yeh there's comments on jay dyers upload of the video saying how nice it was for him to post his loss aswell... we all think our guy won... great job, clap clap, i'm sure writing empty vacuous comments like yours will convince the opposition that your guy won...
Um Jay lost in his opening where he admitted he presupposes God. He esentially admitted the only reason he believes in god is because he really wants to. Matt didnt even have to respond and he would have won, but they already paid him. They esentially pay Matt so an apologist can talk next to Matt without Matt tearing them a new one.
It sure does strike me as odd that Jay's God used to just straight up make his existence obvious with back and forth conversations with people (Abraham, Moses, etc.) and yet for some reason, we today are left to contend with these dubious, speculative philosophical arguments. Why did Yahweh get all of his obvious existing out of the way before the invention of cameras and video? I think I know why.
The Abrahamic God is indeed an oddly specific leap (Zeus anyone? Talos? Daedra?). He exhausted Matt by changing the terms of the debate and redefining skepticism based on authority of historical figures. Matt got tired because the debate dissolved into disagreements on what good skepticism is. Jay kept "appreciating Matt's honestly" and implying "weakness" in Matt's responses without justification. Jay acted as though his side of the debate resolved itself without syllogisms, demonstrations, or explanations. It really has that Jordan Peterson and Sye TB crap in several places. Hoping Matt provides a debate review if it suits him.
Yeah,if the bible stories happened today with all the media ,tv ,smartphones reporters; to question people who make incredible claims , people who could write things down as opposed to telling other people who told other people ; much more, (as opposed to not any) scientific knowledge (to investigate claims of dead bodies coming back to life) which is why it could only 'happen'' then but would be impossible today . the story probably wouldn't last two weeks much less 2000 years.
Thats very narrow-minded. Especially since this is not only an atheist vs. theist debate, but a debate on complex philosophical methodology on how we get to truth in general. "eeehh these theists" It's moronic.
@@jessemix5149 LOL! According to the fabricated stories of such a character, he would deceive the world with real positive changes for humanity where all would benefit before he came out wanting the world to worship him.... plus, this antichrist would be charismatic, charming, educated and well spoken and with out gaff. Oh yeah, before I forget, emphasis on educated. Trump does demonstrate slight antichrist character but he fails on every other decriptior... especially "educated". LOL!
If you're not convinced something is true, you will act as if it's false. You can give lip service to the "well, I'm not saying it's false, " But in practice, you're doing exactly that.
Because it's a cop out. A cope. What Kevin smile said is right. Our beliefs only exist within the positive, not the negative. You don't "lack a belief in God", you're claiming he doesn't exist and behave within reality as if that's true. It's like somebody tells me that there's an elephant in my backyard. I can say i lack a belief in that elephant being in my yard, but that's not what i really mean. What i mean is that i don't believe you, even though i don't have conclusive evidence. In other words, "i believe the truth of the statement 'there is no elephant in my backyard'". We only believe in positives that point to truth. We are not capable of believing in negatives, or lies for that matter. It's only appears as if it's possible to believe a lie if we think it's the truth. It's not even possible because the concept of such a thing doesn't logically exist. It's a pathetic cope. So much so that atheist scholars have stopped using "I lack a belief in a God".
@@KevinSmile "If you're not convinced something is true, you will act as if it's false." I just flipped a coin. Are you convinced it landed heads or are you convinced it landed tails? If you are not convinced of one over the other and would say both are equally possible, then according to your logic, you must be acting as if both are false. If you are not convinced you know which day of the year my birthday falls on, then would you say that each day it's false that that day is my birthday? There are many things which you do not have particular reason to believe are true but also do not have reason to believe are false either. Are you convinced it will rain on Sep 16th 2046? If not, does that mean you're saying it's false it will rain on that day?
@@Viruz32 I lack a belief in God, in that same way that I lack a belief a flipped coin landed on tails, until I see the evidence. The fact that I lack a belief it landed on tails, does not mean I believe it landed on heads. "I'm not convinced it's true it landed on tails", is not the same as, "I'm convinced it's false it landed on tails." Until I see the coin, I'm not convinced of tails. Until I see a reason supporting the God claim, I'm not convinced, (or lack a belief), of Gods. It's a pathetic cope and weak cop-out attempt, when the person making the fantastical claim, tries so desperately to shift the burden of proof away from themselves. They should focus more on actually demonstrating the claim, instead of dodging and hiding behind semantic games.
Meta level arguments can only be descriptive, but they can never be synthetic. Arguing a justification for a presupposition in no way means that justification has a referent in reality. You can posit a god to solve meta level conundrums, but that in no way means your god is real.
"Arguing a justification for a presupposition in no way means that justification has a referent in reality". Would this be true about a presupposition that "God does not exist because we have no material proof of his existence". BTW by reality, you are referring to material reality?
@@rocoreb I'm gonna go out on a limb and say the reality he is talking about is the only reality humans have any evidence actually exists (yes the material world, where you were born, have lived, and will die). Also, most atheists reject the claims you theists make that a god exist.
rocco flavioni numbers are abstract concepts. A number doesn’t actually exist somewhere absent a sentient being capable of conceptualizing it and symbolically representing them. The letter a does not exist outside of a sentient brain either.
is it just me, or did Jay just say the same thing over and over again - transcendentals are interlinked and we assume that reality exists. Every now and then he threw in a " I presuppose God", without ever giving a reason to do so.
@@TheFounderUtopia Who - me - or him? I'm sure I probably am... It's the "easy way" after all lol.. But who do you feel the argument sided with - and why? -we can do the long version - if you'd like 😉
Matt Respect for speaking to Jay Dyer. I disagree with you strongly but you seem to be intellectually honest and willing to have your views challenged.
how you can disagree with intellectual honesty sounds like refusal to be reasonable. Matt has political views backed with logic that I could see someone disagreeing with in the fine details, but to say you don’t agree with Matt (strongly) is so highly suspect of you being misinformed or stubborn. no offense intended but i understand if its taken that way.
don't be fooled though. Matt is sponsored by satanic globalist elites that want to "secularize" the world and complete their mission of putting the atheistic state at the top of the pyramid.
@Joshua Opell plus, "fuzzy logic" is a an approach to computing, not logical syllogisms. You're basically pulling a Deepak Chopra word salad. What's next, "quantum"?
The problem is that logical syllogisms tend to be mere models of a reality, and they may leave out a thing or two."A bachelor is an unwed male person,Marriage ends the unwed state,So here is no such thing as a married bachelor" said Mrs. Rogers, MA & BSc.
@AlienToy 87 Excluded middle is simply this. Either A is true OR non-A is true. Explain the issue with giving ANY number regardless of its fraction or being a whole number, a truth value violates this law.
To everyone who is confused, I think Jay was basically trying to say that Matt was presupposing logic when he used logic to say “I don’t see any reason why we need an explanation for logic.”
Yes, Matt said as much. He presupposes the foundations of logic. They both agree that the foundations of logic exist and are useful, so they're able to be used to examine whether a further foundation is justified or even needed. Because he admits that he presupposes logic it's not a gotcha to claim that he presupposes logic.
@@josephlawson2768 I think Jay's response to this might be to say that's not what he was doing. His point is more that questioning the foundations of logic (and other presuppositions) is what philosophers (especially self-proclaimed skeptics) should be doing in arguments like this. The Transcendental argument answers a question Matt admits is important and to which he currently holds no answer. Jay wants him to take it seriously as an argument, but I'm not sure Matt understands it. Matt seems to dismiss the argument as an answer to the foundation question. He seems to think it's circular or otherwise invalid. I don't see that. I'd like to hear Jordan Peterson opine about the Transcendental argument. Part of Jordan's argument is this: a moral hierarchy exists; every hierarchy has a pinnacle; thereby there must be a pinnacle to the moral hierarchy; this pinnacle is God, by definition, moral perfection. This seems very much in tune with the Transcendental argument.
@@Confusione_Infinito_Absurdum "I don't see that. I'd like to hear Jordan Peterson opine about the Transcendental argument. Part of Jordan's argument is this: a moral hierarchy exists; every hierarchy has a pinnacle; this pinnacle is God, by definition, moral perfection. " "Moral perfection" by what standard? By whose definition? If you find your god moral and I find him immoral, which of us is right? How do we decide?
@@JMUDoc Saying God is moral perfection by definition is like saying black is the darkest shade of grey by definition. Imagine that you have a scale of all the shades of grey in front of you, and we are attempting to name them all. We might come up with a million different names for the myriad shades and have a million disagreements, but we would likely be able to agree on two things: The brightest shade is white. The darkest shade is black. Now, if we do the same to the hierarchy of moral values, we are likely to disagree a lot about many of the middle values, but we should be able to agree to this: The personification of that which is perfectly good is God. The personification of that which is perfectly bad is Satan*. *Or whichever God-opposite name you prefer We don't have to elucidate exactly what "perfectly good" means to make the claim that the personification of whatever is "perfectly good" is God. Another way of saying this is to just acknowledge that your values are what motivate you to act. Without differing valuations, there would be no reason to do one thing over another. By acting, by doing anything at all, you are revealing your value judgments and your personal gods. A nicotine addict who can't find a cigarette will often get frantic in their search, sometimes doing things they'd never consider when not desperate for a drag. When they act this way, nicotine is their god, their highest motivating value. This does not mean nicotine is God. The point is that everyone has gods. The goal should be to make sure your god is the God that guides you to make the best decisions in every aspect of your life.
@@Confusione_Infinito_Absurdum "Now, if we do the same to the hierarchy of moral values, we are likely to disagree a lot about many of the middle values, but we should be able to agree to this: The personification of that which is perfectly good is God." We do not agree. The analogy is not apt because the shades of grey are evaluated by comparing light output/reflection, an OBJECTIVE criterion. Suppose I think your god is immoral for creating hell and a creating sacrificial atonement system that consigns people there for all eternity for crimes I deem undeserving - am I objectively wrong? If so, prove it. "We don't have to elucidate exactly what "perfectly good" means to make the claim that the personification of whatever is "perfectly good" is God." Then the label is meaningless. I might as well advertise my car as "perfectly cromulent", and when a prospective buyer asks what it means, I tell them it doesn't matter - my car IS perfectly cromulent. "The point is that everyone has gods." Equivocation - in the context of atheism vs religion, gods are conscious, universe-creating/maintaining beings.
Special pleading would be unverifiable in the context he’s talking about. It would require knowledge of everything in the universe and consciousness in order to know what is being talked about is an exception. Since we don’t have knowledge of everything, there is no way to know it’s an exception.
44:40 - What? Saying that theists are using the idea of god to reduce discomfort is not an appeal to emotion. If Matt had said that he doesn't believe in god because the idea makes him uncomfortable would be an appeal to emotion. Update1: I've now watched 1:16:00 of this and my thoughts are: I honestly don't know if Jay is not correct in saying that it is arbitrary to assume the laws of logic. However, in assuming god, he is doing the exactly the same thing. Now, even if we were to assume he is not also doing an ad hoc argument, I have no idea how he jumps from god to the christian god. Update2: I think Matt did not do a good job on this one. He gets angry very easy (which honestly makes him look terrible) and did not pressure Jay enough on his assumptions. Why does he claim that logic must have a guarantor? Why is god that guarantor? Why does god not need a guarantor? Why are transcendental arguments not special pleading? If there is a good reason for the argument to actually be different, then the special pleading fallacy does not apply.
So, he tosses out all of the logical absolutes, and the sciences' necessary presuppositions for not being justifiable, then makes a huge number of assertions with ZERO justification. Egad.
@@NikolaAvramov what is scientism ?? Science i the only way humans have to make sense of reality......... and prove something is consistent with reality.
@@MrStaano Scientism is a religious take on science. Basically what you've described in the first half of your sentence. While science is just an area of human thought and activity, relying heavily but not exclusively on the scientific method.
My guess is that Jay finds himself on the defensive all the time about things the bible said, so he wanted to turn the tables on Matt and put him on the defensive. However, Matt (nor anybody) has any obligation to defend Hume (or anyone else).
At what point did Jay explain how transcendental arguments provide justifications for presuppositions? At what point did he explain these different types of "evidences," as he calls it, that apply to different sorts of claims?
@@drayvinwilliams2389 So making a bunch of claims and then failing to back them up with any evidence is transcendental reason? You statement makes no sense.
Logic may not be immaterial. It’s physical form may just be so complex that we can’t fathom it. Every time we use logic we can see how it effects everything around us. Logic is one of the most self evident things that there is. God is not self evident.
@@Still-Struggling Nothing is self evident to a skeptic. If you can’t provide a justification for the existence of the laws of logic then you’d have no choice but to admit that every engagement with reality comes from an unjustified starting position. Which is a devastating flaw for atheists to deal with who pride themselves on their adherence to logic and reason and who also demand a justification from theists for every conceivable aspect of their views.
@@patrickmcardle952 The amount of times I've had to explain what justification is, is ridiculous, I'll ask someone to justify why the Christian God doesn't exist and they'll say no you have to prove God's existence (Moral ought, right off the gate) , I'll attempt to justify why God existing is coherent as opposed to incoherent and I'll be asked to prove God's existence😅
There's always the rules of discussion that everyone should follow: thoughtcatalog.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/a-flowchart-to-help-you-determine-if-yoursquore-having-a-rational-discussion.jpg?resize=622,866&quality=95&strip=all&crop=1 Jay was unnecessarily obfuscatory in this debate.
If Matt asks a Christian, or anyone for that matter, why they believe in a God and say 'I don't know', it would be completely absurd. And yet, Matt does the same thing for trascental things and hes supposed to come off as honorable to admit that he doesnt know?
@@Octavian2 1st: I don't think Matt would find it absurd for a theist to not know why they believe. Maybe they haven't examined it. I don't see why anyone would find that absurd. 2nd: Matt isn't making a claim, theists are. You don't need to come up with a counter-claim to argue against a claim. 3rd: I doubt Matt gives a damn about the honorability of saying idk. It's just honest. There is zero problem with that.
@goodaaron "if there's no rules then you can just assert whatever you want." And that's exactly what Jay does the moment he asserts any qualities his presupposed god has.
Ad hoc and arbitrary are the banners of his discomfort which require him to invent (or appeal to) something that is actually arbitrary in order to answer a question that cannot have a justifiable answer.
Okay, I am actually pretty interested in the initial bit about worldviews. It gives me something to chew on for later. But as he moves into the first argument, that these nonphysical, conceptual "things" make perfect sense because they are grounded in the mind of god... 1. You haven't established god yet, so you can't just use it as an explanation 2. It makes perfect sense because you are literally defining a concept (god) to satisfy the perceived problem. It's a different form from what I usually hear, but the same: start with the conclusion, and fit things to it as though they are evidence because I have defined it that way.
@@davidfrisken1617 a worldview is just one's particular perspective. It includes your motivations and epistemology. Personally, I would say that we have multiple worldviews; saying we only have one may be oversimplifying things.
We can look at a purely conceptual thing that is nonetheless real, such as a Mandlebrot set. This is a fractal pattern which was discovered by accident, and only verified its existence once computers were advanced enough to render it. We cannot locate this object within the physical world, despite the fact that it is real and we cannot fully perceive it because the transcendental concept of infinity is embedded within it. It is a purely mental object, and thus must exist in a mind. The concept of an absolute mind (God) is able to explain the reality of mathematical forms and universal laws of logic, because these ideas are not physical (existing within time and space). This is not a just-so explanation, but a perfectly sufficient one.
@@AdHominus no that is an explanation that you just made up, sufficient only because you say it is. To use something as an explanation you have to establish that it exists first, then is necessary and sufficient.
Oliver McLeod It doesn’t even have to be physical evidence. Any repeatable, independently verifiable demonstration will do. That being said, imagining concepts and then claiming you’re right because you say so won’t work.
Not necessarily. I'm pretty sure if you could prove to a materialist that the supernatural exists that they wouldn't have any problem changing their mind. You're statement assumes that the reason that a person is a materialist is because they REFUSE to believe in the supernatural, when really it's just that they are not convinced and CAN BE CONVINCED given the proper evidence.
@@dtphenomit would have to be demonstrable and you would have to show the method you used to get there was valid. That does bias towards materialism because materialism is infact really good at being demonstrable. If you can find something that’s non material and demonstrable, and the method used to show that it’s demonstrable, I would love to know it.
transcendental argument = Presuppositionalist argument. That's why he never presents a syllogism. Aristotle to solipsist: "You are using non-contradiction when you say you don't accept non-contradiction thus non-contradiction" Jay to Matt: "You are using God when you say you don't accept God, thus God"
How are these mishmash of words you bring up or fantasise to prove God does not exist ? Ok, since you like using words that have no content or usefulness in daily language because nobody talks to people like that. I will teach you some English Grammar to chew upon which is easily to understand and work with. Now here is something you can think about and can confront anyone with or other unbelievers. So after long time, there exists a way to explain to Atheists and Unbelievers what are the qualities of this infinite entity is, that created the Universe and us ? Stand 1. Is “The Entity God” eternal. Yes, Of course, He must be eternal. Simply because the Universe is not eternal, and because something from something from something is illogical, the first thing to exist, being the infinite entity, must be self-sustaining, and eternal. So the universe has a beginning thus there is a cause. In order to be eternal, something must be infinite, and it must exist without time, existing in an “eternal now”. The infinite entity thus is both infinite, and exists without time. Because it exists without time, it never changes, and because it is not bound by time, meaning that it exists at all times, past, present, and future, it knows the future, and is thus omniscient. Because it is infinite, the infinite entity is also omnipotent. The definition of an entity is something that exists with its own individual, independent existence. All material objects are made of trillions upon trillions of tiny finite entities called quanta particles. And because, in order for something to be eternal and omnipotent, it must be a single infinite entity, and not just an infinite number of finite entities, the infinite entity that created the Universe must have been a single object by definition. This means that the infinite entity that created the Universe could not be made of quanta particles, as it is a single entity, with its own existence, and is not made of finite entities (quanta particles). Thus, it is non-materialistic. Meaning that it is untouchable, unseeable, unhearable, unsmellable, etc. It cannot be detected by materialistic or scientific means. Space is the measurement of distance between physical objects. If something exists without matter, it is not bound by space. And because the infinite entity that created the Universe is non-materialistic, it is not bound by space. Because it is not bound by space, it is without space, thus exists everywhere all at once, the infinite entity is omnipresent. Please note that it has never been observed for life to come from nonliving substances. So, it can be scientifically assumed that abiogenesis is impossible. Until it is observed that abiogenesis is possible, it must be scientifically assumed that it is impossible. If abiogenesis is impossible, which coincides with scientific observations, and because life from life from life etc. creates a chicken-and-egg paradox similar to that from the Multiverse theory, then it would make sense that life has always existed through the infinite entity, and that the infinite entity was/is a living being. So to recap… The infinite entity that created the Universe is… Eternal Omnipotent Omnipresent Omniscient Non-materialistic And… Alive What does that sound like to you? None other than God Himself. Take it or leave it.
@@michaelflamingsword3131 Wow. What a load of fallacies and poor reasoning. I don't have time to go through all of that point by point, but I think the impossibility of any entity having qualities of all the "omni's" has been shown by many people many times. Also the idea that something should be thought of as scientifically impossible until it is proven possible is completely ass backwards from the way things work here in the real world.
@The Milkman Shall Rise I demonstrated it. You are not reading, because you think it has to be from some idiotic formulae that cannot be resolved. Then if it is what you say it is. Then stop waffling anybody about a Bang that came out of nothing from nothing.
@The Milkman Shall Rise I wrote, take it or leave it. Nor can you demonstrate it that the Universe came from nothing and a bang from nothing. You were not there. It is up to you to believe the lies from those that claim. Demonstrate me from which keyboard I have typed this ? Demonstrate where I am now ? Demonstrate whether I am in my pyjamas, in my clothes or naked ? Demonstrate that you are not in debt and still beg for money from others to give to others without lying the real reason why ? Demonstrate that there are still clearly deficiencies in the Standard Model of physics, such as the origin of mass, the strong CP problem, neutrino mass, matter-antimatter asymmetry, and the nature of dark matterand dark energy. And that you are incapable to demonstrate it. Thus my assertion of why God exists before physics is far more proof than physics claims they know of evidence that the Universe is not eternal but clearly had a beginning and is unwinding like a clock.
What most confused me was Jay not presenting evidence for his position, outside of pre-supposition. He's certainly learned on philosophy, but just referencing philosophers and using terms from the field doesn't provide support for one's argument. (When I got my Philosophy minor, there was always one guy in any class who thought that using the right verbiage and references made their own ideas impressive...)
@@DBCisco metaphysics is a branch of philosophy. Theology is the study of God claims and religions. To say metaphysics and philosophy are just theology without god is just silly. For so many reasons.
Why does it seem like Jay just wanted to try to win the debate, by attempting to look smart, by using vocabulary that many don't normally use in a debate?
I know how you guys feel. Its hard to understand at first. I might be able to help. We don't have to justify logic for a few reasons. First and foremost, its internally consistent. Secondly, its universally demonstrable. While this applies to everything in logic, he is an example; (Everything is what it is and its not what it is "not") The situation we are stuck in is there is no justification or explanation for why it is. This is called the problem of induction. We are not claiming to know absolutely that the logical absolutes are absolute. We are saying "It seems to be the case and we have no other choice but to assume they are" Another example you can do yourself; Circular arguments cant demonstrate your claim right? I agree. So, if you drive your car to prove your car can drive, that is Circular. So why can we get away with it? Because trying to justify it would be asking why driving is driving and not "Not Driving". The logical absolutes are the foundation of all valid mathematics and rational thought. They are the very most bottom foundation of truth. Think about it, how would you prove wrong (the law of excluded middle) that propositions are either true or its negation is true? You would have to actually use it to prove it wrong.
@@jasonspades5628 No, that doesn't work. When you say something is internally consistent, that in itself presupposes a bunch of other categories, such as meaning, which you would also need to justify the laws of logic, and how do you get an "ought" from an "is" in the naturalistic worldview? That would be a hard thing to justify. The laws of logic don't work absent meaning. And truth is required for meaning. Also your statement presupposes other transcendental categories. The laws of logic don't operate in a vacuum. That is Jay's point. What could give coherence to all these transcendental categories is the mind of God, as Jay is saying. And that works. The laws of logic can't by themselves be a foundation because they can't operate independent other transcendental categories, and minds can hold the laws of logic while also simultaneously being able to hold views contrary to the laws of logic, so thoughts themselves are not subject to the laws of logic. So this is how we know it's possible for a transcendent mind to have the power to hold them and other categories. The car analogy doesn't work. The car doesn't drive simply because it is a car. The car works cause it was engineered by a mind that knew how to make the car operate given other universal categories, such as mathematics, laws of physics, chemistry, laws of logic etc. Are you seeing what I am getting at? So why do the laws of logic work? Because of meaning, language, regularity in nature, numbers and where does meaning come from? It can come from God. Can it come from flux atoms? Maybe. But I don't know how you get meaning from a meaningless universe.
@@milkshakeplease4696 Wow, you have a very large amount of fallacies there. And a lot of that stuff matt responded to. So my question is, why are you not responding to the responses? What you are doing is just repeating the claims that jay made. Matt responded to those claims and thats where it left off. Its so weird how you would doubt the logical absolutes which is quite literally everywhere always, but you will try to construct the most loophole abstract argument with word play And by (word play) i mean using words outside of their intended usage, confusing meaning with usage, and making random assertions as if you are one of many academics that also take your position. They don't.
Why is Jay so insistent and convinced that debates MUST have an affirmation and a negation? A formal debate can be fulfilled by an affirmation and an opposition. The opposition can challenge the claims by the affirmation, and that is literally sufficient.
@bluebible1199 If I flip a coin and I'm not sure whether it's heads, but someone is sure that it is, I point out to them that they have no justification for believing that it is heads. This does not mean that I must assert that the coin is tails.
"What is the best answer to the question 'Is there a god(s)'?" If the best answer is yes, theists win. If the best answer is no or I don't know, atheists win. If you agree with this, then I have no idea why I responded to you, and I apologize.
The whole "these things make sense in a worldview where my god exists" premise is so painfully stupid. You could insert any explanation you want, and it would be just as valid. "The formation of clouds makes sense in a worldview where invisible cloud-making fairies exist, therefore invisible cloud-making fairies exist." Think about how we can understand the plots of science fiction and fantasy movies and also know that they aren't real. The movie offers a mechanism that is responsible for whatever phenomena are happening (i.e. the Matrix, flux capacitors, dinosaur DNA, the Force, the Truman Show, etc.), and indeed, the plot makes sense in a world where these things exist. Just because we get it doesn't mean it's actually true.
"You could insert any explanation you want and it would be just as valid." Anyone who says anything like this is only demonstrating they're not comprehending what Presup is actually arguing, even at a fundamental level, yet. But despite being so informed, they feel the need to make declarations & jump to conclusions prior to proper investigation based upon ignorance.
When we talk about the transcendental argument, we’re asserting that certain essential categories-like logic, morality, and the very fabric of reality-require a grounding that only God can provide. This isn’t about offering a whimsical explanation for why things happen; it’s about the necessity of a coherent framework that sustains our understanding of reality itself. The analogy of cloud-making fairies is flawed because it misunderstands the nature of these categories. Fictional constructs operate within the confines of imagination and narrative; they don’t have any real existence outside of those stories. In contrast, the concepts we engage with in everyday life, such as the principles of logic and moral truths, are not mere inventions or stories. They are objective realities that govern our experiences and interactions. Additionally, the critique ignores the existential implications of denying a grounding like God. Without this grounding, we’re left with a worldview that can easily descend into relativism and chaos. A narrative explanation can make sense within its own framework, but it doesn’t hold the same weight as claiming that there exists a necessary being whose essence is the source of all truth and meaning. So, while we can certainly understand and appreciate fictional worlds, they don’t serve the same purpose as the grounding that the transcendental argument seeks to provide. The reality we navigate daily demands a foundation that is far more robust than the arbitrary mechanics of a story. The claim that God is necessary to make sense of these categories isn’t just a convenient assertion; it’s an acknowledgment of the profound truth that underlies our very ability to reason, know, and experience meaning.
Wow... special pleading and straw man attempts everywhere... but my presuppositions aren't like yours! They are god flavored.🙄 Matt has an enormous amount of patience.
Lol.. my presupposition is evidence for god.. my tag argument is super special and unique.. if you don't accept my claim that mean your making a claim.. wtf dude my head hurts now..
Noam Aster It's not special pleading. It's just..not. Every fallacy mentioned in these comments doesn't apply. It wasn't as hoc either as Matt tried to argue. To be ad hoc it would require willful ignorance of some other sufficient explantion. The argument however, which is valid and sound, is that there is no other such explantion, that ultimate reality must be a divine mind. Your mind in other words is a microcosm of the macrocosm, hence 'let us make him in our image.' An example of an ad hoc hypothesis is something like Gould's 'punctuated equilibrium' which was used to help reaffirm evolutionism. Hardly any skeptics are ever railing against those kinds of things, however, which is interesting.
@@guyincognito320 "The argument however, which is valid and sound, is that there is no other such explantion, that ultimate reality must be a divine mind." How could that be valid? Thats basically a textbook argument from ignorance.
Now you are being stupid: the arguments for the existence of God are the existence of the transcendental absolutes that cannot be explained by materialism, naturalism or naive empiricism......moral obligation, logic, math, language, relliability of the senses, reality of the external world, things having classifiable natures, the uniformity of nature over time, human dignity and worth, human rights........and more are the "evidences" ..........the hidden presupposition of the atheist is nature created itself out of nothing and somehow also created the immaterial realties discussed in this debate. Your dichotomous judgement of who is smart and who is stupid is pure emotional prejudice.
The genius of Jays argument style was basically flipping away the HUGE problems with his god proposal and barely having to address it and instead flipping this about a skepticism having no justification for logic which matt addressed early on but for some reason it was repeated again and again. Ok a god could be an explanation for logic, so could magic and so could "its just that way" we are only justified in accepting any of these explanations when there is sufficient evidence, this evidence never came out in this debate as we got completely sidetracked.
@@STKisCOOLIO if you would know anything about science you would know you don't fall it "darwinsm" which is not even a word... Evolution is a fact. Anyone who denies that isn't worthy of my time.
@@STKisCOOLIO see what I mean? You have no clue what you're talking about. Which you have proven with your retarded comment. Let me correct for you to ignore. Evolution is observed. A scientific theory is better than a fact. Because it explains facts. All life on Earth changed and is still changing and it has been doing that for as long as life exist. The scientific theory of evolution by natural selection explains how. Real rich you calling someone an idiot while you right after you prove you have no clue about the subject you claim to be false. Now, go waste someone else his time
@@DocumentaryHub evolution is scientistic dogma. The "theory" takes retroactive speculation and applies to the present. It is outside the realm of empiricism. If you knew anything about the scientific method, and it's application, you would know that evolution cannot be "proved". It's OK to have faith in evolution. But to say it's a fact you are a fool. I expected better of you. You bring shame upon us rational beings.
nitehawk86, you put it in a nutshell. Jay keeps distorting what Matt is saying, largely by making up straw-man arguments to refute. It's quite tedious, isn't it?
nitehawk86 This isn’t what’s happening. He’s extending Matt’s framework within a larger frame of reference by accounting for transcendental categories.
I've learned not to tell Matt what he thinks over the years but I have a feeling if Jay would have called into the show; Matt would of hung up on him a couple of times over.
@@parametalhead Yeah, Matt has obviously never seriously studied logic before; otherwise he wouldn't be making so many fallacies and/or projecting fallacies onto other people.
Yeah, theists(especially those from protestant background, like Dyer) reject Aquinas argumentations and then go on to adhere Calvinistic presuppositionalism thought. What they don't realize, however, is that the argumentation is relativistic in nature. If you have your presuppositions and I have mine, how can you prove to me that your worldview is more "coherent" than mine if we gonna follow different paradigms? it's completely retarded and self-contradictory. If I was an Orthodox Christian, I would be ashamed of Dyer.
Listened to Jay's first part. A wall of noise that feels very insubstantial. Now I'm going to listen to Matt to see if he can pick through this hazy word play.
@@rammitemmaasol9482 insult someone to prove you're correct (and thus morally superior). Interesting concept. Maybe you're right and atheists can't share what you call morality because you and i seem to have very different concepts of the word. Considering the source i take it as a compliment =) (P.S. "iq tests" are also completely unimpressive)
@@rammitemmaasol9482 i don't care that you weren't talking to me; you were looking for an argument and found one. Racial slanders aside everything i said still applies besides maybe an assurtion without being backed up but if you think this word play can trick god into existence we disagree. Then the question is "is Christian morality superior to an atheist morality". I'd argue it's case by case but the bible clearly states this to be true. So if I've committed a straw man against you i used what i perceived to be your holy book to do so. So my question now is are you calling the bible a straw man?
Imo, the only weakness Matt has is his temperament. He seems to get so angry so quickly. You see it in the show and I believe it limits him in his discussions. Don't get me wrong, it's frustrating speaking to people who constantly misrepresent you but that's the work he's in.
@@perryeverett9636 He's said himself that he suffers from depression and he's lonely. I know he said he recently got a divorce and doesn't have the best relationship with his parents. He's also admitted to having to pay a sex worker? Anyway, he's a very smart guy but I do feel his temper gets the best of him and it sidetracks the convo at times.
Yeah, but in his case it kinda looks like he's more passionate to present his thoughts as clearly as possible. And his temprament is kinda what brought him a considerable audience too, but, yeah.
@@tonydorsett33 "He's also admitted to having to pay a sex worker?" Well I am glad you have your facts straight? Except for the not having your facts straight part.
Antony Flew left atheism following the evidence and was mocked. Matt has financial reasons to always be "unconvinced" like FFRF's "clergy project" where an atheist/agnostic/non-Christians lead churches for financial reasons and popularity
For logic and other presuppositions like 'reality' existing require some sort of foundation and that foundation is god. (but at no point he tries to demonstrate if that god exists, or necessary for any of the presuppositions to be true, or it has any explanatory power. He merely asserts them, as well as asserting if you do not believe god is the foundation for these, then you cannot coherently live.)
@@zenithquasar9623 "If I assume that a god exists, I can explain how the laws of logic exist. Therefore, god exists."? No. Just... no. "If I assume that aliens exist, I can explain how Amelia Earhart disappeared. Therefore, aliens exist." is exactly as sound. Which is to say, not sound in the least.
@@JMUDoc I didn't say it was sound. That's exactly what he has said in the entire friggen debate and baffled me even though Matt has pointed it out time and again Jay didn't demonstrate this God he presupposes and the argument doesn't stand.
@@tyronelol I just trust our current scientific ideas around it. Nothing much more tbh, I am not a physicist, astronomer etc. Anything that I would say would be a lot less informed speculation out of my gut.
To paraphrase Jay's arguement: My worldview is true because it's consistent & that's justified by saying God did it. Also, I assert your worldview is inconsistent b/c it collapses without god. Is that a fair summary? To me it's another version of heads I win, tails you lose.
utubepunk seems that tag creates a poison pill, I’m defining the my worldview in a way that has to be true and rejection of my worldview invalidates your world view. Have your cake and eat it too. I’m win you lose. Like creating a game where you can’t lose.
@@norwoodnick4645 collapses how? It makes zero difference, except it's a waste of time going to church or praying. Dont have to believe someone is spying in me 24x7 or guilty of thought crimes. Life is far better if you dump the mysticism bullshit instead of living under fear of some imaginary sky daddy.
@@JerryPenna That's irrelevant. Christianity is irrelevant to whether a prime mover exists. However the justification for the existence of any sort of reality is required otherwise no knowledge is possible. Especially when IT comes to scientific theory. You can't start with the position that you don't know, If you make any claims about the natural world. The moment you make those claims, you already refuted yourself by saying that that sort of claims is unjustifiable and thus impossible.
Toxicolaris typical apologist momubogun because they can’t justify their god, Find an unresolved problem in philosophy and then say that atheists are in justified in the reasoning it’s so stupid and so lame. Nobody can justify it in when you get down to it other than to self justifying it by yourself. Who says that no knowledge as possible without this sort of prime mover. Is it prime mover an agent if so prove it?
I'm not convinced that any particular non-theistic worldview is true. I just lack belief, I'm not making any claim right now. And I'm wondering what DID convince those who do affirm any non-theistic worldview is true? Is there any evidence, proof, or even just any non-fallacious reason to affirm any particular non-theistic worldview is true? I figure there must be, since all atheists affirm any non-theistic worldview is true & they tend to also claim to not have faith.
In your attempt to be clever, you've forgotten what the default position is. Theists are adding to the reality we all accept. Meanwhile, you screwed up at least twice more... but I bet you can't find those.
@@SansDeity It's a genuine question, I don't see it as trying to be clever. I'm not convinced there even *could be* a default position in paradigm-level debates like this (unless it can be justified as such). Here's why: A worldview is a *system* of presuppositions a person starts with (in a logical sense, not a proximate sense) to interpret their incoming sense data through, which forms a complete model of reality. I can understand why there is a default position in scientific debates about normative-level claims, but not in paradigm-level debates like this. In scientific debates about normative-level claims, people can appeal to neutrality or withholding judgment about the normative-level claim that's in contention... so that is the default or null hypothesis. But that's not the case in paradigm-level debates, since worldviews are mutually exclusive (meaning the affirmation of worldview X is the implicit denial of all worldviews that are not-X) so there is no position of neutrality or withholding judgment which would be the default or null hypothesis.
@@SansDeity The other issue is there are hundreds, if not thousands, of different non-theistic worldviews that different atheists affirm. So, which particular non-theistic worldview are you saying should be the "default?" Would it be yours? Or the different non-theistic worldview of some other atheist? Which one, specifically?
@@SansDeity As a fellow atheist, I'd be curious what your response is to what Light just said above. He seems to be interacting in good faith and gave you a valid response. I can see why you'd suspect he's "trying to be clever" at first, since he's using the same wording that you use (lacking belief, not being convinced, etc) to evade defending his own worldview, or anything at all... but why can't he do that? If you accept it as a valid technique yourself, then how can you possibly object when he does the same from his perspective? Either its valid or it isn't. You seem to be saying its only valid when you do it because you consider atheism to be "the default" position. But he countered that, successfully. And now there's no response. This seems like a big deal to me, and it should be to any intellectually honest person. I mean, it seems he has just refuted the entire idea that atheists can avoid defending anything in these debates. And I can't refute it. I've been trying to but I have to be honest and say I can't refute it.
Everytime the condescending theist interrupts Matt, Matt's mike cuts out. The theist completely misunderstands simple concepts of debate, logic, burden of proof, and constantly mischaracterizes Matt's arguments. He seems to think his special "transcendental" argument doesn't require any evidence whatsoever. He constantly speaks down to Matt, tells him what he does and doesn't understand. The frustrating thing is that he's so confident, and yet completely wrong about virtually everything. Also, how come the mediator isn't reading/choosing the questions?
So, toward the end Matt kept trying to finally get Jay to offer evidence or an actual argument, and Jay repeatedly stated that his argument is transcendental and exempt from that exercise. Is he saying that logic and reason don’t apply to arguments about certain topics? Wouldn’t that mean the laws of logic are therefore not universal or absolute? So no god would be needed to justify them?
Here's what you Atheists aren't getting: Matt asks Jay if he's got a thousand dollars in his pocket. Using his metaphor/illustration - Jay's answer (corresponding to Matt's response to the existence of God) is "I can only know if you have the thousand dollars in your pocket if you demonstrate it to me. I doubt what is not being demonstrated to me." Here's the thing: Matt could be having a thousand dollars in his pocket EVEN if he WOULDN't or COULDN't demonstrate it to Jay. But, following Jay's/Matt's reasoning - all dollars are demonstratable. Matt could have a credit card in his pocket. The funds could be there, but the card itself only holds information that identifies and helps in accessing the account that reflects the record of Matt's bank account that means that Matt can use an exact number of dollars, which corresponds and for all purposes means that Matt has a thousand dollars. Matt could have a gold watch in his pocket that is worth exactly 1000 USD. So - Jay says that dollars have to be demonstrated... that is a lot of assumptions about Matt's phrasing, about the form of those dollars, and most importantly: that is Jay insisting that there is no dollar worth without demonstration. That's displaying a belief, a paradigmatic belief in the demonstration, disregarding the rest of epistemology without even explaining what forms of demonstration would suffice.
@@NikolaAvramov Matt and Jay are discussing when and how we are justified in accepting something as true or probably true. Not whether there actually is a 1000 dollars in his wallet.
@@shawn870 You've simply ignored my explanation, then. Ignoring an argument does not make it go away, sorry. And - the metaphor I've used IS Dyer's point. You can disagree with it, but he made it, it has merit, and I've illustrated it here for the convenience of this comment section based on a short and simple part of the exchange. Epistemology IS the topic. Not the normative implications or axiological claims. I'm sticking to epistemology as well. And you haven't demonstrated where and how I've ventured into axiology, because I haven't done that.
@@NikolaAvramovYour 1st paragraph outlines the question and noting that Matt could have a 1000 dollars without being able to demonstrate it (not relevent to the topic which is when you are justified in accepting the claim, not whether its true). Your 2nd paragraph is just a useless discussion of different ways to have a thousand dollars. And your third lists the useless point from paragraph 1 and 2 and then tries to make a conclusion from the useless points. As I said appears you are confused over what the topic is there.
After the conversational portion begins that's exactly what I was thinking. He seems to lose patience for any pretense of good faith and falls into sye rhythm. Basically all I hear is "the rebuttals I have prepared require your argument to fit my caricature, so I'm going to hammer away at that no matter what you say- I MEAN WHATS IT MATTER YOU COULD BE A BRAIN IN A VAT ANYWAY" 😂😂 I don't think these guys understand why special pleading is a problem. I'm not super educated in philosophy, but if they are both assuming the same constants, like truth or non contradiction, why do they need to have a magical source? We assume those axioms to be able to think at all, why are they telling people they have no right to use those axioms without claiming to know where they came from? What other option does anyone have? I'm so confused at how this is supposed to sound appealing or necessary.
@@bensmithoriginals3413 Yeah, that's about what I got from this. Jay adds more gears and levers to Sye's method. Jay's inability (or refusal) to distinguish between skepticism and cynicism prevents him from bridging justification to beliefs. The prepositional stance is... I guess ok for personal belief...it's still the height of arrogance, and beyond flawed, but in a debate setting it's just laughably bizarre.
Almost but not quite. Jay is saying that Matt's worldview and the transcendental categories Matt uses in argument and decisions have no foundational justification. This lack of a coherent worldview would cause a skeptic to question any results of any arguments. Jay does have a coherent worldview (which is thousands of years old, and led to the accomplishments of modern civilization), and Matt cannot begin to argue against it, because Matt doesn't have a coherent worldview. It *may* be possible, that an atheist does develop such a worldview *someday*, but as of now, an atheist cannot even make an argument at this higher level of reasoning. They can, however, stubbornly limit themselves to their empiricism using transcendental categories ad hoc, and be unable to add anything substantial to the conversation.
@@bunzaimeister2613 all Jay's got are empty assertions. Matt could have said that logic pixies serves as a foundation for logic and that claim is on equal footing.
@@Imrightyourewrong1 OK, but logic is only one of the transcendental categories. Simply introducing logic pixies does not result in a coherent worldview. I am still in the process of studying the Eastern Orthodox worldview, and I personally find some items unsavory, but overall it's the best I have read. Earlier, I had thought that a more accurate philosophical worldview would stem from our utmost scientific knowledge of the universe. I have studied high energy physics, and talk to physicists, and there is no coherent worldview there, unfortunately - except for the ever pervading religion of the God of the gaps, where God takes the place of everything unknown to make people feel better.
At least with Alice going down the rabbit hole, it did make some crazy sort of sense. Jay dresses up his arguments with much bamboozling but has no substance. The Emperor has no clothes again!
@@jeffguthrie8739 He may have read a lot, but not very widely. Do you really think Mat has not heard all of this countless times? Why have these assertions always failed?
@@jeffguthrie8739 What common ground was Jay attempting to establish that Matt refused? They both seem to agree about what logical absolutes are and that they are presuppositions. Then Jay about faced on the definition of a presupposition after he stated that a presupposition that has evidence to warrant belief is still a presupposition.
Jay reiterated throughout the video that a presupposition is a starting point of one's worldview/philosophy, which everyone has and Matt isn't humble enough to consider questioning.
Yeah around 2:10 in. Got super bizarre. The presuppositions are justified but are still considered presuppositions. And presuppositions need to be justified if they are meta whatevers except God because....... Maybe I am missing something but this long slog appears to be just almost three hours of special pleading and an attempt to change what one means by logic when dealing with anything transcendental.
@@Dacrath Well Jay's perspective isn't rooted in foundations, it's a coherence theory. Matt's is and also based on correspondence theory of truth, but he has no foundation. He says he's a skeptic, then Jay cites Hume and Quine to show Matt is not in the tradition of skeptics. If Matt was being honest, he wouldn't call himself a skeptic, it would be Dillahuntyism or something else.
Richard Carrier absolutely nails understanding logic in a physical universe without transcendental supernaturalism. I would like to see Dryer debate Carrier in this topic.
I find it interesting that this debate has a similar like to dislike ratio on both channels - complete with the audience of each respective debater calling the other one stupid. It goes to show that even 3 hours of deep intellectual debate is not enough to sway the bias of the pseudo-intellectual tribe-mentality of modern man
Is there such a thing as an Apologist who can present their 'evidence' for the existence of God, without resorting to a word salad? If God really existed, it would be patently obvious to everyone and there would be zero need for apologetics.
@Sticky Steve Christians will always be there. Not going to disappear anytime soon, even though all of you wills it. The Good of the Bible is exatcly as He is not needing to be proved by scientific methods.
It means there are different types of arguments and he used one of them. It’s not a complicated concept to comprehend if you’re not as high as your skinhead atheist friend
Sad that this argument is persuasive for theists. It boils down to, my argument isn't logical because it falls outside the realm of logic, but it is still a logical argument because it is a special meta argument, that is not actually special pleading because we can't have turtles all the way down.
Only highly academic theists. Regular theists dont know 90% of the words jay talks about. But being a human being for most of us is enough for us to believe in god.
Claims that you CANNOT hold a neutral position on a knowledge claim namely 'do you believe in a god?'. Shown that you absolutely can. 'That's different when it comes to god claims.' 'That's special pleading.' 'No it's not, god claims are treated differently because I claim they're more important and thus use different logic.' Special pleading FOR the special pleading, awesome.
Yeah, but its not special pleading: Asking for these fundamental reasons is more fundamental than your example therefore you cannot hold a I dont know position on these. Because Logic or so.....
@@op-physics ... I honestly cannot tell if you're being sarcastic or not there given that last line. I suspect that that's meant as sarcasm, but on the off-chance you're being serious, no, the same rules apply not matter the subject or how 'fundamental' it is or is claimed to be. Whether the claim is regarding $1,000 that may or may not be in someone's wallet or a god claim, the options are still 'Yes, I believe that claim is true', 'No, I believe that claim is false', or 'No, I do not accept that claim to be true'(which differs from the second in that it's not making a contrary position, merely rejected the one asserted as unfounded or unpersuasive and continuing to hold a neutral position until more convincing evidence is presented).
Philip Lynx No that’s a cope out, there is no such thing as “neutral” in all this because your supposed “neutral” position involves a positive claim that you have insufficient evidence to form a view that God exists. To hold that view you then need to justify why you believe the evidence is insufficient. The atheist two step to avoid justifying anything just isn’t rational. And why shouldn’t an atheist have to justify the claim that it requires X amount of evidence, where in the world does the atheist get the right to quantity X. Virtually everything the atheist says comes down to a truth claim. Hiding behind the facade of a “neutral” position which is in reality not neutral at all is just an incoherent fallacious attempt at a dodge.
@@scubaguy1989 Wrong, and that's a shift of the burden of proof. You are claiming that there is a God and you do have to provide evidence for that and if that evidence is not good its the neutral position to say I am not convinced that your Claim is true. And yes it is a positive claim to say that the evidence is not sufficient, but were not merely asserting that, that's what all the debates are about. In most Debattes the Theist presents an argument and the atheists explaines why that is not a good argument because all of them are flawed. Furthermore, the claim of theism is unfalsifiable or better it is often presented as such, so you cannot be convinced that it is false.
It's truly extraordinary how mathmatics, which humans created to in order to accurately describe objects in reality, conforms so well to reality. God must have made both.
You can't seriously think mathematics is a human creation? It's a discovery about how the world works. The transcendental argument is about justifying the truth of these transcendental categories.
@@eamontdmas it's not an arbitrary invention, if you have two oranges, then get two more oranges, you have four oranges. This is a necessary truth that would still remain true in the absence of individual human minds. Presppositional apologetics is about making an argument from coherence, it's not about empirical, material proof for an immaterial being which is the absurd demand of many atheists. It's also difficult to refute, and causes many people to start crying about word salad
Wow, this was basically a 2 hour version of the Atheist experience. Jay is making the same logical errors and leaps every caller tends to make. His ENTIRE argument relies on a misunderstanding of how to build up an actual argument, step by step, and actually build up to other ideas based on the evidence for a position, and special pleading for his attempt to make a transcendental word soup
_"If you don't believe like me, you can't do anything"_ In order to justify claims like that, you would have to be a god. Lacking that, you're just someone who can't see his way out of his own ignorance.
lmao, the fact that Matt thinks he can have a neutral position is ridiculous. When he says that he accepts logic because it "works", he is completely incoherent in his worldview. What he fails to see here is that when you say something "works," and you take the pragmatic approach, you already presupposing certain metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics that are impossible within the atheist worldview. Within this paradigm, there is no foundation for induction (why the future should be like the past) why logic "working" is something we should strive for in the first place or that it is good (ethics), or that we can even have the possibility of truth (epistemology). Everyone in the comments here who doesn't understand Jay's argument, or think its a word salad, you're tipping your hand at your ability to grasp concepts..
What is Matt's worldview and why is his presupposition regarding logic incoherent in it? Also, do you think it's possible that the true explanation for logic and induction is something that cannot be reached through reason, logic, or philosophy and therefore is something that excludes the deity described in the Bible? If it is not possible, then explain why you think this. Can you explain with a verse how the god of the Bible is the foundation of induction? How do you know Yahweh is not simply bound by induction and not the foundation?
@@bernardboswinkle1948 Hi bernard, just want to start by saying these are some really great questions, i'm happy to answer them. Matt's worldview is incoherent because he says that we should use logic because it "works" this is pragmatism. What he fails to see here is that when you say something "works," and you take the pragmatic approach, you already presupposing certain metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics that are impossible within the atheist worldview. It is ultimately a circular argument, and therefore a reductio, because he is trying to use the past to justify logic's success, however, there is no reason for the future to be like the past (induction). Firstly, I do think a logical, reasoned, and philosophical approach can prove induction, I just think that the solution is the Christian God. My reason for that, is that if we were to examine the characteristics that would be required in order to have logic as we know it today, it would have to be invariant, universal, immaterial, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent. These are the characteristics that describe the Christian God of the Bible. Further, for my justification for the foundation induction being God, I would point towards the book of Genesis. The very first verse "In the beginning, God created the heaven's and the earth" illustrates this well. The "beginning," is referring to the beginning of Time itself, in that God created Time as we know it today. With his creation, he clearly has dominion over it. Therefore, time and regularity of reality is dependent on God, and thus he is the foundation of induction. Christianity is exclusively a religion that teaches creation ex-nihilo, meaning that God is outside of creation, not within it. Therefore, he is the source of the metaphysical realities that we experience today. I would finish with throwing down a challenge, what do you think the foundation of logic, induction, and mathematical laws are?
He regularly makes a lot of coherent arguments. Many people just can't keep up for being underinformed or undereducated, even though he's making things as comprehensive as he can, which is a lot.
Isn't special pleading when someone basically says 'well yeah, that's true in every other case except this one."? If so that's exactly what Jay said almost word for word.
Jay appears to have difficulty responding when Matt doesn't play according to the 'rules' of quoting long dead philosophers. Matt is offroading. It appears to throw him off. He keeps circling back to academia. If there's no essay for it, he doesn't understand the position. Can't respond.
Would you believe that a presuppositionalist actually sent me to watch this debate because they think Dyer's arguments are compelling? Oof. Standard presuppositionalist nonsense: 1. Assert that saying "god" answers a difficult metaphysical question 2. Demand the atheist answer that metaphysical question 3. Announce Jesus is real because you don't like what they said *edit:* Anyone else notice how the moderator pratically gives Dyer a reach around every time he finishes speaking? Like, "Good one, Jay!" "Really great points, Jay!" You're doing so great, Jay!" *edit2:* Oh my goodness Dyer becomes insufferable right around 1:10:00! "That's arbitrary!" "How?" "Because it's ad hoc!" "How?" "Because it's arbitrary!" Matt was far more patient than I would have been-- can someone remind me why people think Dyer is smart, again? *edit3:* Does Dyer get a dollar every time he says the word "paradigmatic" or what?
@@shassett79 welcome to the real world: where people take your ideas and make conceptualizaitons of what you believe parting from those assertions... assuming you even have a justification to believe what you think yourself
If "God" is infinite, why can't the cosmos be infinite and a super nebula type mechanism create an infinite number of universes resulting in one universe that supports life as we know it?
Exactly. Theists can't see that and won't admit that literally no one knows what was before the big bang. For all we know the cosmos has existed in some form forever and our universe originated naturally. That is more logical, likely, rational and probable than a supernatural entity from another dimension magically created everything from nothing.
Jay really needs to study logic somewhere, somehow. Matt is speaking very clearly and he shouldn't have to re-explain a million times to get through to him.
Here is an argument from Truth to God: There are necessary truths. For instance, that a is a, or that if either a or b; not a; therefore b, or if a=b and b=c then a=c or if a then b, a, therefore b. Or that a curved straight line, square circle, married bachelor, are all impossibilities that cannot exist. Or that if there are human beings, then there are human beings, or if there is a universe, then there is a universe, or if something exists, then something exists. These truths are necessary because they cannot be any other way. Such truths are not dependent on human beings since even if every human disagreed with these propositions, they would still be true. Or even if human beings went out of existence, these truths would still be true. Neither are these truths grounded in material reality since even if material reality went out of existence, these truths would still be true. And even if material reality went out of existence, it would still be true that there is no material reality (but if this is the case, then such a truth cannot be grounded in material reality since it wouldn't exist in that case). But then, how do these truths exist? Well, they aren't physical or material at all. In fact, since they are abstract, they must be grounded in some mind or intellect. Thus, there must be some necessarily existing intellect that serves as the ontological basis for these necessary truths. And this just is the Divine Intellect, which is God.
@Joshua Opell Well, I think any argument against the laws of logic is self-undermining in the following way: for you to argue against the necessity of the laws of logic, you have to assume that they are true, which is self-defeating. For example, you brought up the liar paradox, which shows that there can be contradictions. So, the law of non-contradiction can be false. But, this conclusion itself presupposes that there is a distinction between a contradiction and something that isn't a contradiction, it presupposes a distinction between can be and cannot be, and it also presupposes a distinction between truth and falsehood. But, all of this presupposes that the law of identity and non-contradiction are true. So, your argument that the laws of logic can be false presupposes that they are true, which is self-undermining. In short, the laws of logic are necessarily true because of the impossibility of the contrary (as I have explained above).
@Joshua Opell How would you respond to the argument I gave about why your argument (and any argument for that matter) against the necessity of laws of logic is self-refuting? It seems like that if I have dealt with this objection, then my original argument from Truth to God follows.
@Joshua Opell " If logic implies that it’s not the case, then it’s not the case. Especially if they’re circular and assumed without argument." What? I'm not sure I understand what you mean here. As I said, your argument for why they are not necessary (i.e. that they can be false) itself presupposes that they are true, which is self-refuting. And they are not circular. They are necessarily true because of the impossibility of the contrary, which I explained before.
@Joshua Opell "The point is is that the laws of logic have been shown to lead to contradictions, therefore making self-refuting. " Again, you're still not responding to the argument. As I already said, in order for you to argue that the laws of logic can be violated and can be false, you have to presuppose that they are true. Until you understand the self-undermining nature of your arguments against the laws of logic, there is no real point in going on arguing (since the practice of argumentation itself presupposes the laws of logic).
If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with nonsense. There is a line in the sand between what one can evidentially know, and that which one can't evidentially know. People that claim to have knowledge without evidence are as trustworthy as a gloryhole in a butcher shop. It all comes down to the individuals intellectual honesty, it's dishonest to claim to have knowledge of anything that doesn't evidently manifest in reality. So many times I've been told the gods or god exist outside of space, time, and are/is immaterial. To me this ends the conversation, as this to me is basically negating existence of whatever god it is the individuals are arguing for. For example "I believe in a cosmic entity it is immaterial and outside space and time, therefore it doesn't exist by definition" Lol
I got the impression that these people putting forwarrd the transcendental argument are pretty good at memorising words. But suck at understanding things. I used to train people, i believe based on my experience. That if you have understand something , you can put it in simple terms . I never witnessed people who couldn't do that. But i also wittnessed a lot of studied people who think they are smart, but fail to understand basic concepts, yet being percieved as super smart because they can babble out a lot of words.
@goodaaron Materialists generally use abstract logic. They just understand the analytic/synthetic distinction properly. Not that I'm a materialist, or idealist for that matter.
Jay seems to have a really telling habit of saying "You may not think so, but your statement is wrong because X" but then doesn't even try to explain how X logically concludes that your statement is wrong because he doesn't _have_ any explanation. He just wants to say you're wrong and he's right, and hopes people will take that at face value for some reason. Like for example he says Matt _is_ making a claim, even if he thinks he isn't. Then when Matt pushes back on that, Jay has 0 explanation for how Matt is making a claim.
Am I correct that Matt was saying that it tends to make people uncomfortable when they don’t have answers, like having a justification for the belief in logic (and that sort of thing)? But essentially he’s OK with not having a justification for logic, right?
Yes, you’re right on both counts. Matt is saying that Jay invents God to explain logic because unlike Matt, Jay is not comfortable with the idea of logic being self-evident and self-explanatory. This is called an Appeal to Emotion: “Having no explanation is yucky, so i won’t be satisfied unless you invent a better explanation than the one I invented.” 🤔 Ironically, ~44:20 Jay shows he knows there’s a problem with appeals to emotion, but he thinks the problem is with dismissing them rather than with employing them… 🤦♂️
Server Surfer If Matt is comfortable with logic being self-evident, he is probably a pragmatist. He is certainly not a skeptic. A skeptic demands justification for belief. I would add that in the domain of reason and debate, to declare categories as self-evident disqualifies you from debate. So if your assessment is correct, then Matt was arbitrary and should not have been in the debate. You can’t just say something is, without justification. You can use coherence as an argument for justification. However Matt made no such attempt.
Matt’s performance here is pretty embarrassing. His metaphysical presuppositions are unjustifiable in his world view and he’s incapable of examining them.
@@Eon-BlueMatt can’t justify the laws of logic based on his own criteria that it’s unreasonable to believe in anything that can’t be empirically verified. The very tools he necessarily has to use to engage in the external world - logical laws, abstract objects like numbers, letters etc. - cannot be justified on his end as you can’t prove these things through empirical sense data. What makes his performance in this debate so embarrassing is that he says he accepts the laws of logic just are without needing a justification whilst also regularly proclaiming himself to be a skeptic. Which Jay quite rightly points out is not skepticism. It’s the opposite of skepticism in fact. Believing in invisible, abstract, metaphysical magical principles that just are without any justification or empirical data to prove said principles.
@@PittAfterSchool If they don’t have a justification undergirding them then Matt is inherently presupposing from an unjustified starting position. Which is a devastating flaw in his worldview as a self professed professional skeptic of sorts. Imagine how he’d react if a theist said they didn’t need to justify their beliefs that they nevertheless use because in their estimation they work.
@@patrickmcardle952 When you say “If they don’t have a justification undergirding them….” , you’re assuming (presupposing) that there IS a justification undergirding them. That’s what Matt is saying! If you’re saying that there must be a justification that undergirds what he’s saying, then you need to DEMONSTRATE that, not just assert (presuppose) it. Your assertions and presuppositions prove NOTHING!!
I... feel like I am missing the biggest idea being debated. I feel like I don't understand the extent of Jay's argument. I am uncertain what he believes and exactly what he is trying to assert. Maybe I needed context to what transcendental beliefs are and exactly how they are true. I feel like I left this more stumped and confused than when it started.
This is the Eric Hernandez "You're using the wrong ruler" argument so he doesn't have to prove anything. Special Pleading is the only argument Jay and Eric have, and it's a fallacy.
@@TheCrossingBallCredentials don't mean much if you're not an effective educator, which Dyer really isn't. He's not terrible but he certainly doesn't explain his positions in clear concise language, everything is philosophical fart sniffing from what I can tell.
I love how for some people Jay Dyer explicates things in clear detail and helps us see things in a logical and concise way, and for everyone else it's "muh word salad". I think this just demonstrates a stark difference in IQ, that or people who struggle have a darkened nous full of pride; probably trying to justify their own sin.
*"One could say 'I don't accept the transcental argument'"* Or one could point out all the equivocation, category errors and unjustified assumptions it makes. But Jay is right, it is possible to reject it without going into the reasons why.
So fractals + very specific philosophy = a transcendental argument for the orthodox christian god = special pleading. Is that the gist of Jay's position?
It isn't the Orthodox Christian doctrine. Dyer comes from a baptist/Calvinist background, that's why he uses presuppositionalism arguments. Orthodox Christians literally don't care about reason. We could compare them with Islam and their rejection of reason in favor of Quran "truths". They don't have someone like Aquinas, which tried to balance and mix Aristotelian logic with biblical revelation. The most famous one in Orthodox is Gregory Palamas, a mystic. And his position starts with God already existing, so the whole Orthodox doctrine is personalist and takes God's existence for granted. That's why Dyer's argumentation would sound off to any Orthodox person. He's just larping with religion as a way to fill these "logical" gaps he sees in mainstream philosophy.
Great reply, thanks so much. I got bogged down at 11:25 and it looks like jay has some iconography behind him. That’s why I assumed orthodox Christianity. I do remember what sounded like calvinist predeterminism later on.
Well. Orthodox has different meanings, one indicates the rich variety in Eastern denominations, the other indicates the "straight teaching" (correct understanding) and can be used to indicate "conservative true believers" in their form of religion, take the Jewish "Orthodox Union" as example . Dyer even failed to make clear about what kind of Orthodox Christianity he was talking about, and that made me suspect, he was mostly NOT talking about the Old Churches of the East, but about his specific concept of the TRUE Church
He may very well be, (bit of a not entirely unexpected disappointment there, not Oriental Orthodox, but just common Eastern Orthodox) but his initial lack of specificity still feeds my suspicion.
@JL-XrtaMayoNoCheese its an argument for naturalism being able to explain anything a god can. For the transcendental argument for god it just takes the circular reasoning and adds in anything else. For instance if spaghetti exists then the flying spaghitti monster exists. The flying spaghetti monster exists. If the flying spaghetti monster exists then spaghetti exists. Spaghetti exists. If spaghetti exists then the flying spaghetti monster exists. Repeat as circular reasoning. We can just opt naturalism into that transcendental argument or any being for a panthiestic explanation to discredit the entire argument.
@JL-XrtaMayoNoCheese why cant matter and motion ground metaphysics? I think therefore i am, that grounds reality as a thing that necessarily exists and things that exist require properties and so reality can have any property necessary for it to exist. Thats metaphysics, the fundamentals of reality exist because they need to exist for reality to exist. Its the exact same argument as the transcendental argument for god but without a god which invalidates the god argument unless your Bayesian or some other type of moron.
@JL-XrtaMayoNoCheese also i never claimed that anything i said wasnt circular but thats the point. God is circular too but requires us to believe in something that we cant know exists but we can know reality exists.
@@apocalyptic4058 it’s telling that you don’t even know how to spell “empirical” lol. But can you empirically verify logic? Can you prove the scientific method by using the scientific method? No, you can’t.
@@Smayor75 1:48:25 Matt: "The number of times I've been accused today of being an ignorant baffoon today has been rather staggering" Jay: "I haven't said that" Matt cannot read minds, however, that's an accurate projection of the majority of viewers.
No. Matt admitted that transcendental categories are fundamental and special. And when your interlocutor reasserts that later, and you cry "special pleading", you're contradicting yourself. And that's what Matt did.
Time stamp 144.20 matt shows he's true colours changes the subject as he was defeated and embarrassed, go back 10 minutes before and you'll see thus,his standard game plan on his show and other Atheists, sitting on their asses,just refuting the God argument with no alternative argument to put forward, don't bother with Atheists who just sit there and deny claims without putting forward and alternative ,and I don't know isn't an argument
Thats called frustration champ. Are you able to refute the assertion that Dragons exist and a pantheon of dragons created the universe? How about the assertion that the universe WAS created but as an undergrad level science experiment in an ultra advanced culture of beings?
Matt: I'm interested in what's true and demonstrable. Me too. Philosophy and epistemology are of no interest to me if their goal is not finding what's demonstrably true, and I think they are harmful if they result in the invention and propagation of ideas that are not demonstrably true, as in Jay's case. [Transcript: 1:27:19: Jay: I'm just interested in the history of different skeptics and how they talk and what they consider justification and how philosophy and epistemology typically .. speaks of .. justifying claims. Matt: And I'm not. I'm interested in what's true and demonstrable, which is why we're stuck.]
Very kind of Matt to post his L's
yeh there's comments on jay dyers upload of the video saying how nice it was for him to post his loss aswell... we all think our guy won... great job, clap clap, i'm sure writing empty vacuous comments like yours will convince the opposition that your guy won...
He didn't lose. The other guy didn't prove anything.
@@brianbridges8124agree
Um Jay lost in his opening where he admitted he presupposes God. He esentially admitted the only reason he believes in god is because he really wants to. Matt didnt even have to respond and he would have won, but they already paid him. They esentially pay Matt so an apologist can talk next to Matt without Matt tearing them a new one.
@@Doe174I have value because monkey have value 🐵
It sure does strike me as odd that Jay's God used to just straight up make his existence obvious with back and forth conversations with people (Abraham, Moses, etc.) and yet for some reason, we today are left to contend with these dubious, speculative philosophical arguments. Why did Yahweh get all of his obvious existing out of the way before the invention of cameras and video?
I think I know why.
Christians tend to ignore the historical origin and evolution of their religion.
The Abrahamic God is indeed an oddly specific leap (Zeus anyone? Talos? Daedra?). He exhausted Matt by changing the terms of the debate and redefining skepticism based on authority of historical figures. Matt got tired because the debate dissolved into disagreements on what good skepticism is. Jay kept "appreciating Matt's honestly" and implying "weakness" in Matt's responses without justification. Jay acted as though his side of the debate resolved itself without syllogisms, demonstrations, or explanations. It really has that Jordan Peterson and Sye TB crap in several places.
Hoping Matt provides a debate review if it suits him.
Perhaps God took a vacation. I hear Alpha Centauri is lovely, this time of year....
He must just be camera shy, I can relate. God must have been made in my image.
Yeah,if the bible stories happened today with all the media ,tv ,smartphones reporters; to question people who make incredible claims ,
people who could write things down as opposed to telling other people who told other people ;
much more, (as opposed to not any) scientific knowledge (to investigate claims
of dead bodies coming back to life)
which is why it could only 'happen'' then but would be impossible today .
the story probably wouldn't last two weeks much less 2000 years.
What a load of nonsense. Never got near why or how there could be any gods , never mind a protestant christian one
I think he was Eastern Orthodox.
Trump is the antichrist.
Thats very narrow-minded. Especially since this is not only an atheist vs. theist debate, but a debate on complex philosophical methodology on how we get to truth in general. "eeehh these theists"
It's moronic.
@@jessemix5149 That would make for a lame Omen movie.
@@jessemix5149 LOL! According to the fabricated stories of such a character, he would deceive the world with real positive changes for humanity where all would benefit before he came out wanting the world to worship him.... plus, this antichrist would be charismatic, charming, educated and well spoken and with out gaff. Oh yeah, before I forget, emphasis on educated. Trump does demonstrate slight antichrist character but he fails on every other decriptior... especially "educated". LOL!
Why do so many find difficulty in understanding that "I am not convinced x is true" is not the same as "I am convinced x is false"
So you are an agnostic ? It doesn’t matter your opinion.
If you're not convinced something is true, you will act as if it's false. You can give lip service to the "well, I'm not saying it's false,
" But in practice, you're doing exactly that.
Because it's a cop out. A cope. What Kevin smile said is right. Our beliefs only exist within the positive, not the negative. You don't "lack a belief in God", you're claiming he doesn't exist and behave within reality as if that's true. It's like somebody tells me that there's an elephant in my backyard. I can say i lack a belief in that elephant being in my yard, but that's not what i really mean. What i mean is that i don't believe you, even though i don't have conclusive evidence. In other words, "i believe the truth of the statement 'there is no elephant in my backyard'". We only believe in positives that point to truth. We are not capable of believing in negatives, or lies for that matter. It's only appears as if it's possible to believe a lie if we think it's the truth. It's not even possible because the concept of such a thing doesn't logically exist. It's a pathetic cope.
So much so that atheist scholars have stopped using "I lack a belief in a God".
@@KevinSmile "If you're not convinced something is true, you will act as if it's false."
I just flipped a coin. Are you convinced it landed heads or are you convinced it landed tails?
If you are not convinced of one over the other and would say both are equally possible, then according to your logic, you must be acting as if both are false.
If you are not convinced you know which day of the year my birthday falls on, then would you say that each day it's false that that day is my birthday?
There are many things which you do not have particular reason to believe are true but also do not have reason to believe are false either.
Are you convinced it will rain on Sep 16th 2046? If not, does that mean you're saying it's false it will rain on that day?
@@Viruz32 I lack a belief in God, in that same way that I lack a belief a flipped coin landed on tails, until I see the evidence.
The fact that I lack a belief it landed on tails, does not mean I believe it landed on heads.
"I'm not convinced it's true it landed on tails", is not the same as, "I'm convinced it's false it landed on tails."
Until I see the coin, I'm not convinced of tails.
Until I see a reason supporting the God claim, I'm not convinced, (or lack a belief), of Gods.
It's a pathetic cope and weak cop-out attempt, when the person making the fantastical claim, tries so desperately to shift the burden of proof away from themselves. They should focus more on actually demonstrating the claim, instead of dodging and hiding behind semantic games.
Meta level arguments can only be descriptive, but they can never be synthetic. Arguing a justification for a presupposition in no way means that justification has a referent in reality. You can posit a god to solve meta level conundrums, but that in no way means your god is real.
"Arguing a justification for a presupposition in no way means that justification has a referent in reality". Would this be true about a presupposition that "God does not exist because we have no material proof of his existence". BTW by reality, you are referring to material reality?
@@rocoreb I'm gonna go out on a limb and say the reality he is talking about is the only reality humans have any evidence actually exists (yes the material world, where you were born, have lived, and will die). Also, most atheists reject the claims you theists make that a god exist.
@@CosmicEpiphany in other words, numbers are not a reality
rocco flavioni numbers are abstract concepts. A number doesn’t actually exist somewhere absent a sentient being capable of conceptualizing it and symbolically representing them. The letter a does not exist outside of a sentient brain either.
@@JerryPenna i agree 100% with what you said. concepts, the letter A or numbers etc are very real.
is it just me, or did Jay just say the same thing over and over again - transcendentals are interlinked and we assume that reality exists. Every now and then he threw in a " I presuppose God", without ever giving a reason to do so.
He was totally mind fucked lol - he had NO IDEA what Matt was even saying lmao...
You're being arbitrary.
@@TheFounderUtopia
Who - me - or him?
I'm sure I probably am... It's the "easy way" after all lol..
But who do you feel the argument sided with - and why?
-we can do the long version - if you'd like 😉
@@pleaseforgivemyinsanity2801 he was making fun of Jay, obviously
god is the explanation...
Transcendentalism- Things we don't understand, and possibly can't understand, are God AND we can't explain why.
Probably the wrong questions to ask in the first place.
remember next time to add "And even if we could or when we can explain these things, they would now also still be evidence for God."
Yes, well defined man ;)
And not only that, those things are the God that the transcendentalist just so happens to believe in. Convenient...
@@RickReasonnz exactly
Jay usually ends up explaining how philosophy and debating works lol
True. It's a lot of discriptions with a few bits of jargon to really put people to sleep.
I appreciate that about him, he's super knowledgeable. He's also correct to ask for a justification of the foundation of logic.
MUH WORD SALAD
Matt started it at 36:18 lol
@@LazarNevski logic is a human created language that describes certain properties of reality. What else could you possibly expect beyond that?
Matt Respect for speaking to Jay Dyer. I disagree with you strongly but you seem to be intellectually honest and willing to have your views challenged.
how you can disagree with intellectual honesty sounds like refusal to be reasonable. Matt has political views backed with logic that I could see someone disagreeing with in the fine details, but to say you don’t agree with Matt (strongly) is so highly suspect of you being misinformed or stubborn. no offense intended but i understand if its taken that way.
don't be fooled though. Matt is sponsored by satanic globalist elites that want to "secularize" the world and complete their mission of putting the atheistic state at the top of the pyramid.
@@AP-bo1if Evidence for your claim, please.
lol
@@viasevenvai I agree with Jay. And his views seem reasonable, too.
I like how the moderators says "very good, very good, nice job" etc. After every speech lol. He sounds like he's coaching a little league game.
Jay insists on an explanation of the foundation of logical absolutes, and provides none for his god.
@Joshua Opell that didn't address what I said in the slightest.
@Joshua Opell plus, "fuzzy logic" is a an approach to computing, not logical syllogisms. You're basically pulling a Deepak Chopra word salad. What's next, "quantum"?
The problem is that logical syllogisms tend to be mere models of a reality, and they may leave out a thing or two."A bachelor is an unwed male person,Marriage ends the unwed state,So here is no such thing as a married bachelor" said Mrs. Rogers, MA & BSc.
@AlienToy 87
The issue with the 0 to 1 truth value claim, is a misunderstanding of excluded middle.
@AlienToy 87
Excluded middle is simply this.
Either A is true OR non-A is true.
Explain the issue with giving ANY number regardless of its fraction or being a whole number, a truth value violates this law.
To everyone who is confused, I think Jay was basically trying to say that Matt was presupposing logic when he used logic to say “I don’t see any reason why we need an explanation for logic.”
Yes, Matt said as much. He presupposes the foundations of logic. They both agree that the foundations of logic exist and are useful, so they're able to be used to examine whether a further foundation is justified or even needed.
Because he admits that he presupposes logic it's not a gotcha to claim that he presupposes logic.
@@josephlawson2768 I think Jay's response to this might be to say that's not what he was doing. His point is more that questioning the foundations of logic (and other presuppositions) is what philosophers (especially self-proclaimed skeptics) should be doing in arguments like this.
The Transcendental argument answers a question Matt admits is important and to which he currently holds no answer. Jay wants him to take it seriously as an argument, but I'm not sure Matt understands it. Matt seems to dismiss the argument as an answer to the foundation question. He seems to think it's circular or otherwise invalid.
I don't see that. I'd like to hear Jordan Peterson opine about the Transcendental argument. Part of Jordan's argument is this: a moral hierarchy exists; every hierarchy has a pinnacle; thereby there must be a pinnacle to the moral hierarchy; this pinnacle is God, by definition, moral perfection.
This seems very much in tune with the Transcendental argument.
@@Confusione_Infinito_Absurdum "I don't see that. I'd like to hear Jordan Peterson opine about the Transcendental argument. Part of Jordan's argument is this: a moral hierarchy exists; every hierarchy has a pinnacle; this pinnacle is God, by definition, moral perfection. "
"Moral perfection" by what standard?
By whose definition?
If you find your god moral and I find him immoral, which of us is right?
How do we decide?
@@JMUDoc Saying God is moral perfection by definition is like saying black is the darkest shade of grey by definition.
Imagine that you have a scale of all the shades of grey in front of you, and we are attempting to name them all.
We might come up with a million different names for the myriad shades and have a million disagreements, but we would likely be able to agree on two things:
The brightest shade is white.
The darkest shade is black.
Now, if we do the same to the hierarchy of moral values, we are likely to disagree a lot about many of the middle values, but we should be able to agree to this:
The personification of that which is perfectly good is God.
The personification of that which is perfectly bad is Satan*.
*Or whichever God-opposite name you prefer
We don't have to elucidate exactly what "perfectly good" means to make the claim that the personification of whatever is "perfectly good" is God.
Another way of saying this is to just acknowledge that your values are what motivate you to act. Without differing valuations, there would be no reason to do one thing over another. By acting, by doing anything at all, you are revealing your value judgments and your personal gods.
A nicotine addict who can't find a cigarette will often get frantic in their search, sometimes doing things they'd never consider when not desperate for a drag. When they act this way, nicotine is their god, their highest motivating value. This does not mean nicotine is God.
The point is that everyone has gods. The goal should be to make sure your god is the God that guides you to make the best decisions in every aspect of your life.
@@Confusione_Infinito_Absurdum "Now, if we do the same to the hierarchy of moral values, we are likely to disagree a lot about many of the middle values, but we should be able to agree to this:
The personification of that which is perfectly good is God."
We do not agree.
The analogy is not apt because the shades of grey are evaluated by comparing light output/reflection, an OBJECTIVE criterion.
Suppose I think your god is immoral for creating hell and a creating sacrificial atonement system that consigns people there for all eternity for crimes I deem undeserving - am I objectively wrong?
If so, prove it.
"We don't have to elucidate exactly what "perfectly good" means to make the claim that the personification of whatever is "perfectly good" is God."
Then the label is meaningless.
I might as well advertise my car as "perfectly cromulent", and when a prospective buyer asks what it means, I tell them it doesn't matter - my car IS perfectly cromulent.
"The point is that everyone has gods."
Equivocation - in the context of atheism vs religion, gods are conscious, universe-creating/maintaining beings.
His entire argument is special pleading. It's so tedious.
Special pleading would be unverifiable in the context he’s talking about. It would require knowledge of everything in the universe and consciousness in order to know what is being talked about is an exception. Since we don’t have knowledge of everything, there is no way to know it’s an exception.
Literally!!
"It's not special pleading, it's different"! "
Christopher T It’s not.
@@John-lf3xf Why not?
It's too bad Jay never showed up for this debate.
Marxine St.Arline - It’s obvious to who? All he did was straw man Matt’s position and followed it up with special pleading.
@Marxine St.Arline Jay lost this debate as soon as he spoke
@Clear Sky Playable
_> all you guys do is kvetch and make over reaching claims you cannot substantiate.._
Like "there is a god"?
What a moron...
@Clear Sky Playable yeah, too bad you don't either.
@@tomwolfe6063 It was snark.
44:40 - What? Saying that theists are using the idea of god to reduce discomfort is not an appeal to emotion. If Matt had said that he doesn't believe in god because the idea makes him uncomfortable would be an appeal to emotion.
Update1: I've now watched 1:16:00 of this and my thoughts are: I honestly don't know if Jay is not correct in saying that it is arbitrary to assume the laws of logic. However, in assuming god, he is doing the exactly the same thing.
Now, even if we were to assume he is not also doing an ad hoc argument, I have no idea how he jumps from god to the christian god.
Update2: I think Matt did not do a good job on this one. He gets angry very easy (which honestly makes him look terrible) and did not pressure Jay enough on his assumptions. Why does he claim that logic must have a guarantor? Why is god that guarantor? Why does god not need a guarantor? Why are transcendental arguments not special pleading? If there is a good reason for the argument to actually be different, then the special pleading fallacy does not apply.
If logic is arbitrary than that would make Jay's assumption that logic is arbitrary arbitraty.
@@DOG-bt6vy Yeah I don't know. Jay never provided a definition of what is arbitrary
Jay: thank you for participating in this debate
Matt: I'm not convinced this was a debate
He didn't claim it's not a debate. He just lacks belief that it is.
@@lightbeforethetunnel Here is the Flat earth dude again.
@@KangaJack-ns9gd Have you checked what a guilt by association fallacy is yet?
@@lightbeforethetunnelHi, outsider here. Some context, please?
@@imaginationave3687 For which part do you want context?
So, he tosses out all of the logical absolutes, and the sciences' necessary presuppositions for not being justifiable, then makes a huge number of assertions with ZERO justification. Egad.
Naive empiricism.
Mountains of arguments against scientism.
who ??
@@NikolaAvramov what is scientism ?? Science i the only way humans have to make sense of reality......... and prove something is consistent with reality.
@@MrStaano
Scientism is a religious take on science.
Basically what you've described in the first half of your sentence.
While science is just an area of human thought and activity, relying heavily but not exclusively on the scientific method.
@@NikolaAvramov So scientism is bs then. It sounded like it.
It seems like Jay thought he was going to be debating Hume.
My guess is that Jay finds himself on the defensive all the time about things the bible said, so he wanted to turn the tables on Matt and put him on the defensive. However, Matt (nor anybody) has any obligation to defend Hume (or anyone else).
To be fair....Matt aligned himself with Hume early on.
This does not make Hume our Jesus.
And Matt never said "this is correct because Hume said so."
LMAO!
At what point did Jay explain how transcendental arguments provide justifications for presuppositions? At what point did he explain these different types of "evidences," as he calls it, that apply to different sorts of claims?
He didn't because he can't. It's a silly assertion...
In a word...he didn't.
@Joe Gillian That's what transcendental reasoning is, you moron.
@@drayvinwilliams2389 Wow, You seem a little sensitive! What's wrong, can't accept arguments against a ridiculous concept?
@@drayvinwilliams2389
So making a bunch of claims and then failing to back them up with any evidence is transcendental reason? You statement makes no sense.
Matt: extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence
Also Matt: logic (immaterial universial truth) just is, no evidence needed
Logic may not be immaterial. It’s physical form may just be so complex that we can’t fathom it. Every time we use logic we can see how it effects everything around us. Logic is one of the most self evident things that there is. God is not self evident.
Do you understand what a presupposition is? How are Jay Dyer fans so incredibly unintelligent. Embarrassing man
@@Still-Struggling Nothing is self evident to a skeptic. If you can’t provide a justification for the existence of the laws of logic then you’d have no choice but to admit that every engagement with reality comes from an unjustified starting position. Which is a devastating flaw for atheists to deal with who pride themselves on their adherence to logic and reason and who also demand a justification from theists for every conceivable aspect of their views.
@@patrickmcardle952 The amount of times I've had to explain what justification is, is ridiculous, I'll ask someone to justify why the Christian God doesn't exist and they'll say no you have to prove God's existence (Moral ought, right off the gate) , I'll attempt to justify why God existing is coherent as opposed to incoherent and I'll be asked to prove God's existence😅
@@keitumetsemodipa3012 It requires a lot of patience for sure hahah
Matt: here's my honest opinion on the issue
Jay: it's not in the book of debate rules
It's a debate, if there's no rules then you can just assert whatever you want.
There's always the rules of discussion that everyone should follow: thoughtcatalog.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/a-flowchart-to-help-you-determine-if-yoursquore-having-a-rational-discussion.jpg?resize=622,866&quality=95&strip=all&crop=1
Jay was unnecessarily obfuscatory in this debate.
If Matt asks a Christian, or anyone for that matter, why they believe in a God and say 'I don't know', it would be completely absurd. And yet, Matt does the same thing for trascental things and hes supposed to come off as honorable to admit that he doesnt know?
@@Octavian2 1st: I don't think Matt would find it absurd for a theist to not know why they believe. Maybe they haven't examined it. I don't see why anyone would find that absurd. 2nd: Matt isn't making a claim, theists are. You don't need to come up with a counter-claim to argue against a claim. 3rd: I doubt Matt gives a damn about the honorability of saying idk. It's just honest. There is zero problem with that.
@goodaaron "if there's no rules then you can just assert whatever you want."
And that's exactly what Jay does the moment he asserts any qualities his presupposed god has.
Ad hoc and arbitrary are the banners of his discomfort which require him to invent (or appeal to) something that is actually arbitrary in order to answer a question that cannot have a justifiable answer.
That may not*
@@NormFuture that does* not
Okay, I am actually pretty interested in the initial bit about worldviews. It gives me something to chew on for later.
But as he moves into the first argument, that these nonphysical, conceptual "things" make perfect sense because they are grounded in the mind of god... 1. You haven't established god yet, so you can't just use it as an explanation 2. It makes perfect sense because you are literally defining a concept (god) to satisfy the perceived problem.
It's a different form from what I usually hear, but the same: start with the conclusion, and fit things to it as though they are evidence because I have defined it that way.
I still haven't had anyone explain to me what a "world view" is. Is it referring to some people accepting truth, and others denying it?
@@davidfrisken1617 a worldview is exactly that. How the person in question views the world/universe/their existence.
@@davidfrisken1617 a worldview is just one's particular perspective. It includes your motivations and epistemology.
Personally, I would say that we have multiple worldviews; saying we only have one may be oversimplifying things.
We can look at a purely conceptual thing that is nonetheless real, such as a Mandlebrot set. This is a fractal pattern which was discovered by accident, and only verified its existence once computers were advanced enough to render it. We cannot locate this object within the physical world, despite the fact that it is real and we cannot fully perceive it because the transcendental concept of infinity is embedded within it. It is a purely mental object, and thus must exist in a mind. The concept of an absolute mind (God) is able to explain the reality of mathematical forms and universal laws of logic, because these ideas are not physical (existing within time and space). This is not a just-so explanation, but a perfectly sufficient one.
@@AdHominus no that is an explanation that you just made up, sufficient only because you say it is. To use something as an explanation you have to establish that it exists first, then is necessary and sufficient.
If you're a materialist you're only ever going to look for physical evidence as proof.
Oliver McLeod It doesn’t even have to be physical evidence. Any repeatable, independently verifiable demonstration will do. That being said, imagining concepts and then claiming you’re right because you say so won’t work.
Not necessarily. I'm pretty sure if you could prove to a materialist that the supernatural exists that they wouldn't have any problem changing their mind.
You're statement assumes that the reason that a person is a materialist is because they REFUSE to believe in the supernatural, when really it's just that they are not convinced and CAN BE CONVINCED given the proper evidence.
@@AtlasBookkeeping And what counts as proper evidence to you would be physical, right?
@@dtphenom It would have to be something better than faith.
@@dtphenomit would have to be demonstrable and you would have to show the method you used to get there was valid. That does bias towards materialism because materialism is infact really good at being demonstrable.
If you can find something that’s non material and demonstrable, and the method used to show that it’s demonstrable, I would love to know it.
transcendental argument = Presuppositionalist argument. That's why he never presents a syllogism.
Aristotle to solipsist: "You are using non-contradiction when you say you don't accept non-contradiction thus non-contradiction"
Jay to Matt: "You are using God when you say you don't accept God, thus God"
How are these mishmash of words you bring up or fantasise to prove God does not exist ? Ok, since you like using words that have no content or usefulness in daily language because nobody talks to people like that.
I will teach you some English Grammar to chew upon which is easily to understand and work with.
Now here is something you can think about and can confront anyone with or other unbelievers. So after long time, there exists a way to explain to Atheists and Unbelievers what are the qualities of this infinite entity is, that created the Universe and us ?
Stand 1.
Is “The Entity God” eternal. Yes, Of course, He must be eternal. Simply because the Universe is not eternal, and because something from something from something is illogical, the first thing to exist, being the infinite entity, must be self-sustaining, and eternal.
So the universe has a beginning thus there is a cause.
In order to be eternal, something must be infinite, and it must exist without time, existing in an “eternal now”.
The infinite entity thus is both infinite, and exists without time.
Because it exists without time, it never changes, and because it is not bound by time, meaning that it exists at all times, past, present, and future, it knows the future, and is thus omniscient.
Because it is infinite, the infinite entity is also omnipotent.
The definition of an entity is something that exists with its own individual, independent existence.
All material objects are made of trillions upon trillions of tiny finite entities called quanta particles. And because, in order for something to be eternal and omnipotent, it must be a single infinite entity, and not just an infinite number of finite entities, the infinite entity that created the Universe must have been a single object by definition.
This means that the infinite entity that created the Universe could not be made of quanta particles, as it is a single entity, with its own existence, and is not made of finite entities (quanta particles).
Thus, it is non-materialistic. Meaning that it is untouchable, unseeable, unhearable, unsmellable, etc.
It cannot be detected by materialistic or scientific means.
Space is the measurement of distance between physical objects. If something exists without matter, it is not bound by space. And because the infinite entity that created the Universe is non-materialistic, it is not bound by space.
Because it is not bound by space, it is without space, thus exists everywhere all at once, the infinite entity is omnipresent.
Please note that it has never been observed for life to come from nonliving substances. So, it can be scientifically assumed that abiogenesis is impossible.
Until it is observed that abiogenesis is possible, it must be scientifically assumed that it is impossible.
If abiogenesis is impossible, which coincides with scientific observations, and because life from life from life etc. creates a chicken-and-egg paradox similar to that from the Multiverse theory, then it would make sense that life has always existed through the infinite entity, and that the infinite entity was/is a living being.
So to recap…
The infinite entity that created the Universe is…
Eternal
Omnipotent
Omnipresent
Omniscient
Non-materialistic
And…
Alive
What does that sound like to you?
None other than God Himself. Take it or leave it.
@@michaelflamingsword3131 Wow. What a load of fallacies and poor reasoning. I don't have time to go through all of that point by point, but I think the impossibility of any entity having qualities of all the "omni's" has been shown by many people many times. Also the idea that something should be thought of as scientifically impossible until it is proven possible is completely ass backwards from the way things work here in the real world.
@@gravitywaves2796
The real world you know, comes after the world I just described before here in Stand 1. Nice try. I told you, take it or leave it.
@The Milkman Shall Rise
I demonstrated it. You are not reading, because you think it has to be from some idiotic formulae that cannot be resolved.
Then if it is what you say it is. Then stop waffling anybody about a Bang that came out of nothing from nothing.
@The Milkman Shall Rise
I wrote, take it or leave it. Nor can you demonstrate it that the Universe came from nothing and a bang from nothing. You were not there. It is up to you to believe the lies from those that claim. Demonstrate me from which keyboard I have typed this ? Demonstrate where I am now ? Demonstrate whether I am in my pyjamas, in my clothes or naked ? Demonstrate that you are not in debt and still beg for money from others to give to others without lying the real reason why ? Demonstrate that there are still clearly deficiencies in the Standard Model of physics, such as the origin of mass, the strong CP problem, neutrino mass, matter-antimatter asymmetry, and the nature of dark matterand dark energy. And that you are incapable to demonstrate it. Thus my assertion of why God exists before physics is far more proof than physics claims they know of evidence that the Universe is not eternal but clearly had a beginning and is unwinding like a clock.
What most confused me was Jay not presenting evidence for his position, outside of pre-supposition.
He's certainly learned on philosophy, but just referencing philosophers and using terms from the field doesn't provide support for one's argument. (When I got my Philosophy minor, there was always one guy in any class who thought that using the right verbiage and references made their own ideas impressive...)
INHO most metaphysics and philosophy is theology without a deity.
@@DBCisco that doesn't make any sense. Theology is the study god and or religious beliefs.
@@skepticallyskeptic Theology is a subset of metaphysics.
@@DBCisco metaphysics is a branch of philosophy. Theology is the study of God claims and religions. To say metaphysics and philosophy are just theology without god is just silly. For so many reasons.
@@skepticallyskeptic Keep telling yourself that, or you could get an education like I did.
Why does it seem like Jay just wanted to try to win the debate, by attempting to look smart, by using vocabulary that many don't normally use in a debate?
Decent debate. Although I believe Jay did better. I don't like how Matt said he doesn't need to justify logic. That stumbled me.
agree
I know how you guys feel. Its hard to understand at first. I might be able to help.
We don't have to justify logic for a few reasons. First and foremost, its internally consistent.
Secondly, its universally demonstrable. While this applies to everything in logic, he is an example;
(Everything is what it is and its not what it is "not")
The situation we are stuck in is there is no justification or explanation for why it is. This is called the problem of induction.
We are not claiming to know absolutely that the logical absolutes are absolute. We are saying "It seems to be the case and we have no other choice but to assume they are"
Another example you can do yourself;
Circular arguments cant demonstrate your claim right? I agree. So, if you drive your car to prove your car can drive, that is Circular.
So why can we get away with it? Because trying to justify it would be asking why driving is driving and not "Not Driving".
The logical absolutes are the foundation of all valid mathematics and rational thought. They are the very most bottom foundation of truth.
Think about it, how would you prove wrong (the law of excluded middle) that propositions are either true or its negation is true?
You would have to actually use it to prove it wrong.
@@jasonspades5628 No, that doesn't work. When you say something is internally consistent, that in itself presupposes a bunch of other categories, such as meaning, which you would also need to justify the laws of logic, and how do you get an "ought" from an "is" in the naturalistic worldview? That would be a hard thing to justify. The laws of logic don't work absent meaning. And truth is required for meaning. Also your statement presupposes other transcendental categories. The laws of logic don't operate in a vacuum. That is Jay's point. What could give coherence to all these transcendental categories is the mind of God, as Jay is saying. And that works. The laws of logic can't by themselves be a foundation because they can't operate independent other transcendental categories, and minds can hold the laws of logic while also simultaneously being able to hold views contrary to the laws of logic, so thoughts themselves are not subject to the laws of logic. So this is how we know it's possible for a transcendent mind to have the power to hold them and other categories. The car analogy doesn't work. The car doesn't drive simply because it is a car. The car works cause it was engineered by a mind that knew how to make the car operate given other universal categories, such as mathematics, laws of physics, chemistry, laws of logic etc. Are you seeing what I am getting at? So why do the laws of logic work? Because of meaning, language, regularity in nature, numbers and where does meaning come from? It can come from God. Can it come from flux atoms? Maybe. But I don't know how you get meaning from a meaningless universe.
@@milkshakeplease4696 Wait, you don't have to justify internally consistent things..lol
@@milkshakeplease4696 Wow, you have a very large amount of fallacies there. And a lot of that stuff matt responded to.
So my question is, why are you not responding to the responses?
What you are doing is just repeating the claims that jay made. Matt responded to those claims and thats where it left off.
Its so weird how you would doubt the logical absolutes which is quite literally everywhere always, but you will try to construct the most loophole abstract argument with word play
And by (word play) i mean using words outside of their intended usage, confusing meaning with usage, and making random assertions as if you are one of many academics that also take your position. They don't.
I'm not sure if Jay has different definitions of some key words, such as "arbitrary", causing miscommunication or if he's just a bad active listener.
All I hear is: logic cannot exist without God, logic exists, therefore God exists. The guy won't understand a thing Matt is saying
Why is Jay so insistent and convinced that debates MUST have an affirmation and a negation? A formal debate can be fulfilled by an affirmation and an opposition. The opposition can challenge the claims by the affirmation, and that is literally sufficient.
@bluebible1199 If I flip a coin and I'm not sure whether it's heads, but someone is sure that it is, I point out to them that they have no justification for believing that it is heads. This does not mean that I must assert that the coin is tails.
"What is the best answer to the question 'Is there a god(s)'?"
If the best answer is yes, theists win. If the best answer is no or I don't know, atheists win.
If you agree with this, then I have no idea why I responded to you, and I apologize.
The whole "these things make sense in a worldview where my god exists" premise is so painfully stupid. You could insert any explanation you want, and it would be just as valid. "The formation of clouds makes sense in a worldview where invisible cloud-making fairies exist, therefore invisible cloud-making fairies exist." Think about how we can understand the plots of science fiction and fantasy movies and also know that they aren't real. The movie offers a mechanism that is responsible for whatever phenomena are happening (i.e. the Matrix, flux capacitors, dinosaur DNA, the Force, the Truman Show, etc.), and indeed, the plot makes sense in a world where these things exist. Just because we get it doesn't mean it's actually true.
@@Noetic-Necrognosis You nor Jay have demonstrated what grounding or justifying logic even means.
@Anon Ymous You are just giving emotional arguments
"You could insert any explanation you want and it would be just as valid."
Anyone who says anything like this is only demonstrating they're not comprehending what Presup is actually arguing, even at a fundamental level, yet.
But despite being so informed, they feel the need to make declarations & jump to conclusions prior to proper investigation based upon ignorance.
When we talk about the transcendental argument, we’re asserting that certain essential categories-like logic, morality, and the very fabric of reality-require a grounding that only God can provide. This isn’t about offering a whimsical explanation for why things happen; it’s about the necessity of a coherent framework that sustains our understanding of reality itself.
The analogy of cloud-making fairies is flawed because it misunderstands the nature of these categories. Fictional constructs operate within the confines of imagination and narrative; they don’t have any real existence outside of those stories. In contrast, the concepts we engage with in everyday life, such as the principles of logic and moral truths, are not mere inventions or stories. They are objective realities that govern our experiences and interactions.
Additionally, the critique ignores the existential implications of denying a grounding like God. Without this grounding, we’re left with a worldview that can easily descend into relativism and chaos. A narrative explanation can make sense within its own framework, but it doesn’t hold the same weight as claiming that there exists a necessary being whose essence is the source of all truth and meaning.
So, while we can certainly understand and appreciate fictional worlds, they don’t serve the same purpose as the grounding that the transcendental argument seeks to provide. The reality we navigate daily demands a foundation that is far more robust than the arbitrary mechanics of a story. The claim that God is necessary to make sense of these categories isn’t just a convenient assertion; it’s an acknowledgment of the profound truth that underlies our very ability to reason, know, and experience meaning.
Wow... special pleading and straw man attempts everywhere... but my presuppositions aren't like yours! They are god flavored.🙄 Matt has an enormous amount of patience.
(Paraphrasing:) "It's not special pleading, it's just that this kind of argument is...unique, different, and separate..."
Lol.. my presupposition is evidence for god.. my tag argument is super special and unique.. if you don't accept my claim that mean your making a claim.. wtf dude my head hurts now..
Noam Aster It's not special pleading. It's just..not. Every fallacy mentioned in these comments doesn't apply. It wasn't as hoc either as Matt tried to argue. To be ad hoc it would require willful ignorance of some other sufficient explantion. The argument however, which is valid and sound, is that there is no other such explantion, that ultimate reality must be a divine mind.
Your mind in other words is a microcosm of the macrocosm, hence 'let us make him in our image.'
An example of an ad hoc hypothesis is something like Gould's 'punctuated equilibrium' which was used to help reaffirm evolutionism. Hardly any skeptics are ever railing against those kinds of things, however, which is interesting.
@@guyincognito320 "The argument however, which is valid and sound, is that there is no other such explantion, that ultimate reality must be a divine mind."
How could that be valid? Thats basically a textbook argument from ignorance.
Now you are being stupid: the arguments for the existence of God are the existence of the transcendental absolutes that cannot be explained by materialism, naturalism or naive empiricism......moral obligation, logic, math, language, relliability of the senses, reality of the external world, things having classifiable natures, the uniformity of nature over time, human dignity and worth, human rights........and more are the "evidences" ..........the hidden presupposition of the atheist is nature created itself out of nothing and somehow also created the immaterial realties discussed in this debate. Your dichotomous judgement of who is smart and who is stupid is pure emotional prejudice.
The genius of Jays argument style was basically flipping away the HUGE problems with his god proposal and barely having to address it and instead flipping this about a skepticism having no justification for logic which matt addressed early on but for some reason it was repeated again and again.
Ok a god could be an explanation for logic, so could magic and so could "its just that way" we are only justified in accepting any of these explanations when there is sufficient evidence, this evidence never came out in this debate as we got completely sidetracked.
It's not his genius, but an ancient and legitimate take on things.
@@NikolaAvramov it didnt nothing to support tag
@@youweechube
Why would it have to directly support it?
@@NikolaAvramov what was the debate title?
@@youweechube
You know what it was. How and why does every single argument have to directly support his main one?
He went offroad quite a few times.
Browsing through Jay's channel I noticed he also denies evolution. Which in my opinion, is why he doesn't deserve your time.
Holy shit man, your comment needs to be at the top. I'm 1 hr 56 min in for gods sake
@@STKisCOOLIO Why would any serious debate someone who denies such a fact?
@@STKisCOOLIO if you would know anything about science you would know you don't fall it "darwinsm" which is not even a word... Evolution is a fact. Anyone who denies that isn't worthy of my time.
@@STKisCOOLIO see what I mean? You have no clue what you're talking about. Which you have proven with your retarded comment.
Let me correct for you to ignore.
Evolution is observed.
A scientific theory is better than a fact. Because it explains facts.
All life on Earth changed and is still changing and it has been doing that for as long as life exist. The scientific theory of evolution by natural selection explains how.
Real rich you calling someone an idiot while you right after you prove you have no clue about the subject you claim to be false. Now, go waste someone else his time
@@DocumentaryHub evolution is scientistic dogma. The "theory" takes retroactive speculation and applies to the present. It is outside the realm of empiricism. If you knew anything about the scientific method, and it's application, you would know that evolution cannot be "proved". It's OK to have faith in evolution. But to say it's a fact you are a fool. I expected better of you. You bring shame upon us rational beings.
Transcendental Arguments amount to *Word Games* and I don't care about how a person wants to play with words I care about is a claim true or not.
Jay: "I don't want to misrepresent him." **proceeds to stawman for the entire debate**
nitehawk86, you put it in a nutshell. Jay keeps distorting what Matt is saying, largely by making up straw-man arguments to refute. It's quite tedious, isn't it?
nitehawk86 This isn’t what’s happening. He’s extending Matt’s framework within a larger frame of reference by accounting for transcendental categories.
Did he just say physicalsim?? Is he about to sprain his foot from over-thinking too much?
Clue: not Matt Dillahunty
I've learned not to tell Matt what he thinks over the years but I have a feeling if Jay would have called into the show; Matt would of hung up on him a couple of times over.
Rightly so !
Lmao.
Yes you can see him getting pissed
That's because Matt is a sophist; he can't handle actual logic and reasoning. Only when it suits his preconceived notions of the world.
Drayvin Williams he cant handle logic and reasoning? You lost al credibility, my dude. Disregarded as quickly as you stated it.
@@parametalhead Yeah, Matt has obviously never seriously studied logic before; otherwise he wouldn't be making so many fallacies and/or projecting fallacies onto other people.
There's a viewership spoke at 46:17, but I have no idea why. This guy just rambles on for 10 minutes.
"I'm a pressupositionalist, but I refuse to accept that you have presuppositions too, so I'll just call them 'ad hoc.'"
I can't believe Matt didn't push that more.
Yeah, theists(especially those from protestant background, like Dyer) reject Aquinas argumentations and then go on to adhere Calvinistic presuppositionalism thought. What they don't realize, however, is that the argumentation is relativistic in nature. If you have your presuppositions and I have mine, how can you prove to me that your worldview is more "coherent" than mine if we gonna follow different paradigms? it's completely retarded and self-contradictory. If I was an Orthodox Christian, I would be ashamed of Dyer.
João Pedro
Irreducible complexity?
@Trolltician No. You are at maximum distance from correct.
@Trolltician How is the existence of a God a valid presupposition ?
Listened to Jay's first part. A wall of noise that feels very insubstantial. Now I'm going to listen to Matt to see if he can pick through this hazy word play.
It was a fairly dense fog. Straw man 101; just about every "response" Matt was told what his position was.
Your IQ is too low, that's why.
@@rammitemmaasol9482 insult someone to prove you're correct (and thus morally superior). Interesting concept. Maybe you're right and atheists can't share what you call morality because you and i seem to have very different concepts of the word. Considering the source i take it as a compliment =) (P.S. "iq tests" are also completely unimpressive)
@@rammitemmaasol9482 oh a fucking gansta huh... ok niggah! What kind of a little bitch gets all hard in the comment section. Bust a flow dog...
@@rammitemmaasol9482 i don't care that you weren't talking to me; you were looking for an argument and found one. Racial slanders aside everything i said still applies besides maybe an assurtion without being backed up but if you think this word play can trick god into existence we disagree. Then the question is "is Christian morality superior to an atheist morality". I'd argue it's case by case but the bible clearly states this to be true. So if I've committed a straw man against you i used what i perceived to be your holy book to do so. So my question now is are you calling the bible a straw man?
Imo, the only weakness Matt has is his temperament. He seems to get so angry so quickly. You see it in the show and I believe it limits him in his discussions. Don't get me wrong, it's frustrating speaking to people who constantly misrepresent you but that's the work he's in.
He seems saltier as of late don't you think?
@@perryeverett9636 He's said himself that he suffers from depression and he's lonely. I know he said he recently got a divorce and doesn't have the best relationship with his parents. He's also admitted to having to pay a sex worker? Anyway, he's a very smart guy but I do feel his temper gets the best of him and it sidetracks the convo at times.
Yeah, but in his case it kinda looks like he's more passionate to present his thoughts as clearly as possible. And his temprament is kinda what brought him a considerable audience too, but, yeah.
So that's why he's so passionate about prostitution.
@@tonydorsett33 "He's also admitted to having to pay a sex worker?" Well I am glad you have your facts straight? Except for the not having your facts straight part.
This debate has really made me considering theism, I've been Atheist since 08.
This has really made me think.
Seems rather unlikely that you are being honest.
@Gabe Norman I realize that is your go to response, but it is rather tired and useless.
Antony Flew left atheism following the evidence and was mocked. Matt has financial reasons to always be "unconvinced" like FFRF's "clergy project" where an atheist/agnostic/non-Christians lead churches for financial reasons and popularity
Jay seems to have a problem making a distinction between hypotheticals, metaphors, and actual claims.
I listened to Jay's entire opening statement... and can't actually discern what his argument was.
Very disconcerting.
For logic and other presuppositions like 'reality' existing require some sort of foundation and that foundation is god. (but at no point he tries to demonstrate if that god exists, or necessary for any of the presuppositions to be true, or it has any explanatory power. He merely asserts them, as well as asserting if you do not believe god is the foundation for these, then you cannot coherently live.)
@@zenithquasar9623 "If I assume that a god exists, I can explain how the laws of logic exist.
Therefore, god exists."?
No. Just... no.
"If I assume that aliens exist, I can explain how Amelia Earhart disappeared. Therefore, aliens exist."
is exactly as sound. Which is to say, not sound in the least.
@@JMUDoc I didn't say it was sound. That's exactly what he has said in the entire friggen debate and baffled me even though Matt has pointed it out time and again Jay didn't demonstrate this God he presupposes and the argument doesn't stand.
So what are your beliefs regarding the origin of the universe?
@@tyronelol I just trust our current scientific ideas around it. Nothing much more tbh, I am not a physicist, astronomer etc. Anything that I would say would be a lot less informed speculation out of my gut.
To paraphrase Jay's arguement:
My worldview is true because it's consistent & that's justified by saying God did it.
Also, I assert your worldview is inconsistent b/c it collapses without god.
Is that a fair summary? To me it's another version of heads I win, tails you lose.
utubepunk seems that tag creates a poison pill, I’m defining the my worldview in a way that has to be true and rejection of my worldview invalidates your world view. Have your cake and eat it too. I’m win you lose. Like creating a game where you can’t lose.
The point is that any worldview collapses without God
@@norwoodnick4645 collapses how? It makes zero difference, except it's a waste of time going to church or praying. Dont have to believe someone is spying in me 24x7 or guilty of thought crimes. Life is far better if you dump the mysticism bullshit instead of living under fear of some imaginary sky daddy.
@@JerryPenna That's irrelevant. Christianity is irrelevant to whether a prime mover exists. However the justification for the existence of any sort of reality is required otherwise no knowledge is possible. Especially when IT comes to scientific theory. You can't start with the position that you don't know, If you make any claims about the natural world. The moment you make those claims, you already refuted yourself by saying that that sort of claims is unjustifiable and thus impossible.
Toxicolaris typical apologist momubogun because they can’t justify their god, Find an unresolved problem in philosophy and then say that atheists are in justified in the reasoning it’s so stupid and so lame. Nobody can justify it in when you get down to it other than to self justifying it by yourself. Who says that no knowledge as possible without this sort of prime mover. Is it prime mover an agent if so prove it?
I'm not convinced that any particular non-theistic worldview is true. I just lack belief, I'm not making any claim right now. And I'm wondering what DID convince those who do affirm any non-theistic worldview is true? Is there any evidence, proof, or even just any non-fallacious reason to affirm any particular non-theistic worldview is true?
I figure there must be, since all atheists affirm any non-theistic worldview is true & they tend to also claim to not have faith.
In your attempt to be clever, you've forgotten what the default position is.
Theists are adding to the reality we all accept.
Meanwhile, you screwed up at least twice more... but I bet you can't find those.
@@SansDeity It's a genuine question, I don't see it as trying to be clever. I'm not convinced there even *could be* a default position in paradigm-level debates like this (unless it can be justified as such). Here's why:
A worldview is a *system* of presuppositions a person starts with (in a logical sense, not a proximate sense) to interpret their incoming sense data through, which forms a complete model of reality.
I can understand why there is a default position in scientific debates about normative-level claims, but not in paradigm-level debates like this. In scientific debates about normative-level claims, people can appeal to neutrality or withholding judgment about the normative-level claim that's in contention... so that is the default or null hypothesis.
But that's not the case in paradigm-level debates, since worldviews are mutually exclusive (meaning the affirmation of worldview X is the implicit denial of all worldviews that are not-X) so there is no position of neutrality or withholding judgment which would be the default or null hypothesis.
@@SansDeity The other issue is there are hundreds, if not thousands, of different non-theistic worldviews that different atheists affirm. So, which particular non-theistic worldview are you saying should be the "default?"
Would it be yours? Or the different non-theistic worldview of some other atheist? Which one, specifically?
@@SansDeity As a fellow atheist, I'd be curious what your response is to what Light just said above. He seems to be interacting in good faith and gave you a valid response.
I can see why you'd suspect he's "trying to be clever" at first, since he's using the same wording that you use (lacking belief, not being convinced, etc) to evade defending his own worldview, or anything at all... but why can't he do that? If you accept it as a valid technique yourself, then how can you possibly object when he does the same from his perspective? Either its valid or it isn't.
You seem to be saying its only valid when you do it because you consider atheism to be "the default" position. But he countered that, successfully. And now there's no response.
This seems like a big deal to me, and it should be to any intellectually honest person. I mean, it seems he has just refuted the entire idea that atheists can avoid defending anything in these debates. And I can't refute it. I've been trying to but I have to be honest and say I can't refute it.
@@SansDeityWhat's the evidence that the default position is what you say it is?
Can someone please timestamp any times where Jay presents his transcendental argument for the existence of god?
Everytime the condescending theist interrupts Matt, Matt's mike cuts out. The theist completely misunderstands simple concepts of debate, logic, burden of proof, and constantly mischaracterizes Matt's arguments. He seems to think his special "transcendental" argument doesn't require any evidence whatsoever. He constantly speaks down to Matt, tells him what he does and doesn't understand. The frustrating thing is that he's so confident, and yet completely wrong about virtually everything. Also, how come the mediator isn't reading/choosing the questions?
So, toward the end Matt kept trying to finally get Jay to offer evidence or an actual argument, and Jay repeatedly stated that his argument is transcendental and exempt from that exercise. Is he saying that logic and reason don’t apply to arguments about certain topics? Wouldn’t that mean the laws of logic are therefore not universal or absolute? So no god would be needed to justify them?
Here's what you Atheists aren't getting:
Matt asks Jay if he's got a thousand dollars in his pocket.
Using his metaphor/illustration - Jay's answer (corresponding to Matt's response to the existence of God) is "I can only know if you have the thousand dollars in your pocket if you demonstrate it to me. I doubt what is not being demonstrated to me."
Here's the thing:
Matt could be having a thousand dollars in his pocket EVEN if he WOULDN't or COULDN't demonstrate it to Jay.
But, following Jay's/Matt's reasoning - all dollars are demonstratable.
Matt could have a credit card in his pocket. The funds could be there, but the card itself only holds information that identifies and helps in accessing the account that reflects the record of Matt's bank account that means that Matt can use an exact number of dollars, which corresponds and for all purposes means that Matt has a thousand dollars.
Matt could have a gold watch in his pocket that is worth exactly 1000 USD.
So - Jay says that dollars have to be demonstrated... that is a lot of assumptions about Matt's phrasing, about the form of those dollars, and most importantly: that is Jay insisting that there is no dollar worth without demonstration. That's displaying a belief, a paradigmatic belief in the demonstration, disregarding the rest of epistemology without even explaining what forms of demonstration would suffice.
You appear to confuse the reality with whether it justified to accept.
@@shawn870
What "justification" are you referring to?
@@NikolaAvramov Matt and Jay are discussing when and how we are justified in accepting something as true or probably true. Not whether there actually is a 1000 dollars in his wallet.
@@shawn870
You've simply ignored my explanation, then.
Ignoring an argument does not make it go away, sorry.
And - the metaphor I've used IS Dyer's point.
You can disagree with it, but he made it, it has merit, and I've illustrated it here for the convenience of this comment section based on a short and simple part of the exchange.
Epistemology IS the topic.
Not the normative implications or axiological claims.
I'm sticking to epistemology as well.
And you haven't demonstrated where and how I've ventured into axiology, because I haven't done that.
@@NikolaAvramovYour 1st paragraph outlines the question and noting that Matt could have a 1000 dollars without being able to demonstrate it (not relevent to the topic which is when you are justified in accepting the claim, not whether its true).
Your 2nd paragraph is just a useless discussion of different ways to have a thousand dollars.
And your third lists the useless point from paragraph 1 and 2 and then tries to make a conclusion from the useless points.
As I said appears you are confused over what the topic is there.
This is just sy ten with with fancier words.
In fairness, and i dont jump to the defence of Sye lightly, but even Sye himself, had a reasonable concept of what "presuppositions" are.
After the conversational portion begins that's exactly what I was thinking. He seems to lose patience for any pretense of good faith and falls into sye rhythm. Basically all I hear is "the rebuttals I have prepared require your argument to fit my caricature, so I'm going to hammer away at that no matter what you say- I MEAN WHATS IT MATTER YOU COULD BE A BRAIN IN A VAT ANYWAY" 😂😂
I don't think these guys understand why special pleading is a problem. I'm not super educated in philosophy, but if they are both assuming the same constants, like truth or non contradiction, why do they need to have a magical source? We assume those axioms to be able to think at all, why are they telling people they have no right to use those axioms without claiming to know where they came from? What other option does anyone have?
I'm so confused at how this is supposed to sound appealing or necessary.
@@bensmithoriginals3413 Yeah, that's about what I got from this. Jay adds more gears and levers to Sye's method.
Jay's inability (or refusal) to distinguish between skepticism and cynicism prevents him from bridging justification to beliefs. The prepositional stance is... I guess ok for personal belief...it's still the height of arrogance, and beyond flawed, but in a debate setting it's just laughably bizarre.
@@bensmithoriginals3413 I am a brain in a human skull-shaped vat that's part of a universe-sized vat.
Is Jay Dyer arguing "Matt is not a true skeptic, therefore, god?"
Almost but not quite. Jay is saying that Matt's worldview and the transcendental categories Matt uses in argument and decisions have no foundational justification. This lack of a coherent worldview would cause a skeptic to question any results of any arguments. Jay does have a coherent worldview (which is thousands of years old, and led to the accomplishments of modern civilization), and Matt cannot begin to argue against it, because Matt doesn't have a coherent worldview. It *may* be possible, that an atheist does develop such a worldview *someday*, but as of now, an atheist cannot even make an argument at this higher level of reasoning. They can, however, stubbornly limit themselves to their empiricism using transcendental categories ad hoc, and be unable to add anything substantial to the conversation.
@@bunzaimeister2613 all Jay's got are empty assertions. Matt could have said that logic pixies serves as a foundation for logic and that claim is on equal footing.
@@Imrightyourewrong1 OK, but logic is only one of the transcendental categories. Simply introducing logic pixies does not result in a coherent worldview. I am still in the process of studying the Eastern Orthodox worldview, and I personally find some items unsavory, but overall it's the best I have read. Earlier, I had thought that a more accurate philosophical worldview would stem from our utmost scientific knowledge of the universe. I have studied high energy physics, and talk to physicists, and there is no coherent worldview there, unfortunately - except for the ever pervading religion of the God of the gaps, where God takes the place of everything unknown to make people feel better.
At least with Alice going down the rabbit hole, it did make some crazy sort of sense.
Jay dresses up his arguments with much bamboozling but has no substance.
The Emperor has no clothes again!
@DAVID FILER
@@jeffguthrie8739 hahaha
Jay is a master at glossolalia gobbledygook. Pure swill.
@@jeffguthrie8739 He may have read a lot, but not very widely. Do you really think Mat has not heard all of this countless times? Why have these assertions always failed?
@@jeffguthrie8739 What common ground was Jay attempting to establish that Matt refused? They both seem to agree about what logical absolutes are and that they are presuppositions. Then Jay about faced on the definition of a presupposition after he stated that a presupposition that has evidence to warrant belief is still a presupposition.
I have no idea what definition of "presupposition" Jay is using and it undermines the entire debate.
Jay reiterated throughout the video that a presupposition is a starting point of one's worldview/philosophy, which everyone has and Matt isn't humble enough to consider questioning.
He is using words to hide he hasn't got an argument its simple.
Yeah around 2:10 in. Got super bizarre. The presuppositions are justified but are still considered presuppositions. And presuppositions need to be justified if they are meta whatevers except God because.......
Maybe I am missing something but this long slog appears to be just almost three hours of special pleading and an attempt to change what one means by logic when dealing with anything transcendental.
@@Dacrath Well Jay's perspective isn't rooted in foundations, it's a coherence theory. Matt's is and also based on correspondence theory of truth, but he has no foundation. He says he's a skeptic, then Jay cites Hume and Quine to show Matt is not in the tradition of skeptics. If Matt was being honest, he wouldn't call himself a skeptic, it would be Dillahuntyism or something else.
@@armanzahedi1565 yes
Richard Carrier absolutely nails understanding logic in a physical universe without transcendental supernaturalism. I would like to see Dryer debate Carrier in this topic.
AllGodsMyth I was thinking exactly the same thing
How?
I find it interesting that this debate has a similar like to dislike ratio on both channels - complete with the audience of each respective debater calling the other one stupid. It goes to show that even 3 hours of deep intellectual debate is not enough to sway the bias of the pseudo-intellectual tribe-mentality of modern man
Is there such a thing as an Apologist who can present their 'evidence' for the existence of God, without resorting to a word salad?
If God really existed, it would be patently obvious to everyone and there would be zero need for apologetics.
@Sticky Steve One can only hope so, but I fear it will be an ongoing argument, so long as people have a vested financial interest in promoting it.
@Sticky Steve Christians will always be there. Not going to disappear anytime soon, even though all of you wills it. The Good of the Bible is exatcly as He is not needing to be proved by scientific methods.
“I don’t understand, therefore it’s wrong”
What does a 'different' type of argument even mean ?
His view of skepticism is bizarre .
It means there are different types of arguments and he used one of them. It’s not a complicated concept to comprehend if you’re not as high as your skinhead atheist friend
The way you go about proving if a chocolate is in the freezer is not the same way as justifying logic, arguing about ethics and etc.
Do not listen to this if you’re behind the wheel. Almost put me to sleep. God damn.
I think Matt started browsing amazon to stay awake.
Cracked me up 😆
I am just here to read the comments. Put the guy on mute. It’s incredible how he looks as if he’s making sense when you can’t hear what’s he’s saying.
@@pansepot1490
He has absolutely practiced his studious look on the mirror.
LOL
Jay won. The atheist losers can't handle it.
Sad that this argument is persuasive for theists. It boils down to, my argument isn't logical because it falls outside the realm of logic, but it is still a logical argument because it is a special meta argument, that is not actually special pleading because we can't have turtles all the way down.
Only highly academic theists. Regular theists dont know 90% of the words jay talks about.
But being a human being for most of us is enough for us to believe in god.
@@captainramius790 Yea, uneducated are easily fooled by any argument, it takes an educated fool to concoct such ridiculous argumentative hoops.
Claims that you CANNOT hold a neutral position on a knowledge claim namely 'do you believe in a god?'.
Shown that you absolutely can.
'That's different when it comes to god claims.'
'That's special pleading.'
'No it's not, god claims are treated differently because I claim they're more important and thus use different logic.'
Special pleading FOR the special pleading, awesome.
Yeah, but its not special pleading: Asking for these fundamental reasons is more fundamental than your example therefore you cannot hold a I dont know position on these.
Because Logic or so.....
@@op-physics ... I honestly cannot tell if you're being sarcastic or not there given that last line.
I suspect that that's meant as sarcasm, but on the off-chance you're being serious, no, the same rules apply not matter the subject or how 'fundamental' it is or is claimed to be. Whether the claim is regarding $1,000 that may or may not be in someone's wallet or a god claim, the options are still 'Yes, I believe that claim is true', 'No, I believe that claim is false', or 'No, I do not accept that claim to be true'(which differs from the second in that it's not making a contrary position, merely rejected the one asserted as unfounded or unpersuasive and continuing to hold a neutral position until more convincing evidence is presented).
@@philiplynx6991 yes, I was beeing sarcastic xD
Philip Lynx
No that’s a cope out, there is no such thing as “neutral” in all this because your supposed “neutral” position involves a positive claim that you have insufficient evidence to form a view that God exists. To hold that view you then need to justify why you believe the evidence is insufficient. The atheist two step to avoid justifying anything just isn’t rational. And why shouldn’t an atheist have to justify the claim that it requires X amount of evidence, where in the world does the atheist get the right to quantity X. Virtually everything the atheist says comes down to a truth claim. Hiding behind the facade of a “neutral” position which is in reality not neutral at all is just an incoherent fallacious attempt at a dodge.
@@scubaguy1989 Wrong, and that's a shift of the burden of proof. You are claiming that there is a God and you do have to provide evidence for that and if that evidence is not good its the neutral position to say I am not convinced that your Claim is true. And yes it is a positive claim to say that the evidence is not sufficient, but were not merely asserting that, that's what all the debates are about.
In most Debattes the Theist presents an argument and the atheists explaines why that is not a good argument because all of them are flawed.
Furthermore, the claim of theism is unfalsifiable or better it is often presented as such, so you cannot be convinced that it is false.
It's truly extraordinary how mathmatics, which humans created to in order to accurately describe objects in reality, conforms so well to reality. God must have made both.
Remember that passage in the book of Proverbs where it describes advanced calculus? No, me neither
when u dont get the argument
@@gr3saeyend Perhaps... Why don't you explain it to us then?
You can't seriously think mathematics is a human creation? It's a discovery about how the world works. The transcendental argument is about justifying the truth of these transcendental categories.
@@eamontdmas it's not an arbitrary invention, if you have two oranges, then get two more oranges, you have four oranges. This is a necessary truth that would still remain true in the absence of individual human minds.
Presppositional apologetics is about making an argument from coherence, it's not about empirical, material proof for an immaterial being which is the absurd demand of many atheists. It's also difficult to refute, and causes many people to start crying about word salad
Wow, this was basically a 2 hour version of the Atheist experience. Jay is making the same logical errors and leaps every caller tends to make.
His ENTIRE argument relies on a misunderstanding of how to build up an actual argument, step by step, and actually build up to other ideas based on the evidence for a position, and special pleading for his attempt to make a transcendental word soup
You are way too young and dummy to understand Jay and his argument. Clap yourself in the back once more.
wOrD sOuP
MUH WORD SALAD MAKIN MUH HEAD HURT.
_"If you don't believe like me, you can't do anything"_
In order to justify claims like that, you would have to be a god. Lacking that, you're just someone who can't see his way out of his own ignorance.
Great! Thank you Matt!
lmao, the fact that Matt thinks he can have a neutral position is ridiculous. When he says that he accepts logic because it "works", he is completely incoherent in his worldview. What he fails to see here is that when you say something "works," and you take the pragmatic approach, you already presupposing certain metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics that are impossible within the atheist worldview. Within this paradigm, there is no foundation for induction (why the future should be like the past) why logic "working" is something we should strive for in the first place or that it is good (ethics), or that we can even have the possibility of truth (epistemology).
Everyone in the comments here who doesn't understand Jay's argument, or think its a word salad, you're tipping your hand at your ability to grasp concepts..
What is Matt's worldview and why is his presupposition regarding logic incoherent in it?
Also, do you think it's possible that the true explanation for logic and induction is something that cannot be reached through reason, logic, or philosophy and therefore is something that excludes the deity described in the Bible? If it is not possible, then explain why you think this.
Can you explain with a verse how the god of the Bible is the foundation of induction? How do you know Yahweh is not simply bound by induction and not the foundation?
@@bernardboswinkle1948 Hi bernard, just want to start by saying these are some really great questions, i'm happy to answer them.
Matt's worldview is incoherent because he says that we should use logic because it "works" this is pragmatism. What he fails to see here is that when you say something "works," and you take the pragmatic approach, you already presupposing certain metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics that are impossible within the atheist worldview. It is ultimately a circular argument, and therefore a reductio, because he is trying to use the past to justify logic's success, however, there is no reason for the future to be like the past (induction).
Firstly, I do think a logical, reasoned, and philosophical approach can prove induction, I just think that the solution is the Christian God. My reason for that, is that if we were to examine the characteristics that would be required in order to have logic as we know it today, it would have to be invariant, universal, immaterial, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent. These are the characteristics that describe the Christian God of the Bible.
Further, for my justification for the foundation induction being God, I would point towards the book of Genesis. The very first verse "In the beginning, God created the heaven's and the earth" illustrates this well. The "beginning," is referring to the beginning of Time itself, in that God created Time as we know it today. With his creation, he clearly has dominion over it. Therefore, time and regularity of reality is dependent on God, and thus he is the foundation of induction.
Christianity is exclusively a religion that teaches creation ex-nihilo, meaning that God is outside of creation, not within it. Therefore, he is the source of the metaphysical realities that we experience today.
I would finish with throwing down a challenge, what do you think the foundation of logic, induction, and mathematical laws are?
@@Brandon-tt3kk First I still didn't hear, what is Matt's worldview?
@@LindeeLove And I thought that Matt said that he presupposes the laws of logic. How does that create an incoherent worldview?
@@Brandon-tt3kk I do not know what the foundation of these things are and I don't know if they CAN have a foundation.
Oh boy. Jay is hard to listen to. I might have to come back to this. I'm still not sure if he can make a coherent argument.
Coherent argument? I'm not sure he.could.make any argument, coherent or not
He regularly makes a lot of coherent arguments.
Many people just can't keep up for being underinformed or undereducated, even though he's making things as comprehensive as he can, which is a lot.
He never made an argument, waste of everyones time
@@youweechube
He made tons of them.
Have you been listening to this video or are you just browsing through the comment section?
@@NikolaAvramov he made assertions, nothing he said had any actual substance
Isn't special pleading when someone basically says 'well yeah, that's true in every other case except this one."? If so that's exactly what Jay said almost word for word.
Ryan P normative vs meta
Jay appears to have difficulty responding when Matt doesn't play according to the 'rules' of quoting long dead philosophers. Matt is offroading. It appears to throw him off. He keeps circling back to academia. If there's no essay for it, he doesn't understand the position. Can't respond.
Given how misinformed Jay's statements are, he appears to have difficulty no matter what Matt says.
Actually, Jay is trying to show Matt how self-refuting it is to USE LOGIC to say: "I am not convinced logic needs a justification."
lmao because Matt is being inconsistent under his own worldview, that literally is the argument
@@eamontdmas Because "Why would logic need a justification" is a question that appeals to logic.
@@wilbertwakingup3498 So what? Is anyone in the debate denying the existence of logic?
Would you believe that a presuppositionalist actually sent me to watch this debate because they think Dyer's arguments are compelling? Oof.
Standard presuppositionalist nonsense:
1. Assert that saying "god" answers a difficult metaphysical question
2. Demand the atheist answer that metaphysical question
3. Announce Jesus is real because you don't like what they said
*edit:* Anyone else notice how the moderator pratically gives Dyer a reach around every time he finishes speaking? Like, "Good one, Jay!" "Really great points, Jay!" You're doing so great, Jay!"
*edit2:* Oh my goodness Dyer becomes insufferable right around 1:10:00! "That's arbitrary!" "How?" "Because it's ad hoc!" "How?" "Because it's arbitrary!" Matt was far more patient than I would have been-- can someone remind me why people think Dyer is smart, again?
*edit3:* Does Dyer get a dollar every time he says the word "paradigmatic" or what?
Cope
Edit 1: Cope harder
Edit 2: Cope hardest
Edit 3: Cope over NINE THOUSANNND!!!
Oh man, i love how you embody the very thing you dislike
@@Luixxxd1 _Do go on..._
I love it when strangers tell me about myself!
@@shassett79 welcome to the real world: where people take your ideas and make conceptualizaitons of what you believe parting from those assertions... assuming you even have a justification to believe what you think yourself
@@Luixxxd1 Super. Tell me of your keen insights on my person!
Do you believe I have a $1000 in my pocket. Lol love it
If "God" is infinite, why can't the cosmos be infinite and a super nebula type mechanism create an infinite number of universes resulting in one universe that supports life as we know it?
Exactly. Theists can't see that and won't admit that literally no one knows what was before the big bang. For all we know the cosmos has existed in some form forever and our universe originated naturally. That is more logical, likely, rational and probable than a supernatural entity from another dimension magically created everything from nothing.
@@TheTruthKiwi But my Super Nebula is a "personal" Super Nebula. Heehee!
@@timo5601 haha Touche man, I stand corrected :p
Jay really needs to study logic somewhere, somehow. Matt is speaking very clearly and he shouldn't have to re-explain a million times to get through to him.
Here is an argument from Truth to God:
There are necessary truths. For instance, that a is a, or that if either a or b; not a; therefore b, or if a=b and b=c then a=c or if a then b, a, therefore b. Or that a curved straight line, square circle, married bachelor, are all impossibilities that cannot exist. Or that if there are human beings, then there are human beings, or if there is a universe, then there is a universe, or if something exists, then something exists. These truths are necessary because they cannot be any other way. Such truths are not dependent on human beings since even if every human disagreed with these propositions, they would still be true. Or even if human beings went out of existence, these truths would still be true. Neither are these truths grounded in material reality since even if material reality went out of existence, these truths would still be true. And even if material reality went out of existence, it would still be true that there is no material reality (but if this is the case, then such a truth cannot be grounded in material reality since it wouldn't exist in that case). But then, how do these truths exist? Well, they aren't physical or material at all. In fact, since they are abstract, they must be grounded in some mind or intellect. Thus, there must be some necessarily existing intellect that serves as the ontological basis for these necessary truths. And this just is the Divine Intellect, which is God.
@Joshua Opell Well, I think any argument against the laws of logic is self-undermining in the following way: for you to argue against the necessity of the laws of logic, you have to assume that they are true, which is self-defeating. For example, you brought up the liar paradox, which shows that there can be contradictions. So, the law of non-contradiction can be false. But, this conclusion itself presupposes that there is a distinction between a contradiction and something that isn't a contradiction, it presupposes a distinction between can be and cannot be, and it also presupposes a distinction between truth and falsehood. But, all of this presupposes that the law of identity and non-contradiction are true. So, your argument that the laws of logic can be false presupposes that they are true, which is self-undermining.
In short, the laws of logic are necessarily true because of the impossibility of the contrary (as I have explained above).
@Joshua Opell How would you respond to the argument I gave about why your argument (and any argument for that matter) against the necessity of laws of logic is self-refuting? It seems like that if I have dealt with this objection, then my original argument from Truth to God follows.
@Joshua Opell " If logic implies that it’s not the case, then it’s not the case. Especially if they’re circular and assumed without argument."
What? I'm not sure I understand what you mean here. As I said, your argument for why they are not necessary (i.e. that they can be false) itself presupposes that they are true, which is self-refuting. And they are not circular. They are necessarily true because of the impossibility of the contrary, which I explained before.
@Joshua Opell "The point is is that the laws of logic have been shown to lead to contradictions, therefore making self-refuting. "
Again, you're still not responding to the argument. As I already said, in order for you to argue that the laws of logic can be violated and can be false, you have to presuppose that they are true. Until you understand the self-undermining nature of your arguments against the laws of logic, there is no real point in going on arguing (since the practice of argumentation itself presupposes the laws of logic).
This Jay Dyer is much much smarter than dillahunty, sorry matt's fans.
Nah, he's just more prepared when it comes to Philosophy. Nothing to do with being smarter.
@@LeoVitalin what else are you supposed to be prepared in when talking about world views dummy
But that's much less Important than jay being much more correct.
I would say this guy not only gets no souls for Christ but loses them. God should fire him and get a guy less of jerk. @@asetr3w45
I think you’re a bias idiot who didn’t even pay attention to Matts side
This was frustrating. How in the heck was his argument different in such a way that the rules for it were also different?
If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with nonsense.
There is a line in the sand between what one can evidentially know, and that which one can't evidentially know.
People that claim to have knowledge without evidence are as trustworthy as a gloryhole in a butcher shop.
It all comes down to the individuals intellectual honesty, it's dishonest to claim to have knowledge of anything that doesn't evidently manifest in reality.
So many times I've been told the gods or god exist outside of space, time, and are/is immaterial.
To me this ends the conversation, as this to me is basically negating existence of whatever god it is the individuals are arguing for.
For example
"I believe in a cosmic entity it is immaterial and outside space and time, therefore it doesn't exist by definition"
Lol
I can't do no transcendental cause I ain't got no teetf.
RCW LoL. 😝🤣😂
Dude! Huge laughs!!! Thank you.
I got the impression that these people putting forwarrd the transcendental argument are pretty good at memorising words. But suck at understanding things.
I used to train people, i believe based on my experience. That if you have understand something , you can put it in simple terms . I never witnessed people who couldn't do that. But i also wittnessed a lot of studied people who think they are smart, but fail to understand basic concepts, yet being percieved as super smart because they can babble out a lot of words.
It's a very simple argument, its just not intuitive to think about abstract logic, especially if you're a materialist.
@goodaaron Materialists generally use abstract logic. They just understand the analytic/synthetic distinction properly. Not that I'm a materialist, or idealist for that matter.
@@Kevorama0205 Yes! They use it, I just mean materialists don't like thinking about metaphysics obviously.
@goodaaron Metaphysics is not anything we can know, so it's more that there's no point in thinking about it, whether you are a materialist or not.
@@Kevorama0205 How do you know metaphysics is not anything we can know? That's a metaphysical question.
Jay seems to have a really telling habit of saying "You may not think so, but your statement is wrong because X" but then doesn't even try to explain how X logically concludes that your statement is wrong because he doesn't _have_ any explanation. He just wants to say you're wrong and he's right, and hopes people will take that at face value for some reason.
Like for example he says Matt _is_ making a claim, even if he thinks he isn't.
Then when Matt pushes back on that, Jay has 0 explanation for how Matt is making a claim.
Am I correct that Matt was saying that it tends to make people uncomfortable when they don’t have answers, like having a justification for the belief in logic (and that sort of thing)? But essentially he’s OK with not having a justification for logic, right?
Yes, you’re right on both counts. Matt is saying that Jay invents God to explain logic because unlike Matt, Jay is not comfortable with the idea of logic being self-evident and self-explanatory. This is called an Appeal to Emotion: “Having no explanation is yucky, so i won’t be satisfied unless you invent a better explanation than the one I invented.” 🤔
Ironically, ~44:20 Jay shows he knows there’s a problem with appeals to emotion, but he thinks the problem is with dismissing them rather than with employing them… 🤦♂️
Server Surfer
If Matt is comfortable with logic being self-evident, he is probably a pragmatist. He is certainly not a skeptic. A skeptic demands justification for belief.
I would add that in the domain of reason and debate, to declare categories as self-evident disqualifies you from debate. So if your assessment is correct, then Matt was arbitrary and should not have been in the debate.
You can’t just say something is, without justification.
You can use coherence as an argument for justification. However Matt made no such attempt.
@@deanodebo Matt got schooled in this debate tbh. His fans will never admit it though.
@@deanodebo Coherence doesnt equal true, so thats rather useless.
And you still havemt figured out what arbitrary means.
@@binary Except he didnt. Jay never articulated an argument, failed to back up his claims or even address the issues matt raised.
aha. Jay Dyer is Sye ten Bruggenkate plus word-salad
Not really
Matt’s performance here is pretty embarrassing. His metaphysical presuppositions are unjustifiable in his world view and he’s incapable of examining them.
What metaphysical presuppositions? Define “metaphysics” and prove the existence of your god. The burden of proof is on you to convince the skeptics.
@@Eon-BlueMatt can’t justify the laws of logic based on his own criteria that it’s unreasonable to believe in anything that can’t be empirically verified. The very tools he necessarily has to use to engage in the external world - logical laws, abstract objects like numbers, letters etc. - cannot be justified on his end as you can’t prove these things through empirical sense data.
What makes his performance in this debate so embarrassing is that he says he accepts the laws of logic just are without needing a justification whilst also regularly proclaiming himself to be a skeptic. Which Jay quite rightly points out is not skepticism. It’s the opposite of skepticism in fact. Believing in invisible, abstract, metaphysical magical principles that just are without any justification or empirical data to prove said principles.
Since there’s no evidence that his presuppositions need a justification, it’s not a problem for him.
@@PittAfterSchool If they don’t have a justification undergirding them then Matt is inherently presupposing from an unjustified starting position. Which is a devastating flaw in his worldview as a self professed professional skeptic of sorts. Imagine how he’d react if a theist said they didn’t need to justify their beliefs that they nevertheless use because in their estimation they work.
@@patrickmcardle952 When you say “If they don’t have a justification undergirding them….” , you’re assuming (presupposing) that there IS a justification undergirding them.
That’s what Matt is saying!
If you’re saying that there must be a justification that undergirds what he’s saying, then you need to DEMONSTRATE that, not just assert (presuppose) it.
Your assertions and presuppositions prove NOTHING!!
I... feel like I am missing the biggest idea being debated. I feel like I don't understand the extent of Jay's argument. I am uncertain what he believes and exactly what he is trying to assert. Maybe I needed context to what transcendental beliefs are and exactly how they are true. I feel like I left this more stumped and confused than when it started.
Yeah, I gotta go look it up again.
Man the theist was painful to listen to yet again. Good job Matt dilla
This is the Eric Hernandez "You're using the wrong ruler" argument so he doesn't have to prove anything. Special Pleading is the only argument Jay and Eric have, and it's a fallacy.
It's funny that from the moment Matt starts talking, this debate changes into a "student who wrote an essay getting feedback from his teacher" vibe
It's not even a debate. It's literally Matt scrolling Dyer on the philosophical problems that Dyer brings up.
Except, Jay would be more likely to be the one grading Matt's paper since Matt has no academic credentials.
@@TheCrossingBallCredentials don't mean much if you're not an effective educator, which Dyer really isn't. He's not terrible but he certainly doesn't explain his positions in clear concise language, everything is philosophical fart sniffing from what I can tell.
@@TheCrossingBallIn what some theoretical or philosophical bull shit? Lol he ain't that smart when he's believing in fairytales.
I love how for some people Jay Dyer explicates things in clear detail and helps us see things in a logical and concise way, and for everyone else it's "muh word salad". I think this just demonstrates a stark difference in IQ, that or people who struggle have a darkened nous full of pride; probably trying to justify their own sin.
One of the best debates on TH-cam. Regardless of which side you are on, this debate has it all.
*"One could say 'I don't accept the transcental argument'"*
Or one could point out all the equivocation, category errors and unjustified assumptions it makes. But Jay is right, it is possible to reject it without going into the reasons why.
I find timed sections to be boring, I much prefer the discussion segment.
So fractals + very specific philosophy = a transcendental argument for the orthodox christian god = special pleading.
Is that the gist of Jay's position?
It isn't the Orthodox Christian doctrine. Dyer comes from a baptist/Calvinist background, that's why he uses presuppositionalism arguments. Orthodox Christians literally don't care about reason. We could compare them with Islam and their rejection of reason in favor of Quran "truths". They don't have someone like Aquinas, which tried to balance and mix Aristotelian logic with biblical revelation. The most famous one in Orthodox is Gregory Palamas, a mystic. And his position starts with God already existing, so the whole Orthodox doctrine is personalist and takes God's existence for granted. That's why Dyer's argumentation would sound off to any Orthodox person. He's just larping with religion as a way to fill these "logical" gaps he sees in mainstream philosophy.
Great reply, thanks so much. I got bogged down at 11:25 and it looks like jay has some iconography behind him. That’s why I assumed orthodox Christianity. I do remember what sounded like calvinist predeterminism later on.
Well. Orthodox has different meanings, one indicates the rich variety in Eastern denominations, the other indicates the "straight teaching" (correct understanding) and can be used to indicate "conservative true believers" in their form of religion, take the Jewish "Orthodox Union" as example . Dyer even failed to make clear about what kind of Orthodox Christianity he was talking about, and that made me suspect, he was mostly NOT talking about the Old Churches of the East, but about his specific concept of the TRUE Church
ThW5
He’s Russian Orthodox. It’s part of the Eastern Orthodox Church.
He may very well be, (bit of a not entirely unexpected disappointment there, not Oriental Orthodox, but just common Eastern Orthodox) but his initial lack of specificity still feeds my suspicion.
Near the end:
- your meatloaf is unjustified.
- it's a transcendental meta meatloaf, soooo
@JL-XrtaMayoNoCheese i can just presuppose the same properties for spaghetti.
@JL-XrtaMayoNoCheese its an argument for naturalism being able to explain anything a god can.
For the transcendental argument for god it just takes the circular reasoning and adds in anything else.
For instance if spaghetti exists then the flying spaghitti monster exists.
The flying spaghetti monster exists.
If the flying spaghetti monster exists then spaghetti exists.
Spaghetti exists.
If spaghetti exists then the flying spaghetti monster exists.
Repeat as circular reasoning.
We can just opt naturalism into that transcendental argument or any being for a panthiestic explanation to discredit the entire argument.
@JL-XrtaMayoNoCheese what doesnt naturalism possess that makes it unable to explain metaphysics or ethics or epistomology?
@JL-XrtaMayoNoCheese why cant matter and motion ground metaphysics?
I think therefore i am, that grounds reality as a thing that necessarily exists and things that exist require properties and so reality can have any property necessary for it to exist.
Thats metaphysics, the fundamentals of reality exist because they need to exist for reality to exist.
Its the exact same argument as the transcendental argument for god but without a god which invalidates the god argument unless your Bayesian or some other type of moron.
@JL-XrtaMayoNoCheese also i never claimed that anything i said wasnt circular but thats the point. God is circular too but requires us to believe in something that we cant know exists but we can know reality exists.
If you have to engage in such a level of mental gymnastics to prove your omnipotent god, I think you have a problem....
VIP Award goes to Anthony, master of SE, slipping into the chat convo at 2:10:09 with the best question of the entire two hours.
occams razor just slices off the shitty transcendental argument here
Matt you are used to low hanging fruit and weren’t prepared for Jay. I think you should try again.
@@apocalyptic4058 we are all sheep. Including you.
@@apocalyptic4058 every belief system is a religion buddy
@@apocalyptic4058 it’s telling that you don’t even know how to spell “empirical” lol. But can you empirically verify logic? Can you prove the scientific method by using the scientific method? No, you can’t.
That’s a fascinating opinion!
What is the lower degree (beneath “low hanging fruit” where we can place Jay?
@@Smayor75 1:48:25 Matt: "The number of times I've been accused today of being an ignorant baffoon today has been rather staggering"
Jay: "I haven't said that"
Matt cannot read minds, however, that's an accurate projection of the majority of viewers.
14:00 "I'm not convinced that I actually heard an argument in all of that."
Okay, so it's not just me then. 🤔
Not just you. I feel like I just wasted 2 1/2 hours of my life.
The constant echo wasnt an audio problem. The echo was Jay reading from his textbooks.
the most frustrating case of special pleading ever
No. Matt admitted that transcendental categories are fundamental and special. And when your interlocutor reasserts that later, and you cry "special pleading", you're contradicting yourself. And that's what Matt did.
ChessArmyCommander there is no sky daddy get over it
err. pretty presumptuous. It's frustrating when seemingly reasonable people use fallacious reasoning
@@ChessArmyCommander he didnt contradict himself.
@@ProudCommie Indeed, but God is.
Time stamp 144.20 matt shows he's true colours changes the subject as he was defeated and embarrassed, go back 10 minutes before and you'll see thus,his standard game plan on his show and other Atheists, sitting on their asses,just refuting the God argument with no alternative argument to put forward, don't bother with Atheists who just sit there and deny claims without putting forward and alternative ,and I don't know isn't an argument
Aww... another implied argument from ignorance.
Thats called frustration champ.
Are you able to refute the assertion that Dragons exist and a pantheon of dragons created the universe?
How about the assertion that the universe WAS created but as an undergrad level science experiment in an ultra advanced culture of beings?
Matt: I'm interested in what's true and demonstrable.
Me too. Philosophy and epistemology are of no interest to me if their goal is not finding what's demonstrably true, and I think they are harmful if they result in the invention and propagation of ideas that are not demonstrably true, as in Jay's case.
[Transcript: 1:27:19:
Jay: I'm just interested in the history of different skeptics and how they talk and what they consider justification and how philosophy and epistemology typically .. speaks of .. justifying claims.
Matt: And I'm not. I'm interested in what's true and demonstrable, which is why we're stuck.]
I feel you bro. And this coming from a theist.