@@julianmanjarres1998 I'm of the understanding that the bible is the work of man's ego. Also isn't the bible usually preached? That is a person saying something.
@@julianmanjarres1998 Theres nothing to back up that premise but the bible itself, its circular logic, begging the question etc. etc. Prove the bible is the word of god, or inspired by god, without the bible.
Climbers Of Ice yeah, PEOPLE ... if the bible was INSPIRED by god, and god is not a PERSON? Then the bible was still written by inspired PEOPLE and so that is really a contradiction, sir.
*here is a little LOVE straight from the BIBLE!* ^^ *Enjoy* :* *Slavery:* (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT) ''However, *you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this,* but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way'' (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT) ''*If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years.* Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterwards, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. *But the slave may plainly declare, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.’ If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever.* '' *Sex Slavery:* (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT) '' *When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are.* If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl’s owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. *If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife.* If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment.'' *beating slaves:* (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB) ''When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.'' *slaves obbediance* (Ephesians 6:5 NLT) '' *Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ.* '' (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT) '' *Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed.* If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them.'' *Rape:* (Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NAB) '' *If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her,* and he will never be allowed to divorce her.'' (Deuteronomy 21:10-14 NAB) ''“When you go out to war against your enemies and the LORD, your God, delivers them into your hand, so that you take captives, *if you see a comely woman among the captives and become so enamored of her that you wish to have her as wife, you may take her home to your house. But before she may live there, she must shave her head and pare her nails and lay aside her captive’s garb. After she has mourned her father and mother for a full month, you may have relations with her, and you shall be her husband and she shall be your wife.* However, if later on you lose your liking for her, you shall give her her freedom, if she wishes it; but you shall not sell her or enslave her, since she was married to you under compulsion.” *Kill People Who Don’t Listen to Priests:* (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT) ''Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God *must be put to death.* Such evil must be purged from Israel.'' *Kill Homosexuals:* (Leviticus 20:13 NAB) ''If a man lies with a male as with a women, *both of them shall be put to death* for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives.'' *Kill Fortunetellers:* (Leviticus 20:27 NAB) ''A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller *shall be put to death by stoning* ; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death.'' *Death for hitting parents:* (Exodus 21:15 NAB) ''Whoever strikes his father or mother *shall be put to death.* '' *Death for cursing parents:* (Leviticus 20:9 NLT) ''All who curse their father or mother *must be put to death.* They are guilty of a capital offense.'' *Death for Adultery:* (Leviticus 20:10 NLT) ''If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife, *both the man and the woman must be put to death.* '' *Death for Fornication:* (Leviticus 21:9 NAB) ''A priest’s daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, *shall be burned to death.* '' *Kill Nonbelievers:* (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB) ''They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, *was to be put to death* , whether small or great, whether man or woman'' *Kill the Entire Town if One Person Worships Another God:* (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT) ''Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, *you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock.* Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. *Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God.* That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. “The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him.” *Kill Women Who Are Not Virgins On Their Wedding Night:* (Deuteronomy 22:20-21 NAB) ''But if this charge is true (that she wasn’t a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there *her townsman shall stone her to death* , because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father’s house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst.'' *Kill Followers of Other Religions:* (Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB) ''If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: *do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him.* Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. *You shall stone him to death* , because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst.'' (Deuteronomy 17:2-5 NLT) ''Suppose a man or woman among you, in one of your towns that the LORD your God is giving you, has done evil in the sight of the LORD your God and has violated the covenant by serving other gods or by worshiping the sun, the moon, or any of the forces of heaven, which I have strictly forbidden. When you hear about it, investigate the matter thoroughly. If it is true that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, *then that man or woman must be taken to the gates of the town and stoned to death.* '' *Kill People for Working on the Sabbath:* (Exodus 31:12-15 NLT) ''The LORD then gave these further instructions to Moses: ‘Tell the people of Israel to keep my Sabbath day, for the Sabbath is a sign of the covenant between me and you forever. It helps you to remember that I am the LORD, who makes you holy. Yes, keep the Sabbath day, for it is holy. *Anyone who desecrates it must die* ; anyone who works on that day will be cut off from the community. Work six days only, but the seventh day must be a day of total rest. I repeat: Because the LORD considers it a holy day, *anyone who works on the Sabbath must be put to death.* *Now go on Christian believer and LIE about what your Bible says* ^^ *otherwise your Priests might get a little mad.* :(
Alessandro Meggiolaro haha reminds me of "Quiz Show ( Bible contradictions )" by NonStampCollector, and basically all his videos. The Bible is terrible, contradictory, and all the punishments for anything are DEATH.
Not one reply from a Slick supporter. Confront them with "the word" from their own book of enlightenment, and they have nothing to say. Pathetic, and imo an admission that they have nothing...nowhere to run...nothing can refute their own vile primitive rulebook for life better than the book itself. Nice work
I absolutely lost it when Slick said "I wouldn't lie intentionally, I may sometimes misrepresent things" and Dillahunty replied with ""....like the debate topic". Pure gold.
The difference in both Matt’s arguments: Dillahunty: suggests secular morality is superior and offers several examples using analogies to better illustrate his points. Slick: suggests Christianity is superior by trying to illustrate why secular morality is subjective. There is a huge difference in the way they pose their arguments, and one is certainly superior than the other.
What everybody seems to miss is that religious morality is also subjective. Pick your own interpretation of the Bible and there you have, a pretty subjective morality
@@chrisducharme1729 It's a subjectivity vs objectivity argument. And wether or not you claim to be able to account for the origin of logic vs presupposing that logic is logical. Slick said seccularity is self refutable because the fundation of seccular morality and knowledge is centered around whats going on in our brain, and is therefore subjective and unreliable. Contra the christian world view that takes account for the origin of logic and the source of truth, and appeal to objectivity. He said he got that knowledge from reading the bible and acsepting Jesus into his heart.
@@sondrehimmelrikbarstad3414 That makes zero sense. You presuppose an "origin of logic" and "source of truth". You cannot demonstrate or lead anyone, least yourself, to any evidence or proof thereof. And so these concepts only exist in your brain. Your claim to objectivity is subjective unto itself; that is what makes you stupid. But worse of all, nothing of this brings us closer to the existence of ANY god. Let alone a just or righteous one. Or even christian for that matter. You build your castle on loose sand, and look how proud you are for it.
not really - then you have already in philosophy the concept that - you only "consist of a brain" and nothing more. What already Matt Slick pointed out that to point to a higher logic it needs to be something beyond you hence a "God", soul, Spirit, so on..... Hence youre argument is really bad. What a irony. Dont bother responding i dont use YT notifications.
Lovely how Slick's argument about chemical reactions-based brains gets shot down by a question from the audience and he can't figure out what's the issue even when he gets it spoon fed to him by a very patient young lady.
Clearly secularism is way better than a religion that allows (not against any of its laws and ITS GOD ORDERS) slavery, genocide, pedofilia, rape, incest, murder, eternal torture!
Xtian Matt: What do you mean by slavery? Atheist Matt: Owning people as property. Xtian Matt: Where is that in the bible? Atheist Matt: Exodus 21, Leviticus 25. Xtian Matt: Well just squirting these things out really fast isn't the point. Hmmmm
Captain Gargoyle I’ve seen people say that slavery in the Bible isn’t the same as we’d imagine it in the 1900s of America. Are you open to an interpretation that slavery as a term isn’t specifically limited to owning people for the entirety of their lives? I’m not sure who said it but even if it doesn’t change your opinions it may be interesting subject matter.
@@robbofwar57 It can't be interpreted other way cause even in bible it is said that slaves are your property, and can be beaten, passed down to children or bought from others. It seems pretty much as slavery in the 1900s of America
Robert Cunningham people can say that the slavery isn’t the same as slavery in America. And that you can acknowledge that slavery isn’t specifically limited to owning people for the entirety of their lives. BUT the bible literally says in Leviticus “You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance” Except for the people of Israel who you must let free after 7 years unless you give him a wife, his wife stays a slave and if he doesn’t want to leave his wife. He consents to be a slave for life.
Someone should tell Matt Slick that glib responses to serious questions and making faces behind his opponent's back doesn't help him win debates - it just makes him look like a douche. Of course, if he was even interested in having a debate he would have actually addressed the question rather than playing his childish "your world view is self defeating so I win by default" game.
Matt Slick is a prime example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. He can make his bullshit seem correct to people of his own intelligence class, but cannot stand when those smarter than him point out where he is wrong. In every instance I have watched of him where his position is challenged to the point of his own knowledge, he asserts that "they just dont understand it well enough".(projection much matt) It is sad really, but I think he is just an over inflated egotist that really thinks he has the right answer. Still slightly better than those that deceitfully make millions pretending to have "faith" and "morals".
John Smith I was actually taken aback by how rude Slick was. It was like one serious debater and one school child intent on playing to his side of the audience with snide remarks. His entire argument centred on ignoring the debate topic and attempting to play a boring word game about how Secular Humanism can't exist. It was infuriating. Matt D did a great job of keeping his cool as usual.
Thanks to people like Mr. Slick and Sye. Is the whole reason I'm not a Christian anymore. Their arguments of cognitive dissidents, circular reasoning, backpedaling, and Dishonesty with his apologetics. Eventually in time you can realize how much Christianity and Islam is one of the biggest con artist scams on this earth. And Slick, proved it in this debate once again.
I would counter that with this statement: Thanks to individuals like Mr. Dillahunty, and others, I am not an atheist. The more I listen to atheism, the more bankrupt it reveals itself to be as an ideology/world-view.
Atheism is an ideology or worldview to you? Atheism is an ideology to the same extent as not playing football is sport. People are so accustomed to the fact that words like christian or muslim describes their whole worldview they can't accept that the same rule simply doesn;t apply to others. If someone says he or she is atheist it only means he doesn;t beleive in god. You can't tell anything more about such person. That's of course not the case when somebody says he or she is christian or muslim, etc.
Piterixos That is a gross oversimplification and I reject the validity of those assertions. I hear the argument you're attempting to make frequently and it simply isn't realistic or true.
It's your second comment, yet you didn;t provide any argument to support your claim. I'll spare your time. There ain't any. Athesim tells you nothing about how to interact with other people, what to think about different things (except for god). Nothing. It' may be classified as part of worldview or part of an ideology, but to say that atheism itself may is such doesn't make sense. And again, that usually shocks people who are used to think that since their belief in god describes their whole worldview or ideology (or at least should if they really believe what they claim to believe) then not believing in god has the same property. Surprise! That's not how things work.
Funny, I feel the same way about Dillawhacky. Slick makes things perfectly simple sounding to me. Overall a good debate. Both men were respectful and know their beliefs. I respect healthy debate.
Kathy Gardner Hollister ok then.. sum up Matt slicks argument to the debate topic real quick... since it makes perfect sense to you... I want you to hear yourself say it.... whenever you’re ready...
Funny that the atheists completely overlook dillahunty rudely interrupting the host introductions. I was shocked but not surprised the syncophants atheists fail to call him out. Imagine if slick did that.
+Steve McRae but you give Kris a pass. OK. After Dillahunty' s opening statement I had not clue what he stood for. It was so not committal and reminded me of a bill clinton congressional deposition. He was throughly handled by Slick.
I don't agree with Matt on a few things, but he always does better in these types of debates than his opponents. You ever want to come on my channel to explain your position? (We are live now even if you like)
@@AsixA6 Of course you would, after I gave you the words to do so. And even then you're wrong. Religion is only one specific instance of a market for semi-morons, not the market itself. People like you are another instance of said market. Cheers.
Matt, as a former debate kid, and a former Christian, thank you for working so hard to create these open conversations. It's made a huge difference in my life
I highly doubt that Dillahunty was ever a true born again Christian - a fake Christian maybe, but never a true Christian. He is as it is written, "a dog returning to his vomit" or a "pig returning to his muck"
@@richardbutler9692 1. U don't know that. Can't read minds. People change. And even if thats a lie, his arguments still stands on their own. 2. Why do you compare us humanists to muck and vomit? Thats not nice. Jesus told you to love thy neighbor. If something is fake christianity that would be comments like this. 3. Let this woman express that she feel helped and guided without being a douche about it 🙂 relax. Some are believers and some aren't. Let it be man ✌️
@@richardbutler9692 and I suppose that you are a "true" christian, then? how do you account for different denominations? are "true" Christians immune to rationality and logic?
Experienced debater here: In intellectual and academic debate the concept of topicality is extremely important. In fact, in many styles of debate it is considered an automatic loss if your case is found to be non-topical. Why? Because if both parties aren't speaking topically you are left with a poor debate when both parties are really speaking past each other and not addressing the real substance intended by the topic. Matt Slick took what was intended to be a debate about comparing moral systems and turned it in to a debate about which moral system is true. This is a very important distinction and Slick (intentionally I think) completely missed the mark. We've heard this diatribe from Slick over and over again and I think the point of the debate was to address something a little different. Alas we're left with an absurd straw man and fallacy of composition. Extremely boring, reductive, and frankly unsportsmanlike. Typical Slick. There's no automatic loss in debates like these, but I would seriously consider not doing debates with Slick in the future. He may be an easy target, but he's SO DAMN BORING.
Makes sense tho from a logical position there is no basis for anything without truth. The losing side in this debate lost at the 13 min mark. He said he’s there to defend a position he believes in...Then he immediately discredits himself and any position he holds at 13:00 when he literally concedes that he doesn’t believe in absolute certainty by saying “it’s also worth noting that absolute certainty is not relevant to this discussion. I don’t see any path to absolute certainty. I’m not aware of any possible path to absolute certainty. I’m not absolutely certain about that.” If there is no absolute certainty then how can you be certain about any position and have The confidence to defend it? Furthermore how can we the audience be certain that the letters that make up each word he chose to say have an absolute meaning behind them? How can we be certain that this man is real and we’re not hallucinating or dreaming? Why should we care about a word that comes out of his mouth? The house of cards came down immediately. So when he starts from an illogical foundation his concluding arguments will be illogical too. The debate ended right there.
@@RationalGaze.BingChillin In science there are no absolute truths, only what we can tentatively trust as the best we can have given the evidence at hand within the reality we observe. We may be all floating octopuses in a tank who knows
Take an acid test. Dip the piece of paper in the suspect fluid. One response indicates acid; the other indicates something else. That's an example of how chemical reactions produce states in response to reality.
Guy Regensburger I had to stop reading after the 5th line because i'm not gonna read something that is build on a fallacious foundation. You "just presuppose" the laws of logic and that's the end of it? Just skip it and move on? Lol. Are you able to account for them and if so how? And the fact that you don't have the ability to comprehend why logical absolutes require a transcendental mind is irrelevant, so don't even go there, just account for the logical absolutes from your worldview or quit making logical statements.
My favorite argument! You can't trust your brain, so therefore we can only explain it. Umm if you admit your brain can be faulty, didn't you use that faulty brain to determine that Christianity is true? Talk about self refuting...
Phesheya Bhembe Yes, and he used his faulty brain to come to that very conclusion. Lol his argument kind of ruins the idea that ANYONE can be certain about anything. Which I actually think is true btw. Even if he could advance his argument it only gets to a god, not his specific God.
@@KingOpenReview Either if we are limited by brain, he is wrong because he uses that faulty brain to determine it. While also if we are not limited by that brain(for example if there is a soul) that also means that he is wrong, cause Matt would use that thinking not based only on brain to determine his point. So either way Slick is wrong
It is not and never has been Slick’s intent to honestly engage in a forthright debate. He seems to feel that his god has called upon him to debunk atheism, by intentionally and completely misrepresenting facts. I’d say it was a job well done.
@Oskar Wolkerstorfer ϟϟ What Mike described in his previous comment is indeed a form of atheism (agnostic atheism, soft atheism, or negative atheism are a few names by which it is known). Soft atheism is to not believe in a theistic or deistic claim until such time that appropriate, testable evidence is provided for the claim. On the other hand, there is the hard version of atheism in which one makes the claim that a god doesn't exist at all. The key difference between hard atheism and soft atheism is that soft atheism only disbelieves a claim, while hard atheism disbelieves a claim and makes a claim of its own.
@@jrcruz7828 All the more reason why if there was a deity, that knows a, it would know this and show the most unmistakable, plain as day presence of itself.
Matt Slick is such a great dude. Constantly clearing his throat and being as obnoxious as possible while Dillahunty is speaking. Once Dillahunty is done speaking that throat problem is suddenly completely gone. What a childish playground clown.
***** I'm not making an ad hom argument, just a devastatingly accurate insult. I'll try to tone down my frantic desperation. I hope English is not your first language.
"Your brain made you say that." How far Slick has fallen - utter childishness. I'm sure Jeebubs is very proud of him for so expertly defending his faith.
Ad hominem fallacy. Try attacking the argument, not the person. According to your worldview, it IS true the chemical reactions in your brain made you say that. So you cannot trust those chemical reactions lead to coherent logic / reasoning.
And you'd notice that the rules of chess are different in different places to different people, and the basic structure of them EVOLVED OVER TIME. It's not like chess just popped into existence and all its rules with it.
The word 'apparently' is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that sentence. Not currently knowing the reason says nothing about whether there is one or not
Lmao don’t say anything slick we’ve heard the illogical fallacies and excuses y’all use to defend your ignorance. Nah we don’t need to talk about it after . Enjoy your silence
@@XYisnotXX Saying Not currently knowing is arrogant to you huh ... HA HA ! But saying you do know and it's something that you cannot show yet assert is being reasonable ..
@@Robeebert If that was not sarcasm, can you provide a coherent basis in your worldview for how "your brain made you say it" is not a valid claim and critique of the naturalistic material worldview. In other words if you hold to naturalism, there would be no actual reason to hold to your naturalism. Let me know if this is not your worldview.
@@gavin_hill Methodological naturalism does not claim to be fully reliable to determine the truth, yet it is still as far as we can get to determine the truth. It simply acknowledges how our reasoning as human beings can be flawed and then determining what is reasonable to believe. Faith in God is not based on proof, it is no better way to determine truth.
I love Matt Slick, his dishonesty, ignorance, arrogance and childish behaviour in defending Christianity does more for Atheism than any atheist could ever hope to accomplish. Keep up the good work, Slick, together we can rid the world of your asinine and unsubstantiated worldview!
Atheists can only offer death. Jesus Christ offers life. Eternal life (to know God). Jesus Christ is man's only hope because he is the only one with the authority to give/offer life. So glad to know him. Matt D could never make an offer like that, he can only offer death because he is finite (limited). God/Jesus Christ/the Holy Spirit is infinite. No religion needed. Just faith, faith plus nothing. 100% Supernatural - Jesus Christ - No additives.
@@bredincaptivity4692 Divine revelation. When one is born of the Spirit (the Holy Spirit) they share the same Spirit of Christ Jesus, and they are set free from the deception of the enemies (Satan - the devil) the world system and our self (the flesh). The flesh wars against the spirit until the believer is taken home (absent from the body, present with the Lord). The truth sets people free. Jesus Christ is the way, the truth and the life. No religion needed. Just faith, faith plus nothing.
@@paulgemme6056 See, you say all that but I have exactly no way to confirm that any of it is true. It's rather difficult for you to share your divine revelation with me, and seeing that I don't seem to get them myself I'm kind of stuck at the "cool story bro" phase of this. What would make it real easy to believe would be if Jesus gave a divine revelation to everyone. Or, you know, just showed up in person to prove that he's real. None of that has happened though, so I remain unconvinced.
Cristian Garcia he’s technically refuting his own argument. If his brain is just chemical reactions (which he seems to assert is the case), then how can he trust his thinking is correct? It’s self-refuting, which by his own logic, means his argument for god is incorrect.
@@chrisducharme1729 no he actually isn't. Cuz he's assuming different world views for each thing. Like basically he said either you believe it's all chemical reactions and you can't get logic from that OR it's God and logic comes from God... Im atheist but I understand where he's coming from for that.
@@chairwood Yes, I understand what he's saying. You'll notice I said 'he is technically refuting his own argument' and not accusing him of contradicting himself. The problem I have with his argument is that he's saying "it's either brain fizz or it's God" and every time Matt D. brings something up, Matt S. says "that's just brain fizz" or "your brain made you say that". But he operates as if there is a God and God is the reason logic exists. By his own understanding, Matt D. is using logic that God endowed onto him. By saying "it's just brain fizz", he is accepting that God is not a product in the logic process. He is simultaneously addressing two world views as if they're correct, despite them being in opposition to one another. That's why one of the questions to him was how is it he's addressing questions under two different world views (I don't remember exactly how the question was worded).
What is amazing that matt managed to keep his cool debating Slick when he is being cocky everytime like he would be asking of turning this debate into a brawl.
@@southkeep3695 Then you really couldn't watch Kent Hovind for long. He's the throat clearing master (...and, a consummate bullshit artist I might add)
How can Matt Slick enjoy science if the chemicals in his brain are telling him he enjoys science. Isn't that by his own definition self refuting. How can chemical reactions cause enjoyment?
Spheroid Earth Society How do you know I'm asking real questions. How can you trust the chemicals in your brain that lead you to believe you're reading something and that something your reading is a question from me? Please answer, if you can't answer, your argument is self refuting and I win.
See you've got a point, it's kind of funny to me, because Slick disproves his own assertion in the same sentence he's proposed his assertion. His belief is simply chemical reaction, therefore it's self-refuting. It's honestly hilarious.
Spheroid Earth Society Hahaha! Now that is good....... how can he trust the chemical reactions leading him to not trust the chemical reactions! Oh.... I love taking apart Slick arguments.
You didn’t challenge that stance or provide any counter argument you just asserted that it’s ridiculous.Matt Dillahunty said that his worldview can’t count the laws of logic, that tells me everything I need to know about his intelligence.
@@pleaseenteraname1103 It dosen't need to be countered. Its pure pablum and can be dismissed. Slick cant demonstrate that grace exists, that faith is anything more than garbage, and that christ has done anything since being nailed up.
@@pleaseenteraname1103 Whatever "accounting for" even means in this case. Also, saying "God did it" is not "accounting" for anything. Anyway, the point of the OP is that if you say that something does something "alone", then there can't be three things doing that same thing. They're not doing it alone then. It's a semantic and logical thing.
@@pleaseenteraname1103it needs no explanation. Saying “alone” after three different things negates itself. All I need to drive are an engine alone, four tires alone, and a driveshaft alone.
Simply put, Matt is interested in appealing and talking to those who do not agree with him, and Slick is interested in scoring points with those that ALREADY agree with him. One is interested in objective truth, one is a politician
I met Slick on Paltalk years ago and I was a "believer" and couldnt stand his ego and his Calvinism.He rubs most people the wrong way no wonder his daughter is an atheist.Even then he only addressed what he wanted to and very tunneled visioned and give Matt props to be able to keep his cool with the Slickster.
Precisely and the size of Slick's ego becomes apparent during the Q&A section where you can see him smugly smirking with his arms folded, while Dillahunty is answering the question put to him by one of the audience members in regard to Secular Humanism. And when the best he can do when a young guy from the audience says he is confused about the conflict he personally has with Slick's claims of self-refuting claims in regard to logic, morality, and naturalism is that you need Jesus. That perfectly demonstrates how obtuse and narrow-minded he is in his thinking process which Dillahunty brilliantly points to time and time again, and which he casually brushes off due to his immense arrogance.
Jesus Defender Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart,just as you would obey Christ. Ephesians 6:5. You are really gonna try and justify slavery with that response? It doesnt matter how long you are a slave. Fact is someone owned another person and jesus sanctions that.
Jesus Defender, what the fuck kind of Jesus sanctioned contract involving fearing your master and obeying them like you obey Christ are you ok with then? Seriously. I want to know what the hell else you think this could be. There are passages about when it is appropriate to beat these people.
Jesus Defender so are you ever going to make a point or just keep telling people that they need to read a different version of a stupid book? Don’t you think it’s sad that your gods words have to be ignored and altered throughout time? What kind of universe creating “creature” can’t get his message across correctly to the people he created? Why does your god have so many limitations? Tbh if back when the book was written and they had been inspired by god...after the Tower of Babel... wouldn’t he have them written in the different languages as well? But he didn’t because he can’t because he’s not real🤔 and this is the unchanging word of god? That’s been changed how many times? And stop comparing biblical slavery to a working contract. You don’t get to beat your employees in most countries anyway but maybe your holy book belongs out in the Middle East where it can be followed by primitive creatures that read an old book and think it’s inspired by something that can’t exist as it does in that book.
Jesus Defender, I have no idea where you are going with this “things are bad/don’t exist” bit. Slavery is wrong. The Bible very clearly condones, if not promotes, it. I ask again. What is this alternate interpretation that you are seemingly ok with that specifically includes one party beating the other, and the other having a religious-like devotion to the first? How is that, whatever you think it is, any better than slavery? The fiction you choose to follow promotes slavery. Everyone knows this.
Slick argues that a purely physical system cannot produce proper logical inference. Okay guys, throw out your calculators, they can't be trusted. He seems to think that just because something is purely naturalistic, that it must be as simple as vinegar and baking soda. He is saying that because he doesn't understand how a brain relying solely on naturalistic properties could function, that it is not possible. It really seems like all these debates end up at this point. Slick is really saying that in a purely naturalistic world, we can't have absolute knowledge about anything external to ourselves. Dillahunty agrees. But what slick is really implying is that he CAN have absolute knowledge, while simultaneously refusing to demonstrate how such a thing is possible.
Saying your brain is just a more complex version of baking soda and vinegar because they both involve chemical reactions is like saying a computer is just a more complex light bulb because they both use electricity.
His argument are also self refuting. If our brains are only chemical reactions and we cannot trust anything to be true then his belief in god is just a chemical reaction and he cannot be trusted.
I have no idea how Matt (Dillahunty) didnt point that out. With that example it Shows instantly that his position is just nonsense. Just because they are chemical reactions, that doesnt mean, that they cant produce logical output. I dont get how he is coming to this conclusion. It is absurd....
Lol...his ego is so massive that he equates such an event as this on the same level. If he wasn’t so desperate to feed his need for attention he never would have showed. I try very hard not to have personal issues with people I disagree with. Especially when I know every time I see them they are going to be saying something that drives me nuts, but that isn’t who they are on a personal level, it’s not what defines them. But guys like Sye Ten and Slick are just so massively arrogant...openly. Makes it real hard to look past their “persona”, since arrogance is part of that persona. Seeing this guy waft on stage looking like he just mowed the lawn makes my skin crawl.
@@outtodoubt And you think Matt Dillahunty doesn't have a big ego???....lol He often tells God how He should have done things rather than the was He did.
Thanks for admitting you're incapable of considering arguments conflicting with your pre-existing beliefs. Dogmatism: The fallacy of constructing an argument within a UniverseOfDiscourse that excludes all evidence/arguments against it
@kylebooth4948 And it's not like it's even remotely uncommon for atheists to be excessively dogmatic like that, so I see absolutely no reason to think he didn't mean it literally. I have been debating atheists for years and they generally approach such debates with a completely closed mindset exactly like I said in my response. It's the rule, not the exception. So it would actually be extremely rare and unusual if he didn't mean it literally. I'd say you've got less than a 5% chance of being correct.
2:21:30 Slick "If you can't account for the origins of logic, then you can't know your conclusions are valid." So how then *does anyone COME TO THE CONCLUSION that a god exists?* We're not born with knowledge. So each of us is born not knowing whether a god exists. At some point *we have to use reason to conclude that god exists. And on what basis (using Slick's reasoning) can the believer say that his conclusion of god existing is valid???* Slick dug a hole for himself. His argument is circular. (And was not valid IMO to begin with, we can use things without accounting for their origins).
39:47 "The proper answer is 'well,' not 'good.' It's a grammar thing. My wife and me did that with the kids, so I've learned it." *My wife and I It's not a big deal. I just thought it's funny that he messes up his own grammar while fixing someone else's. :)
Around the 1:25 minute mark, Dillahunty agrees with Slick that, "the laws of logic are not dependent upon physical brains." But this disregards two things: 1) There is not just one method of "logic" agreed upon by all humans. For example, Intuitionistic Logic, to name one non-classical form of logic, rejects the law of excluded middle, which both Dillahunty and Slick have agreed upon in the past. 2) Human understanding of logic evolved as a model _within_ our brains that comports with the natural world. In other words, logic is a language, an interpretation and extrapolation of reality, which people use to describe the observed consistencies in nature, including our own thoughts. From Wikipedia: "There is no universal agreement as to the exact scope and subject matter of logic." This being the case, how therefore can anyone assert with confidence that "the laws of logic are not dependent upon physical brains?" Logic then becomes an agreed upon set of concepts or rules within which two or more people choose to express ideas - but clearly, this is not "transcendent" in any way. As for our brains just being chemical processes, Slick is right. Where Slick fails is not recognizing the complexity of emergent systems and the nature of, for example, computers that operate consistently and logically based upon physical processes alone. (See IBM's Watson computer profiled recently on 60 minutes for a prime example.)
Is a “complex emergent system” outside universal causation..? A complex robot is still a robot. Right..? Or do you propose that the robot can become a causal agent..? In other words: I don't see how complexity/emergence would be able to explain or produce rationality on naturalism ...
Logic is universal among humans. But tue reason why we all come to different conclusion is because we value reason, facts that we use for logic differently. At least that is how I understand it.
Slick wouldn't let the guy finish his question regarding neural networks because he knew it would demonstrate that a system where one state leads to another state can produce sound logical inferences. Also notice the "I'm not a computer science major but let me tell you how neural networks work."
Jordan Hartley One that does not rely on what they consider "revelation". Why ? Because if a being reveals itself and claims to be God, we cannot simply take it's word for it.
Theist here. We know nothing of God without revelation, general or special. There is no independent knowledge of God because he transcends us, so we know of Him because he freely chooses to reveal Himself to us.
With ever repetition of "I love science", Slick sounded more and more like those people who say "I have many gay friends". Also, Mr. Dillahunty, I take off my hat to you for not throttling this man around 1:10.
The losing side in this debate lost at the 13 min mark. He said he’s there to defend a position he believes in...Then he immediately discredits himself and any position he holds at 13:00 when he literally concedes that he doesn’t believe in absolute certainty by saying “it’s also worth noting that absolute certainty is not relevant to this discussion. I don’t see any path to absolute certainty. I’m not aware of any possible path to absolute certainty. I’m not absolutely certain about that.” If there is no absolute certainty then how can you be certain about any position and have The confidence to defend it? Furthermore how can we the audience be certain that the letters that make up each word he chose to say have an absolute meaning behind them? How can we be certain that this man is real and we’re not hallucinating or dreaming? Why should we care about a word that comes out of his mouth? The house of cards came down immediately. So when he starts from an illogical foundation his concluding arguments will be illogical too. The debate ended right there.
@@RationalGaze.BingChillin humans do not operate based on absolute certainty. None of us do. You may claim to be absolutely certain about x but all your really describing is your confidence in your belief about x. Thats it. Absolute certainty does not exist.
@@thenightlifenj1 are you absolutely certain that the words you chose when combined in the order you chose conveyed a message you chose that can only be interpreted to mean exactly what you meant it to mean?
@@RationalGaze.BingChillin words have usages. Based on the usages the sentence I constructed has a meaning. Your playing a semantic game that doesn't address the argument. Demonstrate that absolute certainty exists.
@@thenightlifenj1 I’m trying to make a point and you’re deflecting. It was a yes or no question. My point is simple..if we can’t be absolutely certain about the language we use and the intended meaning given proper context then I could literally interpret what you typed to mean anything I want it to mean. In fact. You said you would send me $1000, when can I expect the money? See what I mean? You see the chaos that comes if we hold to this assertion consistently. There’s no lasting basis for confidence without absolute certainty.
I like how religious speakers are actually the best to listen to when you want to dump religion. Smug, condescending and pathetically llogical. Aren't there any capable (if that's possible) religious speakers who can actually debate on the point? Dodging not just his debater but also the audience.:) Sad. " The Christian philosophical world view resides outside of the Christian brain?" :)
I want to know why Slick can't just argue the actual debate. Going off on this entire side tangent just made it clear he wasn't interested in debating the actual topic. It's so frustrating, because I would have loved to see an actual debate on whether secular humanism is superior to christianity, but instead we got this. Thanks Matt for at least trying to engage in the actual topic, even though the arguments from Slick were't even close to on target.
Because guys like Slick are a one-trick pony. The only thing Slick can debate is his version of TAG, which is why if you've watched on Slick debate, you've watched them all. It doesn't matter to him what the topic of the debate is. He'll agree to whatever topic the other person suggests and then just bring out his TAG script and stick to it.
Oh my gosh, you can’t look at this honestly and tell me that Matt slick did not engage in the actual debate and Dillahunty did, Dillahunty never addresses the actual issue he dodges in these other areas constantly, and he didn’t understand what Matt Slick was saying most of the time, Matt slick was saying how does your worldview account for the laws of logic not doing auntie couldn’t answer the question, he kept saying my worldview accounts for the laws of logic by using the laws of logic, and then he finally admitted that he couldn’t account for the laws of logic.
Every time I watch a Consortium debate, I am always hopelessly disappointed by the result. The Christian acts like a child and a rude one like that. Dillahunty has more patience than me, I would have been tempted to end the debate the moment question time started and Slick gave the answer... "Read your bible." Then proceeded to play an epistemology word game about the nature of logic and ignore the debate topic. Not to mention being insanely rude all the time, patronizing and dismissive. I really wish the Christian camp could dig up someone who can actually debate the issues, not try to defeat the argument before it begins. P.S. Also why the fuck is Slick making these weird vomit sounds, unable to sit still, interrupting, mouthing words and shaking his head every time Matt talks?
I assume he is doing most of those things because he is an insufferably smug and self confident prick. I found him more annoying than Sye due to his condescendingly smug attitude, and I didn't think that Sye would be outdone in the annoying factor.
@@data3214 Matt Slick show clear signs of autism (autism covers is a wide spectrum of mental disruptions). That is not an attack. It is simply how it is.
@@redpaladin44 I don't think it is useful or respectful to attack MS when it was disclosed that he is autistic. Part of the behaviour is lacking social skills and poor or zero sensitivity to communication nuances. See his daughter's situation. friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2013/07/15/the-atheist-daughter-of-a-notable-christian-apologist-shares-her-story/
At least Sye, though, is openly like a sour-faced, hateful, angry little troll. Matt Slick is even more obnoxious to me because he's SUCH an incredibly intellectually dishonest scumbag but affects this chatty, glad-handing smarmy facade.
2:24:05 thank you for this lady, I was shouting that an hour and a half ago at my tv screen, how do you know its not just your fizzy fizz telling you theres a magical man in the sky slipping the answers to you under the desk? You don't know theres a magical sky man Slick, your brain just told you to say that. This is what irritates me the most with apologists, like a snake oil seller, they propose a problem (don't show it actually is a problem), skip that step, and tell you they have the solution to the problem.. turns out, not only do they not convince you its a problem, but their proposed solution doesn't solve anything.
I think Dillahunty is missing a critical part here in regards to Slick's argument. Slick is trying to argue that a brain functioning on basic "chemical" reactions is unable to account for proper logical inference. What Matt should point out is that the BASIS behind brain function is not the PRODUCT of reasoning itself, just as the mechanical functioning of a car doesn't account for how the car interacts with its environment. The logical absolutes are "objects" or by-products of phenomena. Just as a car may hit a curb and be forced to react a certain way by the laws of physics (i.e. logical absolutes). So then, a brain that may be "forced" to react to laws of logic, and that synthesis produces proper logical inference.
I don't see why chemical reactions can't represent logic. A computer can. Logic is basically a simple set of tautologies, or equivalences that transform axioms and statements into new statements, not unlike chemical reactions actually.
@@MrSiloterio The fact that a designed system (computers) can implement logic does not show that a non-designed system (molecules) cannot. In fact, would you argue that the existence of molecules requires design? I certainly don't, they assemble quite spontaneously. That is affirming the consequent, a fallacy.
@@landsgevaer spontaneous they may be, it doesn't mean they are arbitrary. Molecules are still exhibiting formation patterns that suggest they follow certain rules in order for a determinable effect to be realized. The next question would then be, if they aren't designed, why are they not completely arbitrary in nature?
@@MrSiloterio They follow the basic laws of nature, electromagnetism and QM in particular, which are simple and rigid and require no design and nevertheless lead to organization at larger scales.
It's actually quite pathetic and disrespectful to dillahunty the way these childish apologists argue. What happens is, someone like dillahunty makes a perfectly well reasoned argument, and the theist is like oh shit, i've got nothing... "but you cant prove your not a brain in a vat"... "you can't account for the logical absolutes" or some utterly childish response. They of course always come back to such stupid arguments because they know they can never challenge dillahunty if they ever agreed on the presuppositions (which they do) so instead they just try and evade and derail. As dillahunty said - we agree on the absolutes. You don't need to know their origin in order to use them. Honestly, its pathetic and childish. Truly pathetic and bordering on insulting. I would love to know how many people are actually convinced by such stupid "gotcha" questions that slick thinks he is offering by suggesting that if you can't account for the logical absolutes then you can't know anything.
Jackson 83 No it’s just that you don’t understand the issue. It is impossible to ground or justify logic on a PURELY physical worldview because the properties of logic in and of themselves are immaterial.
@@theconservativechristian7308 Maybe it is you who is misunderstanding something. The point (made by both Mr. Dillahunty and the person whose comment you responded to) is that this "issue" is purely made up, both sides agree that logic is logic and works the way it does, it's just that certain people claim there is an "immaterial reason" for that. And instead of showing the evidence that lead them to that conclusion they point at the intellectually honest people while screaming "See?! They didn't pull a made up reason out of their asses, instead they decided to be honest and call the presupposition (we share) what it is! My worldview is clearly superior!". - It is not. At this point you are not just making up the god designed to be stuck into the gaps you are uncomfortable with, now you even made up the gap you can stick him into. Good job.
1:24:00 the douchebaggery and smugness have reached biblical proportions (pun, intended). I almost stopped watching. I think we can now change from "brain in a vat" to "vinegar and baking soda"
Yes he did. He undercut Dill’s position by showing it’s flaws. Just because his approach wasn’t direct, doesn’t mean he didn’t do it. There’s direct and indirect.
@@theconservativechristian7308 like Matt said he argued a straw man they both presupposed logic is reasonable before the debate because otherwise the topic is pointless because otherwise you’re holding to a red herring that we cant know anything.
@@michaelr5606 That kn atheism you are using tour brain to prove your brain especially while telling Christians they can’t use the Bible to prove God. Atheism, as I’ve seen it, is an intellectual catastrophe and presupposes more and has more blind faith than theism. I’m not even saying this as a zinger or a one liner. I actually believe that.
Matt, you are amazing. I don't know how you kept your cool while Matt S. Was being so incredibly rude, smug and condescending to even the audience, not to mention you. Watching him was like watching a kid in the back seat of a car that is pointing their finger at their sibling while saying "I'm not touching you! I'm not touching you!" Hand down, Matt Slick's demeanor in the debate was the most childish I have ever witnessed from someone purporting himself as a professional.
OMG Matt... I admire your patience... Slick wasn't even listing to you, he was typing don't now what, he just kept repeating the same brain+chemical sentence and insulted when he could... no wonder why you wanted to and that conversation
Matt “I flail my arms and holler like a teenager on the schoolyard” Slick. I haven’t even watched this whole video and I know it’s gonna be so cringeworthy on Shits... I mean Slicks side.
If this was a debate about whether Xbox or Playstation is superior Dillahunty would be comparing hardware specs, game library, company ethos while Slick would take 30 minutes trying to convince you that Playstation isn't actually a games console.
We know because bill gates said so. He revealed it to us directly in the windows operating system. Which is universal and the prerequisite foundation of all computer science. The west was built upon Windows, you know in your heart that bill gates is the way the truth and the light.
This was really disappointing. Oh, Dillahunty was great, as always. But do Christian apologists keep getting dumber? I've heard of Matt Slick many times, but I think this is the first time I've ever heard him speak. And I was _really_ disappointed. Well, I'm an atheist. I didn't expect to be convinced. But it would be nice to hear a good argument occasionally. This was just pathetic.
My god...jesus christ...this was mind numbing. I've followed all the Atheist Experience vs. Matt Slick "debates" over the years...but this match-up simply melted my brain. I had no _idea_ Slick was so...slick. Heheh...get it? -___- But yeah...Slick was awful, and became more and more emboldened in his dishonesty throughout the course of the night. But Dillahunty certainly held his own. And for that, it was worth suffering through this video...at least I learned something.
the reason I went to an AA meeting tonight and I was disappointed no one at my table talked about god, and "it" was only mentioned in the opening to the meeting where they do the 12 steps/announcements/new or visiting members and maybe 3 or 4 times. everyone at my table spoke with diligence and without using god as the framework, so it was so amazing because I took more from it than I expected, but all the things I didn't expect to take away..truly a great atheist experience (but I still walked away with slight disappointment)
I think that what you are experiencing is that as you watch more of these debates and as you learn more about logical fallacies and can almost point the common ones out in your sleep, you discover that there *are* no good good arguments for religion. One simply can't reason for it without making a logical fallacy. The best you can do, is to try to make the error as subtle as possible and hope that the other debater doesn't catch it, and if you do that on purpose, then you are a dishonest douchebag. That means that when you watch a debate with a religious person, you can expect to hear something that is either dishonest or incompetent or both, so if you hope to hear good arguments, you will forever be disappointed. The best you can hope for is to hear a fallacious argument that is actually new.
Does slick realize Matt d was a devout fundamentalist christian for over 20 years studying to be a minister? The way slick was talking to him did not demonstrate he knew this?
@@armando8800 The concept of an all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-good god is self-refuting due to the fact that pain and suffering exists in the world. If God is all-good, they would want to put an ultimate end to pain and suffering. If God was all-powerful, they would have the ability to remove all pain and suffering from this world. If God was they would know exactly how to remove all pain and suffering from the world. Yet... pain and suffering exists. So God cannot be all-good, all-powerful, and all-knowing. Either they are all-good and all-powerful - and don't know how to remove all pain and suffering; all-good and all-knowing - and don't have the ability to remove all pain and suffering; or all-knowing and all-powerful - and don't want to remove all pain and suffering from the world.
@@armando8800 To elaborate on what James said, the problem of evil refutes the notion of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscience deity because that would logically necessitate a harmonious world. A god could be a combination of those two attributes, but not all three. I'm firm in the position that god as an overarching concept can't be falsified, but particular definitions of god can be falsified, and the very state of our world refutes an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscience god.
@@galutproctar11145w That is not self-refuting, it's refuted by the state of the actual world. It's evidently false, not self-evidently false. Self-refuting means the concept has within itself a fatal flaw - independent of any evidence. Example could be Matt Slick's argument: If your brain is just a bunch of chemicals, it can't be reliable and thus we must dismiss its conclusions - while he is (at least in part) using his brain that admittedly uses chemical reactions. His thought attacks the validity of thought itself.
@@galutproctar11145w your self righteous narcissism blinds you to the obvious fact that Gods anger AGAINST the evil people in this world proves He is "good'', a term humans are not fit to use since their idea of good is only what is for their own benefit. God is omniscient which means He does not revolve around you, or owe you anything since you want freedom from God, it is your duty to come to Him. Which must be done His way since it is His presence that is Holy. He is all knowing simply because He made everything and the pathetic state of the world is evidence that God is kind enough and desires actual Love since He allows people to have the right to choose Him or reject Him. The fact we have an eternal soul and all die means there must be another place meant for the soul where God will judge sin and rebellion and make everything right. The fact he has atoned for the sins of his people Shows He is merciful beyond our ideas of just and fair to save the lawless that He has chosen and sent as His own.
That's because they have a built in confirmatory bias. I have never known anyone, or known anyone who knew anyone who became convinced by an apologetic. Without fail, they believe first, and then form an argument to confirm their predetermined conclusion.
@@theconservativechristian7308 Maybe instead of "target" the proper term should be "effect." Christians construct apologetics based on what sounds convincing to them, but apologetics only sound convincing because they already believe. I have never heard of anyone who became a christian because of an opologetic that convinced them.
@@strategic1710 Your OP would also mean that you have a confirmation bias, and by virtue extends that you were not convinced by an apologetic (reasoned defence) of atheism. So in your own words, and by necessary extension, about *atheists* "without fail, they believe first and then form an argument to confirm their predetermined conclusion" But to deal with your issue, you are implying that it is reasonable to assume truth based on collective experience. On what basis are you assuming that collective experience is truth? The issue is not one of evidence, it is an issue of your nature, you are by nature in rebellion against the God that you know exists. What evidence would convince you of the God that says you already have enough evidence? Would you reject the only Son of God?
2:21:30 Slick seems to suggest that because simplistic chemical reactions such as baking soda reacting with vinegar don't give rise to logic, that therefore more complex reactions in a brain also don't give rise to logic. This simply doesn't follow. Logic could be an emergent phenomenon, like a stone wall. Take any two stones and smack them together, and you'll never get a wall. But if you take stones of the right shapes and sizes and arrange them carefully, you can get a wall. Similarly, while any single chemical reaction almost certainly won't give rise to something like logic, if you arrange a large nunber of reactions of various types in just the right way, the emerging large-scale reaction could plausibly produce something like logic. Slick's over-simplification is just that, an over-simplification. In this case, an inappropriate over-simplification.
A big misunderstanding slick has is that he doesn't seem to see that complex systems can come from simple building blocks. I.E. the brain is chemical reactions, but the structure / complexity of those chemical reactions give us the ability to reason and have a sense of the world and ourselves
"How does the physical brain, where one chemical state relates to another chemical state, or changes to one. How does it produce logical inference?" Simple answer, that's not how the brain works. But let's assume the statement about how the brain is actually correct, then what? It does not produce logical inference, initially. That is why children train their brains to make logical inferences. Item looks hard and shiny, item also feels hard; item is likely metal. Yup it is metal because when I stuck it in my mouth it also tasted like metal. We then train our brains to make more logical inferences based upon more and complex information. In essence the question is designed to stop someone dead in their tracks after the initial answer and prevent them from ever explaining the rest
@@avi1639 try reading my post again and try reading it comprehensively this time. Because I never made that statement in my post. What I did was quote one person and then _assumed_ his statement to be true, after stating it was not. Only to then proceed to outline we only get logical inference from training our young brain
@@wolfetone2012 I was responding to your quote from that guys assumption. Fact of the matter is, if you don’t want to believe in a God there is no point my arguing. Because believing in God isn’t about winning a argument, so anyways goodbye.
@@avi1639 so now you're making it even more ambiguous. Either you believe what's said in the quote, but deny children teach themselves how to make logical inferences. Or you disagree with the quote but felt a need to ask me what I'm on. Here's what makes even less sense though. None of what I have stated showes how nor what my believes are. Yet here you are making an assumption based upon me disagreeing with the ignorant ramblings of someone with specific believes. If everyone followed your lead, most of the world would be declared non-believers/infidels. And no matter what you assure about winning, we all know what happens when religious zealots disagree. But more to the point. If you didn't want to argue, perhaps you should not have responded like a petulant little child
Are you really that ignorant and brainless. If that's all you got then you were either not listening or you have a very limited understanding on pretty much everything.
That was painful. I'm sorry you have to go through these debates in order to reach out to people contaminated with faith. Having said that, I don't know if I should like or dislike the video. Sye, I mean, Slick ruined the debate. Oh, yes! And about the logic from brains thing, here is something you can use: a computer can perform mathematical calculations, even though it is just an electric fizz.
Matt Slick vaguely addresses computers in the Q & A section of the video, stating that computers aren't a valid comparison because they are designed by intelligent beings and operate differently from our brains. But I think your analogy is wholly apropos given that if we mere humans can design logic based computers using only "electric fizz" then certainly an all powerful god could do the same with his creation, _without_ reliance on a supernatural mind driving our brains... unless Slick is willing to admit that humans can do something his god is incapable of.
Yup. Matt D presented an argument as to why he thought Secular Humanism was superior. Matt S basically made the argument Sye Ten made in his debate, except Slick's argument was that Matt D's Worldview couldn't account for Logic/Reason, so he had no basis to make such a judgment, because reasons.Slick agreed that Matt D could Reason and Logic, but because Slick felt like Matt D couldn't account for Logic/Reason, there was no point to give any rebuttal to the Subject matter....just a lame way to sidetrack a discussion he simply could not argue against.
sandor szabados The issue here is, Slick did it in his opening argument. The question was: which is superior, christianity or secular humanism? Superior meant "better at achieving one's goal". So what Slick was supposed to do was simply tell what christianity is, what it's goals are and how it achieves them as Matt did with secular humanism. Slick wasn't even supposed to waste time on logic. And then he goes into this bizarre argument about self-refuting position. Thing is, whether secular humanism is logical or not, whether it has a formal foundation of reason or not, is *irrelevant* here. Secular humanism has a goal and accomplishes that goal in ways of x. Whether it's logical or not does not matter. In other words, Slick attempted to use a hammer in order to clean a room, it was the wrong tool for the wrong job. It's as if he was trying to argue that christinaity is the only possible position to even take, which is demonstrably false. Even if the existence of christian god is an absolute given it's quite clear that as a system of social cohesion, christianity is merely a one system of many. I stopped listening at that point because if he's going to waste his and my time on trying to weaken his opponent's position *before* he can even define his, then he's got nothing of value to present me with. Secular humanism could advocate eating babies for all I care, the thing I wanted to know and he was supposed to explain was: what does christinaity stand for and what methods does it use to accomplish that goal. That was his ONE JOB and he can't even attempt it.
"God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve, and biblical marriage is really the way to go, except that we're no longer allowing multiple wives and concubines and all that sort of stuff" Made my day
azrnzala If it's Slick you're talking about, then it sounds to me more like he studied car salesmanship and stuff, whenever he speaks. I know how actual scientists speak. I can assure you that Matt Slick is not one.
Ben Carson AND HE IS STUDYING QUANTUM.FUCKING.MECHANICS RIGHT NOW!!!! Like shit, that dude must be so smart, and so boss, and stuff, to be like, reading about stuff.
"Secular humanism can't account for the laws of logic, and god can." First of all, gods were invented by humans specifically to have something that can account for, and explain everything. Secondly, secular humanism doesn't try to, or have to, account for anything. Secular humanism is just trying to do what's best for all of us.
Even if secular humanism was broken that does nothing to demonstrate Christianity isn't also broken. Just because my tv doesn't work isn't evidence that your stove is fine. Slick is weak.
New Testament endorsment of slavery - 1 Peter 2:18 Slaves / servants, be subject to your masters with all fear, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward (i.e. cruel, unjust.) Ephesians 6:5: Slaves / servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God. Colossians 3:22 Slaves / servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ. Colossians 4:1 Masters, give unto your slaves /servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven. (..and what is their definition of just and equal?) 1 Timothy 6:1-5 Let as many slaves /servants as are under the yoke count their masters worthy of all honor, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort. If any man teach otherwise ... he is proud, knowing nothing.... From such withdraw thyself. (i.e. try even harder to please your master if he is a fellow christian.) Titus 2:9-10 Slaves / servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God. If that isn't enough, let's take an extra-biblical look at an early Christian letter from Ignatius to his disciple Polycarp - "Do not be haughty to slaves, either men or women; yet do not let them be puffed up, but let them rather endure slavery to the glory of God, that they may obtain a better freedom from God. Let them not desire to be set free at the Church’s expense, that they be not found the slaves of lust." (Ignatius, Ad Polycarp 4.3) ......
Timothy Bukowski A fool believes that ancient writings influenced by an undetectable cosmic entity which details impossible events as historic is true. But please, do go on.
Matt Slick effectively used the argument from personal incredulity: "I don't know how the brain can be the result of physics, therefore it isn't". He also used empty assertions like "the laws of logic are not related to the laws of physics". Erm, why not? We build transistors using the laws of physics and build computers with them that can do complex logic. He also didn't seem to understand what "begging the question" actually means. I'm wondering if Matt Slick didn't understand why he lost the debate, and therefore concluded that he didn't lose... (argument from personal incredulity again).
He knows how the brain can be the result of physics, he doesn't know how a physical mechanism can be trusted to reliably acquire and establish absolute logical truths. It's still dumb. And I'm not sure it's technically speaking an appeal to ignorance, because he does give justification for his view (bad ones, but still).
1:42:06 He is factually wrong. Just search... "The Sentence of the Inquisition on Galileo" by Cardinals of the Inquisition Read by Availle Thirteen minutes of your life that will help you to know when others are telling you BS.
Wow. How that young girl (the moderator's daughter, I believe) asks and responds to Matt D's answers on why he should believe in Christianity is actually quite troubling to me. She's clearly not pretending to be that confident in her knowledge of God's existence - she's just baffled at how Matt can't see God and how good he is. Her parents have brainwashed her. If that's not obvious to even the Christians watching this video then I've given up hope on humanity.
if you're ''given morality'' by your god , why do you need to teach your children ABOUT morality ? shouldn't they KNOW not to punch their brother in the face from the time they CAN punch their brother in the face ? it's all so confusing
@@brendanshiels2971 are you implying that I believe life "made itself"? Yes a computer is designed. A computer isn't made of organic compounds capable of alter ing themselves. Life on the other hand is capable of being altered quite easily. Anything from radiation to cell division can cause alterations to our dna which is what builds us. I did not make myself I was made by my parents. A computer doesn't make it's self either it is designed. however the original comment I made is still valid, logic can come from chemicals and electricity, computers are real world proof that you can build a machine capable of producing accurate models of reality. Our brains do the same thing. They are model forming computers that run off of sodium gradients and electrical discharges. And unlike computers, there is actual evidence that life on Earth evolves. I never claimed that computers were somehow "evolved". Just that they produce logic from electricity.
@@brendanshiels2971 the fact the computers have intelligent design in the first place is why they don't build themselves. firstly they we not designed to do that and even if we wanted them to humans are just too darn stupid as a whole to figure out how to make one that does build itself. However biologist are getting very close to creating self replicating "biomachines". I'm not too sure if they would classify as life or not but it sure would be cool.
N0CliP evolution would be life creating itself. Just like lightning is random and doesn’t follow any specific guidelines the “organic compounds” that you speak of don’t follow any logical inference by themselves. And the fact that something completely illogical created something that is logical shows that there was some sort of design.
The difference is that we intelligently designed things like computers to use electricity logically while humans are logical and much more complicated then computers and they just happened to form themselves it’s nonsense.
I admit that I am biased. Mr. Slick lost me in the first few minutes. I will try to get through this whole debate when I am not tired and ready for bed. What I heard didn't impress me.
His argument basically amounts to 'you can't have logic without a soul that magically makes you understand logic'. His argument hinges on the ideas that if human brains are 'simply' chemical structures - organic machines, essentially - then they can't be trusted to be logical. He never actually explains why a chemical machine is inherently unreliable, he simply asserts it and then acts like it's a nail in the coffin for secular humanism, which he claims is obligated to accept that human brains are chemical machines. Frankly, it is unimpressive - human brains being chemical machines would not restrict them from producing ideas, concepts of logic, and identifying facts about reality.
+Yeeksquilack I believe it wasn't the soul that grounds logic but god. I think the presuppositionalist argument is that without god who is the perfect mind that grounds logic, you can't know anything. The soul seems to be yet additional baggage added to Slick's position somewhere else.
Damn, I just got to the Audience Q&A and holy shit. Slick is so condescending and shows so little patience it's astounding. I think he thinks he's so vastly superior to everyone in the room that he's wasting his time even engaging with them.
Matt Slick did not engage in an honest way. He was simply smug and sounded over his head. Matt D is clear and on topic. Matt skick seemed nervous and clearing his throat constantly. If you look at the non biased i see no way to say Slick won.
I’m 69 years old and I’ve not heard anything quite so ridiculous in my life. I watched the whole debate and admittedly I did struggle with some of the dialogue (However On a positive note, I did learn rather a lot). For a supposedly rational human being to actually believe that secular humanists cannot think logically because their thoughts are merely chemical reactions is ludicrous. But what is even more ludicrous is the belief that Christians’ logic comes from God sticking his fingers in their brain and manipulating the thought process. I mean, the man is totally ga-ga. Kudos to you Matt for your brilliant presentation and for not literally drowning that arrogant t**t in his own spit and vinegar.
I know and it's ironic that in this very debate it's logic and reasoning albeit a flawed one that he applies to attempt to argue his position. If what he was saying was true then the debate they were having wouldn't even be happening. How can he argue such fallacious nonsense!
@@robertmcelwaine7024 Obviously because he correctly believes atheists are created in the image of God, just like all other humans. That's the whole point. The debate can take place because God exists. If God does not exist debating is useless, because the whole show is just chemicals fizzing, producing secular humanist vs theist thoughts. Not truth.
@@wspek Just because none of us can explain how chemicals in the brain can't lead to logical reasoning, doesn't mean Science won't eventually be able to. Saying, oh well it must be Good is lazy, specious reasoning. If mankind used your reasoning we'd still be living in caves.
Slick: "Just because people say it, doesnt make it so" (around 1:01:05)
_motions to the bible_
I'm so glad someone else pointed this out.
@@monkchips yeah, PEOPLE.. if the Bible was inspired by God, and God is not a man, well.. that's not really a contradiction sir
@@julianmanjarres1998 I'm of the understanding that the bible is the work of man's ego. Also isn't the bible usually preached? That is a person saying something.
@@julianmanjarres1998 Theres nothing to back up that premise but the bible itself, its circular logic, begging the question etc. etc. Prove the bible is the word of god, or inspired by god, without the bible.
Climbers Of Ice yeah, PEOPLE ... if the bible was INSPIRED by god, and god is not a PERSON? Then the bible was still written by inspired PEOPLE and so that is really a contradiction, sir.
*here is a little LOVE straight from the BIBLE!* ^^
*Enjoy* :*
*Slavery:*
(Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT) ''However, *you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this,* but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way''
(Exodus 21:2-6 NLT) ''*If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years.* Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterwards, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. *But the slave may plainly declare, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.’ If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever.* ''
*Sex Slavery:*
(Exodus 21:7-11 NLT) '' *When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are.* If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl’s owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. *If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife.* If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment.''
*beating slaves:*
(Exodus 21:20-21 NAB) ''When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.''
*slaves obbediance*
(Ephesians 6:5 NLT) '' *Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ.* ''
(1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT) '' *Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed.* If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them.''
*Rape:*
(Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NAB) '' *If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her,* and he will never be allowed to divorce her.''
(Deuteronomy 21:10-14 NAB) ''“When you go out to war against your enemies and the LORD, your God, delivers them into your hand, so that you take captives, *if you see a comely woman among the captives and become so enamored of her that you wish to have her as wife, you may take her home to your house. But before she may live there, she must shave her head and pare her nails and lay aside her captive’s garb. After she has mourned her father and mother for a full month, you may have relations with her, and you shall be her husband and she shall be your wife.* However, if later on you lose your liking for her, you shall give her her freedom, if she wishes it; but you shall not sell her or enslave her, since she was married to you under compulsion.”
*Kill People Who Don’t Listen to Priests:*
(Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT) ''Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God *must be put to death.* Such evil must be purged from Israel.''
*Kill Homosexuals:*
(Leviticus 20:13 NAB) ''If a man lies with a male as with a women, *both of them shall be put to death* for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives.''
*Kill Fortunetellers:*
(Leviticus 20:27 NAB) ''A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller *shall be put to death by stoning* ; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death.''
*Death for hitting parents:*
(Exodus 21:15 NAB) ''Whoever strikes his father or mother *shall be put to death.* ''
*Death for cursing parents:*
(Leviticus 20:9 NLT) ''All who curse their father or mother *must be put to death.* They are guilty of a capital offense.''
*Death for Adultery:*
(Leviticus 20:10 NLT) ''If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife, *both the man and the woman must be put to death.* ''
*Death for Fornication:*
(Leviticus 21:9 NAB) ''A priest’s daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, *shall be burned to death.* ''
*Kill Nonbelievers:*
(2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB) ''They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, *was to be put to death* , whether small or great, whether man or woman''
*Kill the Entire Town if One Person Worships Another God:*
(Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT) ''Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, *you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock.* Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. *Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God.* That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. “The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him.”
*Kill Women Who Are Not Virgins On Their Wedding Night:*
(Deuteronomy 22:20-21 NAB) ''But if this charge is true (that she wasn’t a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there *her townsman shall stone her to death* , because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father’s house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst.''
*Kill Followers of Other Religions:*
(Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB) ''If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: *do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him.* Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. *You shall stone him to death* , because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst.''
(Deuteronomy 17:2-5 NLT) ''Suppose a man or woman among you, in one of your towns that the LORD your God is giving you, has done evil in the sight of the LORD your God and has violated the covenant by serving other gods or by worshiping the sun, the moon, or any of the forces of heaven, which I have strictly forbidden. When you hear about it, investigate the matter thoroughly. If it is true that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, *then that man or woman must be taken to the gates of the town and stoned to death.* ''
*Kill People for Working on the Sabbath:*
(Exodus 31:12-15 NLT) ''The LORD then gave these further instructions to Moses: ‘Tell the people of Israel to keep my Sabbath day, for the Sabbath is a sign of the covenant between me and you forever. It helps you to remember that I am the LORD, who makes you holy. Yes, keep the Sabbath day, for it is holy. *Anyone who desecrates it must die* ; anyone who works on that day will be cut off from the community. Work six days only, but the seventh day must be a day of total rest. I repeat: Because the LORD considers it a holy day, *anyone who works on the Sabbath must be put to death.*
*Now go on Christian believer and LIE about what your Bible says* ^^
*otherwise your Priests might get a little mad.* :(
Alessandro Meggiolaro haha reminds me of "Quiz Show ( Bible contradictions )" by NonStampCollector, and basically all his videos. The Bible is terrible, contradictory, and all the punishments for anything are DEATH.
Thanks for giving us that collection of nonsense from the "good book"!
who started slavery? God? man? slavery was always a worldwide trade by world cultures
Not one reply from a Slick supporter. Confront them with "the word" from their own book of enlightenment, and they have nothing to say. Pathetic, and imo an admission that they have nothing...nowhere to run...nothing can refute their own vile primitive rulebook for life better than the book itself. Nice work
Dusty They have there own video where they try to make it look like Dillahunty lost.
Matt Slick said stuff with his brain that made my brain not care about anything he says.
He did not attempt to answer the debate question.
Someone once told Slick he was smart, and someone else told him he was funny. His belief in that lead us here sadly ...
well put
… And the result is a delusional arrogant prick.
I absolutely lost it when Slick said "I wouldn't lie intentionally, I may sometimes misrepresent things" and Dillahunty replied with ""....like the debate topic". Pure gold.
I don't mind the debate, but the mocking? I'd prefer to be at church thx, then with that dude.
Alex Crick: Slick says "I wouldn't lie intentionally" how, can you lie unintentionally?
@@crownofglory1264 But I guess Slick's constant face-making and muttering is perfectly fine?
@@crownofglory1264 because lying is fine, as long as it makes you feel good, but mocking, in the vein of making a point, is bad. Right.
I had a similar reaction. I guess Matt believes he is so manipulative that no one would recognize his disingenuousness Anna dishonesty.
The difference in both Matt’s arguments:
Dillahunty: suggests secular morality is superior and offers several examples using analogies to better illustrate his points.
Slick: suggests Christianity is superior by trying to illustrate why secular morality is subjective.
There is a huge difference in the way they pose their arguments, and one is certainly superior than the other.
What everybody seems to miss is that religious morality is also subjective. Pick your own interpretation of the Bible and there you have, a pretty subjective morality
You missed the part where Slick argued that it’s self refuting
@@thetannernation how is it self-refuting?
@@chrisducharme1729 It's a subjectivity vs objectivity argument. And wether or not you claim to be able to account for the origin of logic vs presupposing that logic is logical. Slick said seccularity is self refutable because the fundation of seccular morality and knowledge is centered around whats going on in our brain, and is therefore subjective and unreliable. Contra the christian world view that takes account for the origin of logic and the source of truth, and appeal to objectivity. He said he got that knowledge from reading the bible and acsepting Jesus into his heart.
@@sondrehimmelrikbarstad3414 That makes zero sense. You presuppose an "origin of logic" and "source of truth". You cannot demonstrate or lead anyone, least yourself, to any evidence or proof thereof. And so these concepts only exist in your brain.
Your claim to objectivity is subjective unto itself; that is what makes you stupid.
But worse of all, nothing of this brings us closer to the existence of ANY god. Let alone a just or righteous one. Or even christian for that matter.
You build your castle on loose sand, and look how proud you are for it.
"Your brain made you say that"
The irony in forwarding an argument that defeats your own position seems to be forever lost on these primates.
About the "primates" thing...
I have bad news for you... ;-)
@@theodorgrunter3551
Lmao.
For a creationist it seems ... irony is just how the water sometimes tastes.
@@theodorgrunter3551 I have bad news for you, facts don’t care about bible.
Do better
@@theodorgrunter3551I have worse news for you
not really - then you have already in philosophy the concept that - you only "consist of a brain" and nothing more. What already Matt Slick pointed out that to point to a higher logic it needs to be something beyond you hence a "God", soul, Spirit, so on.....
Hence youre argument is really bad. What a irony. Dont bother responding i dont use YT notifications.
Lovely how Slick's argument about chemical reactions-based brains gets shot down by a question from the audience and he can't figure out what's the issue even when he gets it spoon fed to him by a very patient young lady.
That was the best part of this whole thing. He was like a deer in headlights.
She got him but he pretended to not understand it. He has the same brain a secular humanist has, it just doesn't work as well.
Did you hear his response?
@@lightbeforethetunnel Yes, he pretended not to understand, or didn't understand. He looked like a greasy fool.
Clearly secularism is way better than a religion that allows (not against any of its laws and ITS GOD ORDERS) slavery, genocide, pedofilia, rape, incest, murder, eternal torture!
Xtian Matt: What do you mean by slavery?
Atheist Matt: Owning people as property.
Xtian Matt: Where is that in the bible?
Atheist Matt: Exodus 21, Leviticus 25.
Xtian Matt: Well just squirting these things out really fast isn't the point.
Hmmmm
Captain Gargoyle I’ve seen people say that slavery in the Bible isn’t the same as we’d imagine it in the 1900s of America. Are you open to an interpretation that slavery as a term isn’t specifically limited to owning people for the entirety of their lives?
I’m not sure who said it but even if it doesn’t change your opinions it may be interesting subject matter.
@@robbofwar57 It can't be interpreted other way cause even in bible it is said that slaves are your property, and can be beaten, passed down to children or bought from others. It seems pretty much as slavery in the 1900s of America
I think you guys mean 1800s, as slavery was abolished in 1865.
@@neilbradley Oh, thank you.
Robert Cunningham people can say that the slavery isn’t the same as slavery in America. And that you can acknowledge that slavery isn’t specifically limited to owning people for the entirety of their lives.
BUT the bible literally says in Leviticus “You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance”
Except for the people of Israel who you must let free after 7 years unless you give him a wife, his wife stays a slave and if he doesn’t want to leave his wife. He consents to be a slave for life.
Someone should tell Matt Slick that glib responses to serious questions and making faces behind his opponent's back doesn't help him win debates - it just makes him look like a douche. Of course, if he was even interested in having a debate he would have actually addressed the question rather than playing his childish "your world view is self defeating so I win by default" game.
Matt Slick is a prime example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
He can make his bullshit seem correct to people of his own intelligence class, but cannot stand when those smarter than him point out where he is wrong. In every instance I have watched of him where his position is challenged to the point of his own knowledge, he asserts that "they just dont understand it well enough".(projection much matt)
It is sad really, but I think he is just an over inflated egotist that really thinks he has the right answer. Still slightly better than those that deceitfully make millions pretending to have "faith" and "morals".
Your brain made you say that
Yes, it did. And it's just one more example of chemical reactions reaching an accurate conclusion. :D
John Smith I was actually taken aback by how rude Slick was. It was like one serious debater and one school child intent on playing to his side of the audience with snide remarks.
His entire argument centred on ignoring the debate topic and attempting to play a boring word game about how Secular Humanism can't exist. It was infuriating. Matt D did a great job of keeping his cool as usual.
If nothing else, at least we learned that secular humanism is superior to Christianity in terms of comporting oneself in a debate.
Thanks to people like Mr. Slick and Sye. Is the whole reason I'm not a Christian anymore. Their arguments of cognitive dissidents, circular reasoning, backpedaling, and Dishonesty with his apologetics. Eventually in time you can realize how much Christianity and Islam is one of the biggest con artist scams on this earth. And Slick, proved it in this debate once again.
I would counter that with this statement: Thanks to individuals like Mr. Dillahunty, and others, I am not an atheist. The more I listen to atheism, the more bankrupt it reveals itself to be as an ideology/world-view.
Atheism is an ideology or worldview to you?
Atheism is an ideology to the same extent as not playing football is sport.
People are so accustomed to the fact that words like christian or muslim describes their whole worldview they can't accept that the same rule simply doesn;t apply to others.
If someone says he or she is atheist it only means he doesn;t beleive in god. You can't tell anything more about such person. That's of course not the case when somebody says he or she is christian or muslim, etc.
Piterixos That is a gross oversimplification and I reject the validity of those assertions.
I hear the argument you're attempting to make frequently and it simply isn't realistic or true.
It's your second comment, yet you didn;t provide any argument to support your claim.
I'll spare your time. There ain't any. Athesim tells you nothing about how to interact with other people, what to think about different things (except for god). Nothing. It' may be classified as part of worldview or part of an ideology, but to say that atheism itself may is such doesn't make sense.
And again, that usually shocks people who are used to think that since their belief in god describes their whole worldview or ideology (or at least should if they really believe what they claim to believe) then not believing in god has the same property. Surprise! That's not how things work.
***** I don't do well with non sequitur statements.
I've just finished watching the debate, and I'm still waiting for Slick to address to the topic of discussion.
Funny, I feel the same way about Dillawhacky. Slick makes things perfectly simple sounding to me. Overall a good debate. Both men were respectful and know their beliefs. I respect healthy debate.
@@k.l.hollister8128 That's just your brain saying that
Lmao your ass is slow then you might as well give up watching this type of content.
Kathy Gardner Hollister ok then.. sum up Matt slicks argument to the debate topic real quick... since it makes perfect sense to you... I want you to hear yourself say it.... whenever you’re ready...
@@k.l.hollister8128 Simple minds I guess.
When Slick sinks to extreme sophistry and bad rhetoric you know he knows he has lost.
So, when he opens his mouth and sounds come out?
Funny that the atheists completely overlook dillahunty rudely interrupting the host introductions. I was shocked but not surprised the syncophants atheists fail to call him out. Imagine if slick did that.
So you avoid the actual argument, and focus on an interrupting of the host? Nice.
+Steve McRae but you give Kris a pass. OK. After Dillahunty' s opening statement I had not clue what he stood for. It was so not committal and reminded me of a bill clinton congressional deposition. He was throughly handled by Slick.
I don't agree with Matt on a few things, but he always does better in these types of debates than his opponents.
You ever want to come on my channel to explain your position?
(We are live now even if you like)
Why is Mr Dillahunty debating a middle aged teenager?
Cuz that's the best he can do?
@Moon Presence Everyday
@Slippery Storm thanks, but couldnt be bothered. And I'm perfectly ok with there being markets for morons and semi-morons
@@WarOnHorror _"And I'm perfectly ok with there being markets for morons and semi-morons"_
We call those "markets", "religions".
@@AsixA6 Of course you would, after I gave you the words to do so. And even then you're wrong. Religion is only one specific instance of a market for semi-morons, not the market itself. People like you are another instance of said market. Cheers.
Matt, as a former debate kid, and a former Christian, thank you for working so hard to create these open conversations. It's made a huge difference in my life
I highly doubt that Dillahunty was ever a true born again Christian - a fake Christian maybe, but never a true Christian. He is as it is written, "a dog returning to his vomit" or a "pig returning to his muck"
Ahh…No True Scotsman
Matt Dillahunty working hard in these conversations with theists makes me think of Sisyphus pushing the stone up the hill.
@@richardbutler9692 1. U don't know that. Can't read minds. People change. And even if thats a lie, his arguments still stands on their own.
2. Why do you compare us humanists to muck and vomit? Thats not nice. Jesus told you to love thy neighbor. If something is fake christianity that would be comments like this.
3. Let this woman express that she feel helped and guided without being a douche about it 🙂 relax. Some are believers and some aren't. Let it be man ✌️
@@richardbutler9692 and I suppose that you are a "true" christian, then? how do you account for different denominations? are "true" Christians immune to rationality and logic?
Experienced debater here: In intellectual and academic debate the concept of topicality is extremely important. In fact, in many styles of debate it is considered an automatic loss if your case is found to be non-topical. Why? Because if both parties aren't speaking topically you are left with a poor debate when both parties are really speaking past each other and not addressing the real substance intended by the topic.
Matt Slick took what was intended to be a debate about comparing moral systems and turned it in to a debate about which moral system is true. This is a very important distinction and Slick (intentionally I think) completely missed the mark. We've heard this diatribe from Slick over and over again and I think the point of the debate was to address something a little different.
Alas we're left with an absurd straw man and fallacy of composition. Extremely boring, reductive, and frankly unsportsmanlike. Typical Slick. There's no automatic loss in debates like these, but I would seriously consider not doing debates with Slick in the future. He may be an easy target, but he's SO DAMN BORING.
At one point he even started going into arguments related to Calvinism vs Aminianism. 🤦♂️
"Experienced debater here" - Is not what experienced debaters say, they have much more class :)
@@gavinhurlimann2910 It set the context of his comment, and added, I think relevant info. I didn’t take offence,nor found it unclassy.
Makes sense tho from a logical position there is no basis for anything without truth. The losing side in this debate lost at the 13 min mark. He said he’s there to defend a position he believes in...Then he immediately discredits himself and any position he holds at 13:00 when he literally concedes that he doesn’t believe in absolute certainty by saying “it’s also worth noting that absolute certainty is not relevant to this discussion. I don’t see any path to absolute certainty. I’m not aware of any possible path to absolute certainty. I’m not absolutely certain about that.” If there is no absolute certainty then how can you be certain about any position and have The confidence to defend it? Furthermore how can we the audience be certain that the letters that make up each word he chose to say have an absolute meaning behind them? How can we be certain that this man is real and we’re not hallucinating or dreaming? Why should we care about a word that comes out of his mouth? The house of cards came down immediately. So when he starts from an illogical foundation his concluding arguments will be illogical too. The debate ended right there.
@@RationalGaze.BingChillin In science there are no absolute truths, only what we can tentatively trust as the best we can have given the evidence at hand within the reality we observe. We may be all floating octopuses in a tank who knows
Take an acid test. Dip the piece of paper in the suspect fluid. One response indicates acid; the other indicates something else. That's an example of how chemical reactions produce states in response to reality.
your brain made you say that
@@tod3608 Satan made you say that.
@@amandapugtato8085 No, he could say that thanks to the revelation of the pink invisible unicorn.
Fucking sweet thread!!
The only Statement of Dillahunty's that Slick refuted was that he is a cut above Sye...
hahaha that's so true
I'm not sure about that.
Your brain just made you say that.
You mean the only one that you were able to comprehend.
Guy Regensburger I had to stop reading after the 5th line because i'm not gonna read something that is build on a fallacious foundation.
You "just presuppose" the laws of logic and that's the end of it? Just skip it and move on? Lol. Are you able to account for them and if so how? And the fact that you don't have the ability to comprehend why logical absolutes require a transcendental mind is irrelevant, so don't even go there, just account for the logical absolutes from your worldview or quit making logical statements.
My favorite argument! You can't trust your brain, so therefore we can only explain it. Umm if you admit your brain can be faulty, didn't you use that faulty brain to determine that Christianity is true? Talk about self refuting...
He believes he isn't limited to a chemical based brain. He thinks he's being boosted by a metaphysical component to his nature.
Phesheya Bhembe Yes, and he used his faulty brain to come to that very conclusion. Lol his argument kind of ruins the idea that ANYONE can be certain about anything. Which I actually think is true btw. Even if he could advance his argument it only gets to a god, not his specific God.
Well, if there's anything we've learned, it's fuck tag.
Exactly!!
@@KingOpenReview Either if we are limited by brain, he is wrong because he uses that faulty brain to determine it. While also if we are not limited by that brain(for example if there is a soul) that also means that he is wrong, cause Matt would use that thinking not based only on brain to determine his point. So either way Slick is wrong
Matt Dillahunty really is playing chess with a pigeon.
I think its the converse.
Whatever, you're brain just made you say that... xD
@@VylePhinder Matt Ds brain?
@@susanthroop7041 It's just a joke. That response was silly to me.
@@VylePhinder A joke on Matt D?
Slick has learned about 20 words which simply fall out of his mouth in any order. He uses this as answers to questions.
Is there any point at which Slick actually addresses the debate topic? If there is, I completely missed it...
no he just makes nonsense assertions about his sky daddy
Nope. Literally just "your brain made you say that, your brain made you say that, your brain made you say that"
It is not and never has been Slick’s intent to honestly engage in a forthright debate. He seems to feel that his god has called upon him to debunk atheism, by intentionally and completely misrepresenting facts.
I’d say it was a job well done.
@Oskar Wolkerstorfer ϟϟ What Mike described in his previous comment is indeed a form of atheism (agnostic atheism, soft atheism, or negative atheism are a few names by which it is known). Soft atheism is to not believe in a theistic or deistic claim until such time that appropriate, testable evidence is provided for the claim. On the other hand, there is the hard version of atheism in which one makes the claim that a god doesn't exist at all. The key difference between hard atheism and soft atheism is that soft atheism only disbelieves a claim, while hard atheism disbelieves a claim and makes a claim of its own.
I agree, he acts like a teenager pulling faces and basically saying I’m not listening
Slick claims that Dillahunty dodge the questions while dodging the whole topic of the debate lol
I love how many times he says "but this is a topic for another debate" and then continues talking about it non-stop.
You must be new to Mat Slick.
No intelligence of the Bible cannot be written by a human brain.
@@jrcruz7828 All the more reason why if there was a deity, that knows a, it would know this and show the most unmistakable, plain as day presence of itself.
@@thegrayone5666
He will very soon looks like.
Matt Slick is such a great dude. Constantly clearing his throat and being as obnoxious as possible while Dillahunty is speaking. Once Dillahunty is done speaking that throat problem is suddenly completely gone. What a childish playground clown.
This guy gets it. Such a clown.
Not even addressing the intelligent arguments, just talked about how one debater clears his throat… okay
@dukezilla3471 I guess we didn't hear any intelligent arguments. And the rudeness and passive-aggressive nature of his arguments are what stood out.
He wouldn't shut up fr
@@dwijon not sure what debate you were watching then, him addressing the fundamental problems of atheism was rather reasonable.
One hour in and I remember why I don't like Matt Slick. He's incredibly, unabashedly dishonest.
+tctheunbeliever haha but you just ignore dillahunty rudely interrupting the host introductions.
THE LAWS OF LOGIC BEING TRANSCENDENTAL PROVES YOU WRONG.
your ad hom means nothing, you child. try again. you seem desperate just to make him look bad. maybe even know how correct he is
*****
I'm not making an ad hom argument, just a devastatingly accurate insult. I'll try to tone down my frantic desperation.
I hope English is not your first language.
tctheunbeliever he is a tower of babbel
"Your brain made you say that."
How far Slick has fallen - utter childishness. I'm sure Jeebubs is very proud of him for so expertly defending his faith.
You can't fall if you never rose.
@@Apanblod Slick used to use what I would call reasonable arguments - you know, the ones that actually refer to the world around us? Now... this.
Your brain also made you say this comment
@@Apanblod
If there is a hole to fall into, sure.
Ad hominem fallacy.
Try attacking the argument, not the person.
According to your worldview, it IS true the chemical reactions in your brain made you say that.
So you cannot trust those chemical reactions lead to coherent logic / reasoning.
"You can't possibly come up with a good strategy for chess because you can't explain why the rules are the way they are!" - Matt Slick, probably
And you'd notice that the rules of chess are different in different places to different people, and the basic structure of them EVOLVED OVER TIME. It's not like chess just popped into existence and all its rules with it.
The word 'apparently' is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that sentence. Not currently knowing the reason says nothing about whether there is one or not
Lmao don’t say anything slick we’ve heard the illogical fallacies and excuses y’all use to defend your ignorance. Nah we don’t need to talk about it after . Enjoy your silence
Pass on the article and the website
@@XYisnotXX Saying Not currently knowing is arrogant to you huh ... HA HA !
But saying you do know and it's something that you cannot show yet assert is being reasonable ..
I am in awe of Matt D’s patience.
Yea I would have broken slicks jaw and God wouldn't have stopped me
A patience born of impotence? I must say, I'm astounded at the power of self delusion that seems to be available to atheists.
@@dieselheart1 😂 sounds like projection mate.
@@dieselheart1 there is alot of self delusion with atheists, they are dying for God not to exist
@@dieselheart1 Really? Athiests aren't the ones that believe a magic sky fairy exsists and created everything. Seriously, I am trying not to laugh.
I think Slick's chemical reactions were slightly worse than Dillahunty's.
Jk, they were a lot worse.
That's why dilahunty couldn't refute him right?
So you’re admitting that your worldview consist of brains with just chemical reactions...
yOuR bRaIn MaDe YoU sAy It!
@@Robeebert
If that was not sarcasm, can you provide a coherent basis in your worldview for how "your brain made you say it" is not a valid claim and critique of the naturalistic material worldview.
In other words if you hold to naturalism, there would be no actual reason to hold to your naturalism.
Let me know if this is not your worldview.
@@gavin_hill
Methodological naturalism does not claim to be fully reliable to determine the truth, yet it is still as far as we can get to determine the truth. It simply acknowledges how our reasoning as human beings can be flawed and then determining what is reasonable to believe. Faith in God is not based on proof, it is no better way to determine truth.
I love Matt Slick, his dishonesty, ignorance, arrogance and childish behaviour in defending Christianity does more for Atheism than any atheist could ever hope to accomplish.
Keep up the good work, Slick, together we can rid the world of your asinine and unsubstantiated worldview!
Ad hominems
Atheists can only offer death. Jesus Christ offers life. Eternal life (to know God). Jesus Christ is man's only hope because he is the only one with the authority to give/offer life. So glad to know him. Matt D could never make an offer like that, he can only offer death because he is finite (limited). God/Jesus Christ/the Holy Spirit is infinite.
No religion needed. Just faith, faith plus nothing. 100% Supernatural - Jesus Christ - No additives.
@@paulgemme6056 Source?
@@bredincaptivity4692 Divine revelation. When one is born of the Spirit (the Holy Spirit) they share the same Spirit of Christ Jesus, and they are set free from the deception of the enemies (Satan - the devil) the world system and our self (the flesh). The flesh wars against the spirit until the believer is taken home (absent from the body, present with the Lord). The truth sets people free. Jesus Christ is the way, the truth and the life. No religion needed. Just faith, faith plus nothing.
@@paulgemme6056 See, you say all that but I have exactly no way to confirm that any of it is true. It's rather difficult for you to share your divine revelation with me, and seeing that I don't seem to get them myself I'm kind of stuck at the "cool story bro" phase of this. What would make it real easy to believe would be if Jesus gave a divine revelation to everyone. Or, you know, just showed up in person to prove that he's real. None of that has happened though, so I remain unconvinced.
"Your brain made you said that", "Chemical reactions can't reach reasonable conclusions"?!
He is arguing against thinking. Wow.
Cristian Garcia he’s technically refuting his own argument. If his brain is just chemical reactions (which he seems to assert is the case), then how can he trust his thinking is correct? It’s self-refuting, which by his own logic, means his argument for god is incorrect.
@@chrisducharme1729 exactly!
Even if his god is real, everything he can possibly know about that god is nothing but chemical reactions in his brain.
@@chrisducharme1729 no he actually isn't. Cuz he's assuming different world views for each thing. Like basically he said either you believe it's all chemical reactions and you can't get logic from that OR it's God and logic comes from God...
Im atheist but I understand where he's coming from for that.
@@chairwood Yes, I understand what he's saying. You'll notice I said 'he is technically refuting his own argument' and not accusing him of contradicting himself. The problem I have with his argument is that he's saying "it's either brain fizz or it's God" and every time Matt D. brings something up, Matt S. says "that's just brain fizz" or "your brain made you say that". But he operates as if there is a God and God is the reason logic exists. By his own understanding, Matt D. is using logic that God endowed onto him. By saying "it's just brain fizz", he is accepting that God is not a product in the logic process. He is simultaneously addressing two world views as if they're correct, despite them being in opposition to one another. That's why one of the questions to him was how is it he's addressing questions under two different world views (I don't remember exactly how the question was worded).
What is amazing that matt managed to keep his cool debating Slick when he is being cocky everytime like he would be asking of turning this debate into a brawl.
This whole time I've been thinking with my baking soda. No wonder my life is a mess.
Cripes, we call it bicarbonate of soda here in the UK. No wonder I couldn't follow that Slick 'reasoning'. Shite!
I lasted 1:21:00
And I couldn't bear anymore Slick's childish, overconfident, scornful, patronizing elusions. Unbearable.
I couldn't stand the throat clearing
@@southkeep3695 Then you really couldn't watch Kent Hovind for long.
He's the throat clearing master (...and, a consummate bullshit artist I might add)
I'm at 52:20 and I don't know if I want to go on.
I'm at debating matt slick, that's enough already
Good for you, he just kept repeating "you have one chemical reaction..."
How can Matt Slick enjoy science if the chemicals in his brain are telling him he enjoys science. Isn't that by his own definition self refuting. How can chemical reactions cause enjoyment?
Brian coming out with the real questions
Spheroid Earth Society How do you know I'm asking real questions. How can you trust the chemicals in your brain that lead you to believe you're reading something and that something your reading is a question from me?
Please answer, if you can't answer, your argument is self refuting and I win.
See you've got a point, it's kind of funny to me, because Slick disproves his own assertion in the same sentence he's proposed his assertion. His belief is simply chemical reaction, therefore it's self-refuting. It's honestly hilarious.
Spheroid Earth Society Hahaha! Now that is good....... how can he trust the chemical reactions leading him to not trust the chemical reactions!
Oh.... I love taking apart Slick arguments.
Brian Stevens Circular Reasoning at it's pinnacle here
"Well, you're a cut above Sye Ten Bruggencate."
As measured by the smallest of cuts.
matt won. matt always wins these.
Volound nah man matt wiped the floor with matt
Who is Matt?
***** hes the one that destroyed matt in the debate.
Matt is the camera man of Pewdiepie
Matt lives at my front door step. Oh wait. That's Mat.
"by grace ALONE, faith ALONE and Christ ALONE." Tells me all I need to know about matt slicks intellect.
You didn’t challenge that stance or provide any counter argument you just asserted that it’s ridiculous.Matt Dillahunty said that his worldview can’t count the laws of logic, that tells me everything I need to know about his intelligence.
Yeah, he has none.
@@pleaseenteraname1103 It dosen't need to be countered. Its pure pablum and can be dismissed. Slick cant demonstrate that grace exists, that faith is anything more than garbage, and that christ has done anything since being nailed up.
@@pleaseenteraname1103 Whatever "accounting for" even means in this case. Also, saying "God did it" is not "accounting" for anything.
Anyway, the point of the OP is that if you say that something does something "alone", then there can't be three things doing that same thing. They're not doing it alone then.
It's a semantic and logical thing.
@@pleaseenteraname1103it needs no explanation. Saying “alone” after three different things negates itself.
All I need to drive are an engine alone, four tires alone, and a driveshaft alone.
Slick clears his throat every 5 seconds for 2 hours. It's almost as irritating as hearing him talk.
Simply put, Matt is interested in appealing and talking to those who do not agree with him, and Slick is interested in scoring points with those that ALREADY agree with him. One is interested in objective truth, one is a politician
I met Slick on Paltalk years ago and I was a "believer" and couldnt stand his ego and his Calvinism.He rubs most people the wrong way no wonder his daughter is an atheist.Even then he only addressed what he wanted to and very tunneled visioned and give Matt props to be able to keep his cool with the Slickster.
Precisely and the size of Slick's ego becomes apparent during the Q&A section where you can see him smugly smirking with his arms folded, while Dillahunty is answering the question put to him by one of the audience members in regard to Secular Humanism. And when the best he can do when a young guy from the audience says he is confused about the conflict he personally has with Slick's claims of self-refuting claims in regard to logic, morality, and naturalism is that you need Jesus. That perfectly demonstrates how obtuse and narrow-minded he is in his thinking process which Dillahunty brilliantly points to time and time again, and which he casually brushes off due to his immense arrogance.
I didn't get that impression. Slick seemed like he cares about truth.
Wrong punk.
@@robertmcelwaine7024 Too bad the atheists are so ready to attack a person's character and not the arguments. It is a sign of intellectual weakness.
S: "I will not lie to you."
Seconds later:
D: "Does Christianity condemn slavery?"
S: "Yes."
I'm still laughing while typing this...
Jesus Defender if you speak of matt slick you are very incorrect. Jesus himself sanctions slavery.
Jesus Defender Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart,just as you would obey Christ. Ephesians 6:5. You are really gonna try and justify slavery with that response? It doesnt matter how long you are a slave. Fact is someone owned another person and jesus sanctions that.
Jesus Defender, what the fuck kind of Jesus sanctioned contract involving fearing your master and obeying them like you obey Christ are you ok with then? Seriously. I want to know what the hell else you think this could be. There are passages about when it is appropriate to beat these people.
Jesus Defender so are you ever going to make a point or just keep telling people that they need to read a different version of a stupid book? Don’t you think it’s sad that your gods words have to be ignored and altered throughout time? What kind of universe creating “creature” can’t get his message across correctly to the people he created? Why does your god have so many limitations? Tbh if back when the book was written and they had been inspired by god...after the Tower of Babel... wouldn’t he have them written in the different languages as well? But he didn’t because he can’t because he’s not real🤔 and this is the unchanging word of god? That’s been changed how many times? And stop comparing biblical slavery to a working contract. You don’t get to beat your employees in most countries anyway but maybe your holy book belongs out in the Middle East where it can be followed by primitive creatures that read an old book and think it’s inspired by something that can’t exist as it does in that book.
Jesus Defender, I have no idea where you are going with this “things are bad/don’t exist” bit. Slavery is wrong. The Bible very clearly condones, if not promotes, it. I ask again. What is this alternate interpretation that you are seemingly ok with that specifically includes one party beating the other, and the other having a religious-like devotion to the first? How is that, whatever you think it is, any better than slavery? The fiction you choose to follow promotes slavery. Everyone knows this.
Slick argues that a purely physical system cannot produce proper logical inference. Okay guys, throw out your calculators, they can't be trusted.
He seems to think that just because something is purely naturalistic, that it must be as simple as vinegar and baking soda. He is saying that because he doesn't understand how a brain relying solely on naturalistic properties could function, that it is not possible.
It really seems like all these debates end up at this point. Slick is really saying that in a purely naturalistic world, we can't have absolute knowledge about anything external to ourselves. Dillahunty agrees. But what slick is really implying is that he CAN have absolute knowledge, while simultaneously refusing to demonstrate how such a thing is possible.
Your brain made you say that.
Hahaha thanks for the chuckle. 10/10
Saying your brain is just a more complex version of baking soda and vinegar because they both involve chemical reactions is like saying a computer is just a more complex light bulb because they both use electricity.
His argument are also self refuting. If our brains are only chemical reactions and we cannot trust anything to be true then his belief in god is just a chemical reaction and he cannot be trusted.
I have no idea how Matt (Dillahunty) didnt point that out.
With that example it Shows instantly that his position is just nonsense. Just because they are chemical reactions, that doesnt mean, that they cant produce logical output. I dont get how he is coming to this conclusion. It is absurd....
Slick looks like he arrived late for a bbq, and wasn’t even invited
Wow...what an intellectual unbiased comment...lol
Jesus Journal Jesus Christ Karen it’s just a joke
@@mr.joesterr5359 You'r muted because of your cursing.
Lol...his ego is so massive that he equates such an event as this on the same level. If he wasn’t so desperate to feed his need for attention he never would have showed.
I try very hard not to have personal issues with people I disagree with. Especially when I know every time I see them they are going to be saying something that drives me nuts, but that isn’t who they are on a personal level, it’s not what defines them. But guys like Sye Ten and Slick are just so massively arrogant...openly. Makes it real hard to look past their “persona”, since arrogance is part of that persona. Seeing this guy waft on stage looking like he just mowed the lawn makes my skin crawl.
@@outtodoubt And you think Matt Dillahunty doesn't have a big ego???....lol He often tells God how He should have done things rather than the was He did.
This is a great example of why Mark Twain said “Never argue with a fool. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.”
Who gave this example, Dillahunty?
Kudos to you Matt, there's no way I could stand that much smugness and derision from Matt Slick to not just walk off the stage. Well done.
Thanks for admitting you're incapable of considering arguments conflicting with your pre-existing beliefs.
Dogmatism: The fallacy of constructing an argument within a UniverseOfDiscourse that excludes all evidence/arguments against it
@@lightbeforethetunnelhe didn't mean it literally, but good job making a fool of yourself 😂
@@kylebooth4948 There's no sign of that whatsoever in the OP.
@kylebooth4948 And it's not like it's even remotely uncommon for atheists to be excessively dogmatic like that, so I see absolutely no reason to think he didn't mean it literally. I have been debating atheists for years and they generally approach such debates with a completely closed mindset exactly like I said in my response. It's the rule, not the exception. So it would actually be extremely rare and unusual if he didn't mean it literally. I'd say you've got less than a 5% chance of being correct.
Especially when he's within arms reach. I would have snatched that smug bastard up within five minutes. Nothing slick about him.
2:21:30 Slick "If you can't account for the origins of logic, then you can't know your conclusions are valid."
So how then *does anyone COME TO THE CONCLUSION that a god exists?*
We're not born with knowledge. So each of us is born not knowing whether a god exists. At some point *we have to use reason to conclude that god exists. And on what basis (using Slick's reasoning) can the believer say that his conclusion of god existing is valid???*
Slick dug a hole for himself. His argument is circular. (And was not valid IMO to begin with, we can use things without accounting for their origins).
this is why religions target the most vulnerable...our children. Get them before they know anything and it sinks deep where it may never get dislodged
“clears throat”… “clears throat”… “clears throat”… “clears throat”… “clears throat”… “clears throat”… Says TWO words… “Clears throat”.. “Clears throat”… “Clears throat”… Fantastic debate, love listening with headphones…
39:47 "The proper answer is 'well,' not 'good.' It's a grammar thing. My wife and me did that with the kids, so I've learned it."
*My wife and I
It's not a big deal. I just thought it's funny that he messes up his own grammar while fixing someone else's. :)
Yes, it's rather an impolite opening gambit, really. His children's life must be one long carnival of joy...
Around the 1:25 minute mark, Dillahunty agrees with Slick that, "the laws of logic are not dependent upon physical brains." But this disregards two things: 1) There is not just one method of "logic" agreed upon by all humans. For example, Intuitionistic Logic, to name one non-classical form of logic, rejects the law of excluded middle, which both Dillahunty and Slick have agreed upon in the past. 2) Human understanding of logic evolved as a model _within_ our brains that comports with the natural world. In other words, logic is a language, an interpretation and extrapolation of reality, which people use to describe the observed consistencies in nature, including our own thoughts. From Wikipedia: "There is no universal agreement as to the exact scope and subject matter of logic." This being the case, how therefore can anyone assert with confidence that "the laws of logic are not dependent upon physical brains?" Logic then becomes an agreed upon set of concepts or rules within which two or more people choose to express ideas - but clearly, this is not "transcendent" in any way.
As for our brains just being chemical processes, Slick is right. Where Slick fails is not recognizing the complexity of emergent systems and the nature of, for example, computers that operate consistently and logically based upon physical processes alone. (See IBM's Watson computer profiled recently on 60 minutes for a prime example.)
Is a “complex emergent system” outside universal causation..? A complex robot is still a robot. Right..? Or do you propose that the robot can become a causal agent..? In other words: I don't see how complexity/emergence would be able to explain or produce rationality on naturalism ...
Laws of logic =/= logic
Logic is universal among humans. But tue reason why we all come to different conclusion is because we value reason, facts that we use for logic differently.
At least that is how I understand it.
the Christian guy is not making any sense he's doing a whole lot of double-talk
Slick wouldn't let the guy finish his question regarding neural networks because he knew it would demonstrate that a system where one state leads to another state can produce sound logical inferences. Also notice the "I'm not a computer science major but let me tell you how neural networks work."
How is it possible for theists to independently verify that God exists without using what they perceive to be the revelation from God ?
I wish someone would actually answer that question. It is phenomenal just how much time apologists spend avoiding it.
Marc Soucie
How would you independently verify God's existence? What would qualify as independent evidence?
Jordan Hartley One that does not rely on what they consider "revelation". Why ? Because if a being reveals itself and claims to be God, we cannot simply take it's word for it.
Jordan Hartley
Good question
This is not the job nor the problem of the skeptic. Define the god first, then develop falsifiable claims for testing.
Theist here. We know nothing of God without revelation, general or special. There is no independent knowledge of God because he transcends us, so we know of Him because he freely chooses to reveal Himself to us.
Why can't Slick just answer a question?
With ever repetition of "I love science", Slick sounded more and more like those people who say "I have many gay friends".
Also, Mr. Dillahunty, I take off my hat to you for not throttling this man around 1:10.
The losing side in this debate lost at the 13 min mark. He said he’s there to defend a position he believes in...Then he immediately discredits himself and any position he holds at 13:00 when he literally concedes that he doesn’t believe in absolute certainty by saying “it’s also worth noting that absolute certainty is not relevant to this discussion. I don’t see any path to absolute certainty. I’m not aware of any possible path to absolute certainty. I’m not absolutely certain about that.” If there is no absolute certainty then how can you be certain about any position and have The confidence to defend it? Furthermore how can we the audience be certain that the letters that make up each word he chose to say have an absolute meaning behind them? How can we be certain that this man is real and we’re not hallucinating or dreaming? Why should we care about a word that comes out of his mouth? The house of cards came down immediately. So when he starts from an illogical foundation his concluding arguments will be illogical too. The debate ended right there.
@@RationalGaze.BingChillin humans do not operate based on absolute certainty. None of us do. You may claim to be absolutely certain about x but all your really describing is your confidence in your belief about x. Thats it. Absolute certainty does not exist.
@@thenightlifenj1 are you absolutely certain that the words you chose when combined in the order you chose conveyed a message you chose that can only be interpreted to mean exactly what you meant it to mean?
@@RationalGaze.BingChillin words have usages. Based on the usages the sentence I constructed has a meaning.
Your playing a semantic game that doesn't address the argument. Demonstrate that absolute certainty exists.
@@thenightlifenj1 I’m trying to make a point and you’re deflecting. It was a yes or no question. My point is simple..if we can’t be absolutely certain about the language we use and the intended meaning given proper context then I could literally interpret what you typed to mean anything I want it to mean. In fact. You said you would send me $1000, when can I expect the money? See what I mean? You see the chaos that comes if we hold to this assertion consistently. There’s no lasting basis for confidence without absolute certainty.
I like how religious speakers are actually the best to listen to when you want to dump religion. Smug, condescending and pathetically llogical. Aren't there any capable (if that's possible) religious speakers who can actually debate on the point? Dodging not just his debater but also the audience.:) Sad.
" The Christian philosophical world view resides outside of the Christian brain?" :)
Try William lain Craig
There are some. You have to separate the wheat from the chaff. Which amounts to zero presuppositionalists ;)
@@lj4969 WLC talks like a stupid person's idea of what a smart person sounds like.
The father of patronization and smugness? Lol
@@lj4969 Craig is not it tho. He hides bad arguments in good vocabulary. And constantly appeals to other people's work
I want to know why Slick can't just argue the actual debate. Going off on this entire side tangent just made it clear he wasn't interested in debating the actual topic. It's so frustrating, because I would have loved to see an actual debate on whether secular humanism is superior to christianity, but instead we got this.
Thanks Matt for at least trying to engage in the actual topic, even though the arguments from Slick were't even close to on target.
+Mr.Teacher.McC, _"I want to know why Slick can't just argue the actual debate."_
Because he knows he would lose, and lose big.
Because guys like Slick are a one-trick pony.
The only thing Slick can debate is his version of TAG, which is why if you've watched on Slick debate, you've watched them all. It doesn't matter to him what the topic of the debate is. He'll agree to whatever topic the other person suggests and then just bring out his TAG script and stick to it.
@@thefaithslayer2553
It seems to work though. Dillahunty was at a loss for words.
@@janepatton8100 “Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.”
Oh my gosh, you can’t look at this honestly and tell me that Matt slick did not engage in the actual debate and Dillahunty did, Dillahunty never addresses the actual issue he dodges in these other areas constantly, and he didn’t understand what Matt Slick was saying most of the time, Matt slick was saying how does your worldview account for the laws of logic not doing auntie couldn’t answer the question, he kept saying my worldview accounts for the laws of logic by using the laws of logic, and then he finally admitted that he couldn’t account for the laws of logic.
Every time I watch a Consortium debate, I am always hopelessly disappointed by the result. The Christian acts like a child and a rude one like that. Dillahunty has more patience than me, I would have been tempted to end the debate the moment question time started and Slick gave the answer... "Read your bible." Then proceeded to play an epistemology word game about the nature of logic and ignore the debate topic. Not to mention being insanely rude all the time, patronizing and dismissive. I really wish the Christian camp could dig up someone who can actually debate the issues, not try to defeat the argument before it begins.
P.S. Also why the fuck is Slick making these weird vomit sounds, unable to sit still, interrupting, mouthing words and shaking his head every time Matt talks?
Autism
I assume he is doing most of those things because he is an insufferably smug and self confident prick. I found him more annoying than Sye due to his condescendingly smug attitude, and I didn't think that Sye would be outdone in the annoying factor.
@@data3214 Matt Slick show clear signs of autism (autism covers is a wide spectrum of mental disruptions). That is not an attack. It is simply how it is.
Because he knows it'll bother Dillahunty. Absolutely ridiculous man. @data3
@@redpaladin44 I don't think it is useful or respectful to attack MS when it was disclosed that he is autistic. Part of the behaviour is lacking social skills and poor or zero sensitivity to communication nuances. See his daughter's situation. friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2013/07/15/the-atheist-daughter-of-a-notable-christian-apologist-shares-her-story/
Apologists like Matt Slick and Sye 10 are so slimy it is just too hard to watch.
It's physically painful. Especially Sye. 😕
At least Sye, though, is openly like a sour-faced, hateful, angry little troll. Matt Slick is even more obnoxious to me because he's SUCH an incredibly intellectually dishonest scumbag but affects this chatty, glad-handing smarmy facade.
Match them with debater that is good with insulting them
2:24:05 thank you for this lady, I was shouting that an hour and a half ago at my tv screen, how do you know its not just your fizzy fizz telling you theres a magical man in the sky slipping the answers to you under the desk? You don't know theres a magical sky man Slick, your brain just told you to say that. This is what irritates me the most with apologists, like a snake oil seller, they propose a problem (don't show it actually is a problem), skip that step, and tell you they have the solution to the problem.. turns out, not only do they not convince you its a problem, but their proposed solution doesn't solve anything.
I think Dillahunty is missing a critical part here in regards to Slick's argument. Slick is trying to argue that a brain functioning on basic "chemical" reactions is unable to account for proper logical inference. What Matt should point out is that the BASIS behind brain function is not the PRODUCT of reasoning itself, just as the mechanical functioning of a car doesn't account for how the car interacts with its environment. The logical absolutes are "objects" or by-products of phenomena. Just as a car may hit a curb and be forced to react a certain way by the laws of physics (i.e. logical absolutes). So then, a brain that may be "forced" to react to laws of logic, and that synthesis produces proper logical inference.
I don't see why chemical reactions can't represent logic. A computer can. Logic is basically a simple set of tautologies, or equivalences that transform axioms and statements into new statements, not unlike chemical reactions actually.
@@landsgevaer and that's exactly the point. computers were designed and just cannot come out from nowhere.
@@MrSiloterio The fact that a designed system (computers) can implement logic does not show that a non-designed system (molecules) cannot. In fact, would you argue that the existence of molecules requires design? I certainly don't, they assemble quite spontaneously.
That is affirming the consequent, a fallacy.
@@landsgevaer spontaneous they may be, it doesn't mean they are arbitrary. Molecules are still exhibiting formation patterns that suggest they follow certain rules in order for a determinable effect to be realized. The next question would then be, if they aren't designed, why are they not completely arbitrary in nature?
@@MrSiloterio They follow the basic laws of nature, electromagnetism and QM in particular, which are simple and rigid and require no design and nevertheless lead to organization at larger scales.
It's actually quite pathetic and disrespectful to dillahunty the way these childish apologists argue. What happens is, someone like dillahunty makes a perfectly well reasoned argument, and the theist is like oh shit, i've got nothing... "but you cant prove your not a brain in a vat"... "you can't account for the logical absolutes" or some utterly childish response. They of course always come back to such stupid arguments because they know they can never challenge dillahunty if they ever agreed on the presuppositions (which they do) so instead they just try and evade and derail. As dillahunty said - we agree on the absolutes. You don't need to know their origin in order to use them.
Honestly, its pathetic and childish. Truly pathetic and bordering on insulting. I would love to know how many people are actually convinced by such stupid "gotcha" questions that slick thinks he is offering by suggesting that if you can't account for the logical absolutes then you can't know anything.
Jackson 83 No it’s just that you don’t understand the issue. It is impossible to ground or justify logic on a PURELY physical worldview because the properties of logic in and of themselves are immaterial.
@@theconservativechristian7308 Maybe it is you who is misunderstanding something. The point (made by both Mr. Dillahunty and the person whose comment you responded to) is that this "issue" is purely made up, both sides agree that logic is logic and works the way it does, it's just that certain people claim there is an "immaterial reason" for that. And instead of showing the evidence that lead them to that conclusion they point at the intellectually honest people while screaming "See?! They didn't pull a made up reason out of their asses, instead they decided to be honest and call the presupposition (we share) what it is! My worldview is clearly superior!". - It is not. At this point you are not just making up the god designed to be stuck into the gaps you are uncomfortable with, now you even made up the gap you can stick him into. Good job.
1:24:00 the douchebaggery and smugness have reached biblical proportions (pun, intended). I almost stopped watching.
I think we can now change from "brain in a vat" to "vinegar and baking soda"
Yup. What a garbagebeing.
haha, I may steal that word.
If vinegar and baking soda can't produce aspirin, how can ANY chemical reaction produce aspirin?
What about at 2:12:45 ? That smug little runt was unbearably annoying.
I'm so sick of Sye's "brain in a vat" analogy. There is no brain in a vat. Grow up.
Matt smoking a pipe and wearing a tweed blazer. He is badass philosophy man.
Slick didn't even address the debate question.
Frustrating man to listen to.
Yes he did. He undercut Dill’s position by showing it’s flaws. Just because his approach wasn’t direct, doesn’t mean he didn’t do it. There’s direct and indirect.
The Conservative Christian What flaws did he expose that he didn’t correct with more flaws?
@@michaelr5606 his lack of an answer was as honest as he could be lol
@@theconservativechristian7308 like Matt said he argued a straw man they both presupposed logic is reasonable before the debate because otherwise the topic is pointless because otherwise you’re holding to a red herring that we cant know anything.
@@michaelr5606 That kn atheism you are using tour brain to prove your brain especially while telling Christians they can’t use the Bible to prove God. Atheism, as I’ve seen it, is an intellectual catastrophe and presupposes more and has more blind faith than theism. I’m not even saying this as a zinger or a one liner. I actually believe that.
Matt, you are amazing. I don't know how you kept your cool while Matt S. Was being so incredibly rude, smug and condescending to even the audience, not to mention you.
Watching him was like watching a kid in the back seat of a car that is pointing their finger at their sibling while saying "I'm not touching you! I'm not touching you!"
Hand down, Matt Slick's demeanor in the debate was the most childish I have ever witnessed from someone purporting himself as a professional.
No he was imitating atheists
@@g--br1el985is this some kind of poorly veiled insult? Just making sure before I reply in kind.
@@101Osprey101 I mean, you don't want to admit that? So no atheist has ever been so SO rude
@@g--br1el985, is my take on Matt Slick really your biggest concern?
@@101Osprey101 no how so? I just said it to you
Are a stereotypically 100% accurate atheist
Like a bigot, some hate against Christians?
OMG Matt... I admire your patience... Slick wasn't even listing to you, he was typing don't now what, he just kept repeating the same brain+chemical sentence and insulted when he could... no wonder why you wanted to and that conversation
Matt “I flail my arms and holler like a teenager on the schoolyard” Slick. I haven’t even watched this whole video and I know it’s gonna be so cringeworthy on Shits... I mean Slicks side.
If this was a debate about whether Xbox or Playstation is superior Dillahunty would be comparing hardware specs, game library, company ethos while Slick would take 30 minutes trying to convince you that Playstation isn't actually a games console.
We know because bill gates said so. He revealed it to us directly in the windows operating system. Which is universal and the prerequisite foundation of all computer science. The west was built upon Windows, you know in your heart that bill gates is the way the truth and the light.
Slick is not made of atoms, he is made out of appeals to consequences.
This was really disappointing. Oh, Dillahunty was great, as always. But do Christian apologists keep getting dumber? I've heard of Matt Slick many times, but I think this is the first time I've ever heard him speak. And I was _really_ disappointed.
Well, I'm an atheist. I didn't expect to be convinced. But it would be nice to hear a good argument occasionally. This was just pathetic.
Kamil Gregor's comment on this video sums up the debate.
My god...jesus christ...this was mind numbing. I've followed all the Atheist Experience vs. Matt Slick "debates" over the years...but this match-up simply melted my brain. I had no _idea_ Slick was so...slick. Heheh...get it? -___- But yeah...Slick was awful, and became more and more emboldened in his dishonesty throughout the course of the night. But Dillahunty certainly held his own. And for that, it was worth suffering through this video...at least I learned something.
Your brain made you say that.
the reason I went to an AA meeting tonight and I was disappointed no one at my table talked about god, and "it" was only mentioned in the opening to the meeting where they do the 12 steps/announcements/new or visiting members and maybe 3 or 4 times. everyone at my table spoke with diligence and without using god as the framework, so it was so amazing because I took more from it than I expected, but all the things I didn't expect to take away..truly a great atheist experience (but I still walked away with slight disappointment)
I think that what you are experiencing is that as you watch more of these debates and as you learn more about logical fallacies and can almost point the common ones out in your sleep, you discover that there *are* no good good arguments for religion. One simply can't reason for it without making a logical fallacy. The best you can do, is to try to make the error as subtle as possible and hope that the other debater doesn't catch it, and if you do that on purpose, then you are a dishonest douchebag. That means that when you watch a debate with a religious person, you can expect to hear something that is either dishonest or incompetent or both, so if you hope to hear good arguments, you will forever be disappointed. The best you can hope for is to hear a fallacious argument that is actually new.
Does slick realize Matt d was a devout fundamentalist christian for over 20 years studying to be a minister?
The way slick was talking to him did not demonstrate he knew this?
If anything is *self-refuting*, it's the concept of an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good god.
How so?
@@armando8800 The concept of an all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-good god is self-refuting due to the fact that pain and suffering exists in the world. If God is all-good, they would want to put an ultimate end to pain and suffering. If God was all-powerful, they would have the ability to remove all pain and suffering from this world. If God was they would know exactly how to remove all pain and suffering from the world. Yet... pain and suffering exists. So God cannot be all-good, all-powerful, and all-knowing. Either they are all-good and all-powerful - and don't know how to remove all pain and suffering; all-good and all-knowing - and don't have the ability to remove all pain and suffering; or all-knowing and all-powerful - and don't want to remove all pain and suffering from the world.
@@armando8800 To elaborate on what James said, the problem of evil refutes the notion of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscience deity because that would logically necessitate a harmonious world. A god could be a combination of those two attributes, but not all three.
I'm firm in the position that god as an overarching concept can't be falsified, but particular definitions of god can be falsified, and the very state of our world refutes an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscience god.
@@galutproctar11145w That is not self-refuting, it's refuted by the state of the actual world. It's evidently false, not self-evidently false. Self-refuting means the concept has within itself a fatal flaw - independent of any evidence. Example could be Matt Slick's argument: If your brain is just a bunch of chemicals, it can't be reliable and thus we must dismiss its conclusions - while he is (at least in part) using his brain that admittedly uses chemical reactions. His thought attacks the validity of thought itself.
@@galutproctar11145w your self righteous narcissism blinds you to the obvious fact that Gods anger AGAINST the evil people in this world proves He is "good'', a term humans are not fit to use since their idea of good is only what is for their own benefit. God is omniscient which means He does not revolve around you, or owe you anything since you want freedom from God, it is your duty to come to Him. Which must be done His way since it is His presence that is Holy. He is all knowing simply because He made everything and the pathetic state of the world is evidence that God is kind enough and desires actual Love since He allows people to have the right to choose Him or reject Him.
The fact we have an eternal soul and all die means there must be another place meant for the soul where God will judge sin and rebellion and make everything right. The fact he has atoned for the sins of his people Shows He is merciful beyond our ideas of just and fair to save the lawless that He has chosen and sent as His own.
The target of apologetics is rarely to convert the nonbeliever; it's almost always to reassure the believer.
That's because they have a built in confirmatory bias. I have never known anyone, or known anyone who knew anyone who became convinced by an apologetic. Without fail, they believe first, and then form an argument to confirm their predetermined conclusion.
And your evidence for that claim?
@@theconservativechristian7308 Maybe instead of "target" the proper term should be "effect." Christians construct apologetics based on what sounds convincing to them, but apologetics only sound convincing because they already believe. I have never heard of anyone who became a christian because of an opologetic that convinced them.
@@strategic1710
Your OP would also mean that you have a confirmation bias, and by virtue extends that you were not convinced by an apologetic (reasoned defence) of atheism. So in your own words, and by necessary extension, about *atheists* "without fail, they believe first and then form an argument to confirm their predetermined conclusion"
But to deal with your issue, you are implying that it is reasonable to assume truth based on collective experience. On what basis are you assuming that collective experience is truth?
The issue is not one of evidence, it is an issue of your nature, you are by nature in rebellion against the God that you know exists. What evidence would convince you of the God that says you already have enough evidence?
Would you reject the only Son of God?
@@gavin_hill there are so many things wrong with that comment I don't even know where to begin.
listening to slick, and his bible bashing philosophy, is enough to make atheists of us all.
2:21:30
Slick seems to suggest that because simplistic chemical reactions such as baking soda reacting with vinegar don't give rise to logic, that therefore more complex reactions in a brain also don't give rise to logic.
This simply doesn't follow. Logic could be an emergent phenomenon, like a stone wall. Take any two stones and smack them together, and you'll never get a wall. But if you take stones of the right shapes and sizes and arrange them carefully, you can get a wall. Similarly, while any single chemical reaction almost certainly won't give rise to something like logic, if you arrange a large nunber of reactions of various types in just the right way, the emerging large-scale reaction could plausibly produce something like logic. Slick's over-simplification is just that, an over-simplification. In this case, an inappropriate over-simplification.
A big misunderstanding slick has is that he doesn't seem to see that complex systems can come from simple building blocks. I.E. the brain is chemical reactions, but the structure / complexity of those chemical reactions give us the ability to reason and have a sense of the world and ourselves
"I'm going to tell you what you think." Matt Slick was annoying af in this.
"How does the physical brain, where one chemical state relates to another chemical state, or changes to one. How does it produce logical inference?"
Simple answer, that's not how the brain works. But let's assume the statement about how the brain is actually correct, then what?
It does not produce logical inference, initially. That is why children train their brains to make logical inferences. Item looks hard and shiny, item also feels hard; item is likely metal. Yup it is metal because when I stuck it in my mouth it also tasted like metal. We then train our brains to make more logical inferences based upon more and complex information.
In essence the question is designed to stop someone dead in their tracks after the initial answer and prevent them from ever explaining the rest
So you basically said that we train chemical states to go into other chemical states to “train” our brains? What are you on?
@@avi1639 try reading my post again and try reading it comprehensively this time. Because I never made that statement in my post.
What I did was quote one person and then _assumed_ his statement to be true, after stating it was not.
Only to then proceed to outline we only get logical inference from training our young brain
@@wolfetone2012 I was responding to your quote from that guys assumption. Fact of the matter is, if you don’t want to believe in a God there is no point my arguing. Because believing in God isn’t about winning a argument, so anyways goodbye.
@@avi1639 so now you're making it even more ambiguous. Either you believe what's said in the quote, but deny children teach themselves how to make logical inferences.
Or you disagree with the quote but felt a need to ask me what I'm on.
Here's what makes even less sense though. None of what I have stated showes how nor what my believes are. Yet here you are making an assumption based upon me disagreeing with the ignorant ramblings of someone with specific believes. If everyone followed your lead, most of the world would be declared non-believers/infidels. And no matter what you assure about winning, we all know what happens when religious zealots disagree.
But more to the point. If you didn't want to argue, perhaps you should not have responded like a petulant little child
Slick: "Brain goes FIZZ therefore bible iz moar right!!"
How do you know that you know and how do you know reality is real. Doesn't even address the question.
@@TheNanoNinja how do you know that I know that you know that I don't know that you don't know if reality is real?
Are you really that ignorant and brainless. If that's all you got then you were either not listening or you have a very limited understanding on pretty much everything.
Brain goes fizz therefore nothing is beautiful.
@@forkfo90102 What is the difference between Dillahunty`s brain going fizz, and Slicks brain going fizz?
"it's just chemical reactions" yeah just like the rest of all the matter in the universe, Slick...
That was painful. I'm sorry you have to go through these debates in order to reach out to people contaminated with faith. Having said that, I don't know if I should like or dislike the video. Sye, I mean, Slick ruined the debate.
Oh, yes! And about the logic from brains thing, here is something you can use: a computer can perform mathematical calculations, even though it is just an electric fizz.
It just got uploaded, how do you know?
The debate was live streamed a few days ago and it's still available to watch.
Matt posts on Facebook that he has uploaded for patreons, so...
Henrique Sousa computer is more powerful than the brain
Matt Slick vaguely addresses computers in the Q & A section of the video, stating that computers aren't a valid comparison because they are designed by intelligent beings and operate differently from our brains. But I think your analogy is wholly apropos given that if we mere humans can design logic based computers using only "electric fizz" then certainly an all powerful god could do the same with his creation, _without_ reliance on a supernatural mind driving our brains... unless Slick is willing to admit that humans can do something his god is incapable of.
"A position cannot be superior if it's self-refuting" Aaaaand that was the point I stopped listening. I can only imagine Matt's reaction was the same.
You didn't miss much.
yes, Dillahunty basically shut down not long into the sit down round table because there was no way to talk about the actual point of the debate
Yup. Matt D presented an argument as to why he thought Secular Humanism was superior. Matt S basically made the argument Sye Ten made in his debate, except Slick's argument was that Matt D's Worldview couldn't account for Logic/Reason, so he had no basis to make such a judgment, because reasons.Slick agreed that Matt D could Reason and Logic, but because Slick felt like Matt D couldn't account for Logic/Reason, there was no point to give any rebuttal to the Subject matter....just a lame way to sidetrack a discussion he simply could not argue against.
sandor szabados The issue here is, Slick did it in his opening argument. The question was: which is superior, christianity or secular humanism? Superior meant "better at achieving one's goal". So what Slick was supposed to do was simply tell what christianity is, what it's goals are and how it achieves them as Matt did with secular humanism. Slick wasn't even supposed to waste time on logic.
And then he goes into this bizarre argument about self-refuting position. Thing is, whether secular humanism is logical or not, whether it has a formal foundation of reason or not, is *irrelevant* here. Secular humanism has a goal and accomplishes that goal in ways of x. Whether it's logical or not does not matter.
In other words, Slick attempted to use a hammer in order to clean a room, it was the wrong tool for the wrong job.
It's as if he was trying to argue that christinaity is the only possible position to even take, which is demonstrably false. Even if the existence of christian god is an absolute given it's quite clear that as a system of social cohesion, christianity is merely a one system of many.
I stopped listening at that point because if he's going to waste his and my time on trying to weaken his opponent's position *before* he can even define his, then he's got nothing of value to present me with. Secular humanism could advocate eating babies for all I care, the thing I wanted to know and he was supposed to explain was: what does christinaity stand for and what methods does it use to accomplish that goal. That was his ONE JOB and he can't even attempt it.
Arrakiz666
Yup, exactly.
"God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve, and biblical marriage is really the way to go, except that we're no longer allowing multiple wives and concubines and all that sort of stuff"
Made my day
As always, presuppositionalists are doing everything in their power to NOT have a debate.
But he studies DNA, quantum physics, biochemistry, and stuff.
azrnzala If it's Slick you're talking about, then it sounds to me more like he studied car salesmanship and stuff, whenever he speaks.
I know how actual scientists speak.
I can assure you that Matt Slick is not one.
Eitan Blumin But, he says he studied all this stuff! And that he likes science and stuff! (hint: I was being sarcastic).
He loves science; he wanted to be a marine biologist!!
Ben Carson AND HE IS STUDYING QUANTUM.FUCKING.MECHANICS RIGHT NOW!!!! Like shit, that dude must be so smart, and so boss, and stuff, to be like, reading about stuff.
Slick: "How can you trust your brain?"
YES. EXACTLY. That's why we study logical fallacies.
DUH
Matt Slick's throat clearing sound is....wow. You can set your watch by the regularity.
Right!? I was so confused why that was happening!? Like is he okay?
"Secular humanism can't account for the laws of logic, and god can." First of all, gods were invented by humans specifically to have something that can account for, and explain everything. Secondly, secular humanism doesn't try to, or have to, account for anything. Secular humanism is just trying to do what's best for all of us.
Even if secular humanism was broken that does nothing to demonstrate Christianity isn't also broken. Just because my tv doesn't work isn't evidence that your stove is fine. Slick is weak.
New Testament endorsment of slavery -
1 Peter 2:18
Slaves / servants, be subject to your masters with all fear, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward (i.e. cruel, unjust.)
Ephesians 6:5:
Slaves / servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God.
Colossians 3:22
Slaves / servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ.
Colossians 4:1
Masters, give unto your slaves /servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven. (..and what is their definition of just and equal?)
1 Timothy 6:1-5
Let as many slaves /servants as are under the yoke count their masters worthy of all honor, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort. If any man teach otherwise ... he is proud, knowing nothing.... From such withdraw thyself. (i.e. try even harder to please your master if he is a fellow christian.)
Titus 2:9-10
Slaves / servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God.
If that isn't enough, let's take an extra-biblical look at an early Christian letter from Ignatius to his disciple Polycarp -
"Do not be haughty to slaves, either men or women; yet do not let them be puffed up, but let them rather endure slavery to the glory of God, that they may obtain a better freedom from God. Let them not desire to be set free at the Church’s expense, that they be not found the slaves of lust." (Ignatius, Ad Polycarp 4.3)
......
Read some scholarship on the Cultural World of the New Testament
No thanks, I try to stay away from fiction.
What genre do these epistles fall under? Not "fiction". Stop making yourself look foolish
+Timothy Bukowski, what source would you suggest? Got a link?
Timothy Bukowski A fool believes that ancient writings influenced by an undetectable cosmic entity which details impossible events as historic is true.
But please, do go on.
Matt Slick effectively used the argument from personal incredulity: "I don't know how the brain can be the result of physics, therefore it isn't". He also used empty assertions like "the laws of logic are not related to the laws of physics". Erm, why not? We build transistors using the laws of physics and build computers with them that can do complex logic.
He also didn't seem to understand what "begging the question" actually means.
I'm wondering if Matt Slick didn't understand why he lost the debate, and therefore concluded that he didn't lose... (argument from personal incredulity again).
He knows how the brain can be the result of physics, he doesn't know how a physical mechanism can be trusted to reliably acquire and establish absolute logical truths.
It's still dumb.
And I'm not sure it's technically speaking an appeal to ignorance, because he does give justification for his view (bad ones, but still).
how can a computer produce true statements if it's only physical reactions?
Maybe they have souls? or there is a little human in there?
Just imagine, heaven for computers :D
Because computers are made by men with logical principals in mind?
@@nut913 That still shows that you don't need soul or god created mind to have that logic.
Slick's thinking applied to the "Giant's Causeway"
"How can geology produce geometrically regular columns if it's all just chemical reactions?"
The way transistors work is based on quantum physics which many people (including Matt D) claim to be pseudoscience.
1:42:06 He is factually wrong.
Just search...
"The Sentence of the Inquisition on Galileo"
by Cardinals of the Inquisition Read by Availle
Thirteen minutes of your life that will help you to know when others are telling you BS.
Exactly, well pointed out!
Wow. How that young girl (the moderator's daughter, I believe) asks and responds to Matt D's answers on why he should believe in Christianity is actually quite troubling to me. She's clearly not pretending to be that confident in her knowledge of God's existence - she's just baffled at how Matt can't see God and how good he is. Her parents have brainwashed her. If that's not obvious to even the Christians watching this video then I've given up hope on humanity.
if you're ''given morality'' by your god , why do you need to teach your children ABOUT morality ?
shouldn't they KNOW not to punch their brother in the face from the time they CAN punch their brother in the face ?
it's all so confusing
Jesus, this was tiresome. Slick doesn't approach the conversation honestly and it is so cringy to listen to.
I got a real "Who's on first. What's on second" vibe while watching this.
i love how matt slick said chemical and electrical reactions cant make logic even though thats exactly what computers do.
N0CliP computers have intelligent design. Imagine a “computer” that made it self
@@brendanshiels2971 are you implying that I believe life "made itself"? Yes a computer is designed. A computer isn't made of organic compounds capable of alter
ing themselves. Life on the other hand is capable of being altered quite easily. Anything from radiation to cell division can cause alterations to our dna which is what builds us. I did not make myself I was made by my parents. A computer doesn't make it's self either it is designed. however the original comment I made is still valid, logic can come from chemicals and electricity, computers are real world proof that you can build a machine capable of producing accurate models of reality. Our brains do the same thing. They are model forming computers that run off of sodium gradients and electrical discharges. And unlike computers, there is actual evidence that life on Earth evolves. I never claimed that computers were somehow "evolved". Just that they produce logic from electricity.
@@brendanshiels2971 the fact the computers have intelligent design in the first place is why they don't build themselves. firstly they we not designed to do that and even if we wanted them to humans are just too darn stupid as a whole to figure out how to make one that does build itself. However biologist are getting very close to creating self replicating "biomachines". I'm not too sure if they would classify as life or not but it sure would be cool.
N0CliP evolution would be life creating itself. Just like lightning is random and doesn’t follow any specific guidelines the “organic compounds” that you speak of don’t follow any logical inference by themselves. And the fact that something completely illogical created something that is logical shows that there was some sort of design.
The difference is that we intelligently designed things like computers to use electricity logically while humans are logical and much more complicated then computers and they just happened to form themselves it’s nonsense.
I admit that I am biased. Mr. Slick lost me in the first few minutes. I will try to get through this whole debate when I am not tired and ready for bed. What I heard didn't impress me.
He was all over the place in the opening argument. I couldn't follow him either.
I hope you don't mind, but I'm probably going to steal the phrase "nuclear strawman genocide" at some point.
His argument basically amounts to 'you can't have logic without a soul that magically makes you understand logic'. His argument hinges on the ideas that if human brains are 'simply' chemical structures - organic machines, essentially - then they can't be trusted to be logical. He never actually explains why a chemical machine is inherently unreliable, he simply asserts it and then acts like it's a nail in the coffin for secular humanism, which he claims is obligated to accept that human brains are chemical machines.
Frankly, it is unimpressive - human brains being chemical machines would not restrict them from producing ideas, concepts of logic, and identifying facts about reality.
+Yeeksquilack I believe it wasn't the soul that grounds logic but god. I think the presuppositionalist argument is that without god who is the perfect mind that grounds logic, you can't know anything. The soul seems to be yet additional baggage added to Slick's position somewhere else.
AbleAnderson Yep ...so, when slick demonstrates that laws of logic require a mind, that will be an interesting day.
Damn, I just got to the Audience Q&A and holy shit. Slick is so condescending and shows so little patience it's astounding. I think he thinks he's so vastly superior to everyone in the room that he's wasting his time even engaging with them.
Matt Slick did not engage in an honest way. He was simply smug and sounded over his head. Matt D is clear and on topic. Matt skick seemed nervous and clearing his throat constantly. If you look at the non biased i see no way to say Slick won.
Ohh...Matt D. can't answer the question of Matt S. Hahaha
@@teniedojedfloydg.6760 No one can. Matt is honest. Matt S makes stuff up with no evidence. Magic did it is not an answer.
I’m 69 years old and I’ve not heard anything quite so ridiculous in my life. I watched the whole debate and admittedly I did struggle with some of the dialogue (However On a positive note, I did learn rather a lot). For a supposedly rational human being to actually believe that secular humanists cannot think logically because their thoughts are merely chemical reactions is ludicrous. But what is even more ludicrous is the belief that Christians’ logic comes from God sticking his fingers in their brain and manipulating the thought process. I mean, the man is totally ga-ga. Kudos to you Matt for your brilliant presentation and for not literally drowning that arrogant t**t in his own spit and vinegar.
I know and it's ironic that in this very debate it's logic and reasoning albeit a flawed one that he applies to attempt to argue his position. If what he was saying was true then the debate they were having wouldn't even be happening. How can he argue such fallacious nonsense!
Slick didn't say secular humanists can't be logical. He said the opposite.
@@robertmcelwaine7024 Obviously because he correctly believes atheists are created in the image of God, just like all other humans. That's the whole point. The debate can take place because God exists. If God does not exist debating is useless, because the whole show is just chemicals fizzing, producing secular humanist vs theist thoughts. Not truth.
@@wspek Just because none of us can explain how chemicals in the brain can't lead to logical reasoning, doesn't mean Science won't eventually be able to. Saying, oh well it must be Good is lazy, specious reasoning. If mankind used your reasoning we'd still be living in caves.
@@wspek Btw For your assertion to begin to work, you have to prove that God exists in the first place. Can you do that?