Great series. I particularly liked your initial point, that some arguments, like TAG, are not meant to be persuasive, they are just made to win. However, this series gives Slick too much credibility. his debating skills are crappy (I think the call with TAE the week before was telling) and secondly, it's clear that Slick is no more than a used car salesman-type anyway.By the way did you see Dillahunty's epilogue to the debate which makes a similar point to the one you make here?
Thats ridiculous, the third option. If you disagree with the explanation for the existence of logical absolutes, then you are saying there has to be a third option, since we only have two options. Either this is the explanation for their existence or its not. If its not, then what is it? If you can't give a more rational explanation for their existence, well.... then forget it. exactly.
This is kind of a dumb argument. The point is, can you give a more rational explanation for the existence of logical absolutes? The laws of logic are conceptual by nature and they are a reflection of Gods character. If you say they're not conceptual, then what are they? This is an explanation of their existence, thats more than what we can say for atheism.
I say that's kind of a stupid argument. In the absense of rational explanations, we don't pick the one that's closest to being rational, we say that we don't know.
Atheism is the lack of a belief, so not only does that mean that it doesn't have to explain anything, but it also means that it doesn't pretend to know things that it obviously doesn't and can't. In short, there's no lying to yourself entailed by atheism.
@MattAlexWatson Can you give a more rational explanation for the existence of logical absolute instead of pretending like you know it can't be true? Come on, "lack of belief"? Are you serious?
No, I can't, because I don't know. Did you even read what I said? I didn't say I know it can't be true, I said I don't know. Is your reading comprehesion really that bad? Or are you that desperate to hit me with strawman arguments? Really, put some thought into your posts.
Not "lack of belief", but rather "lack of a belief", specifically the beliefe in a god. Yes, I'm completely serious, or do you not know what atheism is? Take it from an atheist, that's all atheism amounts to.
@MattAlexWatson Please, give me a break will you. You "lack" a belief. What the hell is that suppose to mean? You either believe or you don't after a while. You don't sit there in the lack of state for ever?
Let me tell you what atheism really is. Atheism is illogical. Why do I say it is illogical? Because in order for one to say there is no God, one would have to have complete and absolute knowledge of the entire universe (omniscience) How else can one make that statement?
@MattAlexWatson Its a negative position based on nothing but abstract possibility. At least there are over a half of dozen proofs offered to support the existence of God. Atheism offers nothing except "lack of proof" Thats ridiculous. Atheist have to come up with something other than that? Atheist go on the attack in a half ass attempt to make their position appear somewhat intellectually viable. At best, the atheist can only say that the evidence presented so far has been insufficient.
@MattAlexWatson You can negate theistic proofs all day long, but that still doesn't prove there is no God. Stop hiding behind that "lack of belief" position and just make a decision. Stop being a puss. You say there is no evidence. How do you know? Have you seen all the evidence in the world? The only thing you can say is there might be evidence that has not been produced yet. You guys say there is no God because you think the concept is stupid? Who do you think you are anyway?
@miket1m Atheism does offer many arguments. The logical inconsistency of having 'omni' characteristics for example, the problem of evil, the Reverse Kalam argument, and the fact that theistic worldviews don't account for anything more than atheistic ones do, leading one to the conclusion that having a theistic worldview, is pointless.
I honestly can't tell what you mean. Yes, I lack a belief. You lack a belief in a flying spaghetti monster or leperchaun, right? Lacking a belief is simply not believing in something. If I don't believe in something, then I lack a belief in it.
Actually, it does not require those things to say that (something I didn't say). Those are required to be sure that there is no God, something I am not. I simply lack belief, because there isn't any apparent evidence to convince me to believe.
@miket1m About as easily as I can say with confidence that nowhere, in the world, or in the rest of the universe, is a drawing of a square circle. Sorry, atheism isn't illogical. It's simply the default position as to the existence of a god or gods.
Also, there is nothing about atheism that forces a denotation that god in fact does not exist. you're pretty much saying one can only be a strong atheist, or not an atheist at all. That's a little silly.
@miket1m "Can you give a more rational explanation for the existence of logical absolute instead of just pretending you know it can't be true?" Before I do, define what a logical absolute is, and how it's different from a Logical Law.
@BigLundi Now you would not like it if I insulted you, would you? Philosophical verbal gymnastics. Ok, I would like you to read Colossians 2:8 in the Bible. You can access through google. What is a logical absolute?
Logical absolutes are truth statements such as: That which exists has attributes and a nature; Something cannot be itself and not itself at the same time; Something cannot bring itself into existence, and Truth is not self-contradictory. ~ (Carm) Thats what a logical absolute is.
@BigLundi Logical absolutes are truth statements and they're concepts. Rational discourse can't be had if a person violates the laws of logic. I think I already posted what the laws of logic are.
@miket1m Ah, the law of noncontradiction. Well I can explain logical laws in a naturalistic worldview.. They are a representative of reality. Logical laws are simply anthropomorphic expressions explaining constants of reality. We call them laws because if one makes logical inferences properly, one must play by these rules. It's an explanation of the nature of existence. In other words, it is logically consistent for all things to be logically consistent, as they are simply the nature of existanc
I thought that Dillahunty did bring up the fallacy of division, didn't he? Hmmm..... been a while since I saw that episode.... and I could be confusing it with a couple other episodes where people called in asking about TAG.... anywho- excellent work/video! 祝妳生活順心!
"Not" is a concept we made up. That's why A can't be not A - because that's the definition of "not."
It's just set theory anyway. On the smallest conceivable scale, the so-called laws of logic don't really apply. On a quantum scale, existence isn't so strictly defined. When you draw a line around a big group of particles, their overall behavior becomes more predictable. Logic follows necessarily, given how we define sets and "not".
It's so fucking hard to actually understand what he's talking about sometimes, I have to pause the video sometimes and think about it for a bit before it clicks in. Damned philosophy.
Matt Slick's argument that something is either physical or conceptual and there is no other option proves his own belief in god wrong, because he is then saying that god is either a physical being or exsists solely in our minds as a concept. and many Christians will hold true to the idea that god himself is not a physical being and that is why we cant prove his exsistance, and if that would force him to be a conceptual being then it would also mean that if minds cease to exsist so does god
Just for consistency, I don't think the jet engine and transcendent minds arguments, as you presented them, are both fallacies of division. Rather, the transcendent mind argument in your formulation is technically a fallacy of composition; it moves from parts (absolutes) to a whole (the mind conceiving them). However, this doesn't undermine you at all, since Slick is still wrong - even though I've never heard him present a fallacy of composition, he DOES make a fallacy of division (6a in TAG).
and there is another, much bigger problem with the argument against logic being properties of the universe. he states that they can't be measured their effects observed, but they can. the laws are measured by everything in the universe having those properties. just like an apple has mass, and apple is an apple and is not not an apple. even later in the video he implicitly concedes this by stating that "no one has demonstrated that they stop being true". it means we have measured them as property
You could have just made a clip containing the 30s between 2:30 and 3:00, and you could have rested your case there. The TAG is such a silly argument, why waste so much time with it?
Small point of order, dude. Stating that the conclusion is false because the premises do not support it is incorrect. That would be the fallacist's fallacy. The conclusion can be true even when the premises are false or when they don't support the conclusion. Your statement should be 'the conclusion is fallacious', rather than false.
Has Matt Slick seen this 4 part series of videos, especially this last one? If so, what was his reply? I really can't see a good rebuttal to this from him, I imagine him giving a pretty BS answer, actually.
I'm glad that at 4:50 you finally got to the core aspect about TAG. It has no explanatory power.
The argument falls apart entirely when you realize that logical absolutes are not transcendent to the physical laws of the universe as without the physical laws, you would not have logical absolutes. You touched briefly on it in your second video with the explanation of what they do. They verb nouns. The mere mention of a noun is relying entirely on physical laws. Nothing transcends physical laws.
Whenever he came to the conclusion of these arguments, I could said it with him, even though I'm new at TAG. His logic is watertight, speaks for itself. There's no suspension of disbelief required. It's easy and beautiful.
I don't even understand this need for a third option to be demonstrated outside of the subject in question being neither of the other two options. It's akin to asking
"Is zero a positive number or negative number?"
Does the trichotomy of numbers suddenly lose all merit because zero is defined by what it isn't?
I haven't watched all of the theoretical b.s. vids, but I have enjoyed the ones I've watched. I look forward to watching many more. I'm a theology major and happen to be a Christian. Keep up the good work!
But, if god were transcendent, logic would have nothing to do with his nature. In fact they would be very far away from God, since anything that can be conceived of by the human mind, especially logic, is transcended by God.. Logic, if it exists in the divine at all, exists only in a lower order of divine being, such as the demiurge (this from Neoplatonism--just to show that Christian thought is far from universally valid).
this is gunna sound egotistical but i really pride myself on my intellect and i find that im not to knowledgable about the rules of logic and all that jazz. however i can always tell when something isnt a sound argument so i really enjoy listening to someone articulate my thoughts. btw i think ur a really smart dude probably smarter then me but i dont know how much of an accomplishment that is :(
I don't think it's a problem to say what something is not without being able to say what it is.
Example: I see an object. I don't know what it is, but I can objectively conclude that it isn't a squirrel. Knowing what a squirrel is and comparing the unknown object to it, I see no similarities and conclude that the object is not a squirrel.
By the same method, we can compare "logical absolute" to both physical and conceptual things and know that it is neither, but still not knowing what it is.
Indeed. I can look at a cat and know, even if I had never seen a cat before, that it wasn't a suspension bridge based solely on what I know a suspension bridge is.
But why only 2 options for logical absolutes? if God, is an all powerfull all knowing creating being, couldnt he make a 3rd 4th or even a 5th option? Who is Slick to say that there are only 2 options does he beileve that God is so simple he can be categorized into these 2 tiny little sections of a definition? i dont know i may be off topic, maybe the 2 options come from there being 2 words, logical and absolute. either way, great vid man i love your stuff. keep it up.
Great job overall, I especially like your point that knowledge of the logical absolutes still have to be ascertained by people in some way.
I will say you either missed a bit of Slicks point or you presented a strayman for his argument that a transcendent mind had to conceive of them. Slicks point was they are true whether or not humans are around, and since he claims LAs are concepts and dependent on thought, which means dependent on a mind, or consciousness at least, that is non-contingent.
Good job, Scott. Very succinct, believe it or not! I'm here via Luke's Common Sense Atheism blog. To be honest, I let myself get *very* annoyed whenever I hear/read the unjustified arrogance that presuppositionalists exude when arguing for TAG. I don't call myself an Objectivist, but I think they (like Dawson Bethrick, for instance) do a pretty good job showing that the Christian worldview is inherently subjective. Anyway, I'll check out more of your vids.
Slick makes more assertions without demonstrating that they're true:
1) There are only two options- physical or conceptual.
2) The logical absolutes (the description that points to the thing in reality) and the reality itself (the thing that is described) are one and the same.
WE can't use( look to the outer SOURCE ..It is BEYOND our reach ..in this state (of mind-spirit-soul)) AT this level and can only peek at the other side(s) I can't ASSUME tha I know what is REALITY or what is ILLUSION ....or define the undefinable...RSVP
My personal belief is that God is not a "personified" God. God is the addition of all energy (including matter through E=mc2) in this universe and possibly any other universe. In fact I don't really like to use the word "God" as this gives him a personality which I do not think exists. By this definition, God is finite and grows as every entity in this universe grows. A fundamentalist in my opinion is someone who refuses to question information despite the evidence.
This includes scientific and religious fundamentalism. As many of us also refuse to question information that doesn't fit with our current theories. We call that an anomaly and assume it is a problem with our observation or form of experimentation.
Not unless I start another Creation/Evolution Debate. I Personally feel that Evolution is the most correct of the two but recently the creationists have been weeding out some faults in our current view of evolution. And I love debate as it presents all the available information on both sides of the argument. Sometimes the truth is at neither extremity. To think that you know 100% means that you no longer think you can learn more and this limits a human being. This goes for me too.
Then all you're doing is using the word 'God' to describe all of existence, are you not? And if that is what you are doing then why call it God? What point does that serve?
I don't know. It sort help give a name to that thing that everyone feels or describes in different ways. Even if they don't believe that he is a white guy with a beard and a crown in a big chair just above a cumulonimbus.
gadzometer: we don't need to start a debate, you mentioned "anomalies" in observations that we attribute to a fault in our observation; I just wanted to know if you had anything specific in mind and if you'd mind telling me about it
What is your evidence for this non-personal god, gadzometer? And do you not also attribute personality to this being by (a) calling him "he"; and (b) assigning attributes, such as being "finite"? Thanks.
Smart question mate. (a) yes. You are right. I had a Catholic upbringing and I slip from time to time. (b) Finite because of the big bang. Our current view of the universe is limited to what we can see from the big bang. If we use the current scientific model, that is all the energy that exists. Therefore the sum of energy is the same but it is transforming. The universe is getting smarter because each of us is getting smarter.
1. Should we even care about worshiping a finite being, as could this being not simply be a 'superior' being? Alien, superior, but not worthy of worship; definitely not worthy of prayer?
2. If you disagree, why?
Herein lies the rub: If you can attribute 'one' thing to this finite yet unknowable being, that being ceases to fit your description. We're back to onus of proof.
"Saying we're all in God's mind is a can of worms Christians do not wanna open."
LOL - so true! For the most part. At least for Christians as they are generally assumed (and the majority I think are) from about the 6th Century up to present day.
Such an esoteric perspective of Christianity has and still does exist in some form or another though, but has routinely been on the fringes - the same notion applies to Sufism in Islam or Khabbalism in Judaism.
"So that's why I (as well as others) am rolling up my sleeves and doing the dirty work by dissecting it, because it's stupid that anybody should have to work this hard to show what an impotent, fallacious argument TAG is."
Hey TBS, I don't know about you but there was something in me to do the same thing and I couldn't let it go until I went all the way through it and understood how fallacious this "arguement" is. Thanks for posting.
If you were a gay woman you'd want to marry this guy and him have your babies? Are you calling TB a lesbian!!? If TB is not a man and TB is not a woman, then what's your third option?
I think I've got a man crush going on. I really hope you follow up with Slick, pressuring him to deliver his rebuttal. I can't stand the way he argues with people, trying to aggressively pressure them into unwittingly accepting a bogus premise. He lives to make people feel stupid.
Up front, is this really a conversation that a person must get in order to believe in a God, just any arbitrary god? If it is then I don't think religion would have ever taken off, most people are just not this sophistocated or even interested in thinking this hard lol.
I agree with you... which is why I said in Part 1 that TAG is not a persuasive argument. It attempts to *confuse* you into submission.
So that's why I (as well as others) am rolling up my sleeves and doing the dirty work by dissecting it, because it's stupid that anybody should have to work this hard to show what an impotent, fallacious argument TAG is.
I am glad that there are people like you TBS that are interested in taking on this argument. If there is anyone to do the job correctly surely it will be people like yourself. An admiring subscriber and supporter for your cause, our cause, and the future of intelligence and a world free from the tyranny of monotheistic religious vandalism and psychological abuse. Leaving unmentioned the physical and conceptual terror that monotheism excells at proliferating.
That out of the way, I did think of a third option that seems plausible that I put to your discretion. There is physical, there is conceptual, that which we can concieve, and there is Imagined. A dragon for ex. Is not necessarily physical or absolutely conceptual but can be imagined to be physically conceptual.
Great series! You have a knack for breaking down seemingly impossible rhetorical puzzles to bite sized and easily digestible chunks... Thank you so much for this series, you don't know how much it has helped me.
B. Absolutely perfect thoughts reflect an absolutely perfect mind.
C. Since the Logical Absolutes are transcendent, absolute, are perfectly consistent, and are independent of the universe, then they reflect a transcendent, absolute, perfect, and independent mind.
D. We call this transcendent, absolute, perfect, and independent mind, "MATT SLICK" :-P
If somebody found a body of an extraterrestrial, analyzed its DNA and found that it couldn't have come from Earth. One does not need to know which planet the extraterrestrial came from to claim that it isn't from Earth. Matt Slick is essentially claiming that one needs to know the actual planet that an ET came from before claiming it came from a different planet when he claims that Matt D. must identify the other category of existence that absolutes reside.
The only problem is that Slick refuses to recognize any planet other than Earth and the moon, and when we say it's not from either, he says we can't unless we can tell him which planet it's from.
You have to love logical fallacies. Slick certainly seems to.
"How can you know what something is not, if you don't first know what it is?"
If you plop down some random airplane engine component in front of me but I don't know what it is, I can tell you unequivocally that it is not an apple, or a vagina, or a cow, or a Civil War era cannon.
Maybe I'm dense (and I very well could be), but I don't see how that question is a good point on Slick's part.
If you actually listen to the material you'll see that he's not claiming to have any secrets figured out... he is dissecting the logic by which god is manifested. if intelligence is considered to be arrogant, then your humility shines through.
Just goes to show you the mind of some religious people, it seems critical thinking, doing research, and therefore intelligence is somehow arrogant now.
Incorrect. Dark matter is theorized to exist because weights of certain things and energy budgets within the known universe don't match up to observed matter.
vacuum is simply the absence of matter and a separate subject.
ive heard matt slick owns a square circle! it must be true god said so or so matt slick told me. great video as allways marvelous value for money ide be happy to quadrupal what iom paying knoiw. sorry about my spelling.
I've been trying to wrap my head around TAG now for about a week and your videos finally reveal what that nagging, itching feeling in the back of my mind was. I always knew there was something wrong with TAG, and knew it was in the semantics, but couldn't quite put my finger on it.
Well done, and you've definitely earned a future subscriber.
I'm curious, Ghosty, if you are so hung up about whether TBS's ideas are "his own" or not - who do you think the ideas stated in the other videos in this series belong to?
Not only that, but if you think T.A.G. was somehow thought up by Matt Slick, which, I grant, you may very well not, you'd want to slather him with this same scathing indictment. Or, for that matter, anyone who bothers to use T.A.G..
I know for a fact that TAG wasn't thought up by Matt Slick. The debate was about Matt Slick's version of it.
Matt Dillahunty made very specific statements concerning what logical absolutes are. This joker lied about and distorted MD's clear definition's, making MD seem inept and stupid. Then he restated what MD had actually said as if he was adding new and improved insight to the conversation.
Oh, and to answer your question, I don't really feel I need to say anything to Matt Slick, because Matt Dillahunty already handled him as far as I'm concerned.
Are you referring to something Dillahunty said during his debate with Slick, or something he said the following week?
If it's the latter, you do realize this series was created before that, right? Yet, you don't see me accusing him of plagiarism. If anything, it's a testament to the fact that we are on the same page. I'm glad he said it.
You, on the other hand, are acting divisive, competitive, counter-productive, and juvenile. You're trying to "start shit" as the kiddies say. Why?
I'm not competing with you. I'm exposing you. You know what else is juvenile? Lying about people for your own glory. If you didn't purposefully distort Matt D's points, why don't you make a video clarifying your lack of comprehension? Maybe you should apologize to him too. That seems to be the appropriate action when you've wronged someone you think is "awesome." It's the only way you'd have any integrity as far as I'm concerned.
If Dillahunty was making these accusations, that would be one thing...but TBS and Dillahunty are in dialog with each other and so far, no criticism from Matt.
How do you know he doesn't care? How do you know they even talked at all? Where is the record of their correspondence? Did Matt Dillahunty watch these videos? How do you know? What did he say?
I am friends with Dillahunty on Facebook and not only did he state there that TBS and himself have been in correspondence, but TBS has affirmed the same somewhere here amongst these comments.
So he stated that they have "been in correspondence." That says nothing about his reaction to this crap. It says nothing about whether or not MD's even seen these videos. TBS has already established himself as either a liar or someone who arrogantly speaks with an authoritative tone about things he doesn't understand.
TBS asserts that Matt was talking about logical absolutes as if they were things with a nature and not the nature of the thing. Actually, at one point, he said Matt D was wrong when he referred to logical absolutes as "behavior" and "nature," and then, a little while later he made the exact same statement as if he was adding some new insight.
In the actual debate, Matt D specially said that LA's were statements describing characteristics.
I'm starting to get a bit lost in terms of clarity.
You're saying TBS said Matt D referred to logical absolutes as "behavior" and "nature", right? Now, I'm not going to watch the whole video again right now to verify this, but, just to clarify, did Matt D do that, or are you saying TBS wrongly asserted that Matt D did?
Memory, what Ghosty is claiming is that Dillahunty made it very clear to Slick that logical absolutes do not HAVE a nature that needs to be classified, since they ARE a nature (which is what I maintain). Ghosty says that I am lying by saying that Matt didn't represent this view in the debate.... if that helps.
"To me, Dillahunty's biggest mistake throughout the whole conversation was to use the phrase "logical absolutes" when talking about the behavior of things --the nature of things-- that logical absolutes --the statements-- address. What a statement like "a is a" refers to is not a thing that has a nature; it refers to the nature of a thing."
You know, because it's kind of maddening to try and fit whole arguments in these small Youtube comment boxes, I recommend you simply put together your entire argument, for clarity's sake (because it's very hard to follow in bits and pieces all over the place) and post it somewhere online, like a blog.
Right. This isn't saying what you seem to think it's saying.
I'm talking about Dillahunty using the same word for both logical absolutes (statements like "a is a") and that-to-which logical absolutes refer, namely, the nature/behavior of things.
Ten bucks says this doesn't register with you though, and you fail to understand me again.
Great series. I particularly liked your initial point, that some arguments, like TAG, are not meant to be persuasive, they are just made to win. However, this series gives Slick too much credibility. his debating skills are crappy (I think the call with TAE the week before was telling) and secondly, it's clear that Slick is no more than a used car salesman-type anyway.By the way did you see Dillahunty's epilogue to the debate which makes a similar point to the one you make here?
Gradient14 2 weeks ago
Apparently I have a tasty and fattening mind.
stiimuli 2 months ago
Slick loses, no wonder he won't answer your emails. Good series.
MrPinkUnicornz 2 months ago
Thats ridiculous, the third option. If you disagree with the explanation for the existence of logical absolutes, then you are saying there has to be a third option, since we only have two options. Either this is the explanation for their existence or its not. If its not, then what is it? If you can't give a more rational explanation for their existence, well.... then forget it. exactly.
miket1m 7 months ago
This is kind of a dumb argument. The point is, can you give a more rational explanation for the existence of logical absolutes? The laws of logic are conceptual by nature and they are a reflection of Gods character. If you say they're not conceptual, then what are they? This is an explanation of their existence, thats more than what we can say for atheism.
miket1m 7 months ago
I say that's kind of a stupid argument. In the absense of rational explanations, we don't pick the one that's closest to being rational, we say that we don't know.
Atheism is the lack of a belief, so not only does that mean that it doesn't have to explain anything, but it also means that it doesn't pretend to know things that it obviously doesn't and can't. In short, there's no lying to yourself entailed by atheism.
MattAlexWatson 7 months ago
@MattAlexWatson Can you give a more rational explanation for the existence of logical absolute instead of pretending like you know it can't be true? Come on, "lack of belief"? Are you serious?
miket1m 7 months ago
No, I can't, because I don't know. Did you even read what I said? I didn't say I know it can't be true, I said I don't know. Is your reading comprehesion really that bad? Or are you that desperate to hit me with strawman arguments? Really, put some thought into your posts.
Not "lack of belief", but rather "lack of a belief", specifically the beliefe in a god. Yes, I'm completely serious, or do you not know what atheism is? Take it from an atheist, that's all atheism amounts to.
MattAlexWatson 7 months ago
@MattAlexWatson Please, give me a break will you. You "lack" a belief. What the hell is that suppose to mean? You either believe or you don't after a while. You don't sit there in the lack of state for ever?
Let me tell you what atheism really is. Atheism is illogical. Why do I say it is illogical? Because in order for one to say there is no God, one would have to have complete and absolute knowledge of the entire universe (omniscience) How else can one make that statement?
miket1m 4 months ago
@MattAlexWatson Its a negative position based on nothing but abstract possibility. At least there are over a half of dozen proofs offered to support the existence of God. Atheism offers nothing except "lack of proof" Thats ridiculous. Atheist have to come up with something other than that? Atheist go on the attack in a half ass attempt to make their position appear somewhat intellectually viable. At best, the atheist can only say that the evidence presented so far has been insufficient.
miket1m 4 months ago
@MattAlexWatson You can negate theistic proofs all day long, but that still doesn't prove there is no God. Stop hiding behind that "lack of belief" position and just make a decision. Stop being a puss. You say there is no evidence. How do you know? Have you seen all the evidence in the world? The only thing you can say is there might be evidence that has not been produced yet. You guys say there is no God because you think the concept is stupid? Who do you think you are anyway?
miket1m 4 months ago
@miket1m Atheism does offer many arguments. The logical inconsistency of having 'omni' characteristics for example, the problem of evil, the Reverse Kalam argument, and the fact that theistic worldviews don't account for anything more than atheistic ones do, leading one to the conclusion that having a theistic worldview, is pointless.
BigLundi 4 months ago
@miket1m
I honestly can't tell what you mean. Yes, I lack a belief. You lack a belief in a flying spaghetti monster or leperchaun, right? Lacking a belief is simply not believing in something. If I don't believe in something, then I lack a belief in it.
Actually, it does not require those things to say that (something I didn't say). Those are required to be sure that there is no God, something I am not. I simply lack belief, because there isn't any apparent evidence to convince me to believe.
MattAlexWatson 4 months ago
@miket1m About as easily as I can say with confidence that nowhere, in the world, or in the rest of the universe, is a drawing of a square circle. Sorry, atheism isn't illogical. It's simply the default position as to the existence of a god or gods.
Also, there is nothing about atheism that forces a denotation that god in fact does not exist. you're pretty much saying one can only be a strong atheist, or not an atheist at all. That's a little silly.
BigLundi 4 months ago
@miket1m "Can you give a more rational explanation for the existence of logical absolute instead of just pretending you know it can't be true?" Before I do, define what a logical absolute is, and how it's different from a Logical Law.
BigLundi 4 months ago
@BigLundi Now you would not like it if I insulted you, would you? Philosophical verbal gymnastics. Ok, I would like you to read Colossians 2:8 in the Bible. You can access through google. What is a logical absolute?
Logical absolutes are truth statements such as: That which exists has attributes and a nature; Something cannot be itself and not itself at the same time; Something cannot bring itself into existence, and Truth is not self-contradictory. ~ (Carm) Thats what a logical absolute is.
miket1m 4 months ago
@BigLundi Logical absolutes are truth statements and they're concepts. Rational discourse can't be had if a person violates the laws of logic. I think I already posted what the laws of logic are.
miket1m 4 months ago
@miket1m Ah, the law of noncontradiction. Well I can explain logical laws in a naturalistic worldview.. They are a representative of reality. Logical laws are simply anthropomorphic expressions explaining constants of reality. We call them laws because if one makes logical inferences properly, one must play by these rules. It's an explanation of the nature of existence. In other words, it is logically consistent for all things to be logically consistent, as they are simply the nature of existanc
BigLundi 4 months ago
Hey brother, what have you been up to? Are you still in the soaps? How about OLTL getting canceled? Good to see you totally illogical ass.
miket1m 7 months ago
I thought that Dillahunty did bring up the fallacy of division, didn't he? Hmmm..... been a while since I saw that episode.... and I could be confusing it with a couple other episodes where people called in asking about TAG.... anywho- excellent work/video! 祝妳生活順心!
LeonhardEuler1 7 months ago
I prefer calling them "Matt" and "Slick". That way you can say "nice try, Slick!"
GBart 7 months ago in playlist TheoBull
"Not" is a concept we made up. That's why A can't be not A - because that's the definition of "not."
It's just set theory anyway. On the smallest conceivable scale, the so-called laws of logic don't really apply. On a quantum scale, existence isn't so strictly defined. When you draw a line around a big group of particles, their overall behavior becomes more predictable. Logic follows necessarily, given how we define sets and "not".
GBart 7 months ago in playlist TheoBull
has Matt Dillahunty ever commented on this?
qtzlctl2012 9 months ago
It's so fucking hard to actually understand what he's talking about sometimes, I have to pause the video sometimes and think about it for a bit before it clicks in. Damned philosophy.
damandatwin 10 months ago
Lol he's such a bad ass in the way he says things
rsgirl10 10 months ago
Just have to say this is a brilliant refutation of Tag ( or more precisely the debate between the two Matts ) ...... top job, well done ;) !!!!!
Grimmy67 11 months ago
If your mind is tasty and fattening, you had better hope the zombie apocalypse never comes.
HyldenHero 11 months ago
just want to point out i posted the last two comments before actually watching this vid, i am glad to see i'm not the only one who caught it.
jerf241 1 year ago
Matt Slick's argument that something is either physical or conceptual and there is no other option proves his own belief in god wrong, because he is then saying that god is either a physical being or exsists solely in our minds as a concept. and many Christians will hold true to the idea that god himself is not a physical being and that is why we cant prove his exsistance, and if that would force him to be a conceptual being then it would also mean that if minds cease to exsist so does god
jerf241 1 year ago
Comment removed
jerf241 1 year ago
Comment removed
jerf241 1 year ago
@jerf241 it would also then be true that god did not exist before minds existed to create him as a concept
jerf241 1 year ago
Just for consistency, I don't think the jet engine and transcendent minds arguments, as you presented them, are both fallacies of division. Rather, the transcendent mind argument in your formulation is technically a fallacy of composition; it moves from parts (absolutes) to a whole (the mind conceiving them). However, this doesn't undermine you at all, since Slick is still wrong - even though I've never heard him present a fallacy of composition, he DOES make a fallacy of division (6a in TAG).
thurstonite 1 year ago
you've got waaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyy too much time on your hands, mind you I watched all 4, so obviously, so have I. :-/
mojosabien 1 year ago
and there is another, much bigger problem with the argument against logic being properties of the universe. he states that they can't be measured their effects observed, but they can. the laws are measured by everything in the universe having those properties. just like an apple has mass, and apple is an apple and is not not an apple. even later in the video he implicitly concedes this by stating that "no one has demonstrated that they stop being true". it means we have measured them as property
CavalloDiSpade 1 year ago
why does part 4 have more view than part 3?
Th0usandMaster 1 year ago
I just wanna thank you for this series. This crazy arguement was so hard to understand but you really helped me wrap my head around it.
Alaric11 1 year ago
You could have just made a clip containing the 30s between 2:30 and 3:00, and you could have rested your case there. The TAG is such a silly argument, why waste so much time with it?
aliasbrush 1 year ago
Small point of order, dude. Stating that the conclusion is false because the premises do not support it is incorrect. That would be the fallacist's fallacy. The conclusion can be true even when the premises are false or when they don't support the conclusion. Your statement should be 'the conclusion is fallacious', rather than false.
Otherwise, pretty good stuff.
hackenbollox 1 year ago
Has Matt Slick seen this 4 part series of videos, especially this last one? If so, what was his reply? I really can't see a good rebuttal to this from him, I imagine him giving a pretty BS answer, actually.
imafoolhahaha 1 year ago
great job ! thoroughly enjoyed all 4 vids :) !!!!!
Grimmy67 1 year ago
Shit! Awesome video, man!
lgalicki 1 year ago
I'm glad that at 4:50 you finally got to the core aspect about TAG. It has no explanatory power.
The argument falls apart entirely when you realize that logical absolutes are not transcendent to the physical laws of the universe as without the physical laws, you would not have logical absolutes. You touched briefly on it in your second video with the explanation of what they do. They verb nouns. The mere mention of a noun is relying entirely on physical laws. Nothing transcends physical laws.
xxFortunadoxx 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I'm glad I subscribed.
progrockcoffee 1 year ago
All I have to say for the ending is: Boom! Roasted.
D3PyroGS 1 year ago 2
He really argues that? Its like asking, "If a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound? Yes! Because GOD hears it!"
Cadfan17 1 year ago
@Cadfan17 However this is a baseless assertion...one cannot provide reason nor evidence to back it up.
jaynkay100 1 year ago
TBS is brilliant.
Whenever he came to the conclusion of these arguments, I could said it with him, even though I'm new at TAG. His logic is watertight, speaks for itself. There's no suspension of disbelief required. It's easy and beautiful.
Well done, TBS.
laflugantabastardo 1 year ago
Wow. Excellent series.
Sykotix1 1 year ago
I don't even understand this need for a third option to be demonstrated outside of the subject in question being neither of the other two options. It's akin to asking
"Is zero a positive number or negative number?"
Does the trichotomy of numbers suddenly lose all merit because zero is defined by what it isn't?
JustAThrowAwayName 2 years ago
5 stars for that beginning
wlrugby 2 years ago 7
5 stars for that ending.
Dark1777 2 years ago 2
QED.
TAG is dead.
Thanks for providing further clarity!
JacobLW 2 years ago 4
I haven't watched all of the theoretical b.s. vids, but I have enjoyed the ones I've watched. I look forward to watching many more. I'm a theology major and happen to be a Christian. Keep up the good work!
caballero31 2 years ago 20
Comment removed
OneForTheTeams 2 years ago
Comment removed
OneForTheTeams 2 years ago
Comment removed
OneForTheTeams 2 years ago
But, if god were transcendent, logic would have nothing to do with his nature. In fact they would be very far away from God, since anything that can be conceived of by the human mind, especially logic, is transcended by God.. Logic, if it exists in the divine at all, exists only in a lower order of divine being, such as the demiurge (this from Neoplatonism--just to show that Christian thought is far from universally valid).
HConstantine 2 years ago
Comment removed
sackman11 2 years ago
I know a fix! Turn up your speakers.
Idofphoenix 2 years ago
Comment removed
sackman11 2 years ago
this is gunna sound egotistical but i really pride myself on my intellect and i find that im not to knowledgable about the rules of logic and all that jazz. however i can always tell when something isnt a sound argument so i really enjoy listening to someone articulate my thoughts. btw i think ur a really smart dude probably smarter then me but i dont know how much of an accomplishment that is :(
keggerous 2 years ago
a/(b·c·d) = 1
therefor
a/c·d = b
therefor
b=/=c
trying to mathematically show the invalidity of the fallacy of division.
Zetimenvec 2 years ago
I don't think it's a problem to say what something is not without being able to say what it is.
Example: I see an object. I don't know what it is, but I can objectively conclude that it isn't a squirrel. Knowing what a squirrel is and comparing the unknown object to it, I see no similarities and conclude that the object is not a squirrel.
By the same method, we can compare "logical absolute" to both physical and conceptual things and know that it is neither, but still not knowing what it is.
Smidge204 2 years ago
Indeed. I can look at a cat and know, even if I had never seen a cat before, that it wasn't a suspension bridge based solely on what I know a suspension bridge is.
SkribbTV 2 years ago
Good videos, but your point is incorrect.
You're using the definition of "conceive" that means "thinks of"
But slick is using the definition "thinks into existence" or "creates"
So this particular point is not a logical fallacy if you use the definitions he intends.
This is better answered by your previous vid. Minds don't need to create the laws of logic. Minds recognize the innate properties of nature.
By slicks logic, Minds can summon things into existence by thought.
paulmarko 2 years ago
Oops, posted that before watching the rest of your video.
I didn't realize that you were merely using Slick's logic against himself.
In which case the logical contradiction he's guilty of is internal inconsistency, not the fallacy of division.
paulmarko 2 years ago
This 4th video is, I think, the best of your series. Even on its own it clearly ripps Matt Slicks argument apart.
You did a very good job here.
AnderssenVP 2 years ago
But why only 2 options for logical absolutes? if God, is an all powerfull all knowing creating being, couldnt he make a 3rd 4th or even a 5th option? Who is Slick to say that there are only 2 options does he beileve that God is so simple he can be categorized into these 2 tiny little sections of a definition? i dont know i may be off topic, maybe the 2 options come from there being 2 words, logical and absolute. either way, great vid man i love your stuff. keep it up.
ilovepinatas3179 2 years ago
Great job overall, I especially like your point that knowledge of the logical absolutes still have to be ascertained by people in some way.
I will say you either missed a bit of Slicks point or you presented a strayman for his argument that a transcendent mind had to conceive of them. Slicks point was they are true whether or not humans are around, and since he claims LAs are concepts and dependent on thought, which means dependent on a mind, or consciousness at least, that is non-contingent.
idnoble 2 years ago
good series... subscribers++
mirgefg 2 years ago
Uuuhhh...huh huhh....silli jizm.
Domzdream 2 years ago
great speech
19916718514 2 years ago
[Adopting Darth Vader voice] "Impressive"
TheNotoriousBOA 2 years ago
Good job, Scott. Very succinct, believe it or not! I'm here via Luke's Common Sense Atheism blog. To be honest, I let myself get *very* annoyed whenever I hear/read the unjustified arrogance that presuppositionalists exude when arguing for TAG. I don't call myself an Objectivist, but I think they (like Dawson Bethrick, for instance) do a pretty good job showing that the Christian worldview is inherently subjective. Anyway, I'll check out more of your vids.
NonRandomNonSense 2 years ago
good video series and an interesting debate series to watch.
geolab101 2 years ago
Checkmate. Good set of videos.
eradeziel 2 years ago
Slick makes more assertions without demonstrating that they're true:
1) There are only two options- physical or conceptual.
2) The logical absolutes (the description that points to the thing in reality) and the reality itself (the thing that is described) are one and the same.
kaizenrei 2 years ago
Nice ending. I'd like to see Slick slither out of that one.
mathmexican4234 2 years ago 3
WE can't use( look to the outer SOURCE ..It is BEYOND our reach ..in this state (of mind-spirit-soul)) AT this level and can only peek at the other side(s) I can't ASSUME tha I know what is REALITY or what is ILLUSION ....or define the undefinable...RSVP
mandolinjoe 2 years ago
Can you have said field day for our entertainment, sir?
Teirusu155 2 years ago
for a forward thinking of god watch this man
GOD RECYCLES THE UNIVERSE ANTI-RELIGION
kevin347lee 2 years ago
My personal belief is that God is not a "personified" God. God is the addition of all energy (including matter through E=mc2) in this universe and possibly any other universe. In fact I don't really like to use the word "God" as this gives him a personality which I do not think exists. By this definition, God is finite and grows as every entity in this universe grows. A fundamentalist in my opinion is someone who refuses to question information despite the evidence.
gadzometer 2 years ago
This includes scientific and religious fundamentalism. As many of us also refuse to question information that doesn't fit with our current theories. We call that an anomaly and assume it is a problem with our observation or form of experimentation.
gadzometer 2 years ago
gadzometer: care to give an example?
Scr3amingN1nja47 2 years ago
Not unless I start another Creation/Evolution Debate. I Personally feel that Evolution is the most correct of the two but recently the creationists have been weeding out some faults in our current view of evolution. And I love debate as it presents all the available information on both sides of the argument. Sometimes the truth is at neither extremity. To think that you know 100% means that you no longer think you can learn more and this limits a human being. This goes for me too.
gadzometer 2 years ago
Then all you're doing is using the word 'God' to describe all of existence, are you not? And if that is what you are doing then why call it God? What point does that serve?
andytoz 2 years ago
I don't know. It sort help give a name to that thing that everyone feels or describes in different ways. Even if they don't believe that he is a white guy with a beard and a crown in a big chair just above a cumulonimbus.
gadzometer 2 years ago
gadzometer: we don't need to start a debate, you mentioned "anomalies" in observations that we attribute to a fault in our observation; I just wanted to know if you had anything specific in mind and if you'd mind telling me about it
Scr3amingN1nja47 2 years ago
What evidence??????
mandolinjoe 2 years ago
What sort of evidence would you like? I will have a look. If I can't find it, then I will agree with you.
gadzometer 2 years ago
What is your evidence for this non-personal god, gadzometer? And do you not also attribute personality to this being by (a) calling him "he"; and (b) assigning attributes, such as being "finite"? Thanks.
rationalmuscle 2 years ago
Smart question mate. (a) yes. You are right. I had a Catholic upbringing and I slip from time to time. (b) Finite because of the big bang. Our current view of the universe is limited to what we can see from the big bang. If we use the current scientific model, that is all the energy that exists. Therefore the sum of energy is the same but it is transforming. The universe is getting smarter because each of us is getting smarter.
gadzometer 2 years ago
Understood... just a few questions then:
1. Should we even care about worshiping a finite being, as could this being not simply be a 'superior' being? Alien, superior, but not worthy of worship; definitely not worthy of prayer?
2. If you disagree, why?
Herein lies the rub: If you can attribute 'one' thing to this finite yet unknowable being, that being ceases to fit your description. We're back to onus of proof.
rationalmuscle 2 years ago
I <3 all your videos! I've watched your whole set this week and subscribed - keep 'em coming
tinkabella83 3 years ago
"Saying we're all in God's mind is a can of worms Christians do not wanna open."
LOL - so true! For the most part. At least for Christians as they are generally assumed (and the majority I think are) from about the 6th Century up to present day.
Such an esoteric perspective of Christianity has and still does exist in some form or another though, but has routinely been on the fringes - the same notion applies to Sufism in Islam or Khabbalism in Judaism.
TheNeognostic 3 years ago
"So that's why I (as well as others) am rolling up my sleeves and doing the dirty work by dissecting it, because it's stupid that anybody should have to work this hard to show what an impotent, fallacious argument TAG is."
Hey TBS, I don't know about you but there was something in me to do the same thing and I couldn't let it go until I went all the way through it and understood how fallacious this "arguement" is. Thanks for posting.
Leojkcas12 3 years ago
Yeah I am not a woman and not gay but if I was I would want to marry this guy and him have my babies lol
imbarisaxy 3 years ago
If you were a gay woman you'd want to marry this guy and him have your babies? Are you calling TB a lesbian!!? If TB is not a man and TB is not a woman, then what's your third option?
UTubeBrowzer 3 years ago
transsexual duh
imbarisaxy 3 years ago
lol good one
element1988 2 years ago
If Matt Slick had a cavity search done on him Diane Sellnar would be found living up his ass!
wmgroutofthebox 3 years ago
I'd love to watch the debate, but I don't think I could stand to hear Slick's annoying, unwarrantedly self-assured voice for more than 5 minutes.
agwellin 3 years ago
I think I've got a man crush going on. I really hope you follow up with Slick, pressuring him to deliver his rebuttal. I can't stand the way he argues with people, trying to aggressively pressure them into unwittingly accepting a bogus premise. He lives to make people feel stupid.
ReductioAdAbsurdum 3 years ago
Up front, is this really a conversation that a person must get in order to believe in a God, just any arbitrary god? If it is then I don't think religion would have ever taken off, most people are just not this sophistocated or even interested in thinking this hard lol.
TarchangelT 3 years ago 8
I agree with you... which is why I said in Part 1 that TAG is not a persuasive argument. It attempts to *confuse* you into submission.
So that's why I (as well as others) am rolling up my sleeves and doing the dirty work by dissecting it, because it's stupid that anybody should have to work this hard to show what an impotent, fallacious argument TAG is.
TheoreticalBullshit 3 years ago 17
I am glad that there are people like you TBS that are interested in taking on this argument. If there is anyone to do the job correctly surely it will be people like yourself. An admiring subscriber and supporter for your cause, our cause, and the future of intelligence and a world free from the tyranny of monotheistic religious vandalism and psychological abuse. Leaving unmentioned the physical and conceptual terror that monotheism excells at proliferating.
chiharulynn 3 years ago
My bad Chiharulynn is the wifes account, I'm TarchangelT.
chiharulynn 3 years ago
That out of the way, I did think of a third option that seems plausible that I put to your discretion. There is physical, there is conceptual, that which we can concieve, and there is Imagined. A dragon for ex. Is not necessarily physical or absolutely conceptual but can be imagined to be physically conceptual.
TarchangelT 3 years ago
That was a beautifull ending!! If you can't domonstrate what that other option is, forget it it!! Nice!
TarchangelT 3 years ago 3
wow, it took me a couple of times to dig it, but finally did it. good reasoning man. I think at the end is the old
"I can account for that, it´s called god".
jrev37 3 years ago
"Like gravity"
I like gravity too, it stops me falling off the earth.
dave28lax 3 years ago
Great series! You have a knack for breaking down seemingly impossible rhetorical puzzles to bite sized and easily digestible chunks... Thank you so much for this series, you don't know how much it has helped me.
You have a new subscriber
UmbrellaAl 3 years ago
You make solid arguments, sir. I wish Christians would listen.
EverythingYouEver 3 years ago
Oh, and...
7. Thoughts reflect the mind
A. A person's thoughts reflect what he or she is.
B. Absolutely perfect thoughts reflect an absolutely perfect mind.
C. Since the Logical Absolutes are transcendent, absolute, are perfectly consistent, and are independent of the universe, then they reflect a transcendent, absolute, perfect, and independent mind.
D. We call this transcendent, absolute, perfect, and independent mind, "MATT SLICK" :-P
paulurban2 3 years ago
hahahahaha.
good one bro.
jrev37 3 years ago
Comment removed
paulurban2 3 years ago
Brilliant work.
paulurban2 3 years ago
If somebody found a body of an extraterrestrial, analyzed its DNA and found that it couldn't have come from Earth. One does not need to know which planet the extraterrestrial came from to claim that it isn't from Earth. Matt Slick is essentially claiming that one needs to know the actual planet that an ET came from before claiming it came from a different planet when he claims that Matt D. must identify the other category of existence that absolutes reside.
bizzee1 3 years ago 4
The only problem is that Slick refuses to recognize any planet other than Earth and the moon, and when we say it's not from either, he says we can't unless we can tell him which planet it's from.
You have to love logical fallacies. Slick certainly seems to.
jmthetank 3 years ago
1. I can think of transcendent and absolute thoughts.
2.A person's thoughts reflect what he or she is.
4.I am transcendent and absolute.
5.God is transcendent and absolute.
6.I am God.
7.I have to poop.
bizzee1 3 years ago 2
Oopsy, I skipped #3. I am God, so I say that the #3 does not exist and if you think #3 does exist, you're going to burn in hell for eternity.
bizzee1 3 years ago
You don't want to know how big God can poop.
bizzee1 3 years ago
oh, its big. and stinky. and about 14 billion years old. :)
vdizhoor 3 years ago
Wow, I just randomly watched this, and it reminded me of things you've been talking about for as long as I've known you haha
ValleyGirlParty 3 years ago
well done, sir.
kriztufer2001 3 years ago
"How can you know what something is not, if you don't first know what it is?"
If you plop down some random airplane engine component in front of me but I don't know what it is, I can tell you unequivocally that it is not an apple, or a vagina, or a cow, or a Civil War era cannon.
Maybe I'm dense (and I very well could be), but I don't see how that question is a good point on Slick's part.
Bobbiethejean 3 years ago 4
I agree. But I'm not complaining since it hurts his position so much more than helps it.
TheoreticalBullshit 3 years ago
Word.
Been wondering what direction Slick is likely to zig or zag in order to escape the "What category is God?" conundrum.
memoryhero 3 years ago
By the way, I think PWN might be putting it lightly. You obliterated his not-so-slick arguments, epically.
Bobbiethejean 3 years ago
If you actually listen to the material you'll see that he's not claiming to have any secrets figured out... he is dissecting the logic by which god is manifested. if intelligence is considered to be arrogant, then your humility shines through.
ngennoise 3 years ago
Just goes to show you the mind of some religious people, it seems critical thinking, doing research, and therefore intelligence is somehow arrogant now.
Shows his mindset.
mecher3k 3 years ago
it's actually called dark matter, a vacuum is only the resulting phenomena.
ngennoise 3 years ago
Incorrect. Dark matter is theorized to exist because weights of certain things and energy budgets within the known universe don't match up to observed matter.
vacuum is simply the absence of matter and a separate subject.
Kbiomech 3 years ago 2
ive heard matt slick owns a square circle! it must be true god said so or so matt slick told me. great video as allways marvelous value for money ide be happy to quadrupal what iom paying knoiw. sorry about my spelling.
ooglebydoogleby 3 years ago
Welcome, All.
"As I mentioned above;
The bible supports my views. So if you'd like more info. or "proof" then you can go to the "source" for that.
In no way can my view and explanation supplement your own discovery.
Is that not true for most things?"
Your Problems are true If I am trying to Prove something to you. Which Im not.
I'll I am doing is stating my viewpoint on the topic.
Just giving people something to think about. Because most think they know what the bible is saying,
GladTidingsPromise 3 years ago
But they misunderstands its message.
So, How can someone attack something they have false Ideas about. Hmmm.
"Worthless Evidence"
Hahaha, If you think I can give you evidence, that will satisfy you?
Bro, I'm not even trying.
If you think I could prove everything to you on a youtube, comment page then, Just ignore me.
I do know what I know, and I can say what ever I like, Because I do know.
Take that for what it is.
I will share, hoping that some may also see a new viewpoint on the matter
GladTidingsPromise 3 years ago
Dont Mormons believe that God is physical?
SamTay04 3 years ago
Damn.
Excellent Videos.
You are very well spoken and intelligent. Nice work.
ElijahAbelJoeSmith 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Any indication of what to expect in your next video(s), TBS?
memoryhero 3 years ago
Comment removed
memoryhero 3 years ago
you lost me after "chocolate cake"
but seriously, great series.
4jonah 3 years ago
I agree with everything you basically said except that some things that seem self-refuting are not...like eliminative materialism for example-
robotaholic 3 years ago
Excellent videos!
I've been trying to wrap my head around TAG now for about a week and your videos finally reveal what that nagging, itching feeling in the back of my mind was. I always knew there was something wrong with TAG, and knew it was in the semantics, but couldn't quite put my finger on it.
Well done, and you've definitely earned a future subscriber.
ozzy1248 3 years ago
There IS a third option.. Hallucinatory! ;)
jesterspace 3 years ago
Wow... Do you have any original ideas of your own? The second half of this video is all you, plagiarizing Matt Dillahunty.
Why don't you shout "Checkmate!" at the end?
GhostyFilms 3 years ago
I'm curious, Ghosty, if you are so hung up about whether TBS's ideas are "his own" or not - who do you think the ideas stated in the other videos in this series belong to?
Not only that, but if you think T.A.G. was somehow thought up by Matt Slick, which, I grant, you may very well not, you'd want to slather him with this same scathing indictment. Or, for that matter, anyone who bothers to use T.A.G..
memoryhero 3 years ago
I know for a fact that TAG wasn't thought up by Matt Slick. The debate was about Matt Slick's version of it.
Matt Dillahunty made very specific statements concerning what logical absolutes are. This joker lied about and distorted MD's clear definition's, making MD seem inept and stupid. Then he restated what MD had actually said as if he was adding new and improved insight to the conversation.
GhostyFilms 3 years ago
Oh, and to answer your question, I don't really feel I need to say anything to Matt Slick, because Matt Dillahunty already handled him as far as I'm concerned.
GhostyFilms 3 years ago
Are you referring to something Dillahunty said during his debate with Slick, or something he said the following week?
If it's the latter, you do realize this series was created before that, right? Yet, you don't see me accusing him of plagiarism. If anything, it's a testament to the fact that we are on the same page. I'm glad he said it.
You, on the other hand, are acting divisive, competitive, counter-productive, and juvenile. You're trying to "start shit" as the kiddies say. Why?
TheoreticalBullshit 3 years ago
I'm not competing with you. I'm exposing you. You know what else is juvenile? Lying about people for your own glory. If you didn't purposefully distort Matt D's points, why don't you make a video clarifying your lack of comprehension? Maybe you should apologize to him too. That seems to be the appropriate action when you've wronged someone you think is "awesome." It's the only way you'd have any integrity as far as I'm concerned.
GhostyFilms 3 years ago
If Dillahunty was making these accusations, that would be one thing...but TBS and Dillahunty are in dialog with each other and so far, no criticism from Matt.
If Dillahunty doesn't care...why do you?
memoryhero 3 years ago
How do you know he doesn't care? How do you know they even talked at all? Where is the record of their correspondence? Did Matt Dillahunty watch these videos? How do you know? What did he say?
GhostyFilms 3 years ago
I am friends with Dillahunty on Facebook and not only did he state there that TBS and himself have been in correspondence, but TBS has affirmed the same somewhere here amongst these comments.
memoryhero 3 years ago
So he stated that they have "been in correspondence." That says nothing about his reaction to this crap. It says nothing about whether or not MD's even seen these videos. TBS has already established himself as either a liar or someone who arrogantly speaks with an authoritative tone about things he doesn't understand.
GhostyFilms 3 years ago
Just to back up a moment - from which show, from which week, are you claiming TBS plagiarized? From Feb 22, or from March 1? Which comments exactly?
And secondly, how do you reckon TBS has established himself as a "liar"?
Lastly, speaking with an authoritative tone is beside the point. What, in your esteemed opinion, doesn't TBS understand?
I invite you to respond calmly.
memoryhero 3 years ago
The Matt/Matt Debate - Part 3: Pigs and Trees
TBS asserts that Matt was talking about logical absolutes as if they were things with a nature and not the nature of the thing. Actually, at one point, he said Matt D was wrong when he referred to logical absolutes as "behavior" and "nature," and then, a little while later he made the exact same statement as if he was adding some new insight.
In the actual debate, Matt D specially said that LA's were statements describing characteristics.
GhostyFilms 3 years ago
I'm starting to get a bit lost in terms of clarity.
You're saying TBS said Matt D referred to logical absolutes as "behavior" and "nature", right? Now, I'm not going to watch the whole video again right now to verify this, but, just to clarify, did Matt D do that, or are you saying TBS wrongly asserted that Matt D did?
memoryhero 3 years ago
Memory, what Ghosty is claiming is that Dillahunty made it very clear to Slick that logical absolutes do not HAVE a nature that needs to be classified, since they ARE a nature (which is what I maintain). Ghosty says that I am lying by saying that Matt didn't represent this view in the debate.... if that helps.
TheoreticalBullshit 3 years ago
I am saying you are EITHER lying or you MISUNDERSTOOD.
GhostyFilms 3 years ago
"I am saying you are EITHER lying or you MISUNDERSTOOD."
You realize there's a third option here, right?
Option C: I understand Matt perfectly, (after all, I'm the one in correspondence with him, not you) and YOU misunderstand MY points.
TheoreticalBullshit 3 years ago
Third option?
I nearly dropped dead laughing.
memoryhero 3 years ago
lol
TheoreticalBullshit 3 years ago
"Wahhh... I'm in correspondence with him... I'm in correspondence with him... I've spoken to him, so I know everything about him."
GhostyFilms 3 years ago
"Actually, at one point, he said Matt D was wrong when he referred to logical absolutes as "behavior" and "nature,""
..Please show me exactly where I say this in my video.
TheoreticalBullshit 3 years ago
The Matt/Matt Debate - Part 3: Pigs and Trees
2:08
"To me, Dillahunty's biggest mistake throughout the whole conversation was to use the phrase "logical absolutes" when talking about the behavior of things --the nature of things-- that logical absolutes --the statements-- address. What a statement like "a is a" refers to is not a thing that has a nature; it refers to the nature of a thing."
GhostyFilms 3 years ago
You know, because it's kind of maddening to try and fit whole arguments in these small Youtube comment boxes, I recommend you simply put together your entire argument, for clarity's sake (because it's very hard to follow in bits and pieces all over the place) and post it somewhere online, like a blog.
I think that would improve this whole discussion.
memoryhero 3 years ago
Right. This isn't saying what you seem to think it's saying.
I'm talking about Dillahunty using the same word for both logical absolutes (statements like "a is a") and that-to-which logical absolutes refer, namely, the nature/behavior of things.
Ten bucks says this doesn't register with you though, and you fail to understand me again.
TheoreticalBullshit 3 years ago