I don’t think you can just decide to believe in god. If he is up there and you met the guy he would know you did not truly believe. But no reasonable god could condemn for this as there is so little evidence.
@@ARoll925 A well respected attorney here in Riverside, lives next door to me, probate for almost his whole career, the guy even had the keys to the courthouse, anyway, one day he was explaining Jesus to me (btw this guy is gay, he's not a Christian, he just happens to like me and was sharing with me on that basis, not all gays claim "atheism") he was explaining Jesus as The Logos, the Word. Here's the standard (that you're right in dismissing when you're claiming "atheism"): Logos, (Greek: “word,” “reason,” or “plan”) plural logoi, in ancient Greek philosophy and early Christian theology, the divine reason implicit in the cosmos, ordering it and giving it form and meaning. My genius friend put it quite eloquently in his line of work fighting for every person whose parents died, anyone going through probate, he said, "the word logos or "apology is the word we use as *defense."* You don't have an offense, you're all offensive, you don't have a real argument, I know them all, they're all crap, and you're argumentative as is the case here, AND when it comes to this word *DEFENSE,* *_you have none._* Holy people blow through you and your religious beliefs like we're butt surfing the whole lot of you Dunning-Kruger stylized participants here.
LOL Really? That's it? If...wait a second, let's be delicate here...let me capitalize that word for safety sake...IF, God is real, I think his super-duper hyper intelligence would be able to differentiate between a Christian and a faker.
@@chosenone8408 - Maybe you should read my comment again. That a supposed all knowing god would not be fooled is why pascal's wager is such a stupid concept.
You bet your life on that. I'm a descendant of a thousand years of Jewish Bankers, we sold a couple of apartment buildings and our hospitals and then transitioned into now what must be a Guinness Book World Record 17 years in a row as the #1 mobile home dealership in California. I stopped 30 years ago (IRS reasons) but all the deals I did before that, all those people own their homes and land (private property, Riverside Land and Mobile Homes and Loans) *FREE AND CLEAR!* They don't have to make payment to a bank or a Landlord. I DID THAT! Your guy has done NOTHING with his life, Dillahunty is NOTHING! He hasn't made a single home or spiritual improvement to anyone or anything. He has no education!
@@christopher6754 He's not using anything he learned in the Navy to claim "positive atheism; anti-theist; & you're making the claim at least on deity exists." We're all betting with our lives, and no holy person thinks *GOD* and the supernatural are related in any way to the mythological gods of literature. He has a call in show where "theists" he says believe in gods, not *GOD.* Dillahunty has changed every word in the English language, a natural language to conform to his religious tuning and frames every aspect of the debate so he can't lose and pretends like he's on some kind of goddamned search for the truth, when he just tries to excoriate the forgiven for the entertainment and amusement of his legion of highly charged religious fanatics. Pardon and all, I'm not a good person any more, and it's all this Satanically wound materialist orthodoxy dripping in the blood of the saints giving teenagers who never studied *Divinity* in their life the negative spiritual charge to attack what it is they've shut themselves off from their whole lives to avoid the service you're talking about. He's drinking Christ's Holy Blood one minute and then saying He doesn't exist the next and that he's come up from his deconversion to give the godly a few seconds to try and convince him of something he can only find on his own or not at all. He thinks knowledge is justified true belief. His followers believe they have the right to deride people based on no criteria whatsoever apart from they won't agree with Matt's religious faith, "Oh, we're not religious," Yeah, neither am I. That lie won't work with me. "At least one deity exists"
@@NyxSilver8 ok... So this started off with you going on a tangent about how you sold people homes and then went on to say that Matt is nothing and has never done anything. I point out that he is a veteran and your response is to ramble on without about... something... it was borderline incoherent. It seems like you genuinely haven't listened to anything he has ever said. All he does is, albeit often rather sharply, point out how the points and arguments raised by the callers and debate opponents are using flawed epistemology and providing unsound arguments. If someone is going to convince him, or any other person who values whether or not their beliefs are true, then they ought to provide good reasons for their position. If they can't do that then it is not justified. Matt isn't the only one who believes that knowledge is justified, true belief. Plato also held that position and it is talked about extensively in the Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy on the epistemology page.
@Joseph //Jesus is coming. Turn to him and repent of your sins or you're gonna burn and be tortured in hell forever// If we weren't already inured with Christian mythology within our society...more people would see it for what it actually is = a primitive blood worshipping, sacrificial-death cult, born out of ignorant ,superstitious minds that clearly embraced sadomasochisme and slavery while also projecting self loathing. (Is it really any wonder then, that religious fundamentals and fanatics constantly warn of hell and literally cannot wait for 'end times'? ..only total destruction of this world will do for them). This imaginary god and the religions created in its name merely resembles the ultimate bully / abusive partner, promoting fear and self loathing in order to sell its absurd magical cure while extorting conformity from the naïve with promises of reward and or threats of punishment in 'magic land' after death. Regarding the bible...a reminder ,it got nearly everything wrong about the natural world , the cosmos, history and morality (for which believers laughably claim it to be the source of) while also weaving mythical/magical absurdities (much it borrowed from earlier religions) into its core narrative. There is literally nothing credible about any of the Abrahamic religions and the claims made within them ,this conclusion has become overwhelmingly obvious to all critical thinking people who champion reason and logic over superstition and credulity, while also understanding the value of good evidence. Some day this nonsense will end , and the whole of civilization will look back at all religion in total disbelief.
Darth Dawkin's fan club targeting and harassing Matt with no real goal of discussion is a perfect example of how apologists are targeting Matt himself instead of the issues
@@Omnorimli Thats because Gary doesn't have an argument. He has a script. He is incapable of going off script in his arguments which is why he gets so angry when his progression path isn't followed. He isn't capable of thinking up rebuttals to various issues on the fly or doing the work necessary to formulate his own. So since they aren't a part of the script he works from, he gets angry and frustrated. This is what happens when you don't come up with your own ideas and arguments. Thats why "debates" and conversations with him end up being pretty worthless.
Pascal's Wager seems kind of insulting to believers, when you think about it. It's like he assumes that God would be happy with insincere groveling to save your ass, rather than honest belief (or disbelief).
We both have varying levels of degree of belief/commitment to the side we're on. In fact, I don't have a side here with any thing more than me on it, and at the same exact time, my ministry is the same as Christian's, the *_ministry of funny walks,_* - no, that was a joke, it's the ministry of *reconciliation* found in 2nd Corinthians Chapter 5.
A god which prefers insincere belief over informed and honest scepticism is an insecure and petty dick. Which is exactly what the biblical god character is designed to be. Insecurity and pettiness were perfectly acceptable traits in a leader back then. They’re still common now, but they don’t wash quite so much.
@@Conserpov There's a song by Michael Card and popularized by Amy Grant namely El Shaddai. Means "The Breasty One" - Just as the story goes you're drawing your conclusions from the same Bible as all the others where Jesus was NOT the strongest and most powerful leader of the most powerful nation. His life as a minister ended shortly and very abruptly and was as humiliating as they Romans designed that torturous death to be. I don't believe Jesus forgave the people who murdered Him. When would that end?
It shows that being good at math doesn’t imply all around intelligence. Same with Newton: mathematical genius but outside of that he was obsessed with heretical religious ideas and alchemy.
5:36 Sal isn't nice. He pretends to be nice to get points for being nice after he gets his opponent riled up. And if anything, he is actually pretty nasty for how he gets people riled up, which he demonstrated a few times in the debate.
yep, he's the poster boy for passive-aggressivity, repeatedly distorting and misrepresenting Matt's positions, and then apologising fulsomely and pretending it wasn't intended, and then doing it again. His whole approach was to dissemble and then act like a beaten puppy hoping that nobody would have the heart to kick him again.
There appears to be a number of apologist, Ray Comfort leading them, that will agree to any debate so they can then proselytise. They don't want to debate, because a number of them know they will lose the argument, because their evidence is inconsistent and cannot move with modern views. It's like trying to say that a 1970s car is the pinnacle of design, when our view of what is a good car has changed.
Cordova's Wager: 1) If I stick to the point, I risk losing the debate 2) If I start talking about something else, I cannot be said to have lost C) Therefore God
@Joseph what a lovely god you have. Hey Joseph...give me $50 or I’m gonna break your fingers....okay?? I’m a great guy ain’t I??......I’m joking, I don’t want money from you, because I’m a decent person, unlike your god
What if there is a god that only throws people into the worst possible Hell if they use Pascal's Wager and sends everyone that doesn't to the best possible Heaven?
@Joseph Judgement day is coming and Allah won’t give you a free pass, the Islamic story of hell is worse than the Christian stories. I’d switch if I were you, you’re being foolish.
Dare i say this is the job of the organisers mainly, to ensure they don't keep bringing 'evading' debators to ensure accuracy, quality and professionalism for their audience and brand. It's also partly on the moderator, i feel, to ensure any party doesn't constantly side/over-step.
@@Vivi2372 The reason I avoid it like the plague unless someone like Matt's on. Probably best to watch these debate reviews, tbh. James just lets two people talk at each other and reads comments,
The guy who runs the channel send like he's probably a nice enough guy otherwise but they are the absolute worst for letting absolutely anyone debate no matter how dishonest and still bringing them back multiple times.
Modern Day Debate is a pretty terrible channel if you're looking for real debate. They regularly bring on dishonest debaters who either 1.) present no evidence, or 2.) do not argue the debate topic. James seems to be far more interested in just platforming the crazies (flat earthers, geocentrists, bigfoot believers, conspiracy theorists) and pitting them against people with actual facts, just for the sake of having an "EPIC" debate. Just watch any of the debates and how he begins almost every single one with "OK guys today's gonna be another EPIC debate." The channel more closely resembles a shitty morning radio show than an actual debate platform. The format itself also needs a LOT of work. Considering the dozens of superchats they read, they sure don't use any of that money to buy better equipment. Half these debates just devolve into shouting matches with very little to no intervention from the moderator when things start getting heated/out of hand. When the question/answer portion from audience superchats begin, James spends more time reading troll comments than actual questions. But it's all okay because DID YOU SEE THIS EPIC DEBATE BRO? It's truly sad considering how badly they've squandered the opportunity they've been given to actually host meaningful debates. In its current state, Modern-Day Debate is a circus.
@@AeonCatharsis It kind of reminds me of the Pangburn days. After Pangburn, I am extra wary, and I have already seen signs of unnecessary drama on James' channel.
Watching this debate was so painful! I really was worried, that Matt would be viewed as the mercyless school bully, stuffing Sal "small child pattern" Cordova into Pascal's locker... But I am so grateful, that someone did it at last, after so many clever people who obviously fell for Sal so meek and mild and didn't show him his place.
@Joseph Jesus has been coming for 2000 years. You need to give me more than that before I start shitting my pants over it. Maybe when he gets here he can explain what sin is because I'd bet dollars to donuts you can't.
@Joseph even if that was true which its not who would worship such an evil dictator that would kick people into a pit of fire for the "crime" of not believing in said dictator when they refused to show themselves? not only is your god not real its one of the most evil characters in all of fiction.
@Joseph You say... "jesus is coming" When is that exactly? You say... "Turn to him" In which direction should I face ? You say... "Repent for your sins" What is a sin ? You say... "Your going to burn and be tortured for forever in hell" Where is hell at ?
It feels like over the years this has happened with AXP as well. More and more callers every year seem to have no interest in honest discussion about the issues and only care about winning a debate or taking down Matt. I noticed this year there were TONS of callers who were intentionally trying to get Matt to yell at them so they could say "dude why are you so mad?" and claim victory.
This is why Modern Debates is a waste of time. James is such a nice well meaning guy that he wouldn't dare step in and stop a debate that's veering off topic.
I've watched some Darth Dawkins "debates" that James has hosted on Modern Debates that have been complete clusterfucks because James just WILL NOT make Darth Dawkins follow any sort of basic rules of courtesy or discussion.
Love your videos Matt, been following for years. I would suggest that in your future opening statements at debates (which you should ask to speak first) that you include that the debate needs to stay on topic and if it doesn't you will leave. It seems like a bunch of these recent debates have almost been a waste of your time. All the best.
*Matt hits the nail on the head in this one.* Matt's final analysis that apologists are just trying to take Matt down a peg is exactly what is happening. Listen to Canadian Catholic raging with others at Matt Dillahunty and ending his time on Atheist Experience. While they focus in on Matt, Matt focuses in on their ideas. We're watching as Christianity slowly loses it's footing in America. Apologists are freaking out as the younger generation is less likely to stay religious. It's been shown time and time again that they're losing people in the 16-24 range. Why is this? Exposure to different ideas can change the minds of individuals. So why debate the ideas? Why give someone the ability to see different viewpoints if the different viewpoints are what could possibly shift their position? I've watched as people who are religious call in to an ACA show and the ACA has nothing but kind words to them. Dan (of Truth Wanted) has a few favorite callers who are religious! The ACA isn't about mass conversion. The ACA has shown time and time again that they're about humanism and skepticism. If someone is still convinced of the God they believe in and treats others with respect, the ACA gets along quite well with them.
The part about apologists not sticking to the topic or even trying is not just an issue matt has issues with lately, but it appears to be something going on through the field
Pascal's wager has always been a hitch while I was being brought up. The idea that God will let people in heaven even when knows their faith is built on a fear. True devotion cannot come from fear
@@boterlettersukkel Youve been brainwashed. the evidence is walking talking sentient life! to which you still don't have an alternative explanation for
Do you think you'd ever consider hosting debates? Just thinking maybe you can steer arguments aroumd when the opening statement isn't even relevant to the subject.
I am very glad that Matt addresses the problems with the debate he had with the nub who hadn't prepared to debate Matt on the topic they agreed on. Problems like the nub not addressing the topic at all, or any of Matt's arguments on the topic and the nub being responsible for how it looked to the choir he was preaching to. To me, the guy just looked like a completely unknowing child on their first day in school where they're expected to have at least learned how to speak a handful of coherent sentences and not poop their pants and eat the poop. I bet his teachers remember him as the kid that ate his own poop. The only thing that surprised me was that he wasn't writing his claims on the wall with poop.
Interestingly enough, I think a simple, concise dialogue is easier to digest than showing an overload of information that while tied to the topic at hand, may not be necessary to know in order to grasp the essentials of the concept. Sal seemed nice, but the issue is it can be more difficult to debate and have honest discussion with nice people. as you pointed out.
It amazes me how so many apologists bring up Pascal's wager, it has to be one of the worst arguments ever. Do these people really think that it's a profound thought?
Addressing the actual topic of a debate is secondary to a theist, if that. Their main intents are to sing to their own choir, and give a gospel presentation to the unbeliever.
Dear Matt. You have watched more Atheist Debates than I have and you thought an apologist would have something new or stay on topic? I gave up that notion a while ago. Seriously though, keep up the good work. I watched a lot more of your stuff back when I was leaving the church, somewhat hoping Christians would come out with a fantastic bit of information. I had a bit of a turning point when I realized it’s an old ass book, it’s all there already, there can’t be any new surprises.
Matt. Next debate just use this opening line. Matthew 21:22 And whatever you ask in prayer, you will receive, if you have faith.” Why is the fucking virus still here after 1 1/2 years of prayers? There is no god or he doesn’t give a shit. Pick one. . Everyone will cheer
Concerning the format of the video; some of us just like to listen while we do other things, so the visuals are somewhat lost in that case. I don't mind more visual elements, but I want to be able to get the information from the video (or a vast majority of it) only by listening, and not having to focus intently on watching the video.
Blaise Pascal was actually a very good mathematician and the founder of probability theory, which makes it so hard to believe that he may have proposed a wager without considering all the probable scenarios, on the contrary he may have probably created this wager theory as a social experiment to see how religious and non religious people respond to it and dare I say this but most people took the bait.
Sincere question -- Is Pascal's Wager assuming that there can only be 1 possible god(the one they were born into) or there is none? Is that what Pascal's Wager is assuming? Because as we all know there are THOUSANDS of supposed "gods"!! So what if you use that wager for let's say god #131, but you die and there is a god!! BUT...it is god #498,887!?? And he is "A Jealous god"!?? Wouldn't that supposed god be more angry with all those religious people that used Pascal's Wager for the wrong god more than he would be angry with all the Atheist? Just think, the Atheist didn't believe in the "real" god, that is One Strike. But the religious not only did NOT believe in the "real" god, Strike One, but they DID Believe in a different god! Strike Two. That is Twice the sin!!
Good review and I agree that it is often frustrating that James (and other mods like Justin) do not do their core job. For the most obvious example see Aron Ra's "debate" with Nathan Thompson.
11:05 The Bible records many incidents of people seeing miracles and then losing their belief so clearly this is not a path to permanent beliefs (or the miracles weren't nearly as impressive as the Bible implies).
Wouldn't an all-knowing being's existence make quantum indeterminacy impossible in the first place? If such a being existed, all wavefunctions would be collapsed at all times, and no interference patterns would appear in the double-slit experiment, since the which-way info exists the whole time.
Haven't seen the debate, so I'm confused. Have done some Popper format debating so here goes. If Sal was the opener of debate and didn't define the problem or "Pascal's wager", then why did Matt in his opening not point to it and give the definition himself and by that force Sal into his strict definition? I seem to understand, that Matt doesn't like the point system of debates and the winner/loser, but the point system is good for those cases, because they let us show, where people fuck up. Giving a definition should be A-B-C of every debate. It also forces opponents to talk about the topic and not go astray. Was is just "miss-play" by Matt, 'cause he doesn't like the debate format or something else?
I went to listen to the debate. Heard enough of his opening to get to the point where your opponent started on his second miracle testimony claim. I hopped back over here because I was done listening to that.
Another take would be if you believe but do have doubts .. a loving God should understand that. But then you would have to wonder why God wouldn't just satisfy your doubts or answer your questions.
James seems to let things slide on mdd I think since he concentrates on super chats, but Pascal’s wager seems to be his thing he had a talk with Doug on his pinecreek channel about it, would’ve thought he’d be more interested in the discussion itself.
Discussion Debate Modern Debate channel does Makes it happen. Whole point of formal debate with Opening, First rebuttal,Second Rebuttal and finishing statement helps one debator to remain in topic but Discussion topic often changes in Brain dead Argument. I think Modern Debate channel should change the format of the debate.
Sal turned up to the debate and had no idea of what a debate is, what Pascal's Wager is, or even what a conversation is. It was just as embarrassing as I expected.
Question Matt or anybody why do some atheists get mad if you ask them to explain evolution, or they can’t explain they may say “well read up on it”. If evolution is the best explanation of how we all came about then it really should be easy to explain?
As an analogy for why evolution isn't something that's easy to explain, yet still our (science) best explanation for the diversification of life, general relativity is the current best (most accurate) explanation for physical motion. It's far more complicated than what's needed for mostly everything in anyone's life, but without it, the orbit of Mercury couldn't be accurately explained along with everything else.
Pascal's wager is merely a philosophical musing, but if I had to argue in favor of it's soundness, I would merely point out that it's a philosophy that most people subconsciously live by anyway. Unless you know for sure whether God exists, whether you're religious or an atheist, you are living in the realm of possiblity and "whatifism" (I totally made that up and enjoy it).
It would be great if there was some kind of community rating of these debates to save time watching the same tired evasions and non arguments of apologists. I'm starting to think I'd rather watch Matt 's debrief than the actual debate, which is a dangerous echo chamber... But that's what the paucity of debate is leading me to. And that is a terrible state of affairs if apologists truly want to change minds.
I dislike pascals wager because there are about, lets say 400 or so, religions. So really, belief in Christianity and atheism has the same odds of being true if we are just going by numbers... about 1/400.
@@patriklindholm7576 For there to be a _perhaps_ there should first be a possibility and for there to be a possibility to consider it has to first be shown. Has anyone shown that a mind exists or can exist that wasn't an emergent property of matter? If not, no creator god or their subsequent stories should be considered possible and instead be dismissed immediately.
Pascal's Wager is not even an arguement, it's a bit of mental trickery to convince the doubting mind in absence of any good, sound justification. Pascal himself didn't think his "wager" was a sufficient reason to believe. I believe Pascal must have been aware of the flaws in his famous wager, because he says things like: if you cannot make yourself believe on the grounds of evidence, than you may find this useful (I'm paraphrasing, obviously. What I mean to say is that Pascal acknowledged that there's no good reason to think that gods are real, he acknowledged that his wager is not particularly strong, because he implies that he wouldn't believe on the basis of his own wager, and he speaks of trying to convince yourself in spite of the evidence, because Pascal believed that believing to gods is at least useful, if not necessary for the sake of conformity).
Where are you getting this information? Pascal never said anything of the sort. He certainly did think there were good reasons to believe, that’s why he wrote an entire apology for Christianity. As he says in the wager fragment, the problem isn’t with reason but with “passions”. The skeptic he’s addressing doesn’t have the will to believe.
@@thescapegoatmechanism8704 I'm speculating quite a bit to be honest, but I do believe the Pascal didn't believe his wager was actually a compelling argument, because, as you say, that wasn't the reason he believed (if he even did in fact believe, or if he was merely faking it. He certainly thought that one should fake it if they can't believe in earnest). What was the reason Pascal gave for his belief?
Unfortunately you can't CHOSE to believe in Pascals Wager even IF it seems like a beneficial thing to do. You could chose to act as though there is a God even if you don't believe but then that God would know you don't actually believe and then you wouldn't get to heaven .
The wager isn’t even really an argument about believing in a god ... it is an argument about avoidance of a possible hell. In order to really follow the advice of the wager, therefore, one should research world religions to determine which one has the worst possible version of hell ... and then follow that religion.
To be a bit more precise on what the pascal wager is, it’s not « if you follow Christianity, and you’re wrong, you lose nothing », it’s that if you follow Christianity the cost is negligible in case you’re wrong compared to if you didn’t follow Christianity and you were wrong. Reciprocally, if you didn’t follow Christianity and you were right, your gain is negligible compared to if you follow Christianity and you were right. It’s all nonsense obviously, since it would apply to all religions, since it doesn’t take into account which hells are worse and which heavens are better, since it doesn’t even take into account the possibility of a god that rewards skepticism, which isn’t any more implausible than Christianity... Forget that, it’s actually more plausible -_- Point being : the wager is nonsense, but there is an admission of cost if you follow Christianity (or another religion) and you’re wrong, and an admission of gains if you don’t follow Christianity and you’re wrong.
@@dustinmorton942 I think I already have. In any case, I was initially not going to click on this video BECAUSE I thought "I don't really need to rehash Pascal's Wager again", but then I needed something to stream into my ears while I was out walking and decided to tap this video anyway. So in a sense I was fortunate that this didn't have much to do with Pascal's Wager.
The actual debate isn't that long. There's a long Q&A with the superchats, then it ends, and the moderator just talks solo for about an hour to chatters. Only put yourself through it if you want an example of a complete waste of Matt's time.
Hey Matt, have you ever been tempted in a debate after someone refuses to engage on the topic to say "as my opponent's statement had nothing to do with the topic, I have no reply" and stop talking?
Matt, stop agreeing to appear on modern day debates unless the “moderator” can stop being such an utter failure. Nearly every time he’s a complete disaster.
If you really wanna see a failure of a moderator, just watch Aron Ra's debate over flat earth. Or don't, because you don't deserve the ear bleach of Aron's opponent, nor the dishonesty of the moderator.
Not staying on topic is common with theist. They mostly dont have a scientific mindset (looking at one(!) problem from all sides). It is a bit annoying to always have to remind them of the topic at hand.
Sal Cordova was so incredibly disrespectful of everyone during this debate. The moment he understood that he couldn't bluff his way through and admitted he didn't understand Pascal's Wager he should've apologized to everyone for being unprepared and just left it at that. What was the point of continuing on and why wasn't the "debate" finished then?
If you want a debate on Pascal's wager, why don't you ask to a philosopher who actually studied Pascal's philosophy? It would be much more interesting that one of these pointless god vs no god debates which convince nobody and we could learn about one of the great epistemologist (and arguably first thinker of nihilism) of the 17th century. It also seems that most apologists and some atheists have never read the original text or don't know anything about Pascal's philosophy. One common misconception is to think that Pascal thought that the wager argument should work regardless of the assumptions you make on god. The standard counter argument is to day that he ignored other religions. But this is simply wrong, he was perfectly aware of other religions and he discussed Islam and Judaism in many other parts of "les pensées" (the original text of the wager). In truth the wager is just a response to a skeptic's objection (in a fictious dialogue): "how can you say that you believe in something whise existence cannot be proved by reason". Pascal proposes one possible anwer with a SPECFIC set of assumptions (you go to heaven if you believe, nothing if you do not). The point of this argument, is to show that under these assumptions, even if you cannot decide rationally about he existence of god, it may still be rational to believe. For some, reasons apologists and some atheists alike have interpreted the wager has a general proof that you should believe, independently of any prior, regardless of what you think is the nature if god or your assumptions on the alterntives. I cannot find what in the original text would make you think that Pascal said so. It's also perfectly silly to assume that Pascal who was a genius mathematician did not know that the result of a theorem depended on the assumptions of the theorem. Many people who did not read the text also says the wager is bad because you cannot decide to believe. This point is actually addressed in the text right after the wager' s argument is presented. And finally, what strikes me the most is when some people who have zero knowledge in philosophy say that "Pascal was a genius in math and physics but was an idiot when it comes to philosophy". Normally, if you think he was really a genius in science, you should be a bit more prudent, you could consider that maybe it's you who do not really understand Pascal because you did not spend more than 10 minutes studying his texts or commentaries on his texts. I mean, seriously if it was true that Pascal's philosophy was as dumb as some people think, how could it have inspired other great philosophers (Nietzsche, Kerkegaard,...)? How could some current philosophers or scholars wrote on it if it was that silly? I am not saying that you should agree with what Pascal says, I am just saying that it is very arrogant to discard his philosophical work as dumb simply because a random apologist misread him in order to build dubious argument.
I watched that debate. Matt did not win that debate. ???? Sal lost the debate just by talking. There is so much to say about Sal’s sad performance but Sal did not come to fight. That’s what a debate is: a war with words
Dishonest apologists? Say it isn't so.
That phrase is redundant, you could just say apologist, the dishonesty is implied
I don’t think you can just decide to believe in god. If he is up there and you met the guy he would know you did not truly believe. But no reasonable god could condemn for this as there is so little evidence.
@@williamswhistlepipes It's the good old "fake it till you make it". I think it can work, but not very fast.
Still waiting for an apologist, even one, to actually apologize.
@@ARoll925 A well respected attorney here in Riverside, lives next door to me, probate for almost his whole career, the guy even had the keys to the courthouse, anyway, one day he was explaining Jesus to me (btw this guy is gay, he's not a Christian, he just happens to like me and was sharing with me on that basis, not all gays claim "atheism") he was explaining Jesus as The Logos, the Word.
Here's the standard (that you're right in dismissing when you're claiming "atheism"):
Logos, (Greek: “word,” “reason,” or “plan”) plural logoi, in ancient Greek philosophy and early Christian theology, the divine reason implicit in the cosmos, ordering it and giving it form and meaning.
My genius friend put it quite eloquently in his line of work fighting for every person whose parents died, anyone going through probate, he said, "the word logos or "apology is the word we use as *defense."*
You don't have an offense, you're all offensive, you don't have a real argument, I know them all, they're all crap, and you're argumentative as is the case here, AND when it comes to this word *DEFENSE,* *_you have none._* Holy people blow through you and your religious beliefs like we're butt surfing the whole lot of you Dunning-Kruger stylized participants here.
I watched this debate... It was as if Matt was trying to play chess against a pigeon.
This analogy is accurate
That's a lot of debates Matt gets invited to, due to the sorts of people who often want to debate him.
Pascal's wager, a proposition that an all knowing god will be fooled by a fake believer.
LOL Really? That's it?
If...wait a second, let's be delicate here...let me capitalize that word for safety sake...IF, God is real, I think his super-duper hyper intelligence would be able to differentiate between a Christian and a faker.
@@chosenone8408 - Maybe you should read my comment again. That a supposed all knowing god would not be fooled is why pascal's wager is such a stupid concept.
Pascal's wager is like buying insurance on a house that doesn't exist.
You bet your life on that. I'm a descendant of a thousand years of Jewish Bankers, we sold a couple of apartment buildings and our hospitals and then transitioned into now what must be a Guinness Book World Record 17 years in a row as the #1 mobile home dealership in California. I stopped 30 years ago (IRS reasons) but all the deals I did before that, all those people own their homes and land (private property, Riverside Land and Mobile Homes and Loans) *FREE AND CLEAR!* They don't have to make payment to a bank or a Landlord. I DID THAT! Your guy has done NOTHING with his life, Dillahunty is NOTHING! He hasn't made a single home or spiritual improvement to anyone or anything. He has no education!
@@NyxSilver8 So veterans are nothing and haven't done anything with their lives... are you sure you want to defend that position?
@@christopher6754 He's not using anything he learned in the Navy to claim "positive atheism; anti-theist; & you're making the claim at least on deity exists."
We're all betting with our lives, and no holy person thinks *GOD* and the supernatural are related in any way to the mythological gods of literature.
He has a call in show where "theists" he says believe in gods, not *GOD.* Dillahunty has changed every word in the English language, a natural language to conform to his religious tuning and frames every aspect of the debate so he can't lose and pretends like he's on some kind of goddamned search for the truth, when he just tries to excoriate the forgiven for the entertainment and amusement of his legion of highly charged religious fanatics.
Pardon and all, I'm not a good person any more, and it's all this Satanically wound materialist orthodoxy dripping in the blood of the saints giving teenagers who never studied *Divinity* in their life the negative spiritual charge to attack what it is they've shut themselves off from their whole lives to avoid the service you're talking about.
He's drinking Christ's Holy Blood one minute and then saying He doesn't exist the next and that he's come up from his deconversion to give the godly a few seconds to try and convince him of something he can only find on his own or not at all. He thinks knowledge is justified true belief.
His followers believe they have the right to deride people based on no criteria whatsoever apart from they won't agree with Matt's religious faith, "Oh, we're not religious," Yeah, neither am I. That lie won't work with me.
"At least one deity exists"
@@NyxSilver8 ok... So this started off with you going on a tangent about how you sold people homes and then went on to say that Matt is nothing and has never done anything. I point out that he is a veteran and your response is to ramble on without about... something... it was borderline incoherent. It seems like you genuinely haven't listened to anything he has ever said. All he does is, albeit often rather sharply, point out how the points and arguments raised by the callers and debate opponents are using flawed epistemology and providing unsound arguments. If someone is going to convince him, or any other person who values whether or not their beliefs are true, then they ought to provide good reasons for their position. If they can't do that then it is not justified. Matt isn't the only one who believes that knowledge is justified, true belief. Plato also held that position and it is talked about extensively in the Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy on the epistemology page.
@@christopher6754 agreed, hes just another theist who thinks his preferred god is different from all the other mythological gods.
Nice, this video came out on my 4th year anniversary free from religion! :D
@Joseph I'll take my chances 😊
Congrat's to you ....(I left about 10 years ago).
Once the absurdity of religion has been seen...it cannot be un-seen.
@Joseph th-cam.com/video/FZRepbNEX6k/w-d-xo.html yep
@Joseph th-cam.com/video/FZRepbNEX6k/w-d-xo.html yep
@Joseph //Jesus is coming. Turn to him and repent of your sins or you're gonna burn and be tortured in hell forever//
If we weren't already inured with Christian mythology within our society...more people would see it for what it actually is = a primitive blood worshipping, sacrificial-death cult, born out of ignorant ,superstitious minds that clearly embraced sadomasochisme and slavery while also projecting self loathing.
(Is it really any wonder then, that religious fundamentals and fanatics constantly warn of hell and literally cannot wait for 'end times'? ..only total destruction of this world will do for them).
This imaginary god and the religions created in its name merely resembles the ultimate bully / abusive partner, promoting fear and self loathing in order to sell its absurd magical cure while extorting conformity from the naïve with promises of reward and or threats of punishment in 'magic land' after death.
Regarding the bible...a reminder ,it got nearly everything wrong about the natural world , the cosmos, history and morality (for which believers laughably claim it to be the source of) while also weaving mythical/magical absurdities (much it borrowed from earlier religions) into its core narrative.
There is literally nothing credible about any of the Abrahamic religions and the claims made within them ,this conclusion has become overwhelmingly obvious to all critical thinking people who champion reason and logic over superstition and credulity, while also understanding the value of good evidence.
Some day this nonsense will end , and the whole of civilization will look back at all religion in total disbelief.
Darth Dawkin's fan club targeting and harassing Matt with no real goal of discussion is a perfect example of how apologists are targeting Matt himself instead of the issues
what DD debate Destiny. Destiny dismantled his whole argument so quickly DD muted and kicked him.
@@Omnorimli Thats because Gary doesn't have an argument. He has a script. He is incapable of going off script in his arguments which is why he gets so angry when his progression path isn't followed. He isn't capable of thinking up rebuttals to various issues on the fly or doing the work necessary to formulate his own. So since they aren't a part of the script he works from, he gets angry and frustrated. This is what happens when you don't come up with your own ideas and arguments.
Thats why "debates" and conversations with him end up being pretty worthless.
@@sypherthe297th2 truth.
Pascal's Wager seems kind of insulting to believers, when you think about it. It's like he assumes that God would be happy with insincere groveling to save your ass, rather than honest belief (or disbelief).
We both have varying levels of degree of belief/commitment to the side we're on. In fact, I don't have a side here with any thing more than me on it, and at the same exact time, my ministry is the same as Christian's, the *_ministry of funny walks,_* - no, that was a joke, it's the ministry of *reconciliation* found in 2nd Corinthians Chapter 5.
The biblical God clearly prefers groveling out of _sincere fear._
A god which prefers insincere belief over informed and honest scepticism is an insecure and petty dick. Which is exactly what the biblical god character is designed to be. Insecurity and pettiness were perfectly acceptable traits in a leader back then. They’re still common now, but they don’t wash quite so much.
@@infidelcastro5129 Maybe *GOD* and the *BIBLE* are different than you believe?
@@Conserpov There's a song by Michael Card and popularized by Amy Grant namely El Shaddai. Means "The Breasty One" - Just as the story goes you're drawing your conclusions from the same Bible as all the others where Jesus was NOT the strongest and most powerful leader of the most powerful nation. His life as a minister ended shortly and very abruptly and was as humiliating as they Romans designed that torturous death to be. I don't believe Jesus forgave the people who murdered Him. When would that end?
Pascals wager shows that really smart people can have really dumb ideas.
It shows that being good at math doesn’t imply all around intelligence. Same with Newton: mathematical genius but outside of that he was obsessed with heretical religious ideas and alchemy.
@@pansepot1490 I totally agree. Another idiot that is brilliant with math but is a total idiot otherwise John Lennox.
Yep, so does all religious beliefs
Also, intelligence does not equate to courage.
@@rexaustin2885
And courage doesn’t equate to clever.
5:36
Sal isn't nice. He pretends to be nice to get points for being nice after he gets his opponent riled up. And if anything, he is actually pretty nasty for how he gets people riled up, which he demonstrated a few times in the debate.
yep, he's the poster boy for passive-aggressivity, repeatedly distorting and misrepresenting Matt's positions, and then apologising fulsomely and pretending it wasn't intended, and then doing it again. His whole approach was to dissemble and then act like a beaten puppy hoping that nobody would have the heart to kick him again.
There appears to be a number of apologist, Ray Comfort leading them, that will agree to any debate so they can then proselytise. They don't want to debate, because a number of them know they will lose the argument, because their evidence is inconsistent and cannot move with modern views. It's like trying to say that a 1970s car is the pinnacle of design, when our view of what is a good car has changed.
Cordova's Wager:
1) If I stick to the point, I risk losing the debate
2) If I start talking about something else, I cannot be said to have lost
C) Therefore God
Richard Dawkins described a debate with a Rabbi as punching at air for the Rabbi's refusal to engage on topic.
Great as always Matt 🙌
@Joseph Yeah, that'll do it. Repent Joseph or Allah will smite you.
@Joseph what a lovely god you have. Hey Joseph...give me $50 or I’m gonna break your fingers....okay?? I’m a great guy ain’t I??......I’m joking, I don’t want money from you, because I’m a decent person, unlike your god
@Joseph th-cam.com/video/FZRepbNEX6k/w-d-xo.html yep
@Joseph
You should beg for Allah’s forgiveness.
@Joseph Tell me first what Sheol is, and what 1 Corinthians 3:13 says, if you would, Joseph.
Also, what should Jews do, and why should they trust you?
Making us all heard and have massive respect for you Matt!
you need a life
What if there is a god that only throws people into the worst possible Hell if they use Pascal's Wager and sends everyone that doesn't to the best possible Heaven?
This is one of my favorite thought experiments to throw at theists.
To express this another way, what if the only thing that God truly hates is a smart ass who tries to game the system?
Or, what if god wants to see who will believe things on bad evidence?
Then that god would still be unreasonable.
@@ThatPrettyBMF What? How? that sounds like a reasonable god.
If someone showed up at a debate and ignored the topic I wouldn’t have been there for 30min let alone 3+ hours.
@Joseph th-cam.com/video/FZRepbNEX6k/w-d-xo.html yep
@Joseph Ah,... you are just a religious nutcase spammer.
@Joseph lol
@Joseph Judgement day is coming and Allah won’t give you a free pass, the Islamic story of hell is worse than the Christian stories. I’d switch if I were you, you’re being foolish.
Dare i say this is the job of the organisers mainly, to ensure they don't keep bringing 'evading' debators to ensure accuracy, quality and professionalism for their audience and brand. It's also partly on the moderator, i feel, to ensure any party doesn't constantly side/over-step.
Sadly modern day debate is absolutely terrible and brings back completely dishonest debaters all the time.
@@Vivi2372 The reason I avoid it like the plague unless someone like Matt's on. Probably best to watch these debate reviews, tbh. James just lets two people talk at each other and reads comments,
Do you think Modern-Day Debate is your best venue in terms of quality debates with prepared opponents?
Going to go with no, given what Matt says at around 17 minutes into the video.
The guy who runs the channel send like he's probably a nice enough guy otherwise but they are the absolute worst for letting absolutely anyone debate no matter how dishonest and still bringing them back multiple times.
@@Vivi2372 That's my impression, too.
Modern Day Debate is a pretty terrible channel if you're looking for real debate.
They regularly bring on dishonest debaters who either 1.) present no evidence, or 2.) do not argue the debate topic. James seems to be far more interested in just platforming the crazies (flat earthers, geocentrists, bigfoot believers, conspiracy theorists) and pitting them against people with actual facts, just for the sake of having an "EPIC" debate. Just watch any of the debates and how he begins almost every single one with "OK guys today's gonna be another EPIC debate." The channel more closely resembles a shitty morning radio show than an actual debate platform.
The format itself also needs a LOT of work. Considering the dozens of superchats they read, they sure don't use any of that money to buy better equipment. Half these debates just devolve into shouting matches with very little to no intervention from the moderator when things start getting heated/out of hand. When the question/answer portion from audience superchats begin, James spends more time reading troll comments than actual questions. But it's all okay because DID YOU SEE THIS EPIC DEBATE BRO?
It's truly sad considering how badly they've squandered the opportunity they've been given to actually host meaningful debates. In its current state, Modern-Day Debate is a circus.
@@AeonCatharsis It kind of reminds me of the Pangburn days. After Pangburn, I am extra wary, and I have already seen signs of unnecessary drama on James' channel.
"Sal did bad math" is a good alternative title for that debate 😉
Watching this debate was so painful! I really was worried, that Matt would be viewed as the mercyless school bully, stuffing Sal "small child pattern" Cordova into Pascal's locker... But I am so grateful, that someone did it at last, after so many clever people who obviously fell for Sal so meek and mild and didn't show him his place.
This debate was brutal to watch
@Joseph He's coming? As far as I can tell he isn't even breathing hard..
@Joseph th-cam.com/video/FZRepbNEX6k/w-d-xo.html yep
@Joseph Jesus has been coming for 2000 years. You need to give me more than that before I start shitting my pants over it. Maybe when he gets here he can explain what sin is because I'd bet dollars to donuts you can't.
@Joseph even if that was true which its not who would worship such an evil dictator that would kick people into a pit of fire for the "crime" of not believing in said dictator when they refused to show themselves?
not only is your god not real its one of the most evil characters in all of fiction.
@Joseph
You say...
"jesus is coming"
When is that exactly?
You say...
"Turn to him"
In which direction should I face ?
You say...
"Repent for your sins"
What is a sin ?
You say...
"Your going to burn and be tortured for forever in hell"
Where is hell at ?
Most theist debates fringe on cringe, but this one took the golden cigar.
I am glad to see that you are well, Mr. Dillahunty.
I hope that you remain well, for there are precious few individuals like you in this wide world.
It feels like over the years this has happened with AXP as well. More and more callers every year seem to have no interest in honest discussion about the issues and only care about winning a debate or taking down Matt.
I noticed this year there were TONS of callers who were intentionally trying to get Matt to yell at them so they could say "dude why are you so mad?" and claim victory.
This is why Modern Debates is a waste of time. James is such a nice well meaning guy that he wouldn't dare step in and stop a debate that's veering off topic.
He’s utterly incompetent.
To the point of being completely useless.
I've watched some Darth Dawkins "debates" that James has hosted on Modern Debates that have been complete clusterfucks because James just WILL NOT make Darth Dawkins follow any sort of basic rules of courtesy or discussion.
@@Fluffykeith I, personally, think James is high as fuck during these debates and forget what his part is...
If people start preaching off topic start talking about video games.
@Joseph th-cam.com/video/FZRepbNEX6k/w-d-xo.html yep
@Joseph Ah,... you are just a religious nutcase spammer.
@Joseph lol
@Joseph provide verifiable and testable evidence for your claim.
@Joseph no thank you
Love your videos Matt, been following for years. I would suggest that in your future opening statements at debates (which you should ask to speak first) that you include that the debate needs to stay on topic and if it doesn't you will leave. It seems like a bunch of these recent debates have almost been a waste of your time. All the best.
*Matt hits the nail on the head in this one.*
Matt's final analysis that apologists are just trying to take Matt down a peg is exactly what is happening. Listen to Canadian Catholic raging with others at Matt Dillahunty and ending his time on Atheist Experience. While they focus in on Matt, Matt focuses in on their ideas. We're watching as Christianity slowly loses it's footing in America. Apologists are freaking out as the younger generation is less likely to stay religious. It's been shown time and time again that they're losing people in the 16-24 range. Why is this?
Exposure to different ideas can change the minds of individuals.
So why debate the ideas? Why give someone the ability to see different viewpoints if the different viewpoints are what could possibly shift their position? I've watched as people who are religious call in to an ACA show and the ACA has nothing but kind words to them. Dan (of Truth Wanted) has a few favorite callers who are religious! The ACA isn't about mass conversion. The ACA has shown time and time again that they're about humanism and skepticism. If someone is still convinced of the God they believe in and treats others with respect, the ACA gets along quite well with them.
The part about apologists not sticking to the topic or even trying is not just an issue matt has issues with lately, but it appears to be something going on through the field
Of course they dont stick to the topic, they lose if they do that, they lose anyways but at least this way they can put up a semi fight
The background is very Zen.
Haha!
A fake tree with lights in it?
@@larjkok1184 Zen doesn't mean natural.
@@zecuse He didn't imply that it does
Pascal's wager has always been a hitch while I was being brought up.
The idea that God will let people in heaven even when knows their faith is built on a fear. True devotion cannot come from fear
@Joseph th-cam.com/video/FZRepbNEX6k/w-d-xo.html yep
@Joseph And your emperical *EVIDENCE* for that is???
Don't start with bible quotes.
The bible is BS.
its called reverence. you respect God and know not to cross Him. its a form of check and balance.
@@boterlettersukkel Youve been brainwashed. the evidence is walking talking sentient life! to which you still don't have an alternative explanation for
@@kevinjohnson8016 everyone here respects Thor.
Do you think you'd ever consider hosting debates? Just thinking maybe you can steer arguments aroumd when the opening statement isn't even relevant to the subject.
he was a moderator once in a debate on existence of jesus with bart ehrman so maybe that will help u
Don't know how you keep doing it Matt.
I am very glad that Matt addresses the problems with the debate he had with the nub who hadn't prepared to debate Matt on the topic they agreed on. Problems like the nub not addressing the topic at all, or any of Matt's arguments on the topic and the nub being responsible for how it looked to the choir he was preaching to. To me, the guy just looked like a completely unknowing child on their first day in school where they're expected to have at least learned how to speak a handful of coherent sentences and not poop their pants and eat the poop. I bet his teachers remember him as the kid that ate his own poop. The only thing that surprised me was that he wasn't writing his claims on the wall with poop.
Interestingly enough, I think a simple, concise dialogue is easier to digest than showing an overload of information that while tied to the topic at hand, may not be necessary to know in order to grasp the essentials of the concept.
Sal seemed nice, but the issue is it can be more difficult to debate and have honest discussion with nice people. as you pointed out.
It amazes me how so many apologists bring up Pascal's wager, it has to be one of the worst arguments ever. Do these people really think that it's a profound thought?
Just saw a video on the croc-o-duck? Yeah people will argue pretty much anything despite logic.
Someone in the comments on the debate said Word Salad Cordova. I tend to agree.
Addressing the actual topic of a debate is secondary to a theist, if that. Their main intents are to sing to their own choir, and give a gospel presentation to the unbeliever.
The great commission, one of the classics.
Every single time Pascal's Wager enters my mind, I find a new hole in its logic. Truly one of the worst arguments for blind faith ever conceived.
That debate was a debacle....Sal was being very dishonest and elusive, u wrecked him lol
How are things in Austin?
Dear Matt. You have watched more Atheist Debates than I have and you thought an apologist would have something new or stay on topic? I gave up that notion a while ago.
Seriously though, keep up the good work. I watched a lot more of your stuff back when I was leaving the church, somewhat hoping Christians would come out with a fantastic bit of information. I had a bit of a turning point when I realized it’s an old ass book, it’s all there already, there can’t be any new surprises.
Matt. Next debate just use this opening line.
Matthew 21:22 And whatever you ask in prayer, you will receive, if you have faith.”
Why is the fucking virus still here after 1 1/2 years of prayers? There is no god or he doesn’t give a shit. Pick one. .
Everyone will cheer
Concerning the format of the video; some of us just like to listen while we do other things, so the visuals are somewhat lost in that case. I don't mind more visual elements, but I want to be able to get the information from the video (or a vast majority of it) only by listening, and not having to focus intently on watching the video.
Blaise Pascal was actually a very good mathematician and the founder of probability theory, which makes it so hard to believe that he may have proposed a wager without considering all the probable scenarios, on the contrary he may have probably created this wager theory as a social experiment to see how religious and non religious people respond to it and dare I say this but most people took the bait.
Sincere question -- Is Pascal's Wager assuming that there can only be 1 possible god(the one they were born into) or there is none? Is that what Pascal's Wager is assuming?
Because as we all know there are THOUSANDS of supposed "gods"!! So what if you use that wager for let's say god #131, but you die and there is a god!! BUT...it is god #498,887!?? And he is "A Jealous god"!?? Wouldn't that supposed god be more angry with all those religious people that used Pascal's Wager for the wrong god more than he would be angry with all the Atheist? Just think, the Atheist didn't believe in the "real" god, that is One Strike. But the religious not only did NOT believe in the "real" god, Strike One, but they DID Believe in a different god! Strike Two. That is Twice the sin!!
Is that jasmine, magnolia, or something else?
181 views in TWO MINUTES?!? 🤔
@Joseph No lol
@Joseph sounds like we need tissues...
@Joseph Spaghetti monster is coming. Turn to Him and repent your ramen or you’re gonna spend eternity with stale beer and strippers with STDs
@Joseph th-cam.com/video/FZRepbNEX6k/w-d-xo.html yep
@@randomblueguy That actually sounds plausible :D and scary too!
I love these videos
@Joseph th-cam.com/video/FZRepbNEX6k/w-d-xo.html yep
@Joseph dude do you actually think you are doing anything other then annoying the shit out of people
Good review and I agree that it is often frustrating that James (and other mods like Justin) do not do their core job. For the most obvious example see Aron Ra's "debate" with Nathan Thompson.
@Joseph prove it. Until you can this is no more threatening to me than saying that if I'm naughty Santa will bring me coal lol
@Joseph th-cam.com/video/FZRepbNEX6k/w-d-xo.html yep
@@pfc_church hahaha bookmarked that one thanks
@Joseph lol
The goat 🐐
@Joseph th-cam.com/video/FZRepbNEX6k/w-d-xo.html yep
where?
@Joseph no
@Joseph lol
@Joseph
Not likely
Hope Canadian Catholic is watching this and seeing your end statements about trying to 'take you down'. He will indeed keep falling and failing.
11:05 The Bible records many incidents of people seeing miracles and then losing their belief so clearly this is not a path to permanent beliefs (or the miracles weren't nearly as impressive as the Bible implies).
Man, this debate.... Sure happened, alright.
Wouldn't an all-knowing being's existence make quantum indeterminacy impossible in the first place?
If such a being existed, all wavefunctions would be collapsed at all times, and no interference patterns would appear in the double-slit experiment, since the which-way info exists the whole time.
Maximus Mattus Dillahantus!
Wtf 😄
He had a wife you know
You did great, Matt.
Around 7:19, you mention the consequences of unbelief. IF there is a God, do you not agree that there is everything to lose?
No because that still doesnt specify which god it is or how it would react to humans not believing in it
I was looking for the game, Pascal's Wager..
Haven't seen the debate, so I'm confused. Have done some Popper format debating so here goes.
If Sal was the opener of debate and didn't define the problem or "Pascal's wager", then why did Matt in his opening not point to it and give the definition himself and by that force Sal into his strict definition? I seem to understand, that Matt doesn't like the point system of debates and the winner/loser, but the point system is good for those cases, because they let us show, where people fuck up. Giving a definition should be A-B-C of every debate. It also forces opponents to talk about the topic and not go astray.
Was is just "miss-play" by Matt, 'cause he doesn't like the debate format or something else?
I went to listen to the debate. Heard enough of his opening to get to the point where your opponent started on his second miracle testimony claim. I hopped back over here because I was done listening to that.
Another take would be if you believe but do have doubts .. a loving God should understand that. But then you would have to wonder why God wouldn't just satisfy your doubts or answer your questions.
Sounds like he'd be a shoe-in for Trump's impeachment team
James seems to let things slide on mdd I think since he concentrates on super chats, but Pascal’s wager seems to be his thing he had a talk with Doug on his pinecreek channel about it, would’ve thought he’d be more interested in the discussion itself.
Discussion Debate Modern Debate channel does
Makes it happen.
Whole point of formal debate with
Opening, First rebuttal,Second Rebuttal and finishing statement helps one debator to remain in topic but
Discussion topic often changes in Brain dead Argument.
I think Modern Debate channel should change the format of the debate.
Sal turned up to the debate and had no idea of what a debate is, what Pascal's Wager is, or even what a conversation is. It was just as embarrassing as I expected.
Question Matt or anybody why do some atheists get mad if you ask them to explain evolution, or they can’t explain they may say “well read up on it”. If evolution is the best explanation of how we all came about then it really should be easy to explain?
No. That something is true doesn't mean it's easy to explain.
If it were easy... couldn't you have bothered to go look it up without asking?
As an analogy for why evolution isn't something that's easy to explain, yet still our (science) best explanation for the diversification of life, general relativity is the current best (most accurate) explanation for physical motion. It's far more complicated than what's needed for mostly everything in anyone's life, but without it, the orbit of Mercury couldn't be accurately explained along with everything else.
@@SansDeity Point Taken
@@gluehfunke1547 Yes thank you the keyword being mutation thanks again Gunfuckie
@@gluehfunke1547 My Apologizes I am sorry!
Pascal's wager is merely a philosophical musing, but if I had to argue in favor of it's soundness, I would merely point out that it's a philosophy that most people subconsciously live by anyway. Unless you know for sure whether God exists, whether you're religious or an atheist, you are living in the realm of possiblity and "whatifism" (I totally made that up and enjoy it).
It would be great if there was some kind of community rating of these debates to save time watching the same tired evasions and non arguments of apologists. I'm starting to think I'd rather watch Matt 's debrief than the actual debate, which is a dangerous echo chamber... But that's what the paucity of debate is leading me to. And that is a terrible state of affairs if apologists truly want to change minds.
I dislike pascals wager because there are about, lets say 400 or so, religions. So really, belief in Christianity and atheism has the same odds of being true if we are just going by numbers... about 1/400.
Jesus is not coming. No need to turn to a non existant him and repent of your sins as you're not gonna burn and be tortured in hell forever.
@@fishbiter9409
Santa isn’t coming either.
But you’d probably deny that too.
True. I'm not coming. I'm too busy killing draugrs and dragons.
@@JesusInSkyrim be careful, skyrim belongs to the nords... i hear they have great vpn...
Jesus perhaps saves but I think I'll keep washing my hands, though.
@@patriklindholm7576 For there to be a _perhaps_ there should first be a possibility and for there to be a possibility to consider it has to first be shown. Has anyone shown that a mind exists or can exist that wasn't an emergent property of matter? If not, no creator god or their subsequent stories should be considered possible and instead be dismissed immediately.
Pascal's Wager is not even an arguement, it's a bit of mental trickery to convince the doubting mind in absence of any good, sound justification. Pascal himself didn't think his "wager" was a sufficient reason to believe. I believe Pascal must have been aware of the flaws in his famous wager, because he says things like: if you cannot make yourself believe on the grounds of evidence, than you may find this useful (I'm paraphrasing, obviously. What I mean to say is that Pascal acknowledged that there's no good reason to think that gods are real, he acknowledged that his wager is not particularly strong, because he implies that he wouldn't believe on the basis of his own wager, and he speaks of trying to convince yourself in spite of the evidence, because Pascal believed that believing to gods is at least useful, if not necessary for the sake of conformity).
Where are you getting this information? Pascal never said anything of the sort. He certainly did think there were good reasons to believe, that’s why he wrote an entire apology for Christianity. As he says in the wager fragment, the problem isn’t with reason but with “passions”. The skeptic he’s addressing doesn’t have the will to believe.
@@thescapegoatmechanism8704
I'm speculating quite a bit to be honest, but I do believe the Pascal didn't believe his wager was actually a compelling argument, because, as you say, that wasn't the reason he believed (if he even did in fact believe, or if he was merely faking it. He certainly thought that one should fake it if they can't believe in earnest). What was the reason Pascal gave for his belief?
I agree. It was a shameful debate on his side.
Unfortunately you can't CHOSE to believe in Pascals Wager even IF it seems like a beneficial thing to do. You could chose to act as though there is a God even if you don't believe but then that God would know you don't actually believe and then you wouldn't get to heaven .
its 2021 and people still use this ridiculous argument! sad times
Everybody wants Matt
I really miss the card tricks in your videos tho.
The wager isn’t even really an argument about believing in a god ... it is an argument about avoidance of a possible hell. In order to really follow the advice of the wager, therefore, one should research world religions to determine which one has the worst possible version of hell ... and then follow that religion.
I actually have that book. Found it at a thrift mall
@Joseph why would you assume I haven’t done that?
@Joseph never mind. I realize now you’re just trolling.
@Joseph th-cam.com/video/FZRepbNEX6k/w-d-xo.html yep
@Joseph lol
@Joseph Hail Satan! Oh wait, I don’t believe Satan exists either. You believe in Satan though, don’t you?
To be a bit more precise on what the pascal wager is, it’s not « if you follow Christianity, and you’re wrong, you lose nothing », it’s that if you follow Christianity the cost is negligible in case you’re wrong compared to if you didn’t follow Christianity and you were wrong. Reciprocally, if you didn’t follow Christianity and you were right, your gain is negligible compared to if you follow Christianity and you were right.
It’s all nonsense obviously, since it would apply to all religions, since it doesn’t take into account which hells are worse and which heavens are better, since it doesn’t even take into account the possibility of a god that rewards skepticism, which isn’t any more implausible than Christianity... Forget that, it’s actually more plausible -_-
Point being : the wager is nonsense, but there is an admission of cost if you follow Christianity (or another religion) and you’re wrong, and an admission of gains if you don’t follow Christianity and you’re wrong.
For the lazy here's a link to Matt's Pascal's Wager deconstruction video: th-cam.com/video/YBCDGohZT70/w-d-xo.html
Based on the title, I thought his video would have more to do with Pascal's Wager. XD
watch Matt's video on it.
@@dustinmorton942 I think I already have.
In any case, I was initially not going to click on this video BECAUSE I thought "I don't really need to rehash Pascal's Wager again", but then I needed something to stream into my ears while I was out walking and decided to tap this video anyway.
So in a sense I was fortunate that this didn't have much to do with Pascal's Wager.
Damn it! I always think of an appearance in my head when I hear your voice;
I thought of a man with a black beard and hair who is around middle aged.
I vote for Matt Dillahunty vs James White, at least their IQ's would be comparable and there is no doubt James would prepare.
Is watching the 4 hour debate even worth the time?
The actual debate isn't that long. There's a long Q&A with the superchats, then it ends, and the moderator just talks solo for about an hour to chatters. Only put yourself through it if you want an example of a complete waste of Matt's time.
@@fleabitz1474 Thanks for the answer!
Hey Matt, have you ever been tempted in a debate after someone refuses to engage on the topic to say "as my opponent's statement had nothing to do with the topic, I have no reply" and stop talking?
that would be quite a hitch move :)
Will you debate Canadian Catholic?
Matt, stop agreeing to appear on modern day debates unless the “moderator” can stop being such an utter failure. Nearly every time he’s a complete disaster.
It would be impressive if debate rules were listed by the moderator any any deviation would be stopped
"...gotcha..."
It's pretty annoying when he butts in to scold Matt for interrupting but lets the opponent interrupt Matt.
If you really wanna see a failure of a moderator, just watch Aron Ra's debate over flat earth.
Or don't, because you don't deserve the ear bleach of Aron's opponent, nor the dishonesty of the moderator.
I think they're kind of giving up to be honest.
Question: Are Tracy's preferred pronouns she/her/hers or they their, or either?
Not staying on topic is common with theist. They mostly dont have a scientific mindset (looking at one(!) problem from all sides). It is a bit annoying to always have to remind them of the topic at hand.
Only debate on your own terms, is my two cents. If that means only hosting debates on your channel with a moderator that is fair, then so be it.
To me, pascal's wager will never work simply because it assumes that believing in God isn't what gets you sent to hell.
💜💜💜
@Joseph
Well... its better to burn out then to fade away...
Would you interested in an interview.?
Zoom
@Joseph th-cam.com/video/FZRepbNEX6k/w-d-xo.html yep
Sal Cordova was so incredibly disrespectful of everyone during this debate. The moment he understood that he couldn't bluff his way through and admitted he didn't understand Pascal's Wager he should've apologized to everyone for being unprepared and just left it at that. What was the point of continuing on and why wasn't the "debate" finished then?
i feel for matt. such stupid ppl he is sometimes surrounded by
If you want a debate on Pascal's wager, why don't you ask to a philosopher who actually studied Pascal's philosophy? It would be much more interesting that one of these pointless god vs no god debates which convince nobody and we could learn about one of the great epistemologist (and arguably first thinker of nihilism) of the 17th century.
It also seems that most apologists and some atheists have never read the original text or don't know anything about Pascal's philosophy.
One common misconception is to think that Pascal thought that the wager argument should work regardless of the assumptions you make on god. The standard counter argument is to day that he ignored other religions. But this is simply wrong, he was perfectly aware of other religions and he discussed Islam and Judaism in many other parts of "les pensées" (the original text of the wager).
In truth the wager is just a response to a skeptic's objection (in a fictious dialogue): "how can you say that you believe in something whise existence cannot be proved by reason". Pascal proposes one possible anwer with a SPECFIC set of assumptions (you go to heaven if you believe, nothing if you do not). The point of this argument, is to show that under these assumptions, even if you cannot decide rationally about he existence of god, it may still be rational to believe. For some, reasons apologists and some atheists alike have interpreted the wager has a general proof that you should believe, independently of any prior, regardless of what you think is the nature if god or your assumptions on the alterntives. I cannot find what in the original text would make you think that Pascal said so. It's also perfectly silly to assume that Pascal who was a genius mathematician did not know that the result of a theorem depended on the assumptions of the theorem.
Many people who did not read the text also says the wager is bad because you cannot decide to believe. This point is actually addressed in the text right after the wager' s argument is presented.
And finally, what strikes me the most is when some people who have zero knowledge in philosophy say that "Pascal was a genius in math and physics but was an idiot when it comes to philosophy". Normally, if you think he was really a genius in science, you should be a bit more prudent, you could consider that maybe it's you who do not really understand Pascal because you did not spend more than 10 minutes studying his texts or commentaries on his texts. I mean, seriously if it was true that Pascal's philosophy was as dumb as some people think, how could it have inspired other great philosophers (Nietzsche, Kerkegaard,...)? How could some current philosophers or scholars wrote on it if it was that silly? I am not saying that you should agree with what Pascal says, I am just saying that it is very arrogant to discard his philosophical work as dumb simply because a random apologist misread him in order to build dubious argument.
Well put - but, still, to clarify, how DOES one chose to believe, in believe compared to what other things, or claims, or omissions, @nono ?
Well that's 3 hours of my life I won't waste with this.
I not sure if Sal is a nice idiot he's simply playing nice as a debate tactics.
Won't be surprised if he's faking his niceness..
I watched that debate. Matt did not win that debate. ???? Sal lost the debate just by talking. There is so much to say about Sal’s sad performance but Sal did not come to fight. That’s what a debate is: a war with words