrong...lolz...
I very frickin well might be wrong, but...here's the kicker...I don't have a good reason to believe in a god.
Or do I? lol
Zentz29 7 months ago
@Zentz29 Do You? Thats totally a question you can answer for you're self. If you look at life, it's full of reasons. But, if you choose not to see them, well let's say you had a choice, and you made it. And, just for the fun of it, What reason do I have to believe their is no God?
Hadasah2Nehemiah 7 months ago
@Hadasah2Nehemiah What reasons? Maybe I'm just a moron who can't see the obvious...
Can you give me an example? I'm so very sorry that I'm to stupid to see the obvious...Can you please help me?
Zentz29 7 months ago
@Zentz29 I see you didn't bother answering mine. But, see I'm done trying to explain things to someone who chooses NOT to be mentally there. Like I said from the start, it's point less. Do you see how you contradict you're self?, let me quote," What makes me feel better is that there is a God; I wish there was a God." And a little while later, " What reason do I have?" Word of advice please try and find you're self. This is honestly point less.
Hadasah2Nehemiah 7 months ago
@Hadasah2Nehemiah Humor me. I'll answer any question you have the best that I can. Just ask again...
Zentz29 7 months ago
@Zentz29 "Humor me" really, I think you're humor in it's self. I want you to grow up, and answer you're own questions. How about that.
Hadasah2Nehemiah 7 months ago
@Hadasah2Nehemiah Do you have a question or not? What question of my own should I answer? You are a pathetic little peice of work...
What is your question you fucking moron?
OH! Did I offend you now? Now you have a excuse to end this nonsense...I just want you to be honest for once in your life and ask the fucking question you say I should answer.
Do you have a fucking question or not you sad little sack of shit?
Zentz29 7 months ago
@Zentz29 You see you are mentally not there. If you really whanted to answer my question all you had to do was SCROLL THE PAGE DOWN. And the question was only to show you that you can answer you're own DAM questions. And on another note, you are right I'm ending this none sense.
Hadasah2Nehemiah 7 months ago
@Hadasah2Nehemiah I'm going to make a statement, then ask a question.
Statement: As I grew up, I was told that the christian god was real.
Question: Why should I have believed it?
You really need to stop cowering in the corner like a pathetic little dog when there's a thunderstorm.
Oh yeah...then I'm going to inslut you because you're a pathetic little coward...
Zentz29 7 months ago
@Zentz29 insult**
Zentz29 7 months ago
@Zentz29 Hmmmm.. very interesting. Again like I said before, you can totally answer this for you're self. How? Well, I think you know, but how about you start by looking back at you're own statement, " What makes me feel better is that their is a God; I wish there was a God" I think you should start by figuring out what made you say that. next time do you're self a favor, try answering you're own questions.
Hadasah2Nehemiah 7 months ago
@Zentz29 I almost forgot, just in case you're wandering, you did not insoult me in any way. Like I said before, I could not care less what you think of me. anyway .. Goodbye.
Hadasah2Nehemiah 7 months ago
@Hadasah2Nehemiah lol
You don't care about anything accept the things that make you feel all warm and fuzzy.
Things aren't true just because you want them to be...
Zentz29 7 months ago
@Hadasah2Nehemiah I want to believe in a different god than you. That's what I want...
Should I believe it?
The god you believe in is immoral. I want to believe in a moral god.
Should I believe in a different god than you do because I want to?
You're such a sad little sack of fear. You are a dog. You're a dog that doesn't understand what thunder is, and doesn't question it out of pathetic fear.
Do you have a question yet dog?
I think you're to afraid to even reply again...pathetic coward... SIT!
Zentz29 7 months ago
@Zentz29 Big pretender, if you really wanted my opinion on you're questions, all you had to do was look back at some of my first previous coments. You're an idiot. Ho, and if you ever miss talking to someone, well why don't you go stand in front of a mirror and talk to you're own Dog like reflection, well at least he will be there 24/7. This is seriously Dum.
Hadasah2Nehemiah 7 months ago
@Zentz29 God gives grace, but it only lasts until we die. life is short; it's not time to rely on what makes us feel better. I hope some day you realize that. Again Goodbye.
Hadasah2Nehemiah 7 months ago
@Hadasah2Nehemiah I'm sorry for being so rude. I know I was being a jerk...
It was only because I wanted to come to an understanding and you refused to speak honestly.
What I said was very harsh, and I apologize.
I still think you're disonest, but we are done here. I wish nothing but the best for you, and hope you can have good reasons for what you believe to be true.
Peace
When I sat "goodbye", I mean it...Goodbye sir...
Zentz29 7 months ago
I don't honestly know why you bother with all these word speaches; like if any of this wins an argument? you don't need all these blabla stuf. lets just be logical ok real plain. Your a human being just like i am, You never dided and rose to life to know 100% without adoubt that there is no God, and neither did I. You would ask me why I belive there is a God? Why do you think , when you look back at history, every nation had some form of God they belived in? why were't they atheists?
Hadasah2Nehemiah 8 months ago
Matt D., the whole structure of Rev. Slicks' logical prove for existence of god is as valid of Baron Munchausen’s story who dragged himself out of the water by puling his own hair up. He accepts a priori existence of transcendental logic and posteriori that logic is given by god. So his proof is a based on a false argument: logic can be created by a transcendent being; we observe existence of transcendent logic; hence, god exists. Neither the premise, nor the argument is obviously true.
DrNikol2007 8 months ago
Matt D., the whole structure of Rev. Slicks logical prove for existence of god is as valid of Baron Munchausen’s as the story who dragged himself out of the water by puling his own hair up. He accepts a priori existence of transcendental logic and posteriori that logic is given by god. So his proof is a based on a false argument: logic can be created by a transcendent being; we observe existence of transcendent logic; hence, god exists. Neither the premise, nor the argument is obviously true.
DrNikol2007 8 months ago
It's like the laws of physics I guess? They can be represented physically, they are still in effect if there are no minds to conceive of them (so not conceptual), but (the laws themselves) are not physical.
Also, I want to point put that in a universe in which Matt Slick were right it does not prove his faith as a Christian which is dependent on the physical man Jesus. He can say he believes in a "higher power" but that is the extent of it (I assume he labels himself a Christian).
TimeTimothy 9 months ago
THE THIRD THING IS NOT A THING ITS A NATURE OF A THING!! SOM MATT D. WASNT RIGHT ALSO
SamuelRust 9 months ago
hahaha the last part really blew everything apart for mr. slick
Neotracer64 9 months ago
5:17 HA!
RADO420 9 months ago
Slick just jumps in a puddle of self ownage every day, doesn't he?
TheAryonB 10 months ago
"You lose! Good day, sir!"
berniebay 10 months ago
CHECKMATE!!!! LMAO!!!! LOVED IT!!!
johnsharhynes 10 months ago
Slick got so owned. That was beautiful.
314Aurelius 10 months ago
MagicActor1987 10 months ago
This was awesome. I'd say Dillahunty pwnd Slick, but Slick handled that pretty well himself
vitriolix 11 months ago
Matt D has really raised the bar here, that was the most self-righteous, hypocritical rant I have ever heard.
pompousprick 1 year ago
@pompousprick Have you named yourself ironically or...
TheOmegajuice 1 year ago
CHECKMATE!
cubieblu 1 year ago
Dillahunty is not being very mature by claiming maturity.
turcca 1 year ago
@turcca True. He also admitted to being petty. He is only mocking Matt Slick
sk8tafrnk 1 year ago
@turcca He's not claiming maturity he is accusing Matt Slick of immaturity.
TheOmegajuice 1 year ago
@TheOmegajuice Wouldnt that be better said as "not maturity"?,,,,LOL
carpnter2000 10 months ago
@carpnter2000 the difference being what exactly?
TheOmegajuice 10 months ago
@TheOmegajuice there really is no difference but given the wording of his explinations in the vid,,,, I just thought it was funny...........it wasnt meant to be taken seriously, just to get a laugh.....
carpnter2000 10 months ago
with regards to the whole "if you cant tell me what it is you cant tell me what its not"::
if i ask you to pick 2 2 digit numbers and multiply them, i dont know what number you will get, i DO know that i cant be 100000000 or anything like that, showing that you can know what something isnt w/o knowing exactly what that thing is.
bowjangles1 1 year ago
Checkmate, motherfucka!
Punishment247 1 year ago 2
I was listening to the whole debate on my way to work on my phone and man I'm no philosopher but even I understood how the argument was flawed.
Would a force qualify as a third option? Gravity, magnetism etc. These are dependant of the physical but are the forces themselves physical? Asking because I'm genuinly interested :P
Gunnariffic 1 year ago
Light is the answer to all. Light is not physical, since it has no mass. I agree with you 100% Matt D. Keep up the brilliance!!
wentlanc1 1 year ago
OMG! Slick started off okay but seriously blinded by his own ego, he couldn't see the major problem with his argument!
And Matt D. well done mate :D
PWNAGE! (for the sake of immaturity :p )
Wiilovewii 1 year ago
To all creationists: Neener neener.
Regurtless 1 year ago 2
@Regurtless wow this has nothing to do with a creationist argument but ok...
RlCHART 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Normally I am a fan of Matt Dillahunty. The only time I saw him rattled was towards the end of his debate with Matt Slick on 'The Atheist Experience' . Slick did win that debate in my view. Which of course doesn't mean that his arguments were correct. It only means that Mat D. wasn't able to effectively counter them. This unusual follow-up video is Matt D's attempt to 'win' after all - but it's a pretty poor attempt, with the opponent absent. We atheists are not above childish tactics :).
rubinood 1 year ago
@rubinood How did he win that debate?.. Matt showed him where he was wrong on multiple occassions, slick just didnt accept he was wrong. Anyone can win a debate if not accepting you're wrong means you win..
steadrick 1 year ago 6
@steadrick according to Matt D, he was wrong on multiple occasions. Every point Mr. Slick offered was correct, though at the end there was a debate about the false dichotomy. For it to be a false dichotomy, there are more options than what is being offered. IF YOU CLAIM to say neither A or B, then you must know of some other option. Merely not accepting either claim, does not MEAN it is a false dichotomy, because if that were the case, then any claim could be a false dichotomy. He cannot counter
RlCHART 1 year ago
@RlCHART The problem was.. To argue for god, you cannot have just physical and conceptual. God has to exist outside of both. Therefore, If Mr. Slick denies the third option, he essentially denies God. If he is a concept, he cannot have been the creator as someone must have conceptualised him? If he is physical he can't have existed before the universe was created to create it? So even though he doesn't have to prove the dichotemy is false, if it is or isn't, he wins the debate anyway?
steadrick 1 year ago
@RlCHART Matt D. does NOT have to come up with a 3rd option, if Matt D. sees no reason to accept either A or B then he is free to do so, if Slick wants to make this a dichotomy then it is up to HIM to demonstrate that there is no 3rd option, the burden of proof lies with him since HE is the one making the dichotomy. if i say that you are either an alien from Mars or an alien from Venus then you don't have to do anything until i demonstrate that those are the only 2 options, get it?
AllenQuatermain2de 1 year ago
@rubinood I disagree. I thought Slick started very strongly but was absolutely got much worse by the end of the debate. And what killed him was his stubborn approach to the silly, non-existent dichotomy!
Wiilovewii 1 year ago
@rubinood @steadrick Slick's argument if he does not know of any other options. All Matt D is doing is denying A and B, without reason, without logic. T
RlCHART 1 year ago
"......CHECKMATE"
Pawned like BIGtime
gunblade64 1 year ago 2
premise 1; cats a furry.
premise 2; dogs are furry
conclusion; cats are dogs
my arguiment is flawed, that makes everyone but me a victor. hold yopur chins up high and be proud people. my inability to form an argument is a reflection of your greatness
robertwc82 1 year ago
He's just dribble drabbling about mindless aspects of the argument in his favour.. Matt Slick may have diclared victory which is stupid, but this is even worse wining and bitching about it within 2 videos.. obviously trying to poke fun at him and belittle him in 'polite' and friendly 'masking'-type ways.. while also having the assistant just non-chalontly sit there, giving smirky little grins and chuckles in his favor.. pathetic
turtlen 1 year ago
@turtlen "He's just dribble drabbling about mindless aspects of the argument in his favour" Hmmm well if God is neither than like MD said MS agreed his own argument is invalid it isn't dribble drabble it is the core of the original argument.
So its perfectly fine for MS to claim victory but not okay for MD to point out to MS argument is flawed and his victory claim is wrong?
So in other words let the sheep believe MS claim of victory is correct and not point out the BS TAG argument is flawed.
robvlob 1 year ago
@turtlen care to point out the flaws in what he was saying?
is physical/conceptual a false dichotomy or not?
robertwc82 1 year ago
I've never seen any theologian so thoroughly humiliated.
socrstreets 1 year ago
Damn, you're good.
spiffythealien 1 year ago
what is the song called and by who
DRiPPz6800 1 year ago
Devastating.
kronzzzzzz 1 year ago
Matt wins. Flawless victory. Fatality.
lardhat 1 year ago 11
@lardhat A they are both named Matt, and B. it was not a victory in the same sense that if someone was planning to robb your house but crashed their vehicle down the street into a cop car and get arrested, hence your house not getting robbed, would ot be a "victory". it would just be a failed attempt
robertwc82 1 year ago
@robertwc82
Oh, my mistake, i should have clarified: I was talking about the Matt that mattered.
Get it? "Matt", "Mattered"? Huh? Huh?? =D
B) I don't like your analogy. =D
lardhat 1 year ago
@lardhat its hard to make a good analogy =(
robertwc82 1 year ago
@robertwc82 It would be victory on the cops' account of them arresting the criminals XD.
HybridD91 1 year ago
@HybridD91 no, because the cops wernt looking for tem they just accidently had a fender bender with the cop, the cop wasnt trying
robertwc82 1 year ago
When Matt (D) said "Checkmate!" and leaned forward, it reminded me of EdwardCurrent! XD
I wonder if that was deliberate...does Matt know EC?
1RadicalOne 1 year ago 4
According to Slick, Physical/Conceptual is a true dichotomy, and refuses to accept "neither" as a 3rd option, but when asked which one is God, he says "neither".
OWNED.
samus88 2 years ago 99
That is beautiful. I wish Matt had thought of asking this question in the iinitial debate - it seems so obvious in hindsight!
nugget147 1 year ago 3
@samus88
Don't you know ANYTHING? God is the exception to EVERY logical rule (when the theist wants it to be) - the uncaused cause, unmoved mover etc.
For the record, I agree that physical/conceptual is NOT a valid dichotomy, and god lands squarely in "conceptual" ;).
JMUDoc 7 months ago
If you have to declare victory you probably haven't won.
AbbeyNormal 2 years ago 47
@AbbeyNormal is that a famous quote, or are those your thoughts. because thats quite a profound line
robertwc82 1 year ago
@robertwc82
I'm sure I got it from somebody but I can't remember who.
AbbeyNormal 1 year ago
@AbbeyNormal You know, your statement here reminds me another one I always found profound. Amarillo Preston is often credited with sourcing this quote. "If you can't tell who the sucker is at the poker table, it's you." My guess is that Matt S is definitely the sucker and he's trying really hard not to appear that way. xD
Tanoro 1 year ago 2
CHECKMATE STUPID SLICK!!!
Misantropo04 2 years ago 7
Just a quick question for anybody subscribed to this channel, and sorry if I sounds judgemental:
When was the last time you got laid?
politicalfarce 2 years ago
this morning.
ThieleM 2 years ago
Do you have to believe in god to get laid?
mfentruck 2 years ago
That's not what I said at all.
I don't believe in God, but my life doesn't revolve around my non-belief
politicalfarce 2 years ago
I WAS JOKING! :-)
mfentruck 2 years ago
gotcha! You never know....
politicalfarce 2 years ago
;-)
mfentruck 2 years ago
If you are male then you don't "get laid." Only women get laid. Men are the layers and women are the layees.
Unless you are some sort of feminized gay butt-fucker who has a gender confusion issue.
Entropy56 2 years ago
Thank you for proving my point Mr. or Semantics Expert
Also, you don't know my gender, and don't know if I am addressing guys or girls. You nonetheless immediately jump to the conclusion that I must be a man addressing men
Therefore not only do you never get any action, but you are sexist, and clearly a homophobe
If you'll forgive my playing Sherlock Holmes, I'm willing to bet you're a Christian man in his 50s who's had sex 3 or 4 times in his life and occasionally watches gay porn
politicalfarce 2 years ago 4
Last summer :(
I'll subscribe now...
chessdawgz 2 years ago
Logical absolutes DON'T EXIST. There, I said it. Problem solved.
ImprobableJoe 2 years ago
Why couldn't Dillahunty just say that as well?
haha
trenton1980 2 years ago
Because he was trying to have a TAG debate, and I guess he had to get past the first step.
If I were having the debate in writing, I wouldn't allow someone to get past their definition of "exist" in reference to the logical absolutes. Of course, the argument is so terrible that there are MANY places to poke at it, and I guess Matt D. decided to go at it from deeper in the argument, which makes for better TV. :)
ImprobableJoe 2 years ago
I'm a theist and I can't buy this argument either ...
I'm not going to go as far as saying it's a terrible argument ... but as it has been argued, i find it falling quite short.
trenton1980 2 years ago 3
I say Jen needs to let Matt hit it. It got cut off how taken she looked by him.
People better be blowing Matt at the AA. Russell or someone. Every day when he comes in, blow job. Just before he starts each show. It'll make him friendlier to the callers.
highwind8124 2 years ago
The last line of dillahunty is kind of telling .... his world view doesn't allow for a 3rd kind. Things either exist physically or they do not exist at all. That's his dichotomy as a naturalist/materialist. For him to claim something is neither ... is just a contradiction to his world view. Someone who was not a naturalist/materialist could easily claim a 3rd kind ... but Matt can't.
Checkmate??? haha
fail
trenton1980 2 years ago
Hello, Mr. Strawman :) Did you not actually understand anything Matt said?
Slick proposed that physical/conceptual is a true dichotomy. Matt said that is not true, as logical absolutes occupy a category that is neither physical or conceptual. He proposed that these absolutes exist irrespective of physical reality or minds.
GMbear 2 years ago
I agree with you AND Dill that's Slick Dichotomy is false. The problem is Dill's world view. (materialism: Philosophy The theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena.). If you're going to say absolutes exist non-physically and non-dependent on physical phenomena (apart from mind/concepts), then you are contradicting yourself (and your world view / materialism).
trenton1980 2 years ago
I`ve never heard Dillahunty say that he is a materialist. If you could point me to where he has said this, I`d appreciate it.
He has said that methodological naturalism is the best way to explain the natural world, but then, methodological naturalism isn`t materialism.
GMbear 2 years ago
(my first reply was not posted or maybe it was erased)
Slick - "So you are a materialistic naturalist?"
Dillahunty - "Essentially"
@ 6:42 on v=3OweVo7wukw
can't believe you made me watch it again ...
(ps... your ball analogy fails too)
trenton1980 2 years ago
The logical absolutes isn't dependent on minds to interpret them, that just mean that they are what they are, despite if we were here to interpret them or not. How can you draw the conclusion that because of that they are supernatural? that doesn't follow at all.
KamasutraButterfly 2 years ago
What is a "logical absolute" made of? How much does a logical absolute weigh?
At some point you're going to have to claim they are not "natural" in a material sense ... but if you claim they exist, they must exist in some "super" natural way. What other existence is there?
trenton1980 2 years ago
What is a thought made of? How much does a thought weigh? What does a thought look like? Are our thoughts also supernatural?
And yes, I realize that thoughts are basically electrical signals in our brains, but so is our interpretation of the logical absolutes
In my view such things as logical absolutes is simply our interpretation of reality, no more no less. If you don't want to claim that out thought-process is supernatural you can't claim that the logical absolutes are supernatural either
KamasutraButterfly 2 years ago
you just changed categories though ... you went from "A" logical absolute to "A perception" of an absolute.
The question isn't about the physicality of our "interpretation of the logical absolutes" ... it's about the existence of the logical absolutes themselves.
How do they exist (not our "thinking" of them)? Or do they not exist?
trenton1980 2 years ago
They don't "exist" as physical things, they exist in our minds. It's basically an intepretation of the universe that we have chosen to call "logic"
And yes, logical absolutes would still be there if we weren't here to talk about them, but that doesn't mean they're supernatural!
They are simply the basis of logic (our interpretation f the universe), they are just the nature of reality
But please answer me: since you can't see or weigh a thought, are thoughts supernatural too?
KamasutraButterfly 2 years ago
You kind of contradict yourself here. You say they exist "in our minds" but that they still exist "if we weren't here". That's a contradiction. Which is it?
(to your question: I believe things like apples really exist and I also believe that our perception of an apple exists. in that case, neither the apple or the perception of an apple are "super" natural. I'm not sure about the nature of logical absolutes, but I believe my perception of them is natural. This would apply to "thoughts" as well)
trenton1980 2 years ago
Sorry
What I mean is: they "exist" independent of us, but without us they are meaningless, because there would be no one around to interpret them and discuss them, right? So in a sense, they could be said to exist independent of our minds, but then they would be meaningless
Our perception is what it's all about. If there is an apple in the other room which I don't know about, the apple is there, but in my mind the apple doesn't exist, because I haven't interpreted that information yet
KamasutraButterfly 2 years ago
Without us, nothing has meaning ...
So now the question is: If logical absolutes exist (meaninglessly as you say) apart from us, what is the nature of their existence? If it is not "natural" (in a material sense), what is it?
Immaterial? Supernatural? Magical?
trenton1980 2 years ago
Well, they may be dependent on the natural world to exist, but that doesn't mean they are material. Yes, to me they are immaterial, but that's just my view and I'm not an expert on this
But that's doesn't matter anyway, because if you're the one who says that they are supernatural, then it's you who has to demonstrate to me why that is true
KamasutraButterfly 2 years ago
I'm not sure that's the case.
It is your view that things (like absolutes) exist immaterially ("not" naturally in a material/physical sense). You're the one making the knowledge claim ...
(It seems that you believe "supernatural" means something other than what I do. What do you think "supernatural" means if not "immaterial" or "non physical" existence?)
To your claim above:
What is your evidence for believing that "non" natural, immaterial, or non physical things can and do exist?
trenton1980 2 years ago
I don't claim anything actually. I'm just saying that: "to the best of my knowledge this is the case". I don't claim do be an expert or to "know" that the logical absolutes are immaterial; these are really deep and complex arguments by the way, not easily understood
Supernatural = beyond space and time basically. Not dependent on the natural world. I reject this concept as I'm sure you know by now
And I don't need to provide evidencde because I'm not making a claim to know this, right?
KamasutraButterfly 2 years ago
You are making a claim to know ... You're claiming to the best of your "knowledge" that this is the case. (That makes it a knowledge claim)
I don't demand proof ... I just want to know if you have good reasons or not.
(I can't accept your definition of Supernatural because something that exists immaterially (as you claim), exists necessarily BEYOND "space")
trenton1980 2 years ago
well, you're just wrong! I don't know this, I BELIEVE that this is the case, because that is the conclusion my intellect has led me to. Now, I can be wrong, I'm perfectly willing to be wrong.... but until I come to a different conclusion, for whatever reason, this is what I believe about the logical absolutes
And by the way, I have yet to hear your point of view, where do you think the logical absolutes came from? God?
KamasutraButterfly 2 years ago
they come from the zero points and they come from simple extrapolation to absurd infinities.
ExtantFrodo 2 years ago
Okay, I have no idea what that means.....
I think I've said all I have to say on this subject
KamasutraButterfly 2 years ago
It's quite simple. The is no absolute fastest ( the c limit may include such things as can't go slower than c) hence we extrapolate to infinity and say perfect speed is being there.
Morality can not exist without society so at the minimum of one person there is zero morality.
ExtantFrodo 2 years ago
haha. (then don't use that kind of wording ... "to the best of my knowledge" ... if you don't know anything about absolutes, then just say that)
What evidence has "led" you to come to this "conclusion"? (the conclusion that logical absolutes exist "beyond space"/immaterially)
(can you give me an example of something you believe but don't think you know ... I would think you wouldn't believe anything unless you thought you knew it to be true)
trenton1980 2 years ago
I didn't say I was clueless about this topic, don't put words in my mouth please!
Yes, I THINK that I know, that's very different from claiming to know for certain, do you get that? To think you know something is actually the definition of belief, and that's why i said that I don't claim to know this for certain
The arguments about this that I've read or heard about has led me to this conclusion - that the logical absolutes seem to be immaterial, not dependent upon minds. Period!
KamasutraButterfly 2 years ago
I'm not putting words in your mouth. I think if you'll re-read through my responses, you'll see that I was quoting your own words.
So you're making 2 claims (that you THINK, not KNOW ... i get it)
1. Absolutes are immaterial
2. Absolutes exist independent of minds
My question would then be regarding the nature of an absolute.
What do you think an absolute "is" (not "is not" .. ie material). (can you give me an example of an absolute?)
trenton1980 2 years ago
well, the rules of logic is: The law of identity, the law on non-contradiction and the law of exluded middle, right? So that's what we've got to work with
These are just truths about the world, these are human constructs about the nature of reality. It's just a description about the nature of the universe
The nature of the universe will probably always be the same, and we use logic to describe that nature
KamasutraButterfly 2 years ago
we call it "the law of identity" but isn't that just our way of conceptualizing it?
does the actual absolute "it is true that a rock is a rock" exist if no human is alive to conceptualize it?
trenton1980 2 years ago
Yes, that's the point. The rock would still be the same, but it would be meaningless because no one would be there to call it a rock
It's the old question of "if a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it, does it still make a sound?"
I would answer yes, the nature of the universe is the same wether anyone is there to interpret it or not
KamasutraButterfly 2 years ago
does the statement "a rock is a rock" have a truth value? (ie. it is true that a rock is a rock)
or is it without value until we conceptualize it?
(it seems that your belief is that an absolute is true whether or not humans exist ... but truth itself is meaningless unless humans exist ... i'm deducing this from your belief that a tree still makes sound but it is meaningless unless ears are there to hear it)
trenton1980 2 years ago
Yes, it is true that the rock is a rock regardless
But it has no meaning if no one is there to say "look at the rock"
As Matt Dillahunty said in the debate: The truth-statement doesn't exist until we phrase it, but the truth of the logical absolute is still the same wether the statement is made or not
KamasutraButterfly 2 years ago
interesting ...
so you believe
1. the truth statement is just a human constructed phrased version of the absolute
2. the absolute itself is true wholly apart from humans.
so we have these 2 entities really ... the absolute itself and human construct of it.
in order for the human construct to exist, it requires a mind (to conceive of it).
would it then not require a mind (of some kind) for the absolute itself to exist?
If not, what explanation of it's existence can you give?
trenton1980 2 years ago
The logical absolutes doesn't "exist" in that way. It's simply a truth, not a "thing"
The construct points to that truth about the universe, the nature of the universe, but the construct has nothing to do with the absolute itself
The logical absolute isn't a construct, it's a truth. It's like asking "who constructed the law of gravity?" The law of gravity is simply how the universe works
KamasutraButterfly 2 years ago
right ... so you have described two entities.
1. a construct *which exists as a true concept
2. the absolute itself *which exists as a true ______?
I don't think you can use "statement" because statements are contingent upon a human.
I'll give you "immaterial" but that's just an adjective to describe what "it" is. What is "it"?
trenton1980 2 years ago
I already told you: I call it a "truth", I don't have any other word for it, do you?
It's a truth about the nature of the universe, which humans are able to interpret and give the label "logical absolute"
KamasutraButterfly 2 years ago
I'm just having a hard time with "truth" because i see it as an adjective, not a noun.
I don't really know my position on this topic. I was just asking you all those questions because they are the same questions I ask myself.
I don't see the connection that Slick tries to make. I'd actually like to see him lay out his argument using symbolic logic.
trenton1980 2 years ago
I see...
Yes, to me Slick's logic is totally illogical! Even if the Tag-argument was sound, he's done nothing more than show that there is logical absolutes in the universe. He's done nothing to show where these absolutes came from, much less that they came fro a god, much less that they came from HIS version of god!
To me Tag is a ridiculous argument, it doesn't prove anything
KamasutraButterfly 2 years ago
Well I think his argument does serve to put a materialistic naturalist on very uneasy ground.
It makes them out to either deny the existence of logical absolutes or to somehow promote the existence of them in some non-physical sense ... which contradicts their world view.
I'd like to see someone like you (not a materialistic naturalist) attempt give some kind of account for the existence of Log Abs. Which is why i was trying to get at your view of their nature.
trenton1980 2 years ago
I see
Well, I'm fine with not knowing the answer to this, and I have no reason to believe that they are of supernatural origin
The logical absolutes exists to me, but simply as truths about the universe, not as "things" that we can see or touch. To me they are simply our attempts to interpret the universe
That's my take on it anyways. Thanks for the stimulating discussion!
KamasutraButterfly 2 years ago
You shouldn't be "fine" with it :)
keep searching ... and let me know what you find out.
Thanks for sharing your views.
trenton1980 2 years ago
(All I meant was I don't "have to" know that answer, I'm not obsessed with this question.... unlike some theologians I might mention! lol!) Be well!
KamasutraButterfly 2 years ago
@trenton1980
Logical absolutes don't "exist" in the way people claim "God" exists, and they don't serve to prove that "God" exists in the way people claim anything else in the universe exists. This is the shift in definition/scope that Matt D. pointed out as one of the major flaws in TAG.
Maybe you should take another look at it.
ImprobableJoe 2 years ago
Maybe I gave the wrong impression. I don't understand Slick's argument enough to even grant its soundness or validity.
The issue I was raising is a materialistic naturalist arguing that logical absolutes exists non-physically / immaterially and transcendent.
don't you find that odd?
trenton1980 2 years ago
WOOOT!!,,LOL...Goddddamnit that was a show! I dont suppose Slick ever responded to any of this?...
carpnter2000 2 years ago
I just came
FinalShine001 2 years ago
CONGRATS MATT D.!
Way to use that brain of yours!!!
shawnzeeee 2 years ago
if Dillahunty thinks on a level like Antony Flew did though, then will he renounce his atheism too?
Timerbomb 2 years ago