Proof of God: TAG Debate Matt Slick & Matt Dillahunty (1/2): Epilogue
Loading...
Link to this comment:
Top Comments
Video Responses
All Comments (1,019)
-
The analogy of the 40 headed beast is misleading. You have started from the position that you know it is a 40 headed beast, not something you don't know. With that presumption, of course it seems Matt is crazy. But what Matt is saying (in that example) is that you can't tell him it's not a zebra because you DON'T KNOW what it is. So basically you are just guessing that it's not a zebra. He's not saying why he believes it is a zebra, just that if you can't see, you can't know.
-
Because I know what a zebra looks like and that is not a zebra?
-
I watched the debate and IMO both sides got caught in non essential to the topic arguments failing to recognize the argument on the other side.Once the debate got heated there was no much development on arguments.
The real question is are there absolutes at all and if yes that's lost battle for atheism since it points to intelligent design supported with clear facts of design in nature...the name of the intelligent source /designer or power/ doesn't matter at this point.It is a lost battle
-
Did you watch the debate?
-
Great show! I still think Bill Gaede has the best all-round arguments for why god doesn't exist. It's not the usual logic/contradiction/proof axiomatic approach.
Matt Slick debated one of Bill's protiges in his Hubpages comments, here: fatfist.hubpages(dot)com(slash
)hub(slash)There-are-NO-Absolu tes-There-is-NO-Absolute-Truth His arguments were refuted in record time. I wanted to post this for the fine, bright minds that watch this show. Might be of some use against the religionists! Thanks!
-
Sure Dillahunty talk shit and say Slick is wrong without having him on the line to hear his objections. Smart
-
@314Aurelius That wasn't their specific disagreement at the time. It was whether logical absolutes are conceptual or non-conceptual (or something else). After agreeing that logical absolutes existed, Dilla then turned around and said he doesn't know their nature nor does he believe that he needs to provide an answer JUST so that he could derail the argument and not allow Slick to win the argument. (Knocking over the table when it looks like your opponent will get checkmate).
-
@petepittsburgh - To answer your question -- something that Slick tried to identify that one has ever seen before: God.
-
@314Aurelius Where in Slick's argument did he try to identify something that no one has ever seen before (40 headed beast) and claim that it is something we do know (a zebra)? Your analogy does not accurately reflect the argument. They BOTH agreed that log abs exist. But Dilla then said he doesnt know the nature of them, and then said Slick is wrong about them. That's evasion at its finest. If he cant argue something intelligently just claim that no discussion is necessary. Cheap, cheap, cheap
-
i haven't seen the debate, yet, but to be fair, "neither" is not a counter to conceptual/physical being a dichotomy. If "neither" exists in the empty set, then the dichotomy holds. I further disagree that the burden of proof rests entirely on him. He made a reasonable (even if incorrect) assertion, and then asked you to help him better understand. This is a completely fair part of dialogue and debate. It would also be fair for you to say "i don't think the dichotomy holds, but I don't know".
10:31TAG: Matt Slick VS Matt Dillahunty PART 4/5 - A...by kyokumajr15,172 views
- 9:12Matt Slick's TAG Ripped Apart Once Moreby AtheistExperience26,368 views
- 3:23Why Atheists laugh at religionby ExMuslimForHumanity318,620 views
- 2:33Heaven & Hellby FFreeThinker80,757 views
- 10:19God Is Always Right!by FFreeThinker81,009 views
- 10:48TAG: Matt Slick VS Matt Dillahunty PART 1/5 - A...by kyokumajr47,688 views
- 10:47TAG: Matt Slick VS Matt Dillahunty PART 5/5 - A...by kyokumajr17,189 views
- 9:53Christian Radio Host Calls Back: Proof Of God -...by FFreeThinker35,830 views
- 9:27Kalam Cosmological Argument (1/2)by AtheistExperience25,522 views
- 6:35Matt Slick Won??? PART 2/2 - AE #594by kyokumajr8,807 views
- 6:39Ground Zero Victory Mosque?by FFreeThinker20,910 views
- 10:57Apologist Caller: Matt Slick & Transcendental A...by kyokumajr8,812 views
- 5:32Proof Of God: TAG Debate Matt Slick & Matt Dill...by FFreeThinker17,718 views
- 28:22Dr. Sungenis humiliates Matt Slickby Theologica376,336 views
- 9:22Common Misconceptions About Atheismby FFreeThinker35,585 views
- 1:48:04The God Debate: Hitchens vs. D'Souzaby NDdotEDU177,317 views
- 8:22MATT SLICK vs DAN BARKER 1by vekl13,585 views
- 4:53Conversation with the author of "The Shack"by carmvideos4,078 views
- 4:18George Montague - The Smokeby GeorgeMontague58,865 views
- 9:51Abortion by Matt Slickby testskriftene28,513 views
A 40 headed beast that mankind has never seen before is roaming the streets in front of Slick's house. Slick walks outside of the house with his neighbor and the neighbor says, "What is that?" Slick says, "That's a zebra." His neighbor says, "Thats not a zebra." Matt replies, "Can you tell me what it is? No? Then how can you tell me what it isn't?"
314Aurelius 9 months ago 31
No, and here is why:
Set of all things{
--Set of Physical things{ ... }
--Set of Not Physical things{
-- --Set of Purely Conceptual things{ ... }
-- --Set of Not Conceptual things{ ... }
--}
}
Notice how the set of conceptual things exists as PART of the Not Physical set, but does not constitute that entire set. So if you say something is Physical OR Conceptual, you are wrong, because you are willfully ignoring the set of non-physical-non-conceptual things. Slick proposed a false dichotomy.
Lowraith 10 months ago 18