TheoreticalBullshit vs Matt Slick (Part 2)

[jackspell8]

TAG prevails again.

[mebe84]

slick really got bulldozed on this one. props to tbs. slick just repeated himself over and over and then started buying time with irrelevancies.

[DaGavinX]

Matt, TBS already agreed that minds are required for rational, to make statements, etc. But the things they refer to, don't need the existence of minds to be like they are!

[csaver]

Statements are either true or NOT true....not statements are either true or false.

[GenRev1611]

2.)...To which the response will likely be 'because it is the nature of cats to purr.' Such a response presupposes that identity assumes a certain ontology REFUTING IT'S FIRST PREMISE that ontology assimilates identity or is the basis of the thing identified.

[GenRev1611]

1.)Theoretical seems to be doing one of two things, either he's assimilating ontology with identity, which is a fallacy, or he's stating that the basis or foundation of identity is ontology, which is self defeating. If one were to say that an animal that purrs (ONTOLOGY) MUST BE A CAT (IDENTITY), then the next question should be 'WHY CAN'T AN ANIMAL THAT PURRS BE CALLED A DOG?'...

[sluggdiddyyddidgguls]

This is like the millionth time slick has argued that if a tree falls in a forest and no one is around, that there wasnt ever a tree. WHAT THE FUCK IS HIS PROBLEM. Yes rationality requires a mind, if there is no mind there is no rationality, but physical reality doesn't care about rationality, if a mind comes into existence, then wow like magic we have rationality again. FUCKKK. what is the problem here slick? christ....reality is reality regardless of minds there to perceive it and state it ):

[ThieleM]

Slick sure lives up to his name....what a bullshit artist

[IzzyBunneh]

statements of truth are decerned from observing reality, reality isn't created from statements of truth, the properties which logical absolutes describe exist regardless of our ability to put them into words or understand them, or regardless of a mind to observe them

the first time i heard the tag argument, i thought i wasn't understanding it, and it was going over my head, because it sounded too clearly false to be the argument they were actually making, but it turns out it was

[csaver]

A statement is either true or false? No. A statement is either true or not true. There's a difference.

[qwestwardly]

statements require minds; 'nothing' cannot speak because 'nothing' is the absence of everything. to make a statement there must be something, something both concious and aware. However, a rock exists whether it is perceived or not. if a tree falls in the woods it still displaces air and sends out shockwaves; therefore, it makes a sound regardless of anything being able to hear it. mr. slick is busy trying to confuse thought by the misapplication of logic; he is rationalizing, not thinking.

[IzzyBunneh]

@qwestwardly

if a tree falls in the woods with a person, it makes a sound... if a tree falls in the woods without a person, it sends vibrations through the air, that's a good way of demontrating conceptual truth and objective truth

conceptual truth is the sound, and objective truth is the vibrations, which occur regardless wether or not we're around, i really think matt knows this, but is deliberately being dense

[drgodsauce]

Dodge duck dip dive and dodge!

[slipcurve]

Sounds like Slick is totally dodging the question at the end. Not that I'm surprised, it IS a categorical error.

[Momodomes]

Matt Slick gets destroyed

[RPFS2008]

Want to find out how long Slick dodges TBS' question for? Tune into Part 3 and find out! :)

[kingjoelofmoles]

Haven't we been over this?

[MasterDebator809]

Did anybody else see all of the comments on the video? Lol, the comments get bigger and bigger saying stuff like

"DING DING DING!!! THEORETICALBS WINS!

"GAME OVER MATT!!!"

etc...

Btw, Scott obviously is currently winning the debate. The main problem is matt is constantly asserting that logical absolutes require a mind. But what he fails to acknowledge (at least so far) is that the mind it requires is a human mind. Thats exactly why logical absolutes didn't exist forever.

[ArcaneLogic]

LOL @ Slick

God is always a copout when someone can't wrap their head around something. In the operating system of the theistic mind, insufficient precessing power to complete a task brings up the comforting error message "God's responsible".

[powerinstars6]

Wow! He said "Logical Absolute" requires a mind. Um, OK. Law of non-contradiction. This requires a mind? The question is, how does he know that it "requires a mind?" Otherwise known as the fallacy of begging the question. Matt S continues to confuse "Logical Absolute" with the methodology of Logic. Matt S has hubris the size of god though so no matter what you point out to him nor his errors, he cannot see them.

[Nibielari]

matt slick will never acknowledge that my concept of something is conceptual but that doesn't make the thing i have a concept of conceptual

[Muchodelcrazy]

I always hated the stupid carbon sphere argument. It is a self-contradictory stupidfest. Let me break it down: "Imagine a universe where there is a carbon sphere and no minds. Now, put your mind in it and make a statement about it..."

...WHAT? Well, now there's a damn mind in it! You are the God of that imagined reality. The imaginary universe, with a carbon sphere and no minds, is violated the second you try to observe it. The second you try to say something about it, it ceases to exist!

[Chris63084]

The thing I find interesting about this conversation is that tbs asks a queston, and then slick fires off unintelligible gibberish that has nothing to do with what tbs just said. He can't seem to have a direct conversation, he just parrots off some random section of the tag argument. When people point this out, he just says that the person just does not understand his super human reasoning. This is just silly, and he has to know that he's not fooling anyone except for people on his side already.

[keggerous]

BTW about 4:30 is where theoreticalbullshit pwns the hell outta that dumbass matt slck..like the nail in in the coffin

[keggerous]

the logical absolutes are the same thing as existence.....WHY THE FUCK DOES THIS DUNB ASS THINK THEY EXIST? THEY EXIST BECAUSE WE ACKNOWLEDGE REALITY AS WHAT IT IS! OMG HES JUMPING TO GOD JUST BECAUSE THE UNIVERSE IS LIKE IT IS...WTF IS WRONG WIT THIS SLICK FELLOW?

[ClumsyRoot]

Slick is one of the most infuriatingly slippery apologists I've ever encounted. Reminds me of a Saul Bellow quote: "A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."

[Zdrazy]

Surely Matt Slick isn't so dense that he can't even see that his whole argument depends on a category error.

[ClumsyRoot]

Apparently, he is that dense, which makes his smugness all the more humorous.

[robotaholic]

physicalism / materialism can also be defined as the default position due to the absence of evidence to the contrary-

I just don't believe in invisible people with magic powers due to there being no evidence for them.

[Ep1cure]

Well, if it takes this much logical reasoning to find god, he(god) can't be doing a good job. When he gets to the bit about the bible, it's just a book filled with tribal nonsense. Apologists pretend to understand the bible but don't understand how it was thought of at the time. Life could only make sense to them by making things up. In an age of greater responsibility we can no longer afford that.

[OctaneSquid]

We still don't still have answers to origins, purpose, afterlife...

It's not complicated to believe the Bible. A child can understand it, and yet an atheist still has a challenge debating it. Pretty interesting.

[Ep1cure]

A child can easily believe in Santa too! Think about that one.

[OctaneSquid]

But Santa is much easier to disprove. Nobody argues about the existence of Santa.

[Ep1cure]

It still goes back to the ease with which a child can be made to think pretty much anything thru indoctrination. A muslim could argue 'it's easy to understand the quran. A child can understand it'. You are using the SAME logic. Adults have a more sophisticated brain. I suggest you use it!

[OctaneSquid]

Sure, I use my sophisticated brain. I'm not trying to show you the evidence for the Bible's reliability now. I am just responding to your comment,

"if it takes this much logical reasoning to find god, he(god) can't be doing a good job"

It does not require this much logical reasoning to find God. There are many ways God reaches people. This debate we're watching is just a way of defending the Bible to intellectual people. That's all.

[Ep1cure]

I thought I found god then found it was all delusion. Watch my recent favorites and think again. And I deconverted ages ago. I've heard every kind of ridiculous excuse for religion. For a long time I was agnostic but when I looked at the issue seriously, religion is a fabrication.

[7Christian]

U are intellectually bankrupt if u think comparing God to santa claus is some sort of smart move. U just seem stupid, which I'm certain is an ABSOLUTE.

[TheNakedAtheist]

"U are intellectually bankrupt if u think comparing God to santa claus is some sort of smart move."

I agree, there's much more evidence for Santa. he leaves presents (which are real), and he always ate the cookies I left out.

[7Christian]

If U don't believe in God why do U atheists waste such an abundance of your lives trying to DISPROVE GOD. Please just admit that U don't what to believe in God because U don't what to be accountable to GOD. Too bad 4 U that won't make a bit a difference when YOUR JUDGEMENT COMES.

[Ep1cure]

1. I'm not wasting my life doing this. It's the 21st century and ppl still believe in bronze age myths. Your beliefs inform your actions, so if you believe that god will solve the worlds problems as many christians think that christ will come along to save the day like superman: an apologist politician tried to make a theological discussion out of wether god would not let global warming happen. Kids are being convinced that the earth is only about 6000 yrs old.

[Ep1cure]

2. No. I just don't believe in bronze age myths. I'm not afraid of this 'god', because I don't believe in this 'god' of the Bible. What concerns me is what ppl do as a result of believing in this god, like stifling science for example, or ppl using other well intentioned but deluded ppl to make heaps of cash. Not to mention the trauma of convincing kids they are in danger of this completely imaginary world called 'hell'.

[LibertineDeSade]

I agree with the question you asked; if atheists don't believe in God why do they waste so much time talking about him? It's a valid question that I personally have yet to get an answer for.

What I don't agree with is the rest of that statement. You can't tell someone they are going to be judged by a being that don't believe in. It makes you just as bad as those who waste time on a being they don't believe in. Get it? There's no purpose.

[albatross1977]

"if atheists don't believe in God why do they waste so much time talking about him?"

I don't see anything wrong with judging something that only exists as a concept. Christians still judge Zeus as immoral. Plus, if atheists believe that critical honesty is a moral good, I can see why they would enjoy getting into debates about God.

[LibertineDeSade]

You're talking about "judging something that only exists as a concept", that's what they do when they discuss/debate God. That wasn't my question. I asked; why bother in the first place?

If the point is all about "critical honesty", then I still can't see why they would enjoy the debate. Unless they want to change minds. Which is something that I can't get behind. It's not right, IMO, to try to argue someone into submission.

[albatross1977]

I find your objection to be unintelligible. One, how does it follow that persuading someone equals arguing someone into submission? Those who have no interest in persuasion but simply want to crush or humiliate their opponent are the ones who are "not right". Second, why should atheists be the only ones who owe you an explanation for why they enjoy participating in an intelligent and informative debate? Only people who believe in God should argue about anything?

[LibertineDeSade]

You're pulling crap out of thin air. If I was unclear in anything ASK me don't jump to conclusions.

I never said atheists owe me anything, and I never said only believers can speak on him. I'm not a Christian yet I have actual debates with Christians and other religious people all the time.

"Those who have no interest in persuasion but simply want to crush or humiliate their opponent are the ones who are "not right"."

Um... I said that.

[albatross1977]

"Um... I said that"

Um...no you didn't. You equaled wanting to change minds with arguing someone into submission. In other words, a desire to genuinely persuade someone is bad. This is why I do not understand where you are coming from. Did you mean something else?

[LibertineDeSade]

There's not much space to work with on Youtube. So I can't be as clear as I'd like to be.

1. I don't think atheists owe me anything. I'm just looking for insight.

2. I don't agree with arguing people into submission. If you simply want to share your opinion and learn cool.

3. I can't agree with someone try to persuade someone else from their beliefs. I strongly believe in letting people be who they are.

Hope that's clear. I don't want to continue this.

[albatross1977]

Okay I think I get what you're saying now but when I talk about persuasion, I'm not talking about someone coming up to you in the work place harassing you about Jesus. I'm talking about consentual debate. That is a different situation. What I'm saying is, if I debate someone, I'm not interested in destroying them, but rather I'm demanding that they persuade me.

[LibertineDeSade]

I get you. I just can't get behind it. I don't see the point, personally. I'm not saying you're wrong for doing it. I'm just saying that I don't see the point in it. When I debate it's more for learning than trying to see if I can be persuaded, or swayed from my beliefs. Or vice versa.

[kristjanprints]

As I understand it, Slick's logic states that stone is not a stone if there is no human to observe it. If human observer is missing, then it's not called a stone, but it still is what it is.

[OneHariSeldon]

Slick basically refuses to acknowledge the distinction between conceptual statements and the reality to which the conceptual statements refer. When he gets called out on that he switches to they could exist but there's no way for you to conceive of their conceptual nature without God having made its conceptual nature first. And when he gets called out on the myriad things wrong with that he switches footing again. TAG is an argument that's designed to confuse the listener, by ...

[OneHariSeldon]

cont.. allowing the apologizer (matt slick in this case) to constantly side step the retort by shifting focus to make it seem as if he's replied but merely just asserted an entirely new argument. Later on this leads him into an argument that contradicts his first argument, but when he gets called out on it he simply changes focus again and declares atheism to be wanting. This is a sophist tactic thats been around for centuries and was picked up by apologizer for the same reason sophists used it

[OctaneSquid]

Now tell me that without using your mind. Impossible. That the point.

The idea of using your mind to tell someone how a world with no minds would work is ridiculous.

[jutewe]

"The idea of using your mind to tell someone how a world with no minds would work is ridiculous."

No it isn't. It is only ridiculous if you are referring to the mind being used residing WITHIN THE MINDLESS WORLD. For example, imagine a world which simply contains a motionless rock and nothing else. Bingo, I have conceived of a mindless world, therefore making it not impossible for someone to do so.

[OneHariSeldon]

Matt slick... "it's a categorical error.?.." **UH-OH I've been called out so let me go on a sideways rant, vicariously plead for more time to respond, and then restate out of nowhere that atheists can't account for rationality despite me not addressing just now getting pwned on that very point...* *

TBS FTW!!!

[Zoetherat]

They're speaking past each other because slick doesn't want to understand his errors. He's just dodging it.

[funwjoshnjenn]

what happened??

[billjesusgates]

slick loves to dodge difficult questions.

[mowgli123456789]

@billjesusgates you mean like when tbs says the absolutes arent a thing that exists but the nature OF a thing that exists, and slick doesnt answer the question!! he just starts talking about how hard it is to make statements in a minute and stuff like that.....arhhh so annoying!

[opengates777]

@billjesusgates

How on Earth can you say slick loves to dodge difficult question ? Sick is having himself some fun!