Dillahunty didn't miss this hidden fallacy. In fact he highlighted it in the "aftermath" show responding to Slick's proclaimations of victory. When Slick was asked if god was physical or conceptual he answered "neither...god is spiritual" in effect agreeing with Dillahunty's assertion that there was no true dichotomy there.
As little as a year ago I thought this argument was sound and Matt Slick was the messiah! What a load a crap. Thanks for clearing the smoke screen BS.
"Dillahunty" didn't have the convenience of watching this debate and deconstructing all of what was said and then responding with the absolute correct answer. He didn't really have to. The argument itself is nonsense.
@AGRANT716 Agreed. I'd like to see TBS in the arena of live debate. I've seen other popular Youtubers that I agree with destroyed in that arena. I've seen some of Dawkins' & Hitchens' veiws dismantled after the fact. I don't think it's the fault of either debater. The medium itself is a hindrance. For now it's the best we've got though... I can't wait to see debates like that carried out over months of consideration & recorded feedback.
I think there's a huge misunderstanding from everyone. Slick probably refers to the 3rd law when asking his question, while you're dealing with the 1st law. I agree the 1st law is where the discussion needs to be, since the 2nd and 3rd law are necessarily implied in the 1st law. However, not all (A) are based on an observable function, ie. "infinity". This is why Slick CAN argue they are conceptual. You're view of logic is more Aristotelian I think, assuming it only refers to the observable.
I wouldn't say it's a "theistic" assumption as much as I'd say it's a "supernatural" assumption. I think Plato's forms are really what you're describing where a "form" was in a sense the "nature" and the "thing" was identified by pointing back to the form somehow. I think. But you raise a great clarification. The function is more fundamental than the thing, rather than vice versa. Yet, I'd say Christianity fully agrees, and an eternal triune God accounts for all functions, thus things.
In fact one of the major criticisms of Aristotles Forms was that one heads down the rabbit hole of the infinite regress.
The Forms nature surely must then depend on other Forms and those forms on other Forms and so on ad infinitum. To stop this series at anyone point an declare catagorically that no other Form is needed seems arbitrary and ad hoc at best.
I am glad that at 4:30 TBS points this out. Abstractions are precisely that....Abstractions.
TAG's claim that "logical absolutes exist as things" is very similar to Aristotle's Forms.
Aristotle looked at an existing particular thing eg. a horse. He postulated that there had to be another THING existing (in a different realm) that endowed the horse with its "horsiness" (its quintessence/nature).Aristotle called this OTHER THING the "form of the horse". My view- the mistake TAG makes (like Aristotle's forms) is to treat the abstraction of a things nature as if it were a thing itself.
“More humble and I think truer to consider him created from animals.” man deems himself far more important to the cosmos than he actually is. when we are long gone, the Universe will not even notice.
The problem that Slick does is he merely states that logical absolutes fall into one of two categories, physical or conceptual. Nowhere in his arguments does he definitively prove that those are the only two choices, this is where his argument falls down.
TAG is a little like confusing a map for the territory it represents. Slick is essentially taking us out into the wilderness, pointing at the real-world features and screaming "Well, someone must have drawn this map!"
What we call logical absolutes are merely descriptions of properties all phenomena have in reality. There is no inherent requirement that they have conceptual existence in some mind in order to happen to be accurate.
logical absolutes are concepts that describe the real world. concepts that describe the physical world are not proofs for the existence of a supernatural creator. simple as that.
great job tbs with your refutations. i was thinking the same things.
i wonder how increasing knowledge of quantum physics will affect the "logical" arguments.
The thing that irks me about tag is it's a very basic fallacious argument that proponents obfuscate with lots of fancy talk in an attempt to confuse the listener.
To the point where the 'victim' gets so tied up in knots they begin to question there own sanity - and plus I don't see how any of it relates to the existence of gawds. This couldn't happen like this unless this therefore GOD - WTF!
You know, Matt Dillahunty did pretty damn well, all things considered. I mean, he couldn't interrupt Slick more than he did already. And like you said at the start, it's part of the apologist brute force tactic to just hurl a lot of stuff out there, knowing full well there's never enough time to scrutinise all the flaws. Dillahunty conceded this several times along the way, granting certain premises so as to progress onto the meat of the semantic disputes upon which Slick's credibility relies.
How exactly does a rock behave? Your making an error very similar to Matt Slick's.
Mat D's point was that a rock is a rock and that it will not suddenly become not a rock
at the same time and in the same respect that it is a rock. A=A. A is A while conceptual DOES refer to something that has an essence. That was not Slick's point, it was Dillahunty's. Slick could not get beyond the idea that logical absolutes are conceptual; i.e., that conceptuality is a defining characteristic such absolutes.
Matt Dillahunty did indeed point out several times that Slick was making a catagorical error. The debate ended when Dillahunty got frustrated with the fact that Slick was comparing apples and pears and couldn't see it.
Although I agree that Dillahunty became flustered towards the end and fell into the trap. It is a bit more difficult to debate complex arguments on the spot rather than taking the time to contemplate them and phrase them more elequently. You're both doing a good job though.
I thought Dillahunty faired pretty well, especially with his 2 video follow up "did matt slick win?, where slick is posed the question "is god conceptual or physical" and slick replies "NEITHER"..LOLZ
As much as I would love to see Matt Dillahunty debate Ray Comfort, I can't imagine the carnage and humiliation splattered over the floor of a debate between TBS and Ray Comfort.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Instead of sitting around thinking about whether
A = A or not, you need to get your pasty ass out of the apartment and get a job so you might be able to buy some decent sheets and some decor for that room. Jeez, you need some serious feng shui up in there.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
oh jeez. Well i hope you plan to serve the indigent or else you'll be doomed to be another soul sapping culprit in an increasingly destructive american health care train wreck preying on the poor and holding their health ransom for who knows how much money. I'll pray for your soul.
You seem a little wet behind the ears so i'll fill you in, i was impressed with this young soap opera star's analysis of "what things are". I was trollin. You should try it sometime. Hint: This isn't real.
Dillahunty did address your point to a certain extent, by pointing out that logical absolutes don't 'exist' but that 'existence' of anything is contingent upon them.
Matt, obviously, mocked this. 'You're saying they don't exist?'
You're right, the debate should have ended shortly after Matt admitted that his version of god was subject to the laws of logic.
I think Matt would deny the logic of your argument and focus on the existence of the absolutes... From what I've seen of his technique.
Matt Slick's assertion is false anyway. It's absurd to say you can only say what something is not by saying what it is. That is like saying a person being tried for murder can only say they are not the murderer by finding out who actually is the murderer. It's the opposite of deductive reasoning, or guilty until proven innocent. It doesn't work that way and it shifts the burden of proof without proper justification.
Brilliant!!!!........and I mean all three videos in this series collectively. You illustrated how Slick temporarily confused Dillahunty at the end of their debate.........but also showed how, in the end, that when viewing their debate as a whole, Dillahunty OWNED Slick. Also see Dillahunty's two part video presentation "Matt Slick won???" ( I may be mistaken on the title name.) There Dillahunty CLEARLY shows how he OWNED him in their TAG debate.
I see where you're coming from with the tree pig thing but I don't think it's necessary. Slick wasn't focusing on logical absolutes having a nature but that they were specifically conceptual by nature which is what his TAG relies upon. Dillahunty refuted that by saying that they are not conceptual nor physical but instead trancendental in nature which is the word he used in the show the week after. That is enough to point out a structural flaw in Slicks TAG.
I for one agree that it's sad, but it's a need. Even as an agnostic atheist, I find the concept of god far from trivial. It is "a" possible explanation for our existence. Not a 'valid' possibility, but still one that, by our own evolutionary wiring, must exist.
I don't think that TB is "concerned" about the concept of god. It is just something he is interested in and, when it comes down to it, what is a more interesting topic to discuss with those of differing viewpoints than eternity?
TheorecticalBullshit from my experiences with Slick and his concubinhe Sellnar they delete rearrange & edit after the fact replies of their opponents. Then lie to cover up their screw ups. Slick was owned and schooled by Dillahunty. Next night Slick stated his program it was the devil attacking him. Slick misquoted another atheist. He 45 minutes blasting this atheist over a misquote that was his fault!. Another atheist live on the air pointed this out to him! Egg on his face! A great moment!
Yeah, I think Matt D. did a great job of handling Slicks arguments on the fly like that. I can see how it would be extremely hard to debate TAG in a real time situation. Kinda goes back to the "gotcha arguments" that you mentioned. The argument is so ridiculous and convoluted, it's hard to wrap your head around what the F*** Slick is trying to get at without pondering on it for a while.
Ghosty, your obsession with persistently bashing this video and myself without good reason leads me to believe this has nothing to do with logic, or even truth... but a personal issue on your end.
Go take a walk or something. Take deep breaths. Do whatever you gotta do, but stop making your baggage my problem.
And your decision to make a personal attack against me reveals that you aren't capable of discussing the points and quotes that I've presented. Funny how that's exactly what "awesome" Matt Dillahunty condemned Matt Slick for in the followup video after the debate.
Your "points and quotes" demonstrate YOUR lack of understanding about MY argument. That's why I'm not addressing them. The "premise" you say Matt didn't accept is not the same premise I am referring to in my video.
"I do not accept that the nature of logical absolutes must be physical or conceptual" VS "I do not accept that logical absolutes HAVE a nature at all, since they ARE a nature."
Either watch my video again and pay attention, or stop this. Your confusion isn't my burden.
"I agree with his rock reference. I think he just failed to make the distinction between the nature of a thing and the thing itself, when Matt asked him to classify the nature of logical absolutes."
Yes, and I'll tell you AGAIN, the fact that you still think these quotes are problematic for my point clearly shows that you don't UNDERSTAND my point.
I don't want to purposefully incite any further rage, but, I have to admit that it has crossed my mind that perhaps, yes, even you Ghosty, have not understood all of TBS' points. I'm just saying it's possible. And I think the conversation is spinning out beyond the point of no return.
I think you ought to realize that, despite your being right or wrong, you have hit an impasse here, and that Dillahunty himself would have to intercede to bring requisite force to bear on the point.
The irony of all this is, Dillahunty and I almost entirely agree when it comes to the content of our positions. My issue was really just with the way he represented himself unclearly.
Ghosty, I've explained this to you. Your response was to say that Dillahunty was incredibly clear, I just failed to understand his incredible clarity. (You realize this is a self-defeating claim, right?)
I'm about ready to let this go, even if Ghosty keeps ranting. This isn't going to get any better.
But it's something that lunatics do, in the sense that it is a synonym of rave, which is something you do in a delirium. You have said that I don't have a grip on reality.
No, this is the point, too, which I have just let slide rather than address: These two guys obviously agree on SO much. While they aren't friends, they are certainly, by definition, allies.
And here's Ghosty shouting that Dillahunty has been wronged! I personally don't think Dillahunty is going to give two tosses for your claims, Ghosty, whether they are "right" or "wrong".
I think you are bemoaning a crime that the "victim" himself will think is nothing but, ahem, arrant pedantry.
These quotes clearly show that he was talking about characteristics, not the rock or the apple, but the characteristic of there existence and the consistency of that existence.
Here's you again:
"I agree with his rock reference. I think he just failed to make the distinction between the nature of a thing and the thing itself, when Matt asked him to classify the nature of logical absolutes."
And actually his quotes are wrong. Matt D's argument rests entirely on recognizing
the logical absolutes are not conceptual. Matt D Did catch the fallacy. Your example,
while amusing, is wrong. Matt D did not say the Absolutes are, say, physical or spiritual. To use your example he said they are either tree or not tree, that while he didn't know exactly what they are, he knew that they were not tree and pointed out that "not tree" includes everything else except tree.
This is an excellent commentary and offers further rebuttal of TAG. I have one minor complaint and that is your claim that Matt Dillahunty let Slick get away with a false premise.
I suggest you watch the video of the discussion again because Matt Dillahunty clearly doesn't accept the false premise and he rejected a few of the others too.
Matt Dillahunty states several times that logical absolutes are neither conceptual nor physical. This is exactly what you have postulated in your video.
"additional extra thing" is the same argument as "universe must've had an uncaused supernatural cause" "But what about that uncaused cause? Couldn't it have just been the universe?"
I don't like saying statements are "self refuting" as sometimes, they're just intended to be axioms.
I like what you did here TB, but I'd put forth there's a more obvious way to refute it. The 3rd option is transcendent, logical absolutes are transcendent,
On Carms site Slick claims logical absolutes are transcendent, then claims they're conceptual, someone should tell him to pick one, because they contradict each other.
Specifically, his point 6.B.i. It Blatantly contradicts itself.
That's a really vague definition... That could be true in some sense, but it's not a sufficient account of what logic is.
Really, "logic" is a system for deriving proper inference from statements.
This video has not been about "logic" though. It's been about "logical absolutes", and their relationship to reality. And we need to keep the distinction between them clear.
Matt D didn't accept his "hidden premise." He specifically said that he didn't accept his premise.
Furthermore, "A" is a variable. "A" can refer to a physical thing or a characteristic. He was referring to characteristics when he referred to logical absolutes in variable form.
I agree with his rock reference. I think he just failed to make the distinction between the nature of a thing and the thing itself, when Matt asked him to classify the nature of logical absolutes.
Ghosty, I'm not sure what you're trying to prove. I think Matt Dillahunty is awesome. Since making this video, he and I have been exchanging emails, agreeing on almost everything. We are on the same page.
I'm not addressing his actual position. I'm addressing the fact that he didn't make his position clear enough to Slick, because Slick kept misrepresenting him.
No, you've got that wrong. I was making a distinction between a logical absolute, which is a STATEMENT ("A is A"), and the nature/behavior of existence to which said statement refers.
Logic USES logical absolutes, by assuming the their truth. It does not need to refer to them.
"To me, Dillhunty'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 address."
"You take the logical absolute 'a is a.' What is this logical absolute?"
"What the statement "a is a" refers to is not a thing that has a nature. it refers to the nature of the thing."
Frustratingly,this subject seems to be really at the edge of my comprehension...A logical absolute(LA) is a concept descriptive of something physical(or behaviours thereof)? Rather than, as Matt D fell for, an LA being ACTUALLY a physical thing(or behaviours thereof)?
When Matt Slick wanted Dillahunty to either decide between conceptual or physical to explain logical absolutes he was committing an argument from ignorance (it is claimed that a premise is true only because one has not proven it false, or is false only because it has not been proven.
Matt S was confused about Matt D's point. It's not about whether the logical absolutes are conceptual or physical-although Slick did mention the latter as a possibility- nor was it a question about which was true. Matt D said they were either conceptual or non conceptual and chose the latter. Matt S was confused about necessarily knowing what they are. If I said you're not Pam or Sally, he would be right to say there's another choice. If I said your either Sally or not Sally....
Re; 2:34 - Really well said! A is A refers not to a thing that has a nature but the nature of a thing - I am repeating here for my own edification - I really want to remember this.
Damn, I hate having to favorite 4(assuming part 4 is equally good) parts of something. Couldn't you just have one really good part and make me sit through shit the rest of the way?
Haha, silly question, I suppose, but I rather enjoy watching you videos, and you think in a very clear manner. I know you said you've never been to college, so what philosophy books have you read?
Well I really liked both Sam Harris' books. Back in the day, I read an amazing book by George H. Smith called "The Case Against God". I also learned alot (historically speaking) from Bart Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus"...
I'm listening now to Ehrman's course done with The Teaching Company "From Jesus to Constantine - A History of Early Christianity". Great stuff, which I wish all Christians would take upon themselves to investigate. Of course they aren't encouraged to learn how mired their own history is and has always been in disputes and factions.
Absolutely. All hail the non-college grads interested in learning for learning's sake! The history courses offered by The Teaching Company - as well as its course on Argumentation! - have made such an impact on me, as though I've fallen in love with learning for the first time. Ah, the world and its past....
Anything else? It seems to me you'd have to have read more than that in order to have a firm grasp of the language you use. It seems to me you'd have to have sat down and read a few books on logic and epistemology to know all the very precise (and you use them correctly, I know because I've read a fair amount of philosophy) terminology that you use when dispelling apologetic arguments..
That's really interesting to hear, because the truth is that I don't know what the proper philosophical terminology is for a lot of what I say. I have never really read books on logic or epistemology, because I feared my thinking would get too technical and less accessible. I choose terms and language that I think best represent the idea to the most amount of people, even if it is incorrect.
What I do know about logic, etc. is almost entirely from internet articles and talking to people.
"predicated", "syllogism", "epistemic", "laws of thought", "ontology", "necessitates", the list of logical fallacies you've spotted, these are all examples of technical terms or technical things. It shocks me that you've never read a philosophy book, lol, but I suppose you talk to some really intellectual people to pick this up from mere conversation. Although, I've learned a great deal from internet articles, too. Logical fallacies are probably best picked up from internet articles.
And as to the what is God? thingy as you said he is neither physical nor conceptual. God is a mind.
Slick is saying things either exist in the physical realm, or in a mind. God is a mind.
It would be like knowing there are 2 container (one with Coke and one with water). You know everything iniside there is one or the other. Of course thsi says nothing about the containers (which would be the realm of space-time and minds in our case of physical or conceptual).
I don't want to debate the nature of the mind( I'm a dualist though).
But I think we can saw something either is a mind, exists in a mind or in the physical realm. God is a mind. It is self evident that laws of logic are not minds or conscious entities so Slick's point about 2 options still stands.
Saying "God is a mind" is to label something, but it does not address the nature of it's existence. What IS a mind? What is the substance of which it is composed? What are the mechanisms by which it operates?
According to Matt's reasoning, if you can't give a positive account of these things, then you can't say that God is not physical or conceptual.
Essentially, you are putting God into a category that is already spoken for. Minds do not have physical power over things outside of them. If God is a mind, God could not create a planet, since minds do not create planets. To say that they CAN create planets is begging the question. Either God is not (just) a mind, or God is not omnipotent.
Ugh, You said that HE.. God isn't conceptual God is a mind. Mind is a concept man created to explain consciousness. Even if I were to accept that God is this ethereal consciousness that has phenomenal abilities to manifest whatever it thinks into our existence. It's actually his existence... just because the fish is in the bowl doesn't mean it's not in the room. That's a whole other can. Why hasn't he made his existence known with no questions?
I think we can forgive Matt Dillahunty for any sins of logical omission given the format of the debate. It's pretty hard to think of every angle and argument on the fly in a free flowing discussion, especially in a medium that doesn't allow periods of contemplative silence.
Indeed. It's also the case that a reasonably skilled apologist like Slick can screw you up in a spontaneous discussion, because you may intuitively know, in the moment, that he's said something illogical, but you can't necessarily immediately built an argument as to why. That silent space between your intuitive apprehension and the actual argument you may later build is that which apologists dance in. It gives the impression they've made a real point when they actually haven't. Bastards!
Even if TAG can be shown to contain fallacious reasoning, it will still likely be liberally applied by apologists because of its tendency to stump and confuse those hearing it for the first time. Like the fool's mate in chess. Use it until your opponent can capitalize on its flaw, then adjourn the game and seek out a new, unlearned opponent.
This is why I've ceased having interest in debates of this nature, because they overwhelmingly endorse this concept of "winning" rather that exchanging ideas in a manner that give people a chance to pause, reflect, and learn from one another.
Matt Slick is a slippery little shit. He's almost as bad as Gene Cook and Paul Manata.
When I found TAG on youtube, I pointed out that Slick was implying that things had Thingness, but I've never been able to adequately explain myself on that one.
Not that it mattered with Slick, because he fits his name, slippery and greasy fellow that he is... He'd try to argue himself out of a wet paper bag until the bag got up and walked away, instead of doing the obvious thing.
matt d did as well as he could with all the possible research which could have been done without forknowlege. Unless he were as smart as you. Please take Slick on and post it.
I was under the assumption that Matt Dillahunty was using the terms the "essence of logic" ( which is the the behaviour of things, in your terms) and the "application of logic" (statements or thoughts).
Those terms seem to work well - the "essence" and the "application".
Dillahunty didn't miss this hidden fallacy. In fact he highlighted it in the "aftermath" show responding to Slick's proclaimations of victory. When Slick was asked if god was physical or conceptual he answered "neither...god is spiritual" in effect agreeing with Dillahunty's assertion that there was no true dichotomy there.
stiimuli 2 months ago
As little as a year ago I thought this argument was sound and Matt Slick was the messiah! What a load a crap. Thanks for clearing the smoke screen BS.
MrPinkUnicornz 2 months ago
I did indeed mean Plato's forms. The Platonic forms. Not "Aristotle's forms". I stand corrected.
eronfas101 2 months ago
The Pig/Tree fallacy was just a (h)ambush!
COEXISTential 2 months ago
"Dillahunty" didn't have the convenience of watching this debate and deconstructing all of what was said and then responding with the absolute correct answer. He didn't really have to. The argument itself is nonsense.
AGRANT716 3 months ago
@AGRANT716 Agreed. I'd like to see TBS in the arena of live debate. I've seen other popular Youtubers that I agree with destroyed in that arena. I've seen some of Dawkins' & Hitchens' veiws dismantled after the fact. I don't think it's the fault of either debater. The medium itself is a hindrance. For now it's the best we've got though... I can't wait to see debates like that carried out over months of consideration & recorded feedback.
MrLittletomdj 3 months ago
I think there's a huge misunderstanding from everyone. Slick probably refers to the 3rd law when asking his question, while you're dealing with the 1st law. I agree the 1st law is where the discussion needs to be, since the 2nd and 3rd law are necessarily implied in the 1st law. However, not all (A) are based on an observable function, ie. "infinity". This is why Slick CAN argue they are conceptual. You're view of logic is more Aristotelian I think, assuming it only refers to the observable.
solaphyde 3 months ago
@solaphyde I did indeed mean Plato's forms. The Platonic forms. Not "Aristotle's forms". I stand corrected.
eronfas101 2 months ago
I wouldn't say it's a "theistic" assumption as much as I'd say it's a "supernatural" assumption. I think Plato's forms are really what you're describing where a "form" was in a sense the "nature" and the "thing" was identified by pointing back to the form somehow. I think. But you raise a great clarification. The function is more fundamental than the thing, rather than vice versa. Yet, I'd say Christianity fully agrees, and an eternal triune God accounts for all functions, thus things.
solaphyde 3 months ago
In fact one of the major criticisms of Aristotles Forms was that one heads down the rabbit hole of the infinite regress.
The Forms nature surely must then depend on other Forms and those forms on other Forms and so on ad infinitum. To stop this series at anyone point an declare catagorically that no other Form is needed seems arbitrary and ad hoc at best.
I am glad that at 4:30 TBS points this out. Abstractions are precisely that....Abstractions.
eronfas101 5 months ago
TAG's claim that "logical absolutes exist as things" is very similar to Aristotle's Forms.
Aristotle looked at an existing particular thing eg. a horse. He postulated that there had to be another THING existing (in a different realm) that endowed the horse with its "horsiness" (its quintessence/nature).Aristotle called this OTHER THING the "form of the horse". My view- the mistake TAG makes (like Aristotle's forms) is to treat the abstraction of a things nature as if it were a thing itself.
eronfas101 5 months ago
“More humble and I think truer to consider him created from animals.” man deems himself far more important to the cosmos than he actually is. when we are long gone, the Universe will not even notice.
koales01 7 months ago
hot
ugasziz 7 months ago
The problem that Slick does is he merely states that logical absolutes fall into one of two categories, physical or conceptual. Nowhere in his arguments does he definitively prove that those are the only two choices, this is where his argument falls down.
huntmatuk 8 months ago
you need to write a book TBS, bestseller
bkpalumbo 9 months ago
TAG is a little like confusing a map for the territory it represents. Slick is essentially taking us out into the wilderness, pointing at the real-world features and screaming "Well, someone must have drawn this map!"
What we call logical absolutes are merely descriptions of properties all phenomena have in reality. There is no inherent requirement that they have conceptual existence in some mind in order to happen to be accurate.
bowlsallbroken 9 months ago
Since when is pee the opposite of shit? At least go with pastures.
werecow2003 1 year ago
@werecow2003 Is theoretical and tangible a true dichotomy? The oppossite of cow is? LOL annalyzing jokes takes all the funny out of them.
InKa4484 9 months ago
logical absolutes are concepts that describe the real world. concepts that describe the physical world are not proofs for the existence of a supernatural creator. simple as that.
great job tbs with your refutations. i was thinking the same things.
i wonder how increasing knowledge of quantum physics will affect the "logical" arguments.
mebe84 1 year ago
Oh Yeah! Smart Ass. Well, if a pig's not a tree then what is it?
Penndennis 1 year ago
@Penndennis A non-tree. :o
mikechis101 1 year ago
You should try more sex and less talking. Maybe you'd be less up-tight and stuffy if your body was more relaxed.
justanote7 1 year ago
@justanote7
Are you looking to make an offer or something? What an odd observation.
CrazyBluePrime 1 year ago
Fallacies relying on the ambiguity of language are the most insiduous, because as you said, they take time to dismantle. What Dillahunty didn't have.
arsenelupin123 1 year ago
The thing that irks me about tag is it's a very basic fallacious argument that proponents obfuscate with lots of fancy talk in an attempt to confuse the listener.
To the point where the 'victim' gets so tied up in knots they begin to question there own sanity - and plus I don't see how any of it relates to the existence of gawds. This couldn't happen like this unless this therefore GOD - WTF!
It's theoretical bullshit :D
trooperJac 1 year ago
How is pee the opposite of shit? I believe the opposite of shit is food.
UncleVRoy 1 year ago 2
You know, Matt Dillahunty did pretty damn well, all things considered. I mean, he couldn't interrupt Slick more than he did already. And like you said at the start, it's part of the apologist brute force tactic to just hurl a lot of stuff out there, knowing full well there's never enough time to scrutinise all the flaws. Dillahunty conceded this several times along the way, granting certain premises so as to progress onto the meat of the semantic disputes upon which Slick's credibility relies.
PurushaDesa 1 year ago
Comment removed
PurushaDesa 1 year ago
The opposite of pee is not shit, and you can't prove it. =P
cjc813 1 year ago
That pig IS a tree! It is! It is! It is! The more I assert it, the truer it is!
progrockcoffee 1 year ago
How exactly does a rock behave? Your making an error very similar to Matt Slick's.
Mat D's point was that a rock is a rock and that it will not suddenly become not a rock
at the same time and in the same respect that it is a rock. A=A. A is A while conceptual DOES refer to something that has an essence. That was not Slick's point, it was Dillahunty's. Slick could not get beyond the idea that logical absolutes are conceptual; i.e., that conceptuality is a defining characteristic such absolutes.
0spiker 1 year ago
Scott I got a question for you. Is the statement "A = A" directly observable? Could you briefly clarify?
jaynkay100 1 year ago
Matt Dillahunty did indeed point out several times that Slick was making a catagorical error. The debate ended when Dillahunty got frustrated with the fact that Slick was comparing apples and pears and couldn't see it.
Lekhite 1 year ago
Although I agree that Dillahunty became flustered towards the end and fell into the trap. It is a bit more difficult to debate complex arguments on the spot rather than taking the time to contemplate them and phrase them more elequently. You're both doing a good job though.
Lekhite 1 year ago
the opposite off tangible cow pee....LOL!!!!!!
julzabro 1 year ago
Nice pig tree analogy. I'm with you so far.
I thought Dillahunty faired pretty well, especially with his 2 video follow up "did matt slick win?, where slick is posed the question "is god conceptual or physical" and slick replies "NEITHER"..LOLZ
TooferMan 2 years ago 4
I agree with all of your arguments but I think you're slightly off about one thing.
In the videos, Dillahunty was trying to show Slick the difference between the logical absolutes and the statements about those absolutes.
You are calling the absolutes the "nature" of the thing, and using "logical absolute" to describe the statement.
When Dillahunty said logical absolute he was talking about the nature, NOT the statement, which is what he was trying to show Slick.
bonanzaguy04 2 years ago
A is A? What about Schroedinger's A?
Nulono 2 years ago
"How can you say what kind of tree a pig is not, when you can't even say what a pig is?" Lol. Coca Cola just shot out of my nose!
brascokid 2 years ago
"Tangible Cowpee" would be a great name for a west Texan psychedelic novelty funk band.
LordCustos3 2 years ago
As much as I would love to see Matt Dillahunty debate Ray Comfort, I can't imagine the carnage and humiliation splattered over the floor of a debate between TBS and Ray Comfort.
InternalCompass 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Instead of sitting around thinking about whether
A = A or not, you need to get your pasty ass out of the apartment and get a job so you might be able to buy some decent sheets and some decor for that room. Jeez, you need some serious feng shui up in there.
fknugly222 2 years ago
"Get a job?" Jesus Christ, you're a moron. Scott's an actor on a daytime soap. What is it that you do in life, exactly?
bronx43 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You're calling me a moron bc i don't watch soap operas?!?!? hahahahahahah
Hey Brainiac, I'm an artist for a living and an aspiring chess master. What do YOU do?
fknugly222 2 years ago
I'm calling you a moron, because you assumed TB has no job, due to the fact that he doesn't make his room to look like something out of HGTV.
I'm a third year medical student... not that it matters what I do.
bronx43 2 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
oh jeez. Well i hope you plan to serve the indigent or else you'll be doomed to be another soul sapping culprit in an increasingly destructive american health care train wreck preying on the poor and holding their health ransom for who knows how much money. I'll pray for your soul.
You seem a little wet behind the ears so i'll fill you in, i was impressed with this young soap opera star's analysis of "what things are". I was trollin. You should try it sometime. Hint: This isn't real.
fknugly222 2 years ago
Eh he he, Feng Shui, good on...well actually not.
GumbaMasta 2 years ago
Yes I can, yes I can! Hahaha, I saw not you but Dillahunty when you did that.
finalcloud13 2 years ago
Pigs are too trees!
athywren 2 years ago
Dillahunty did address your point to a certain extent, by pointing out that logical absolutes don't 'exist' but that 'existence' of anything is contingent upon them.
Matt, obviously, mocked this. 'You're saying they don't exist?'
You're right, the debate should have ended shortly after Matt admitted that his version of god was subject to the laws of logic.
I think Matt would deny the logic of your argument and focus on the existence of the absolutes... From what I've seen of his technique.
transferosome 2 years ago
TAG is essentially the Ontological Argument. I commend TBS for revealing this fact.
bronx43 2 years ago
Very awesome.
This is exactly the conclusion I came up with after a lot of deep thought. He's basically unawares of his own linguistics.
The way you said it if brilliant. You're a really funny guy, who's good looks I'm envious of.
paulmarko 2 years ago
You just earned yourself yet another subscriber :)
aLesserChristian 2 years ago
Comment removed
aLesserChristian 2 years ago
nice. very impressed by this response.
naard 2 years ago 3
Matt Slick's assertion is false anyway. It's absurd to say you can only say what something is not by saying what it is. That is like saying a person being tried for murder can only say they are not the murderer by finding out who actually is the murderer. It's the opposite of deductive reasoning, or guilty until proven innocent. It doesn't work that way and it shifts the burden of proof without proper justification.
TruthAtAllCost 2 years ago 5
Again. Very impressed by your response to this debate. Makes me want to go watch the whole Matt/Matt debate again which I probably will.
Naryth24 2 years ago
Brilliant!!!!........and I mean all three videos in this series collectively. You illustrated how Slick temporarily confused Dillahunty at the end of their debate.........but also showed how, in the end, that when viewing their debate as a whole, Dillahunty OWNED Slick. Also see Dillahunty's two part video presentation "Matt Slick won???" ( I may be mistaken on the title name.) There Dillahunty CLEARLY shows how he OWNED him in their TAG debate.
snailplow 2 years ago 2
TREE BACON
Kreadus005 2 years ago 28
Mmmm, pork carpentry.
Maxdwolf 2 years ago 2
I see where you're coming from with the tree pig thing but I don't think it's necessary. Slick wasn't focusing on logical absolutes having a nature but that they were specifically conceptual by nature which is what his TAG relies upon. Dillahunty refuted that by saying that they are not conceptual nor physical but instead trancendental in nature which is the word he used in the show the week after. That is enough to point out a structural flaw in Slicks TAG.
ingsve 2 years ago 4
Applause... bravo
jdt002 2 years ago 3
If you saw the TAG debate, I think this video maker nailed Slicks whole BS right at 5:30 in the video.
Masher88 2 years ago 4
What you said at 4:00ish is the perfect way to address their 45 minute argument.
andytoz 2 years ago 2
neptune60,
I for one agree that it's sad, but it's a need. Even as an agnostic atheist, I find the concept of god far from trivial. It is "a" possible explanation for our existence. Not a 'valid' possibility, but still one that, by our own evolutionary wiring, must exist.
rationalmuscle 2 years ago 7
I don't think that TB is "concerned" about the concept of god. It is just something he is interested in and, when it comes down to it, what is a more interesting topic to discuss with those of differing viewpoints than eternity?
onemansvoice78 2 years ago 9
"This is the opposite of tangible cow pee" hahahahahahahah
mollisher 2 years ago 4
You just know someone's gonna make an account called TangibleCowPee ay.
lol
andytoz 2 years ago 4
mighty extrapolation on the "but who created god" scenario.
yamaha893 3 years ago
TheorecticalBullshit from my experiences with Slick and his concubinhe Sellnar they delete rearrange & edit after the fact replies of their opponents. Then lie to cover up their screw ups. Slick was owned and schooled by Dillahunty. Next night Slick stated his program it was the devil attacking him. Slick misquoted another atheist. He 45 minutes blasting this atheist over a misquote that was his fault!. Another atheist live on the air pointed this out to him! Egg on his face! A great moment!
wmgroutofthebox 3 years ago
Why doesn't Matt Slick pick his nose? Because that hundred pound booger up his nose is the only thing keeping his head from caving in!
wmgroutofthebox 3 years ago
the opposite of tangible cow pee = theoretical bullshit
very funny.
bu1ckgnx 3 years ago 2
Lol... I thought you said trees are either deciduous or carnivorous at first.... haha
L0rdSaba0th 3 years ago
I should've known better than to try to watch one of your vids without pen and paper handy.
lazyperfectionist1 3 years ago
Yeah, I think Matt D. did a great job of handling Slicks arguments on the fly like that. I can see how it would be extremely hard to debate TAG in a real time situation. Kinda goes back to the "gotcha arguments" that you mentioned. The argument is so ridiculous and convoluted, it's hard to wrap your head around what the F*** Slick is trying to get at without pondering on it for a while.
SamTay04 3 years ago 2
Awesome *****
motile 3 years ago
"A Pig is not a tree."
Epic.
KingCrimson776 3 years ago 4
I totally saw the show that day and I was annoyed- because ontology is so tawdry
robotaholic 3 years ago
I can't get over how bad this video is. You haven't clarified anything; you made it convoluted. You've lied and distorted.
GhostyFilms 3 years ago
Ghosty, your obsession with persistently bashing this video and myself without good reason leads me to believe this has nothing to do with logic, or even truth... but a personal issue on your end.
Go take a walk or something. Take deep breaths. Do whatever you gotta do, but stop making your baggage my problem.
TheoreticalBullshit 3 years ago
And your decision to make a personal attack against me reveals that you aren't capable of discussing the points and quotes that I've presented. Funny how that's exactly what "awesome" Matt Dillahunty condemned Matt Slick for in the followup video after the debate.
GhostyFilms 3 years ago
Your "points and quotes" demonstrate YOUR lack of understanding about MY argument. That's why I'm not addressing them. The "premise" you say Matt didn't accept is not the same premise I am referring to in my video.
"I do not accept that the nature of logical absolutes must be physical or conceptual" VS "I do not accept that logical absolutes HAVE a nature at all, since they ARE a nature."
Either watch my video again and pay attention, or stop this. Your confusion isn't my burden.
TheoreticalBullshit 3 years ago
I'll copy and paste my quotes AGAIN, so you can read them and pay attention.
In part 1, at 5:16, he said "Logical absolutes are truth statements, such as, that which exists has attributes found in nature."
In part 3, at 7:15, he says "I'm not talking about them in the physical sense of an essence."
In part 4, at 1:43, he says "Nonconceptual does not mean physical; it means nonconceptual...
GhostyFilms 3 years ago
Your quote before this was as follows:
"I agree with his rock reference. I think he just failed to make the distinction between the nature of a thing and the thing itself, when Matt asked him to classify the nature of logical absolutes."
GhostyFilms 3 years ago
@GhostyFilms
What is a thing itself, if it's not the nature of it?
0spiker 1 year ago
Yes, and I'll tell you AGAIN, the fact that you still think these quotes are problematic for my point clearly shows that you don't UNDERSTAND my point.
Sorry.
TheoreticalBullshit 3 years ago
I don't want to purposefully incite any further rage, but, I have to admit that it has crossed my mind that perhaps, yes, even you Ghosty, have not understood all of TBS' points. I'm just saying it's possible. And I think the conversation is spinning out beyond the point of no return.
I think you ought to realize that, despite your being right or wrong, you have hit an impasse here, and that Dillahunty himself would have to intercede to bring requisite force to bear on the point.
memoryhero 3 years ago
Possibly... It's getting hard to find all the different branches of this conversation, but I have to respond to one more thing.
GhostyFilms 3 years ago
The irony of all this is, Dillahunty and I almost entirely agree when it comes to the content of our positions. My issue was really just with the way he represented himself unclearly.
Ghosty, I've explained this to you. Your response was to say that Dillahunty was incredibly clear, I just failed to understand his incredible clarity. (You realize this is a self-defeating claim, right?)
I'm about ready to let this go, even if Ghosty keeps ranting. This isn't going to get any better.
TheoreticalBullshit 3 years ago
Ohh... I'm "ranting" now. You're attacking my intellectual capacity, just like Matt Slick... Did you show these videos to Matt Dillahunty?
GhostyFilms 3 years ago
lol... ranting has nothing to do with intellectual capacity.
TheoreticalBullshit 3 years ago
But it's something that lunatics do, in the sense that it is a synonym of rave, which is something you do in a delirium. You have said that I don't have a grip on reality.
GhostyFilms 3 years ago
Are you joking? Dillahunty himself rants all the time, and calls it such - at the time.
memoryhero 3 years ago
No, this is the point, too, which I have just let slide rather than address: These two guys obviously agree on SO much. While they aren't friends, they are certainly, by definition, allies.
And here's Ghosty shouting that Dillahunty has been wronged! I personally don't think Dillahunty is going to give two tosses for your claims, Ghosty, whether they are "right" or "wrong".
I think you are bemoaning a crime that the "victim" himself will think is nothing but, ahem, arrant pedantry.
memoryhero 3 years ago
These quotes clearly show that he was talking about characteristics, not the rock or the apple, but the characteristic of there existence and the consistency of that existence.
Here's you again:
"I agree with his rock reference. I think he just failed to make the distinction between the nature of a thing and the thing itself, when Matt asked him to classify the nature of logical absolutes."
GhostyFilms 3 years ago
The problem is that you think MY statement is referring to a distinction that has to be made when talking about things like rocks. IT'S NOT.
I am referring to a distinction that has to be made when talking about logical absolutes.
TheoreticalBullshit 3 years ago
@TheoreticalBullshit
And actually his quotes are wrong. Matt D's argument rests entirely on recognizing
the logical absolutes are not conceptual. Matt D Did catch the fallacy. Your example,
while amusing, is wrong. Matt D did not say the Absolutes are, say, physical or spiritual. To use your example he said they are either tree or not tree, that while he didn't know exactly what they are, he knew that they were not tree and pointed out that "not tree" includes everything else except tree.
0spiker 1 year ago
Well done!
todaypompeii 3 years ago
This is an excellent commentary and offers further rebuttal of TAG. I have one minor complaint and that is your claim that Matt Dillahunty let Slick get away with a false premise.
I suggest you watch the video of the discussion again because Matt Dillahunty clearly doesn't accept the false premise and he rejected a few of the others too.
Matt Dillahunty states several times that logical absolutes are neither conceptual nor physical. This is exactly what you have postulated in your video.
kasroa 3 years ago
"additional extra thing" is the same argument as "universe must've had an uncaused supernatural cause" "But what about that uncaused cause? Couldn't it have just been the universe?"
I don't like saying statements are "self refuting" as sometimes, they're just intended to be axioms.
funwjoshnjenn 3 years ago
I like what you did here TB, but I'd put forth there's a more obvious way to refute it. The 3rd option is transcendent, logical absolutes are transcendent,
On Carms site Slick claims logical absolutes are transcendent, then claims they're conceptual, someone should tell him to pick one, because they contradict each other.
Specifically, his point 6.B.i. It Blatantly contradicts itself.
Would be interested in any feedback TB
robman419 3 years ago
so you consider logic to simply be the way in which we use language to describe things in nature?
TogetherForPeace 3 years ago
That's a really vague definition... That could be true in some sense, but it's not a sufficient account of what logic is.
Really, "logic" is a system for deriving proper inference from statements.
This video has not been about "logic" though. It's been about "logical absolutes", and their relationship to reality. And we need to keep the distinction between them clear.
TheoreticalBullshit 3 years ago
I didn't make myself clear? You said things that were not true.
GhostyFilms 3 years ago
Matt D didn't accept his "hidden premise." He specifically said that he didn't accept his premise.
Furthermore, "A" is a variable. "A" can refer to a physical thing or a characteristic. He was referring to characteristics when he referred to logical absolutes in variable form.
GhostyFilms 3 years ago
When referred to rocks, it was only so that he could describe the nature of it, i.e. a rock is a rock, and it is not what it is not.
GhostyFilms 3 years ago
I agree with his rock reference. I think he just failed to make the distinction between the nature of a thing and the thing itself, when Matt asked him to classify the nature of logical absolutes.
TheoreticalBullshit 3 years ago
No, he did not fail. You failed to understand. He was very clear, throughout the discussion, that logical absolutes dealt with characteristics.
In part 1, at 5:16, he said "Logical absolutes are truth statements, such as, that which exists has attributes found in nature."
In part 3, at 7:15, he says "I'm not talking about them in the physical sense of an essence."
In part 4, at 1:43, he says "Nonconceptual does not mean physical; it means nonconceptual...
GhostyFilms 3 years ago
Ghosty, I'm not sure what you're trying to prove. I think Matt Dillahunty is awesome. Since making this video, he and I have been exchanging emails, agreeing on almost everything. We are on the same page.
I'm not addressing his actual position. I'm addressing the fact that he didn't make his position clear enough to Slick, because Slick kept misrepresenting him.
So what is your problem, exactly?
TheoreticalBullshit 3 years ago
You say he made a mistake by using the term "logical absolute" in reference to nature, then you turn around and tell us that's what it is.
I don't think you understand this at all. I thought that the whole point of logical absolutes was that logic refers to them.
It sounds as if you're quoting Matt D, saying he's wrong, and then quoting him again, as if what he said was your idea.
GhostyFilms 3 years ago
No, you've got that wrong. I was making a distinction between a logical absolute, which is a STATEMENT ("A is A"), and the nature/behavior of existence to which said statement refers.
Logic USES logical absolutes, by assuming the their truth. It does not need to refer to them.
TheoreticalBullshit 3 years ago
"To me, Dillhunty'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 address."
"You take the logical absolute 'a is a.' What is this logical absolute?"
"What the statement "a is a" refers to is not a thing that has a nature. it refers to the nature of the thing."
GhostyFilms 3 years ago
I don't think he assumed that logical absolutes referred to a "thing that has a nature." He just happened to use a thing with a nature as an example.
How can you refer to something's nature without referring to the thing?
GhostyFilms 3 years ago
Frustratingly,this subject seems to be really at the edge of my comprehension...A logical absolute(LA) is a concept descriptive of something physical(or behaviours thereof)? Rather than, as Matt D fell for, an LA being ACTUALLY a physical thing(or behaviours thereof)?
I wish I was just a little smarter...
allmightydouche 3 years ago
That was funny at the end there, because at first I thought you said "all trees are either carnivorous or deciduous."
787Bisurdaddy 3 years ago
When Matt Slick wanted Dillahunty to either decide between conceptual or physical to explain logical absolutes he was committing an argument from ignorance (it is claimed that a premise is true only because one has not proven it false, or is false only because it has not been proven.
dudekyle13x 3 years ago
or is false only because it has not been proven true* (forgot the last word lol)
dudekyle13x 3 years ago
@dudekyle13x
Matt S was confused about Matt D's point. It's not about whether the logical absolutes are conceptual or physical-although Slick did mention the latter as a possibility- nor was it a question about which was true. Matt D said they were either conceptual or non conceptual and chose the latter. Matt S was confused about necessarily knowing what they are. If I said you're not Pam or Sally, he would be right to say there's another choice. If I said your either Sally or not Sally....
0spiker 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Well done! I liked the pigs/trees argument. I knew there was a flaw in Slick's argument, but couldn't put my finger on it.
Dave8972 3 years ago
Well done! I liked the pigs/trees argument. I knew there was a flaw in Slick's argument, but couldn't put my finger on it.
Dave8972 3 years ago
5 star video!!
tiberux 3 years ago
you, sir have earned my subscriberhood with this set of videos.
Brettah31 3 years ago
Why is it no one bothers to apply Gödel's incompleteness theorems to such debate?
bpabbott1st 3 years ago
ahaha i thought about it, lol its a 3rd type of tree
SousukePanic 3 years ago
LMFAO AGAIN during the bit ending at 6:35!
Elaina43 3 years ago
Re; the statement completed at 3:41 - I wish Matt S. would respond to that!
Elaina43 3 years ago
Re; 2:34 - Really well said! A is A refers not to a thing that has a nature but the nature of a thing - I am repeating here for my own edification - I really want to remember this.
Elaina43 3 years ago
Re: 1:15 - that was the most frustrating part of the videos!
Elaina43 3 years ago
Damn, I hate having to favorite 4(assuming part 4 is equally good) parts of something. Couldn't you just have one really good part and make me sit through shit the rest of the way?
Sheogorath13 3 years ago
The college thing is correct. I've read theistic philosophy, but obviously not as part of a scholastic curriculum.
TheoreticalBullshit 3 years ago
What books would you recommend reading, TBS?
Haha, silly question, I suppose, but I rather enjoy watching you videos, and you think in a very clear manner. I know you said you've never been to college, so what philosophy books have you read?
WizardofCalculus 3 years ago
Well I really liked both Sam Harris' books. Back in the day, I read an amazing book by George H. Smith called "The Case Against God". I also learned alot (historically speaking) from Bart Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus"...
TheoreticalBullshit 3 years ago
I'm listening now to Ehrman's course done with The Teaching Company "From Jesus to Constantine - A History of Early Christianity". Great stuff, which I wish all Christians would take upon themselves to investigate. Of course they aren't encouraged to learn how mired their own history is and has always been in disputes and factions.
memoryhero 3 years ago
That's so funny I've listened to the same thing! The Teaching Company is a great find.
TheoreticalBullshit 3 years ago
Absolutely. All hail the non-college grads interested in learning for learning's sake! The history courses offered by The Teaching Company - as well as its course on Argumentation! - have made such an impact on me, as though I've fallen in love with learning for the first time. Ah, the world and its past....
memoryhero 3 years ago
"That's so funny I've listened to the same thing! The Teaching Company is a great find. "
Yea I have hundreds of gigabytes of that stuff. I will never get through them all but I hoard that stuff lol.
Mjhavok 3 years ago
Anything else? It seems to me you'd have to have read more than that in order to have a firm grasp of the language you use. It seems to me you'd have to have sat down and read a few books on logic and epistemology to know all the very precise (and you use them correctly, I know because I've read a fair amount of philosophy) terminology that you use when dispelling apologetic arguments..
WizardofCalculus 3 years ago
That's really interesting to hear, because the truth is that I don't know what the proper philosophical terminology is for a lot of what I say. I have never really read books on logic or epistemology, because I feared my thinking would get too technical and less accessible. I choose terms and language that I think best represent the idea to the most amount of people, even if it is incorrect.
What I do know about logic, etc. is almost entirely from internet articles and talking to people.
TheoreticalBullshit 3 years ago
"predicated", "syllogism", "epistemic", "laws of thought", "ontology", "necessitates", the list of logical fallacies you've spotted, these are all examples of technical terms or technical things. It shocks me that you've never read a philosophy book, lol, but I suppose you talk to some really intellectual people to pick this up from mere conversation. Although, I've learned a great deal from internet articles, too. Logical fallacies are probably best picked up from internet articles.
WizardofCalculus 3 years ago
Hah, well cool. I'm glad I at least come off like I know what I'm talking about. lol
TheoreticalBullshit 3 years ago
And as to the what is God? thingy as you said he is neither physical nor conceptual. God is a mind.
Slick is saying things either exist in the physical realm, or in a mind. God is a mind.
It would be like knowing there are 2 container (one with Coke and one with water). You know everything iniside there is one or the other. Of course thsi says nothing about the containers (which would be the realm of space-time and minds in our case of physical or conceptual).
facilisdescenus 3 years ago
"Conceptual" means IN a mind. So to say that God IS a mind, does not answer the question of whether God is IN a mind, or physical.
If God is a disembodied mind, what is the nature of that mind's existence? Conceptual (meaning the mind is in a mind)? Or physical?
TheoreticalBullshit 3 years ago
I don't want to debate the nature of the mind( I'm a dualist though).
But I think we can saw something either is a mind, exists in a mind or in the physical realm. God is a mind. It is self evident that laws of logic are not minds or conscious entities so Slick's point about 2 options still stands.
facilisdescenus 3 years ago
Saying "God is a mind" is to label something, but it does not address the nature of it's existence. What IS a mind? What is the substance of which it is composed? What are the mechanisms by which it operates?
According to Matt's reasoning, if you can't give a positive account of these things, then you can't say that God is not physical or conceptual.
TheoreticalBullshit 3 years ago
Essentially, you are putting God into a category that is already spoken for. Minds do not have physical power over things outside of them. If God is a mind, God could not create a planet, since minds do not create planets. To say that they CAN create planets is begging the question. Either God is not (just) a mind, or God is not omnipotent.
TheoreticalBullshit 3 years ago
Ugh, You said that HE.. God isn't conceptual God is a mind. Mind is a concept man created to explain consciousness. Even if I were to accept that God is this ethereal consciousness that has phenomenal abilities to manifest whatever it thinks into our existence. It's actually his existence... just because the fish is in the bowl doesn't mean it's not in the room. That's a whole other can. Why hasn't he made his existence known with no questions?
MenaCmx 3 years ago
I think we can forgive Matt Dillahunty for any sins of logical omission given the format of the debate. It's pretty hard to think of every angle and argument on the fly in a free flowing discussion, especially in a medium that doesn't allow periods of contemplative silence.
MenoftheInfinite 3 years ago
I agree. And I don't know that I would have done any better. Watching the exchange from home with a "pause" button is a luxury.
TheoreticalBullshit 3 years ago
Indeed. It's also the case that a reasonably skilled apologist like Slick can screw you up in a spontaneous discussion, because you may intuitively know, in the moment, that he's said something illogical, but you can't necessarily immediately built an argument as to why. That silent space between your intuitive apprehension and the actual argument you may later build is that which apologists dance in. It gives the impression they've made a real point when they actually haven't. Bastards!
MenoftheInfinite 3 years ago
I love your "category error" demonstration!
CousinoMacul 3 years ago 2
Would the opposite of tangible cow pee be whatever the cow drank to make the pee?
tGette 3 years ago
This is a darn good series. Your work and research really shows.
jlzkcarlos 3 years ago
Even if TAG can be shown to contain fallacious reasoning, it will still likely be liberally applied by apologists because of its tendency to stump and confuse those hearing it for the first time. Like the fool's mate in chess. Use it until your opponent can capitalize on its flaw, then adjourn the game and seek out a new, unlearned opponent.
memoryhero 3 years ago
This is why I've ceased having interest in debates of this nature, because they overwhelmingly endorse this concept of "winning" rather that exchanging ideas in a manner that give people a chance to pause, reflect, and learn from one another.
Matt Slick is a slippery little shit. He's almost as bad as Gene Cook and Paul Manata.
Neilsama 3 years ago
Yes.
Except it's coniferous. Trees don't eat meat. ;)
QuantumBullet 3 years ago 2
Yup, perfect.
TheoreticalBullshit 3 years ago
Perfectly done. ★★★★★
Katalyzt
Katalyzt 3 years ago
Thanks for this video.
When I found TAG on youtube, I pointed out that Slick was implying that things had Thingness, but I've never been able to adequately explain myself on that one.
Not that it mattered with Slick, because he fits his name, slippery and greasy fellow that he is... He'd try to argue himself out of a wet paper bag until the bag got up and walked away, instead of doing the obvious thing.
EdwardHowton 3 years ago
At first I thought you were saying "carnivorous tree".
Then I thought about John Wyndham's 'The Day of the Triffids' for a while.
I had to restart the video to clear my head.
TroisVitesse 3 years ago
Shuffle shod wach this :)
orclv 3 years ago
i ment dillahunty :D:D
orclv 3 years ago
lol, on the acting.
Actually that world view, if it is correct and truth, is barrow from God. Because he is all Truth.
And Christens seek to worship that.
So, Atheists borrowed it from GOD. Not the other way around.
GladTidingsPromise 3 years ago
GladTidingsPromise " if it is correct and truth, is barrow from God. Because he is all Truth."
Truth is God, God is Truth
that's not logic, that's circular reasoning
justintempler 3 years ago
If God is Truth, then you need to get closer to God.
I suggest you read the Bible in your search for Truth/God. The world needs more atheists.
LordTerror56 3 years ago
matt d did as well as he could with all the possible research which could have been done without forknowlege. Unless he were as smart as you. Please take Slick on and post it.
ragetony 3 years ago
Thanks so much, TBS.
Blue556A 3 years ago
Concerning 2:18
I was under the assumption that Matt Dillahunty was using the terms the "essence of logic" ( which is the the behaviour of things, in your terms) and the "application of logic" (statements or thoughts).
Those terms seem to work well - the "essence" and the "application".
TheDoubtingApproach 3 years ago