This guy Matt is a born LOSER, he has got NO REAL job and he is solely dependent on religion for financial support and he will defend it even when PROVEN WRONG (checkmate STYLE). For this reason, he is DESPERATELY arguing with EXPERTS on any given field and having the DISHONESTY to say to them, "There is a problem"
@Cleo Fierro I'm pretty sure that Atheists are angry at being threatened with eternal damnation by Believers. I agree that they can't be angry at someone who doesn't exist.
@@Ryansghost There are a lot of other things Atheists complain about. Teaching creationism in schools, other forms of indoctrination like teaching people to feel guilty about masturbating, the Catholic church protecting pedophiles from the legal system, churches convincing adherents to donate harmfully huge amounts of their income, the demonizing of homosexuals, lots of things :)
@Cleo Fierro Pretty sure atheists would also prefer a world without those, too. This wasn't a game of 'who is worse', this was the answer to your confusion about what atheists are bothered by. They aren't angry at a God that doesn't exist like you thought, but at things theists do. Don't ignore that and not learn a thing by just thinking 'atheists are worse ner ner ni ner ner!'. You'll just make the same mistake in the future. Or, maybe you already knew you were wrong. Maybe you weren't confused about what bothers atheists, you were just trying to spread lies.
James Jamesbond It's actually spelled "arbitrary". You can't even spell with the help of an advanced spell checker. Neither do you seem to comprehend what "arbitrary" means because your statement is actually extremely arbitrary.
Or i just spelt it wrong because that happens sometimes. It does not really take away from what I was trying to say. How is statement arbitrary? The point is matt slicks derives a salary from having a bad argument, it is in his interest to not understand what Alex is saying.
James Jamesbond Lol, yes, "it just happens sometimes". Just like many things "just happen" to Homer Simpson. If you think for a moment that "happens sometimes" is any kind of argument, you should not try to engage in logical discussions.
This is the best knockdown of Matt Slick and his TAG argument that I've ever seen. Matt thinks he's so good at logic but he got shown up soooo badly. 😃👌
@@natanaellizama6559 The problem is, Idealism (in every form) is the most anti-Christian philosophy there is. Christian thinkers tried for nearly 100 years (19th century) to create some "Christian Idealist theology" and they were all abysmal failures. The last great attempt was Systematic Theology (3 vols) by Paul Tillich. Tillich admitted his attempt was a failure. All such attempts became impossible after WWI.
@@manager0175 Interesting... can you elaborate? Because for me any classical theism, including Christianity, is NECESSARILY, analytically idealist. Christianity says God is Transcendental, Spirit and personal. It either identifies the Absolute, the ontological, Being Itself with a transcendental spiritual person or with Transcendental, Spirit and Personality themselves. How is this not idealist? I have read some Tillich, although not Systematic Theology. Can you elaborate why this is not true? Are you speaking of an unorthodox Christianity? I don't understand why, according to orthodox forms of Christianity, God being the Absolute, the foundation and Mind does not make the absolute foundation of All mental by definition.
@@natanaellizama6559 Fascinating observations. I will give you a thumbnail response. You said: "Because for me any classical theism, including Christianity, is NECESSARILY, analytically idealist.". This is partly accurate. The beginning of the Christian message is "The Word became flesh and dwelt among us." This necessitates that the message is a historic, and existential message. Thus, there is an idealist and an existential aspect. And equally clearly, Idealism and existentialism are explicitly contradictory. Idealism says "essence before existence" and existentialism says "existence before essence". Let me end there. if you are following thus far. let me know. I will continue.
@ 1:30:20 - *"I still believe the argument is good, ultimately, but maybe I can't prove it is."* If you admit that your argument is incoherent - regardless of whether you believe the position it defends is good - *stop using it*. Your argument cannot simultaneously be incoherent and good at the same time; surely the base requirement of it being 'good' is that it is presentable in a way that makes sense.
I've watched this video twice, and am now watching the bible thumping wingnut original conversation. Firstly I have to say, big respect to you Alex Malpass. Your studious understanding of logical arguments is both enlightening to me personally (as an atheist that has some reasonable understanding of logic, and knows at heart (of mind) that the whole presuppositional TAG is flawed, but can't express why very well), and honestly really great to listen to. Your non-confrontational approach is incredibly disarming. In a strange way it reminds me of a Louis Theroux style approach. I'm really looking forward to hearing you and Matt Slick (and other theists who claim to use logic) talk some more. And hope you chose to have, and post, some of those conversations. Whichever side of the fence people may sit, it's great to hear the nuts and bolts of logical arguments without either party descending into bitterness and vitriol. Thanks man :)
I just love the many times that Slick starts asserting something and has to save face! Slick: "X is such and such."Alex: "no it's not."Slick: "yes, I know! But I must talk simple like that because I'm asked to know every subject and I talk to comoun people in the radio". You can make a drinking game out of it!
Stewart James that ol Christian humility. "I'm a humble wretch loaded with imperfections, but let me tell you about the mind of god and what you're wrong about." |-:
1:19:55 Where Alex puts the rubber to the road. Great discussion, Alex is a scholar and a gentleman. He brought out the "best" in Slick, no simple task.
I don't think that's the case. God is a fundamental "category", the Absolute, not comparable to Zeus. No one conceives of Zeus as the Absolute, not even Greeks did. So, it's a basic category error
Matt Slick: Here's the argument about God and the laws of logic that I've been making for years. Alex: Statement showing how the argument is completely wrong. Matt: I agree with you.
Alex, you are now one of my favorite people to listen too! Well done sir. Extremely intellectual and well spoken! Friend request sent on FB. Im a follower for sure! Subscribed!! Look forward to more content!!
@1:26:44 That priceless moment of hope in your eyes when you thought the penny had dropped for Matt... Only for him to say that 50 pence doesn't have the capacity to account for the laws of logic. I'm reminded of those experiments where they show the participant an option they didn't actually choose and ask them why they chose it. The brain has this incredible reflex and will generate concepts and fill the gaps, convincing the participant that they did choose it and for good reasons. I'm sure the penny did actually drop for Matt at that moment in the conversation, but in his mind the penny can't possibly drop because he believes he's correct; so his brain immediately generated a red herring about the mental capacity of coins, resolving the issue by successfully distracting himself from confronting the issue. I don't blame Matt for this, anymore than I'd blame the participant in that experiment for generating justifications for a choice they never made. It's just something our brains do when confronted with facts that challenge our beliefs.
I've said it before but I'll say it again, Slick either doesn't understand his own argument or he's plane and simply ignorant. Alex, you're a treat to listen to, especially when it comes to serving Matt his humble pie
Alex discussing metaphysics says to Slick “Name me one thing about metaphysics that we know?” Stunned silence from Slick. And this only moments before Slick said we do know somethings about metaphysics. Slick is simply not on the same intellectual plane as Alex, not even close. The number of times Alex has to stifle embarrassed laughs at Slicks ignorance of philosophy, logic and good old fashioned reasoning is embarrassing. Slicks problem is that he is desperate to validate his belief and finds himself being cut off at every attempt to make the same failed arguments in different ways. He just can’t accept that if it was possible it would have been done.He just can’t believe there’s no way to validate his hallucination. Slick is an intellectually ignorant buffoon next to Alex. Slick pretends to know, but actually knows nothing. He doesn’t listen to anything Alex tells him because in his mind it’s a wording issue and he is desperately trying to nail the jelly of belief to the wall. This is actually pitiful. Slick shows what religion has done to his brain: he can’t see his ‘argument’ isn’t worth the paper it’s written on. Worse still, he has to admit that his atheist critics are rationally justified in not taking him or his claims seriously. This also leaves him with metaphorical egg on his face: peddling a failed argument for so long just makes him look like a fool. An arrogant and some would say sincere fool, but a fool nonetheless.
Travis Wooley Exactly! I would have used a whiteboard to show why Matt's argument failed. _Showing_ why something doesn't work is a lot more effective than _telling_ why it doesn't work.
1:30:19 Alex deconstructs Matt's argument, shows him over the course of this discussion and the last one why his argument fails logically, gets him to agree that it doesn't work logically, but Matt "still believes the argument is good". Wtf.
"my argument doesn't work and I can't fix it but I still think it's good" was where I stopped listening to Matt as this is no longer about logic or being reasonable but about obfuscation and emotion. Started skipping through to when Alex was addressing his nonsense at that point rather than listening to Matt continue to be dishonest.
Bingo... and yet he still has the same bullshit, word salad, garbage TAG argument! He’s a disingenuous debater who’s just about trying to convince others of what “he wants to be true”... 🤦🏼♂️
"Put what I'm believing into your logic speach, please." - "If I could do that, you'd have convinced me." Fundamental misunderstanding of logic and their disagreement not just being a communications issue right there. It's where I just had to stop most discussions with people like him, because we just hit a brick wall. We sometimes forget that logic is something you have to train your brain for. (some are more naturally gifted than others) But it's not just learning expressions and nomenclature as he seems to believe.
I like this Matt. He is not afraid to admit when he doesn't know certain details, and I love how he truly came to the table to understand.and wrestle with these concepts. If I had to choose between 'Debate-Matt' and 'Discussion-Matt', I would go with 'Discussion-Matt every time. I love this and the previous interaction between the two. Thanks to both Alex and Matt for being thoughtful and civil throughout the conversation.
Wow. We were watching different discussions then. With cursory knowledge of philosophy, you’d noticed that almost nothing said by this humble and self aware person is even remotely true.
My point got lost and I apologize. My point was more about his temperament. I whole heartedly believe he didn’t grasp or walk away with the philosophical points raised by Alex. But I did see him try to understand by asking questions and thinking about things. I felt this discussion was way more peaceful in the end. I stand by my statement that I prefer ‘Discussion-Matt’ to ‘Debate-Matt.’.
@@peterglen8396I agree with you. I’m coming over from his debate with the fantastic Matt Dillahunty, where I was pretty miffed at Slick’s attitude. I’m new to arguments about logic so a gentle, inquisitive discussion was helpful.
I appreciate you doing this video, Alex. I'd never thought of how useful the first few weeks of a discrete maths course is for considering philosophical questions. I'm curious to see whether that extends to the higher levels. I'd always just applied it to computers in my head. I chuckled when Matt said you'd need a PhD to understand what you were explaining (paraphrasing), but I understand how it could seem that way if you haven't put any time into learning it.
This seems so basic until you try to keep your incorrect argument intact. I'm glad that Alex recorded this instead of just having a casual conversation. Clearly Slick is tryring to develop his argument so that it works in further debates. Yet he can't. Its fuggin awesome!
I was about to turn this off at the 20 minute mark, but now I have to stay for this moment. I need to hear the whole conversation all the way up to that point, too. I'm excited
9:54 An apparent admission to the flaw in the structure of his argument. Then says "most people don't know to think at that level or what's going on". (Alex smiles maybe thinking that the penny has finally dropped) Then Matt goes on to claim that the flaw in his argument is just a syntax issue. (The smile on Alex fades as the blood drains from his face in disappointment) Matt KNOWS the FORM of the argument as he presents it is not valid. He KNOWS he is using word salad to deceive people. Ignorant scam artists engaged in intentional self deception and denial cannot be reasoned with. 15:08 Matt's take on opposing "world views"... 15:30 Alex, your reaction is priceless! You did what you could to keep from face palming :) Kudos to you sir for your infinite patience. 16:00 Huh??!
My favourite thing about this entire exchange is one person believes they're having a high level debate on philosophy with an equal, and the other is delivering a philosophy for dummies lesson to a student who just doesn't get it.
An interesting discussion. This is the first time I've seen Matt Slick actually making an effort to understand what someone else is saying instead of being condescending and telling his interlocutor that they don't understand logic, while not acknowledging his own logical errors. He seems to miss the main point, but he at least seemed to be making an effort.
My (already high) admiration for you Alex soars THRU THE ROOF watching this attempt to reason with (for?) this intransigent presup propagandist. Your geniality and patience with him while at the same time maintaining your concentration is so impressive. One favourite part is after Matt says "You're like me with theology...", when you say "I would never dream of correcting you when it came to issues of theology or what the bible said." He missed that chance to reciprocate and concede to your illustrations of logic. Alas.
Matt's argument is 21:20 "because I don't accept that chemical reactions in your brain can create emergent properties like conscience, and you can't either, it means you can't reason about anything" It's an argument from ignorance and a straw man. Clearly, because he doesn't think that "chemical reactions" can generate thought and consciousness, doesn't mean it does not happen. And it's a straw man, because the humanist worldview it's not rooted on explaining why consciousness exists. But he is wrong, we can prove that the electrico-chemical reactions in the brain are responsible for what you are, we can see it all the time when people take drugs that alter the brain's chemistry (medical or recreational) and we also see drastic changes in personality when the brain is damaged (accidents, degenerative diseases). If consciousness is the product of "not just chemical reactions", then, whatever that is, it would not be affected when the brain chemistry or structure is, because is independent, external. And even if we granted the argument, it still does not mean that the "not just chemicals" is the god he believes in!
Bruh how is your sub count so low. The way you phrase things is like art. You describe concepts i already knew more concisely than i previously thought possible.
He's probably referring the the atheist he argues with. Who are not usually well versed in philosophy and bring science into a discussion of philosophy.
Atheists on the internet are very different when they are in person. In person people are smarter in general right? lol the theist mindset will make anyone dizzy
With a fedora, neckbeard (to cover additional chins), Ayn Rand poster strategically placed behind them, and a mother wishfully hoping they'll gain employment and move out before they reach 40?
If you count up all of the times Slick attempts to rephrase the premises of his argument, he says it correctly from time to time - approximately as often as a person would get it right if they were guessing...
Slick always confuses the map with the place, such as with truth. He equates our assessment of truth with truth itself, or with our use of logic with the laws of thought themselves. He never seems to get this. Our perception of redness isn't redness itself.
And I thought that was the problem that Matt Dillahunty pointed out like 10 years ago and yet Matt S seems to continue to commit this error not only in his own argument, but with metaphors for his argument.
Hey Armadyl! I don't think Slick confuses anything since both the assessment and the truth itself are both truths. Same with logic and the laws of thought, they are both truths too. Thanks for the comment.
Hi HellboundHeathen! Maybe you are right, but you are pushing the problem a step further. If red is a label then so is a "measurable range of wavelengths" a label. If what we see is merely "wavelengths" then those "wavelengths" have properties too and we are back into square one. Both of those are truths of some sort. Thanks for the comment.
Thanks, Felix.Wanted clarity on that contingency.One step at a time.In your argument here with Armadyl you state the assessment of, and, truth itself are the same.For a mind "assessment" is the result of perception and that is not necessarily static nor in agreement with another's perception.A case in point would be an individual with schizophrenia whose perceptions are altered due to sensory processing anomaly.Perception is not truth.Therefore, assessment, resulting from perception and truth are not one and the same.
What a brilliant video, I wish I found you sooner. This is easily the best video I have seen anyone have with a presuppositionalist. Props to Matt for actually willing to admit he was making a mistake. I really like your examples and how you provide them for every argument. Different topic but I loved your 'God's last drink' reaper paradox :) Isn't an abstract object simply a non material thing that is always true and always the same? Chair-ness is not really the same I think as logic. Chair-ness is truly an abstraction of the particular things as something could be a horizontal piece of wood with 4 legs and it could be considered a chair or a table. It's not really a thing in itself but how we group it. But logic can't be anything else, it's always the same (if it's universal). There is no way an instantiation of the laws of logic can be grouped as an instantiation of the laws of morality depending on it's usage. Didn't Matt argue against himself in the end? If the law of no contradiction can't be false in any possible case (1:53:40) then why is 'logic a process of the mind' (1:34:36 , 1:39:30)? We measure it by living in a world that shows that true contradictions don't exist (at least according to Matt Slick (and me)). Isn't that measurement as good as a measurement of acceleration (1:43:50)? Every time we experience something being non contradictory, with no experience of something being contradictory, we are measuring the law of non contradiction, aren't we?
"It might be that my thinking is not good." - Matt Slick th-cam.com/video/0ynBtakYh_E/w-d-xo.html I feel this sums up many of Matt's arguments and debate tactics. I want to explain why his thinking is not good. 1 - He speaks to people who have thought through his arguments and they've offered objections. 2 - He has thus obviously heard these objections and even entertained how to improve or leave an argument 3 - Months later you'll see him using the same arguments completely ignoring the faults This is deceptive behavior. This is what an apologist does. They're not interested in the truth. They're merely interested in defending their point of view at all costs. They're willing to deny the existence of valid objection if the person they're speaking to does not know of the valid objection. So yes.... you're thinking is not that good if you don't listen to others when they have valid critiques.
I admire your patience, Alex. Great explanation! What baffles me is that it took 2 discussions of over 2 hours, and Matt still didn't get it. It took me 5 seconds to see your point, especially when you used the 50p in your pocket vs. the car breaking down example. It's almost as if Matt *doesn't want to get it*... Matt is just making an argument from ignorance: "I can't imagine any other options (than either god accounts for logic, or something else does), therefore there aren't any other options. As you know, he did the same thing with Matt Dillahunty, when he claimed that there are only physical and conceptual things. Even though, the third option (transcendential) is right there, in the very name of his entire argument... It doesn't get any more epic, as far as philosophy debate fails go. All he has is false dichotomies, based on argument from ignorance.
@Cleo Fierro actually... It's not much of an obsession if all I do about religion is comment once in a while.. I don't waste money, energy or significant amount of time.
Just a note, the misunderstanding about tautologies comes from the fact that logical tautologies are different than literary, or "rhetorical", tautologies. Slick was explaining a literary/rhetorial tautology - saying the same thing two different ways, or with two different words meaning the same thing. Alex is describing a logical tautology.Within logic, a tautology is just an inherently true statement. (Sometimes a literary tautology is also called a " literary device" tautology.)
I asked him if he wanted to do another one, he said "sure", I asked him if he had reformulated the argument, and he never replied. Feel free to ask him if you want.
I have written to him, but never gotten a response. Which to some degree is understandable... if he has a lot of channels of communication to keep track on. Either way, I, and others I've talked to are waiting for a follow-up. Personally, I like to know what part of meta-physics he knows for certain and if he have re-formulated the argument in question, which he has stated before that he has.
57:00 Slick has tried to use this a million times, it's his main argument: "You atheists pre-suppose logic "exists," and I go one step further and pre-suppose that the creator of logic exists, so I win." This is only a tactic, not any type of proof or syllogism. 1. Why pre-suppose something you don't see/experience. We experience logic (universally, every rational being does!). So it makes sense to pre-suppose that logic exists. We don't all experience gods. So why then do you pre-suppose this unobserved, unexperienced thing and think that it is valid to do so or comparable to the universal experience of logic. 2. Physicists cannot account for any part of physics; they can explain *what happens, and how it happens,* but they can't explain *why* these things happen. Physicists can't account for why gravity pulls instead of pushes for example. So Slick's argument would equally apply against physicists: "You pre-suppose physics, I pre-suppose a creator of physics, I win." 3. Slick's main point of contention is "You don't have a basis to TRUST logic without leaning on the concept of a god." But no one has ever asked Matt: "Many atheists have used logic to invent and develop the tech that we are using right now, the cpu, wireless communication, display tech, etc. So Slick would you say that these logical thoughts *were in fact true/trustworthy?" We then have evidence that logic is trustworthy. When our logic produces predictable are reproducible results, we have evidence to show that it is trustworthy. So we do have a reason to trust logic is valid.
I love when someone claims to understand the philosophy of infinite sets while simultaneously displaying that they think infinity is a fucking number. “You cant have one half of the infinite being equal to the whole of the infinite” Yea you can, Matt..... cuz infinity isn’t a fucking number. It’s a concept. Hilbert’s hotel is wholly plausible. This man is a professional sophist.
Very week face saving attempt by Matt towards the end, by saying he felt Alex had said things he could see problems with, but he couldn't remember what they were.
That was weird I didn't expect to feel this way?? As bad as I thought I wanted to watch Matt slick get owned, I felt really uncomfortable to watch him crumble.
Well, Matt played Alex. Alex wasted over 2 hours sincerely trying to educate Matt on the proper understanding and usage of Logic, whereas Matt had zero interest in actually learning .
Alex Malpass said at 30:27 that the Platonist view is that the forms doesn't actually exist, but didn't Plato believe in the world of forms, where the forms literally existed? It sounds like what Alex is talking about there is more like Nominalism.
Alex you have tried explaining things in video form abotu TAG, in print on your blog and I don't think Matt understands. He seems to think that rewording it will make it valid. It probably doesn't help that you are an atheist and that makes it less likely he would be open to your arguments. However the fact that he's willing to have hangouts with you give me some hope and undermines somewhat my first sentence.
“I’ve thought a lot about this” usually precedes a statement by Matt that couldn’t possibly follow even a mere 10 minutes of thought surrounding the issue in question.
Alex. I am having trouble understanding your tautology explanation (8:50). Something can be true by definition, say for instance, X=Blue. If that is a definition, then it is true and it is a tautology. But if X=blue (a proposition) where X is shown to be red... then X=Blue would be a false proposition. How can you categorize whether the statement "X=Blue", (without any context) is in fact a tautology (prescription) or a false proposition (description). Also, ¿how do you know this things? Thank you in advance.
Matt has no idea about infinites. Infinity is *not a discrete number*! A lot of math a philosophy laymen make this mistake. Alex's example demonstrates it perfectly: integers are a *smaller, but still infinite* subset of real numbers. Both sets are infinite, but the former is a smaller subset of the latter. In an infinite universe, you can have an infinite (Hilbert's) hotel without it taking over the whole universe. Just like integers don't occupy the entire space of real numbers. In fact, the set of integers is infinitely smaller than the set of real numbers, because you can fit an infinite number of real numbers, between any two integers. So, not only can you have a Hilbert's hotel, in an infinite universe, but you can have *infinite number of Hilbert's hotels*!
The most frustrating part of this conversation is that Matt is not being honest. At best he is being disingenuous because at every point in the conversation Alex tears apart his arguments and explains why they fail. Matt admits as much and affirms that the way he has phrased his arguments is not valid. But even though he affirms that his arguments have failed I lost track of the number of times he repeated "But I still think the argument is true". At one point in time he beseeches Alex to fix his faulty logic. The problem is not with the logic, the problem is with the person. Where the dishonesty enters the conversation is not mendacious, it is that Matt does not really care about the logical argument. He himself explains that his belief in god is based upon a personal experience. If he were to say "I believe in god because of an experience, if you want to know god you should ask him to give you such an experience" then I would agree and say lacking such an experience means my atheism is both logical and necessary. But instead Matt claims that I need god (or at least a worldview including god) in order to justify logic. Even though every argument is invalid and at best cannot be confirmed as true he still believes. So it is not that Matt has an argument, he has a script. Arguing with a presuppositionist is futile because no matter what you say or how many times you show that their argument fails (like Alex has done) they merely repeat their script over and over again. Even though it is clear that Matt acknowledges that his arguments are invalid he will merely repeat them in the future, not caring that Alex already demolished them. He starts with a conclusion (wrought from personal experience) and everything else is just a post-hoc rationalization...
around 1:07:00 Watching this again, it also occurred to me that it's somewhat arbitrary to distinguish between "A property which tells me what a thing is" and "A property which tells me what a thing isn't". Suppose there were aliens who, say, had a word _mwah_, which described non-horseness. If you met an alien and he pointed at a horse and asked you what it was, you would have to say that it was not mwah. So it feels like it's more a matter of what just happens to be idiomatic to you, but there isn't really any true default. In either case, both approaches happen to eliminate the same amount of referents, whether you call that animal a horse or not mwah.
48:00 You both were in error. "Big vs small, spherical vs non spherical." Neither of these require a mind. 2 > 1 whether anyone is currently thinking about it. A sphere maintains it's "not non-spherical" property whether anyone is currently contemplating it. So both of these could be drawn as "comparative" properties. And neither requires a mind. ---- Now "big enough," or "heavy" would be examples of *value judgements,* not properties. Right and wrong are also value judgements.
Alex talking about the fundamental flaw with TAG at 1:26:00 (after the umpteenth time of explaining negation to Slick) “I’d be so happy if the penny dropped and you got what I was saying. That would be wonderful!” It’s hard to know if Slick is dense when it comes to logic, or whether he is so wedded to his life’s work that he can’t accept that it and he is wrong. That and the fact that despite his protestations to the contrary, all his critics were right all along. Not only can’t he account for logic with god, but logic shows however much he tries to find a way for god to be the cause, he just can’t do it, which is a point Alex makes repeatedly. This isn’t just about being wrong for Slick. It’s about atheist objections, which he has stated are unfounded and can’t be accounted for without god, being right. And being right because logic, the very thing he argues only god can be responsible for, shows he can’t attribute the existence of logic to god. To concede the point to Alex would be to admit he’s completely failed as an apologist (and as a self-professed expert in logic) and been waisting his time for years on an argument the proper application of logic shows accounts for precisely nothing. You have to feel sorry for him, but you also have to feel sad that he can’t be honest and admit he was wrong. How refreshing it would be to see him concede this point and apologise to all those who have challenged him on this issue over the years and been dismissed by his arrogance and what can only be called unwitting ignorance. (Cognitive dissonance is hard to surmount). Alex, you did a wonderful job here whether Slick understood this or not. And as others have said you have the patience of a saint. I’m sure this is in part a trait you’ve had to cultivate as an educator over the years. And to be fair, not everyone gets logic, just like not everyone gets maths. Half the battle is getting people to think in purely abstract terms, which Slick found very hard, partly it seems because he was more concerned with salvaging his argument (and belief) and atheists being wrong than understanding why the argument could never be right. In short, he was desperate to save the argument and thought that a simple re-phrasing would be all that was needed to address your objections when it’s not. Sadder still is that he’s still using this same argument today...
18:50 Slick is making zero sense here. "I saw god. *And I know it was god.* And when asked *how do you know it was god?* he just says *it just was.*" He desperately avoids saying *I don't know that it was god or that experience was real.* I think his error here (besides plain arrogance) is using *knowledge* as an equivalent term for *belief.* He *believed* it was god in that experience. Yet he instead says "I just *know* it was god." Belief =/= Knowledge. ---- And in this example, Slick was supposed to give an example of a pre-supposition. But Slick gave an example of a belief. He believed it was god.
While I do not consider myself to be an atheist, it is quite obvious that Slick displays the classic, arrogant traits possessed by many people who are illiterate in logic and mathematics. Most people who have not been exposed to rigorous logical and mathematical reasoning have a tendency to grossly overestimate their own intellectual abilities. Slick is no exception to this.
It's hilarious how Matt Slick thinks he's such an accomplished intellectual but can't comprehend an infinite set within an infinite set. I learned that in middle school math.
his argument is. 1. there is either a "worldview" including god or one without including a god. 2. the one without including a god cannot account for the laws of logic (and he assumes its necessary that something needs to account for the "laws" of logic) 3. therefore: the worldview including a god is true which is barely an argument.
The answer to the "Is a carbon sphere big or small?" question could given from atleast two different views, the first being that "the question is malformed" depending on what you mean by "pure carbon sphere" OR you could say the carbon sphere is 'big' because the atoms that make up that sphere are smaller than the sphere and if the sphere is a single atom then it's still 'big' due to it being larger than the parts that make up the atom. I'm sure there are other answers to that question but I figured I'd chime in with my thoughts on it :) Great discussion fellas!!
Slick is a parrot for sure, like all these apologists seem to be, but like Bahnsen and Til his fallacies are easy to spot such as all of them say the physical laws are prescriptive , not descriptive, which is just incorrect. But that's how all of them get over on people.
Alex I wish you would have cleared up for Matt that "atheism" doesn't exist as a worldview with adherents that share certain belief tenets. An "atheist" is simply one who lacks a belief in god, and that's it. All you can say from that is that people who don't believe in god believe all sorts of different things as individuals, but none of that is "atheism." Atheism isn't a thing, it's just a rejection of theist claims due to lack of evidence. Of course certain atheists claim all sorts of things, and many actively believe there are no gods and that the natural world is all there is. But at about the 30:00 mark of this video, Matt slick said something along the lines of "atheism is fractured," as though we all couldn't get together and agree on our doctrines and as a result we have splintered off into different sects. I just would have cleared up for him that nothing falls under "atheism" except not believing in god. Everything else is something different, and the reasons so many atheists believe so many different things is because individuals in society just believe lots of different things, and that nothing unites atheists except for the answer to 1 question.
Yup. Saying that "atheism is fractured" is like saying that Bigfoot-non-belief is "fractured", or people who don't collect stamps are "fractured". It's *nonsense*. You can't fracture something that was never a "thing", to begin with.
Oh, now you're gonna tell atheists what an atheist is? The "a" prefix means without. Theist means, someone with a belief in god. So, yes "atheist" just means someone without a belief in a god. Most atheists are agnostic atheists, meaning they don't believe in any gods, but they don't claim to know for certain that there aren't any gods. Agnostic theists believe in a god, or gods, but don't claim to know for sure. Gnostic atheists claim to know for sure that there aren't any gods. There are very few people like that. I'm a pretty strong atheist, but even I'm only about 99% sure that there aren't any gods (lack of evidence, after thousands for years, most ideas of god are self-contradictory, etc.). Gnostic theists claim to know for sure that there is a god, or gods. Hope this clears it up for you.
+Butt Butt - *Wrong*. The "a" is not a narrow-scape negation. It applies to the wider scope of "not theism". It does not imply a belief, and certainly not knowledge of no gods existing. The "a" prefix indicates neutrality, or lacking a trait (such as a belief in any gods). Other examples are: "amoral,” "asexual", “atypical,” or “asymmetrical.” Amoral means not concerned with issues of morals. *Immoral* means having incorrect / opposing morals. Asexual means not interested in sex. It doesn't mean denying the existence of sex, or opposing it. And so on. What you are talking about, is called positive atheism (or sometimes called strong atheism: claiming that there is no god), vs. negative atheism (a.k.a. weak atheism: simply lacking belief in any gods). The fact that we have qualifiers, like positive, or negative atheism, indicates that the issue is ambiguous, at best. Positive atheism is definitely not the default meaning you are trying to make it out to be. Also, atheism can be *either narrow, or wide scope*, which is independent of the strength of the belief, which is independent of knowledge claims, as signified with the gnostic / agnostic qualifiers. Here's a summary for you, from the IEP: www.iep.utm.edu/atheism/ Atheist / theist refer to belief. Agnostic / gnostic refer to knowledge. These are orthogonal, which is why you can have agnostic atheists (like me), gnostic atheists, agnostic theists and gnostic theists. Wide and narrow scope refers to accepting / rejecting a single god, or all god claims, which is orthogonal to the other 2 axes. So, you have a total of 3 orthogonal axes: - agnostic / gnostic (positive or negative). - atheist / theist - narrow scope / wide scope A wide-scope gnostic theist would claim to know that all god claims are true (I'm not aware of anyone like this) A narrow-scope gnostic theist claims to know that one of the god hypotheses is true (e.g. Islam). And so on. I'm a wide-scope, agnostic atheist (a.k.a. negative atheist), which describes *nearly all atheists*, which is why this is the "default" interpretation.
"Atheism isn't a thing, it's just a rejection of theist claims due to lack of evidence" After reading that I lack the belief that you have intelligence.
I love that Alex exposed that not only is tag incredibly flawed and only addresses a very small portion of atheists (sloppily) but also that that isn't why Matt actually believes. Then Matt devolved into, "well when you see him like I totally have (lol no) and can't prove at all then you'll believe!". How anyone takes such rubbish seriously is beyond me. Well done not laughing your butt off Alex I would not have had the same composure if presented with weak trash like that.
Alex is asserting the logical definition of tautology but he seems unaware of the common definition thereof which is how Slick was using it "needless repetition of an idea."
@ 32:00 i dont think anyone expects Matt to know everything. I think the reason they "mock" him as he put it is because of the way he tends to act in his conversations. The way he acts with Alex is very different than the way he acts with other atheists. I also his entire TAG argument is a reason he gets treated this way. He portrays it in a way that people who know better find rediculous.
I love when Matt says you having 50p in your pocket doesn't account for the laws of logic, when in the analogy the 50p in your pocket accounting for logic represents his god accounting for logic. Matt accidentally getting it right.
No doubt. I about fell off my chair. Yet, this was 4 years ago & he’s still running around spewing the same dead & broken arguments he brought to this discussion. That concession to me was the defeater of all defeaters... 🤦🏼♂️
1:27:04 What he’s doing is proving your TAG argument (the bane of your existence for years that you STILL preach to people) to be UNSOUND!!!!!! Pucker up buttercup & give up the grift!! AT 1:29:00 you’re literally asking Alex to help you “make your argument work” & yet you’re still to this day selling the same stale bread...🤦🏼♂️
Matt Slick likes to say that Laws of Logic are not dependent on Space and Time - but if we remove variable of time - time =0 = infinity - none of these laws have any meaning. I strongly suspect that in case of "the absence of space" or "extra dimentions" - Laws of logic also can have very hard time.
The use of infinities in an argument is considered a hard stop to the conversation. If you make a claim that invokes an infinity, you should expect to be challenged on it. Removing space and time creates an infinity if you understand why 0 is an infinity.
+Nacasius I only point out that humans have limited point of view and they shouldn't assign properties - which cannot be confirmed in any way - to the ideas.
"I understand. I understand. I agree. Now let me demonstrate how I have no idea what you are explaining to me." -Matt Slick
"I understand, because I'm your intellectual equal and I'm so smart." - Matt Slick
This guy Matt is a born LOSER, he has got NO REAL job and he is solely dependent on religion for financial support and he will defend it even when PROVEN WRONG (checkmate STYLE). For this reason, he is DESPERATELY arguing with EXPERTS on any given field and having the DISHONESTY to say to them, "There is a problem"
@Cleo Fierro I'm pretty sure that Atheists are angry at being threatened with eternal damnation by Believers. I agree that they can't be angry at someone who doesn't exist.
@@Ryansghost There are a lot of other things Atheists complain about. Teaching creationism in schools, other forms of indoctrination like teaching people to feel guilty about masturbating, the Catholic church protecting pedophiles from the legal system, churches convincing adherents to donate harmfully huge amounts of their income, the demonizing of homosexuals, lots of things :)
@Cleo Fierro Pretty sure atheists would also prefer a world without those, too.
This wasn't a game of 'who is worse', this was the answer to your confusion about what atheists are bothered by. They aren't angry at a God that doesn't exist like you thought, but at things theists do.
Don't ignore that and not learn a thing by just thinking 'atheists are worse ner ner ni ner ner!'. You'll just make the same mistake in the future.
Or, maybe you already knew you were wrong. Maybe you weren't confused about what bothers atheists, you were just trying to spread lies.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." ~Upton Sinclair
But It is even more difficult to get a man to understand something when his sinful lifestyle depends upon him not understanding it.
Sleeping Dog sin is arbritary, logic is not
James Jamesbond It's actually spelled "arbitrary". You can't even spell with the help of an advanced spell checker.
Neither do you seem to comprehend what "arbitrary" means because your statement is actually extremely arbitrary.
Or i just spelt it wrong because that happens sometimes. It does not really take away from what I was trying to say. How is statement arbitrary? The point is matt slicks derives a salary from having a bad argument, it is in his interest to not understand what Alex is saying.
James Jamesbond Lol, yes, "it just happens sometimes". Just like many things "just happen" to Homer Simpson. If you think for a moment that "happens sometimes" is any kind of argument, you should not try to engage in logical discussions.
"it might be that my thinking is just not good" quite the understatement from Matt
This is the best knockdown of Matt Slick and his TAG argument that I've ever seen.
Matt thinks he's so good at logic but he got shown up soooo badly. 😃👌
Slick has no formal training in logic. And it shows.
What do you think the knockdown is? That platonism is a possibility?
@@natanaellizama6559 The problem is, Idealism (in every form) is the most anti-Christian philosophy there is. Christian thinkers tried for nearly 100 years (19th century) to create some "Christian Idealist theology" and they were all abysmal failures. The last great attempt was Systematic Theology (3 vols) by Paul Tillich. Tillich admitted his attempt was a failure. All such attempts became impossible after WWI.
@@manager0175
Interesting... can you elaborate? Because for me any classical theism, including Christianity, is NECESSARILY, analytically idealist.
Christianity says God is Transcendental, Spirit and personal. It either identifies the Absolute, the ontological, Being Itself with a transcendental spiritual person or with Transcendental, Spirit and Personality themselves. How is this not idealist?
I have read some Tillich, although not Systematic Theology. Can you elaborate why this is not true? Are you speaking of an unorthodox Christianity?
I don't understand why, according to orthodox forms of Christianity, God being the Absolute, the foundation and Mind does not make the absolute foundation of All mental by definition.
@@natanaellizama6559 Fascinating observations. I will give you a thumbnail response. You said: "Because for me any classical theism, including Christianity, is NECESSARILY, analytically idealist.". This is partly accurate. The beginning of the Christian message is "The Word became flesh and dwelt among us." This necessitates that the message is a historic, and existential message. Thus, there is an idealist and an existential aspect. And equally clearly, Idealism and existentialism are explicitly contradictory. Idealism says "essence before existence" and existentialism says "existence before essence". Let me end there. if you are following thus far. let me know. I will continue.
@ 1:30:20 - *"I still believe the argument is good, ultimately, but maybe I can't prove it is."*
If you admit that your argument is incoherent - regardless of whether you believe the position it defends is good - *stop using it*. Your argument cannot simultaneously be incoherent and good at the same time; surely the base requirement of it being 'good' is that it is presentable in a way that makes sense.
I've watched this video twice, and am now watching the bible thumping wingnut original conversation.
Firstly I have to say, big respect to you Alex Malpass. Your studious understanding of logical arguments is both enlightening to me personally (as an atheist that has some reasonable understanding of logic, and knows at heart (of mind) that the whole presuppositional TAG is flawed, but can't express why very well), and honestly really great to listen to.
Your non-confrontational approach is incredibly disarming. In a strange way it reminds me of a Louis Theroux style approach. I'm really looking forward to hearing you and Matt Slick (and other theists who claim to use logic) talk some more. And hope you chose to have, and post, some of those conversations.
Whichever side of the fence people may sit, it's great to hear the nuts and bolts of logical arguments without either party descending into bitterness and vitriol. Thanks man :)
I just love the many times that Slick starts asserting something and has to save face!
Slick: "X is such and such."Alex: "no it's not."Slick: "yes, I know! But I must talk simple like that because I'm asked to know every subject and I talk to comoun people in the radio".
You can make a drinking game out of it!
Slick isn't that dense, he is just obfuscating at every turn. At least his demeanor was relatively pleasant albeit slightly awkward.
I love it when he pulls out the "Ole shucks, ahm just a humble radio show host" shtick when it's convenient.
Stewart James that ol Christian humility. "I'm a humble wretch loaded with imperfections, but let me tell you about the mind of god and what you're wrong about." |-:
Alex smashes his TAG argument in about 15 minutes and Matt spends nearly two hours trying to obfuscate.
this is brilliant! Alex your patience is truly heroic. Matt is incoherent at times...
1:19:55 Where Alex puts the rubber to the road. Great discussion, Alex is a scholar and a gentleman. He brought out the "best" in Slick, no simple task.
Karen S refreshing to see Slick eat his humble pie.
I don't think that's the case. God is a fundamental "category", the Absolute, not comparable to Zeus. No one conceives of Zeus as the Absolute, not even Greeks did. So, it's a basic category error
Is conceptualisation causal@@natanaellizama6559
Matt Slick: Here's the argument about God and the laws of logic that I've been making for years.
Alex: Statement showing how the argument is completely wrong.
Matt: I agree with you.
Alex, you are now one of my favorite people to listen too! Well done sir. Extremely intellectual and well spoken! Friend request sent on FB. Im a follower for sure! Subscribed!! Look forward to more content!!
@1:26:44 That priceless moment of hope in your eyes when you thought the penny had dropped for Matt... Only for him to say that 50 pence doesn't have the capacity to account for the laws of logic.
I'm reminded of those experiments where they show the participant an option they didn't actually choose and ask them why they chose it. The brain has this incredible reflex and will generate concepts and fill the gaps, convincing the participant that they did choose it and for good reasons.
I'm sure the penny did actually drop for Matt at that moment in the conversation, but in his mind the penny can't possibly drop because he believes he's correct; so his brain immediately generated a red herring about the mental capacity of coins, resolving the issue by successfully distracting himself from confronting the issue.
I don't blame Matt for this, anymore than I'd blame the participant in that experiment for generating justifications for a choice they never made. It's just something our brains do when confronted with facts that challenge our beliefs.
I've said it before but I'll say it again, Slick either doesn't understand his own argument or he's plane and simply ignorant.
Alex, you're a treat to listen to, especially when it comes to serving Matt his humble pie
Alex discussing metaphysics says to Slick “Name me one thing about metaphysics that we know?”
Stunned silence from Slick.
And this only moments before Slick said we do know somethings about metaphysics.
Slick is simply not on the same intellectual plane as Alex, not even close.
The number of times Alex has to stifle embarrassed laughs at Slicks ignorance of philosophy, logic and good old fashioned reasoning is embarrassing.
Slicks problem is that he is desperate to validate his belief and finds himself being cut off at every attempt to make the same failed arguments in different ways. He just can’t accept that if it was possible it would have been done.He just can’t believe there’s no way to validate his hallucination.
Slick is an intellectually ignorant buffoon next to Alex. Slick pretends to know, but actually knows nothing. He doesn’t listen to anything Alex tells him because in his mind it’s a wording issue and he is desperately trying to nail the jelly of belief to the wall.
This is actually pitiful. Slick shows what religion has done to his brain: he can’t see his ‘argument’ isn’t worth the paper it’s written on. Worse still, he has to admit that his atheist critics are rationally justified in not taking him or his claims seriously. This also leaves him with metaphorical egg on his face: peddling a failed argument for so long just makes him look like a fool. An arrogant and some would say sincere fool, but a fool nonetheless.
I really wish Alex would have had a whiteboard or something so we could have avoided an hour of Slick somehow misunderstanding such simple concepts.
Travis Wooley Exactly! I would have used a whiteboard to show why Matt's argument failed. _Showing_ why something doesn't work is a lot more effective than _telling_ why it doesn't work.
@@bentesch6739 Truer words never spoken.
I would not have used a white board. I would have used sock puppets.
@@bentesch6739 I'm a Theist and I agree with Alex.
@@robinrobyn1714 sock puppets 😂🤣😂🤣
1:30:19 Alex deconstructs Matt's argument, shows him over the course of this discussion and the last one why his argument fails logically, gets him to agree that it doesn't work logically, but Matt "still believes the argument is good". Wtf.
Invalid Pleb, yeah. When you simultaneously think that your argument is "good" and incoherent, you need to retire.
"my argument doesn't work and I can't fix it but I still think it's good" was where I stopped listening to Matt as this is no longer about logic or being reasonable but about obfuscation and emotion. Started skipping through to when Alex was addressing his nonsense at that point rather than listening to Matt continue to be dishonest.
Slick thought he knew logic. Then he talked to a logic professor. Now he realizes he’s just some guy with access to Google.
But he never abandoned TAG.
@@robinrobyn1714 of course he didn’t. It makes him money.
Bingo... and yet he still has the same bullshit, word salad, garbage TAG argument! He’s a disingenuous debater who’s just about trying to convince others of what “he wants to be true”... 🤦🏼♂️
Fantastic work. Can't wait to listen to the next installment.
"Put what I'm believing into your logic speach, please." - "If I could do that, you'd have convinced me."
Fundamental misunderstanding of logic and their disagreement not just being a communications issue right there. It's where I just had to stop most discussions with people like him, because we just hit a brick wall. We sometimes forget that logic is something you have to train your brain for. (some are more naturally gifted than others) But it's not just learning expressions and nomenclature as he seems to believe.
The further i listen the more im platonically gay for alex
I'm trying to stop being an atheist, but it's people like Slick that affirms my belief.
I like this Matt. He is not afraid to admit when he doesn't know certain details, and I love how he truly came to the table to understand.and wrestle with these concepts. If I had to choose between 'Debate-Matt' and 'Discussion-Matt', I would go with 'Discussion-Matt every time. I love this and the previous interaction between the two. Thanks to both Alex and Matt for being thoughtful and civil throughout the conversation.
Wow. We were watching different discussions then.
With cursory knowledge of philosophy, you’d noticed that almost nothing said by this humble and self aware person is even remotely true.
My point got lost and I apologize. My point was more about his temperament. I whole heartedly believe he didn’t grasp or walk away with the philosophical points raised by Alex. But I did see him try to understand by asking questions and thinking about things. I felt this discussion was way more peaceful in the end. I stand by my statement that I prefer ‘Discussion-Matt’ to ‘Debate-Matt.’.
@@peterglen8396I agree with you. I’m coming over from his debate with the fantastic Matt Dillahunty, where I was pretty miffed at Slick’s attitude. I’m new to arguments about logic so a gentle, inquisitive discussion was helpful.
I appreciate you doing this video, Alex. I'd never thought of how useful the first few weeks of a discrete maths course is for considering philosophical questions. I'm curious to see whether that extends to the higher levels. I'd always just applied it to computers in my head. I chuckled when Matt said you'd need a PhD to understand what you were explaining (paraphrasing), but I understand how it could seem that way if you haven't put any time into learning it.
This seems so basic until you try to keep your incorrect argument intact. I'm glad that Alex recorded this instead of just having a casual conversation. Clearly Slick is tryring to develop his argument so that it works in further debates. Yet he can't. Its fuggin awesome!
Alex, you are a gentleman and a scholar. Well done.
54:33 "it might be that my thinking is not good". Finally Matt!
I was about to turn this off at the 20 minute mark, but now I have to stay for this moment. I need to hear the whole conversation all the way up to that point, too. I'm excited
9:54 An apparent admission to the flaw in the structure of his argument. Then says "most people don't know to think at that level or what's going on". (Alex smiles maybe thinking that the penny has finally dropped) Then Matt goes on to claim that the flaw in his argument is just a syntax issue. (The smile on Alex fades as the blood drains from his face in disappointment) Matt KNOWS the FORM of the argument as he presents it is not valid. He KNOWS he is using word salad to deceive people. Ignorant scam artists engaged in intentional self deception and denial cannot be reasoned with. 15:08 Matt's take on opposing "world views"... 15:30 Alex, your reaction is priceless! You did what you could to keep from face palming :) Kudos to you sir for your infinite patience. 16:00 Huh??!
My favourite thing about this entire exchange is one person believes they're having a high level debate on philosophy with an equal, and the other is delivering a philosophy for dummies lesson to a student who just doesn't get it.
An interesting discussion. This is the first time I've seen Matt Slick actually making an effort to understand what someone else is saying instead of being condescending and telling his interlocutor that they don't understand logic, while not acknowledging his own logical errors. He seems to miss the main point, but he at least seemed to be making an effort.
Nah, all he's doing is using Alex to "sharpen his dull knife" AKA refine his SCRIPT.
My (already high) admiration for you Alex soars THRU THE ROOF watching this attempt to reason with (for?) this intransigent presup propagandist. Your geniality and patience with him while at the same time maintaining your concentration is so impressive.
One favourite part is after Matt says "You're like me with theology...", when you say "I would never dream of correcting you when it came to issues of theology or what the bible said." He missed that chance to reciprocate and concede to your illustrations of logic. Alas.
How did I miss this discussion? I just don't know of any other youtuber who has the patience and intelligence of Alex.
Thank you for these conversations Dr. Malpass
Matt's argument is 21:20 "because I don't accept that chemical reactions in your brain can create emergent properties like conscience, and you can't either, it means you can't reason about anything"
It's an argument from ignorance and a straw man. Clearly, because he doesn't think that "chemical reactions" can generate thought and consciousness, doesn't mean it does not happen. And it's a straw man, because the humanist worldview it's not rooted on explaining why consciousness exists.
But he is wrong, we can prove that the electrico-chemical reactions in the brain are responsible for what you are, we can see it all the time when people take drugs that alter the brain's chemistry (medical or recreational) and we also see drastic changes in personality when the brain is damaged (accidents, degenerative diseases). If consciousness is the product of "not just chemical reactions", then, whatever that is, it would not be affected when the brain chemistry or structure is, because is independent, external.
And even if we granted the argument, it still does not mean that the "not just chemicals" is the god he believes in!
Bruh how is your sub count so low. The way you phrase things is like art. You describe concepts i already knew more concisely than i previously thought possible.
Excellent conversation. Very respectful.
Slick says he doesn't get sharpened very often. That's because he spends too much time with clowns like Tim
He's probably referring the the atheist he argues with. Who are not usually well versed in philosophy and bring science into a discussion of philosophy.
Who is this atheist that our boy Slick argues with?
Stewart James
I meant a generic Atheist on the Internet.
Atheists on the internet are very different when they are in person. In person people are smarter in general right? lol the theist mindset will make anyone dizzy
With a fedora, neckbeard (to cover additional chins), Ayn Rand poster strategically placed behind them, and a mother wishfully hoping they'll gain employment and move out before they reach 40?
54:28 "it might be that my thinking-ness is not good" -Matt Slick
Matt, your self-awareness just shot up to a level 10.
If you count up all of the times Slick attempts to rephrase the premises of his argument, he says it correctly from time to time - approximately as often as a person would get it right if they were guessing...
Slick always confuses the map with the place, such as with truth. He equates our assessment of truth with truth itself, or with our use of logic with the laws of thought themselves. He never seems to get this. Our perception of redness isn't redness itself.
And I thought that was the problem that Matt Dillahunty pointed out like 10 years ago and yet Matt S seems to continue to commit this error not only in his own argument, but with metaphors for his argument.
Hey Armadyl! I don't think Slick confuses anything since both the assessment and the truth itself are both truths. Same with logic and the laws of thought, they are both truths too. Thanks for the comment.
Hi HellboundHeathen! Maybe you are right, but you are pushing the problem a step further. If red is a label then so is a "measurable range of wavelengths" a label. If what we see is merely "wavelengths" then those "wavelengths" have properties too and we are back into square one. Both of those are truths of some sort. Thanks for the comment.
Hey HellboundHeathen! Everything you said presupposes a mind , therefore a mind is always necessary for anything to exist. Thanks for the comment.
Thanks, Felix.Wanted clarity on that contingency.One step at a time.In your argument here with Armadyl you state the assessment of, and, truth itself are the same.For a mind "assessment" is the result of perception and that is not necessarily static nor in agreement with another's perception.A case in point would be an individual with schizophrenia whose perceptions are altered due to sensory processing anomaly.Perception is not truth.Therefore, assessment, resulting from perception and truth are not one and the same.
What a brilliant video, I wish I found you sooner. This is easily the best video I have seen anyone have with a presuppositionalist. Props to Matt for actually willing to admit he was making a mistake. I really like your examples and how you provide them for every argument. Different topic but I loved your 'God's last drink' reaper paradox :)
Isn't an abstract object simply a non material thing that is always true and always the same? Chair-ness is not really the same I think as logic. Chair-ness is truly an abstraction of the particular things as something could be a horizontal piece of wood with 4 legs and it could be considered a chair or a table. It's not really a thing in itself but how we group it. But logic can't be anything else, it's always the same (if it's universal). There is no way an instantiation of the laws of logic can be grouped as an instantiation of the laws of morality depending on it's usage.
Didn't Matt argue against himself in the end? If the law of no contradiction can't be false in any possible case (1:53:40) then why is 'logic a process of the mind' (1:34:36 , 1:39:30)? We measure it by living in a world that shows that true contradictions don't exist (at least according to Matt Slick (and me)). Isn't that measurement as good as a measurement of acceleration (1:43:50)? Every time we experience something being non contradictory, with no experience of something being contradictory, we are measuring the law of non contradiction, aren't we?
"It might be that my thinking is not good." - Matt Slick
th-cam.com/video/0ynBtakYh_E/w-d-xo.html
I feel this sums up many of Matt's arguments and debate tactics. I want to explain why his thinking is not good.
1 - He speaks to people who have thought through his arguments and they've offered objections.
2 - He has thus obviously heard these objections and even entertained how to improve or leave an argument
3 - Months later you'll see him using the same arguments completely ignoring the faults
This is deceptive behavior. This is what an apologist does. They're not interested in the truth. They're merely interested in defending their point of view at all costs. They're willing to deny the existence of valid objection if the person they're speaking to does not know of the valid objection.
So yes.... you're thinking is not that good if you don't listen to others when they have valid critiques.
@Cleo Fierro Pretty sure Matt Slick has banned me from his comment sections.
One day I'd like to buy you a sausage sandwich
1:56:53 this is precious: “I prefer to argue from what we do know, not from what we don’t know”
'It might just be that my thinking is not too good'.....best thing Matt Slick ever said.
I admire your patience, Alex. Great explanation!
What baffles me is that it took 2 discussions of over 2 hours, and Matt still didn't get it.
It took me 5 seconds to see your point, especially when you used the 50p in your pocket vs. the car breaking down example.
It's almost as if Matt *doesn't want to get it*...
Matt is just making an argument from ignorance: "I can't imagine any other options (than either god accounts for logic, or something else does), therefore there aren't any other options.
As you know, he did the same thing with Matt Dillahunty, when he claimed that there are only physical and conceptual things.
Even though, the third option (transcendential) is right there, in the very name of his entire argument...
It doesn't get any more epic, as far as philosophy debate fails go.
All he has is false dichotomies, based on argument from ignorance.
It's his job to reject logic and promote dogma..
@Cleo Fierro actually... It's not much of an obsession if all I do about religion is comment once in a while.. I don't waste money, energy or significant amount of time.
@Cleo Fierro u r sounding a bit crazy at this point
@Cleo Fierro !?
@Cleo Fierro and the problem is?
This is such a good video, thank you very much for doing this.
Just a note, the misunderstanding about tautologies comes from the fact that logical tautologies are different than literary, or "rhetorical", tautologies. Slick was explaining a literary/rhetorial tautology - saying the same thing two different ways, or with two different words meaning the same thing. Alex is describing a logical tautology.Within logic, a tautology is just an inherently true statement. (Sometimes a literary tautology is also called a " literary device" tautology.)
Did you ever get around to having more conversations with Slick?
Please have another chat with him! This episode is great!
I asked him if he wanted to do another one, he said "sure", I asked him if he had reformulated the argument, and he never replied. Feel free to ask him if you want.
I have written to him, but never gotten a response. Which to some degree is understandable... if he has a lot of channels of communication to keep track on.
Either way, I, and others I've talked to are waiting for a follow-up. Personally, I like to know what part of meta-physics he knows for certain and if he have re-formulated the argument in question, which he has stated before that he has.
57:00 Slick has tried to use this a million times, it's his main argument: "You atheists pre-suppose logic "exists," and I go one step further and pre-suppose that the creator of logic exists, so I win."
This is only a tactic, not any type of proof or syllogism.
1. Why pre-suppose something you don't see/experience. We experience logic (universally, every rational being does!). So it makes sense to pre-suppose that logic exists.
We don't all experience gods. So why then do you pre-suppose this unobserved, unexperienced thing and think that it is valid to do so or comparable to the universal experience of logic.
2. Physicists cannot account for any part of physics; they can explain *what happens, and how it happens,* but they can't explain *why* these things happen.
Physicists can't account for why gravity pulls instead of pushes for example.
So Slick's argument would equally apply against physicists: "You pre-suppose physics, I pre-suppose a creator of physics, I win."
3. Slick's main point of contention is "You don't have a basis to TRUST logic without leaning on the concept of a god."
But no one has ever asked Matt: "Many atheists have used logic to invent and develop the tech that we are using right now, the cpu, wireless communication, display tech, etc. So Slick would you say that these logical thoughts *were in fact true/trustworthy?"
We then have evidence that logic is trustworthy. When our logic produces predictable are reproducible results, we have evidence to show that it is trustworthy.
So we do have a reason to trust logic is valid.
I love when someone claims to understand the philosophy of infinite sets while simultaneously displaying that they think infinity is a fucking number.
“You cant have one half of the infinite being equal to the whole of the infinite”
Yea you can, Matt..... cuz infinity isn’t a fucking number. It’s a concept. Hilbert’s hotel is wholly plausible.
This man is a professional sophist.
If Hilbert's Hotel is wholly plausible, are married bachelors wholly plausible?
We can kn kvbbbnvm
L
Very week face saving attempt by Matt towards the end, by saying he felt Alex had said things he could see problems with, but he couldn't remember what they were.
I don't think Slick is a troll or a chicken, he's just in the business of peddling his presup snake oil, it's lucrative.
One step forward. Good convo
That was weird I didn't expect to feel this way?? As bad as I thought I wanted to watch Matt slick get owned, I felt really uncomfortable to watch him crumble.
Well, Matt played Alex. Alex wasted over 2 hours sincerely trying to educate Matt on the proper understanding and usage of Logic, whereas Matt had zero interest in actually learning .
Alex Malpass said at 30:27 that the Platonist view is that the forms doesn't actually exist, but didn't Plato believe in the world of forms, where the forms literally existed? It sounds like what Alex is talking about there is more like Nominalism.
"That's called a tautology??"
Alex you have tried explaining things in video form abotu TAG, in print on your blog and I don't think Matt understands. He seems to think that rewording it will make it valid. It probably doesn't help that you are an atheist and that makes it less likely he would be open to your arguments. However the fact that he's willing to have hangouts with you give me some hope and undermines somewhat my first sentence.
Matt doesn't listen, it's that simple. he is so busy trying to defend his position he is unable to actually hear the flaws in it honestly.
“I’ve thought a lot about this” usually precedes a statement by Matt that couldn’t possibly follow even a mere 10 minutes of thought surrounding the issue in question.
The part at the end when he says he doesn't like to rewatch his discussions and learn from them was wild to me.
Alex. I am having trouble understanding your tautology explanation (8:50). Something can be true by definition, say for instance, X=Blue.
If that is a definition, then it is true and it is a tautology. But if X=blue (a proposition) where X is shown to be red... then X=Blue would be a false proposition.
How can you categorize whether the statement "X=Blue", (without any context) is in fact a tautology (prescription) or a false proposition (description).
Also, ¿how do you know this things? Thank you in advance.
Alex, @1:16:30 couldnt the reason be because the laws of logic are contingent on objects?
Matt has no idea about infinites. Infinity is *not a discrete number*! A lot of math a philosophy laymen make this mistake.
Alex's example demonstrates it perfectly: integers are a *smaller, but still infinite* subset of real numbers.
Both sets are infinite, but the former is a smaller subset of the latter.
In an infinite universe, you can have an infinite (Hilbert's) hotel without it taking over the whole universe.
Just like integers don't occupy the entire space of real numbers.
In fact, the set of integers is infinitely smaller than the set of real numbers, because you can fit an infinite number of real numbers, between any two integers.
So, not only can you have a Hilbert's hotel, in an infinite universe, but you can have *infinite number of Hilbert's hotels*!
The most frustrating part of this conversation is that Matt is not being honest. At best he is being disingenuous because at every point in the conversation Alex tears apart his arguments and explains why they fail. Matt admits as much and affirms that the way he has phrased his arguments is not valid. But even though he affirms that his arguments have failed I lost track of the number of times he repeated "But I still think the argument is true". At one point in time he beseeches Alex to fix his faulty logic. The problem is not with the logic, the problem is with the person.
Where the dishonesty enters the conversation is not mendacious, it is that Matt does not really care about the logical argument. He himself explains that his belief in god is based upon a personal experience. If he were to say "I believe in god because of an experience, if you want to know god you should ask him to give you such an experience" then I would agree and say lacking such an experience means my atheism is both logical and necessary. But instead Matt claims that I need god (or at least a worldview including god) in order to justify logic. Even though every argument is invalid and at best cannot be confirmed as true he still believes. So it is not that Matt has an argument, he has a script.
Arguing with a presuppositionist is futile because no matter what you say or how many times you show that their argument fails (like Alex has done) they merely repeat their script over and over again. Even though it is clear that Matt acknowledges that his arguments are invalid he will merely repeat them in the future, not caring that Alex already demolished them. He starts with a conclusion (wrought from personal experience) and everything else is just a post-hoc rationalization...
Thank you, this was quite interesting.
Oh, and Alex, I'm happy you've had a chance to try Pliny The Elder! I'd say we live in the golden age of brewing.
Alex straightens him out and then Matt had the gull to throw a jab at the end.
dean vanhoorne gall
Gall.
around 1:07:00
Watching this again, it also occurred to me that it's somewhat arbitrary to distinguish between "A property which tells me what a thing is" and "A property which tells me what a thing isn't". Suppose there were aliens who, say, had a word _mwah_, which described non-horseness. If you met an alien and he pointed at a horse and asked you what it was, you would have to say that it was not mwah. So it feels like it's more a matter of what just happens to be idiomatic to you, but there isn't really any true default. In either case, both approaches happen to eliminate the same amount of referents, whether you call that animal a horse or not mwah.
48:00 You both were in error. "Big vs small, spherical vs non spherical."
Neither of these require a mind. 2 > 1 whether anyone is currently thinking about it. A sphere maintains it's "not non-spherical" property whether anyone is currently contemplating it.
So both of these could be drawn as "comparative" properties. And neither requires a mind.
----
Now "big enough," or "heavy" would be examples of *value judgements,* not properties. Right and wrong are also value judgements.
Alex talking about the fundamental flaw with TAG at 1:26:00 (after the umpteenth time of explaining negation to Slick) “I’d be so happy if the penny dropped and you got what I was saying. That would be wonderful!”
It’s hard to know if Slick is dense when it comes to logic, or whether he is so wedded to his life’s work that he can’t accept that it and he is wrong. That and the fact that despite his protestations to the contrary, all his critics were right all along. Not only can’t he account for logic with god, but logic shows however much he tries to find a way for god to be the cause, he just can’t do it, which is a point Alex makes repeatedly.
This isn’t just about being wrong for Slick. It’s about atheist objections, which he has stated are unfounded and can’t be accounted for without god, being right. And being right because logic, the very thing he argues only god can be responsible for, shows he can’t attribute the existence of logic to god.
To concede the point to Alex would be to admit he’s completely failed as an apologist (and as a self-professed expert in logic) and been waisting his time for years on an argument the proper application of logic shows accounts for precisely nothing.
You have to feel sorry for him, but you also have to feel sad that he can’t be honest and admit he was wrong.
How refreshing it would be to see him concede this point and apologise to all those who have challenged him on this issue over the years and been dismissed by his arrogance and what can only be called unwitting ignorance. (Cognitive dissonance is hard to surmount).
Alex, you did a wonderful job here whether Slick understood this or not. And as others have said you have the patience of a saint. I’m sure this is in part a trait you’ve had to cultivate as an educator over the years.
And to be fair, not everyone gets logic, just like not everyone gets maths. Half the battle is getting people to think in purely abstract terms, which Slick found very hard, partly it seems because he was more concerned with salvaging his argument (and belief) and atheists being wrong than understanding why the argument could never be right.
In short, he was desperate to save the argument and thought that a simple re-phrasing would be all that was needed to address your objections when it’s not.
Sadder still is that he’s still using this same argument today...
18:50 Slick is making zero sense here. "I saw god. *And I know it was god.* And when asked *how do you know it was god?* he just says *it just was.*"
He desperately avoids saying *I don't know that it was god or that experience was real.*
I think his error here (besides plain arrogance) is using *knowledge* as an equivalent term for *belief.*
He *believed* it was god in that experience. Yet he instead says "I just *know* it was god."
Belief =/= Knowledge.
----
And in this example, Slick was supposed to give an example of a pre-supposition. But Slick gave an example of a belief. He believed it was god.
While I do not consider myself to be an atheist, it is quite obvious that Slick displays the classic, arrogant traits possessed by many people who are illiterate in logic and mathematics. Most people who have not been exposed to rigorous logical and mathematical reasoning have a tendency to grossly overestimate their own intellectual abilities. Slick is no exception to this.
Yes, Matt is a classic victim of the Dunning-Krueger effect.
Something about how Alex is framed makes him seem like he’s standing on top of a ladder like a god of logic condescending to us all
17:40 "I had a personal experience, and I can't prove it, but it's real. I'm not saying it's proof, but it's true to me"
A person knowing what he is talking about talks to a person only thinking he knows what he is talking about.
It's hilarious how Matt Slick thinks he's such an accomplished intellectual but can't comprehend an infinite set within an infinite set. I learned that in middle school math.
his argument is.
1. there is either a "worldview" including god or one without including a god.
2. the one without including a god cannot account for the laws of logic (and he assumes its necessary that something needs to account for the "laws" of logic)
3. therefore: the worldview including a god is true
which is barely an argument.
This is 2 hours of Alex trying to get through how poorly Matt Slick understands everything being discussed.
I love this so much!! Around 1hr 11min Matt Slick again gets exposed.
The answer to the "Is a carbon sphere big or small?" question could given from atleast two different views, the first being that "the question is malformed" depending on what you mean by "pure carbon sphere" OR you could say the carbon sphere is 'big' because the atoms that make up that sphere are smaller than the sphere and if the sphere is a single atom then it's still 'big' due to it being larger than the parts that make up the atom.
I'm sure there are other answers to that question but I figured I'd chime in with my thoughts on it :)
Great discussion fellas!!
I have 51p in my pocket. The proposition:
I either have 50p in my pocket or I don't have 50p. If I don't have 50p therefore I have 50p.
Nope, sorry!
Bye bye TAG argument? I wonder if he still uses it. He should assume any atheist he converses with has seen this video.
I appreciate how his guy seems to articulate Van Til and Bahnsen accurately.
Slick is a parrot for sure, like all these apologists seem to be, but like Bahnsen and Til his fallacies are easy to spot such as all of them say the physical laws are prescriptive , not descriptive, which is just incorrect. But that's how all of them get over on people.
davids11131113 I admire your capacity for appreciation
It nauseates the shit out of me
Alex I wish you would have cleared up for Matt that "atheism" doesn't exist as a worldview with adherents that share certain belief tenets. An "atheist" is simply one who lacks a belief in god, and that's it. All you can say from that is that people who don't believe in god believe all sorts of different things as individuals, but none of that is "atheism." Atheism isn't a thing, it's just a rejection of theist claims due to lack of evidence. Of course certain atheists claim all sorts of things, and many actively believe there are no gods and that the natural world is all there is. But at about the 30:00 mark of this video, Matt slick said something along the lines of "atheism is fractured," as though we all couldn't get together and agree on our doctrines and as a result we have splintered off into different sects. I just would have cleared up for him that nothing falls under "atheism" except not believing in god. Everything else is something different, and the reasons so many atheists believe so many different things is because individuals in society just believe lots of different things, and that nothing unites atheists except for the answer to 1 question.
Yup. Saying that "atheism is fractured" is like saying that Bigfoot-non-belief is "fractured", or people who don't collect stamps are "fractured".
It's *nonsense*.
You can't fracture something that was never a "thing", to begin with.
I agree man, well said
Oh, now you're gonna tell atheists what an atheist is?
The "a" prefix means without. Theist means, someone with a belief in god.
So, yes "atheist" just means someone without a belief in a god.
Most atheists are agnostic atheists, meaning they don't believe in any gods, but they don't claim to know for certain that there aren't any gods.
Agnostic theists believe in a god, or gods, but don't claim to know for sure.
Gnostic atheists claim to know for sure that there aren't any gods.
There are very few people like that.
I'm a pretty strong atheist, but even I'm only about 99% sure that there aren't any gods (lack of evidence, after thousands for years, most ideas of god are self-contradictory, etc.).
Gnostic theists claim to know for sure that there is a god, or gods.
Hope this clears it up for you.
+Butt Butt - *Wrong*. The "a" is not a narrow-scape negation. It applies to the wider scope of "not theism". It does not imply a belief, and certainly not knowledge of no gods existing.
The "a" prefix indicates neutrality, or lacking a trait (such as a belief in any gods).
Other examples are: "amoral,” "asexual", “atypical,” or “asymmetrical.”
Amoral means not concerned with issues of morals.
*Immoral* means having incorrect / opposing morals.
Asexual means not interested in sex. It doesn't mean denying the existence of sex, or opposing it.
And so on.
What you are talking about, is called positive atheism (or sometimes called strong atheism: claiming that there is no god), vs. negative atheism (a.k.a. weak atheism: simply lacking belief in any gods).
The fact that we have qualifiers, like positive, or negative atheism, indicates that the issue is ambiguous, at best. Positive atheism is definitely not the default meaning you are trying to make it out to be.
Also, atheism can be *either narrow, or wide scope*, which is independent of the strength of the belief, which is independent of knowledge claims, as signified with the gnostic / agnostic qualifiers.
Here's a summary for you, from the IEP:
www.iep.utm.edu/atheism/
Atheist / theist refer to belief.
Agnostic / gnostic refer to knowledge.
These are orthogonal, which is why you can have agnostic atheists (like me), gnostic atheists, agnostic theists and gnostic theists.
Wide and narrow scope refers to accepting / rejecting a single god, or all god claims, which is orthogonal to the other 2 axes.
So, you have a total of 3 orthogonal axes:
- agnostic / gnostic (positive or negative).
- atheist / theist
- narrow scope / wide scope
A wide-scope gnostic theist would claim to know that all god claims are true (I'm not aware of anyone like this)
A narrow-scope gnostic theist claims to know that one of the god hypotheses is true (e.g. Islam).
And so on.
I'm a wide-scope, agnostic atheist (a.k.a. negative atheist), which describes *nearly all atheists*, which is why this is the "default" interpretation.
"Atheism isn't a thing, it's just a rejection of theist claims due to lack of evidence"
After reading that I lack the belief that you have intelligence.
Big and small does not require abstractions, it only requires something to compare it to. Big and small are relative
Is there a part three to this?
pixdav Nah, Matt chickened out and then stopped replying to my messages lol
It's absolutely amazing how christians never see the irony!
I love that Alex exposed that not only is tag incredibly flawed and only addresses a very small portion of atheists (sloppily) but also that that isn't why Matt actually believes. Then Matt devolved into, "well when you see him like I totally have (lol no) and can't prove at all then you'll believe!".
How anyone takes such rubbish seriously is beyond me. Well done not laughing your butt off Alex I would not have had the same composure if presented with weak trash like that.
Alex is asserting the logical definition of tautology but he seems unaware of the common definition thereof which is how Slick was using it "needless repetition of an idea."
Words describing size like large and small are relative
@ 32:00 i dont think anyone expects Matt to know everything. I think the reason they "mock" him as he put it is because of the way he tends to act in his conversations. The way he acts with Alex is very different than the way he acts with other atheists.
I also his entire TAG argument is a reason he gets treated this way. He portrays it in a way that people who know better find rediculous.
1:29:00 is just beautiful Matt Slick so utterly destroyed and broken he’s begging Malpass to fix his argument for him
I love when Matt says you having 50p in your pocket doesn't account for the laws of logic, when in the analogy the 50p in your pocket accounting for logic represents his god accounting for logic. Matt accidentally getting it right.
I was surprised by that too. Why would any self respecting Christian that has two Brain cells to rub together, concede that point so quickly.
No doubt. I about fell off my chair. Yet, this was 4 years ago & he’s still running around spewing the same dead & broken arguments he brought to this discussion. That concession to me was the defeater of all defeaters... 🤦🏼♂️
P or not P is not the same thing as P or Q, Matt simply doesn't seem to get this
they can be the same thing, if q = -p. this is the case with slick's tag, which is why it's problematic.
KEvron
1:27:04
What he’s doing is proving your TAG argument (the bane of your existence for years that you STILL preach to people) to be UNSOUND!!!!!! Pucker up buttercup & give up the grift!! AT 1:29:00 you’re literally asking Alex to help you “make your argument work” & yet you’re still to this day selling the same stale bread...🤦🏼♂️
What we have learned from this conversation between Matt and Alex is that the ancient Greek Philosopher Aristotle called Matt 'stupid'.
Matt Slick likes to say that Laws of Logic are not dependent on Space and Time - but if we remove variable of time - time =0 = infinity - none of these laws have any meaning. I strongly suspect that in case of "the absence of space" or "extra dimentions" - Laws of logic also can have very hard time.
yarroslavus What are you even saying?
The use of infinities in an argument is considered a hard stop to the conversation.
If you make a claim that invokes an infinity, you should expect to be challenged on it.
Removing space and time creates an infinity if you understand why 0 is an infinity.
+Nacasius
I only point out that humans have limited point of view and they shouldn't assign properties - which cannot be confirmed in any way - to the ideas.
1:41:09 = total pwnage.
hehe Slick flopping and floundering around like a freshly landed Bloater
Laws of logic is part laws of nature. Atom A is Atom A and Atom A isn't Atom B. So I disagree with statement that atheist don't basis for logic.