The Matt/Matt Debate - Part 3: Pigs and Trees

Matt Slick calls in to "The Atheist Experience":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rb1mfKJU6bo

For parts 1, 2 and 4 click here:
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=C494E2C093CDF2E1

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• TAG
• transcendental
• argument
• matt
• dillahunty
• slick
• atheist
• experience
• debate
• jesus
• god
• christ
• christianity
• logic
• random

[Kreadus005]

TREE BACON

[onemansvoice78]

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?

[stiimuli]

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.

[MrPinkUnicornz]

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.

[eronfas101]

I did indeed mean Plato's forms. The Platonic forms. Not "Aristotle's forms". I stand corrected.

[eronfas101]

@solaphyde I did indeed mean Plato's forms. The Platonic forms. Not "Aristotle's forms". I stand corrected.

[COEXISTential]

The Pig/Tree fallacy was just a (h)ambush!

[MrLittletomdj]

@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.

[AGRANT716]

"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.

[solaphyde]

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]

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.

[eronfas101]

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.