"The butler did it." "The butler?" "Yes. Consider just an ordinary random day. What are the chances that this man would just randomly get stabbed 15 times? Now consider a situation where there is a butler, and he owes this guy lots of money he can't pay off, and he hates him, and they had a huge fight earlier, and the butler had a knife. In which scenario is this person more likely to get stabbed?" "That's just a situation you created to fit the scene. It doesn't work as an explanation." "Well, I don't see you giving any explanations." "We don't have an explanation yet. I don't even think we have a butler." "We probably do, if the butler did it." "That seems backwards." "And by the way, that butler is a perfect killer." "This doesn't seem perfect. Just seems like the man was stabbed 15 times. Is that perfect?" "Probably. This man needed exactly 15 stabs to die." "How do we know that's exactly what he needed? It's not like we can kill him twice to test it." "You really going to sit here and question a perfect killer?" "I just want to figure out what happened." "I just told you, it was the butler."
Love your work Matt. You've been a big part in helping me hone my critical thinking skills. Now when I take in information I ask important questions and even search for information on my questions. Thank you for teaching me these skills. I try to challenge myself when I watch your shows by trying to predict the logical fallacy. I'd say I'm at about 60/40 on my best days. Anyway, thank you. I Grok.
Thank you for sticking around; I’ve been a fan since the Jeff D and Martin days so hearing from you is like hearing from an old friend. Keep up the good work 👍
I found it interesting that in the comments to that debate, no one was defending Zack. They attacked Matt's intelligence. They tried to attack some of Matt's assertions (one was attacking "Claims are not evidence." Lol). No one seemed to defend anything Zack said. They couldn't even attack the points Matt made specifically in this debate but, found past statements to attack (unsuccessfully imo). Just funny.
Yes, I noticed that too. It's very telling..When you knock down someones intelligence, rather than adress their arguments. You are showing your inferior intelligence to the person you are critcizing..Yes, and that goes for both sides.
Not sure if it was published elsewhere, I watched it from the Theology Unleashed channel. Overall I like engaging with that channel as an exercise in getting out of my echo chamber. But I do find they shovel hard on the woo train. Usually I find people there tend to push back pretty hard on materialists, but when Matt shows up he brings his audience, and the comment section is dominantly naturalist for that specific show.
People get emotional when their views are possibly not true. It makes sense to me why people act this way, doesn't make sense to me why they present themselves this way however.
I actually didn’t see many instances of people attacking Matt nor his intelligence but I concede that I might have just missed that. I would ask that are you sure the “claims are not evidence” argument/statement wasn’t in defense of Matt rather than against him? Mind you I agree wholeheartedly with Matt in this debate and I don’t think his opponent had ANY good answers, explanations, or arguments. I was just curious and looked through the comments and didn’t see many that said that and I just can’t imagine someone would be foolish enough to use “claims are not evidence” against Matt considering that’s pretty much the entire point Matt was making. That by no means is to say someone is incapable of being that foolish I’m just trying to hold out hope for humanity here by giving the benefit of the doubt.
@@HeavenlyReaver Oh, it was definitely against Matt. There was a whole thread there starting with someone posting how smart Matt is and there was a lot of people disagreeing...
I found Zack did what flat earthers do all the time: think that the claim is evidence. When after they make a claim, they are asked for evidence, they act confused and refer back to their claim. They don't get that all they are doing, at best, is showing their claim is internally logically consistent. However if it's not supported by something in reality no one should take it seriously.
Most con artist flerfers I've watched just Deflect to another talking point, doing everything they can to NOT answer by answering with Another Question that has Not a Damn thing to do with flerf.
@@ScottM1973 here's a couple to look up & roll your eye's at: Daniel 4:10-11 "Now these were the visions in my mind as I lay on my bed: I was looking, and behold, there was a tree in the midst of the earth and its height was great. ‘The tree grew large and became strong And its height reached to the sky, And it was visible to the end of the whole earth." To me means being able to see the Horizon Revelation 7:1 "After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding back the four winds of the earth, so that no wind would blow on the earth or on the sea or on any tree. " Four Corners? Sooo earth is a flat Square to them??? Merrffff can't recall any flerf saying flerf is squared though TBH. Isaiah 40:22 "It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in." That one might be where they figure the veil/dome is maybe? And Why compare us to Grasshopers???? 1 Chronicles 16:30, Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10 all have this in them: "the world is firmly established, it will not be moved." We know Earth is 3rd planet orbiting the Sun & you'll Never hear a flerf mention or even admit Mercury, Venus are between the Sun & Earth. Let alone even admitting that there are Other Planets. Cloest flerfs come to references of planets are ""Heavenly Bodies"" ie Isaiah 14:12, in a taunt to the king of Babylon, refers to him as Helel, a Hebrew word meaning The Morning Star, which would be Venus. Then again as much Cherry Picking is done no wonder they don't do more research. They just read what they want to instead of the paragraphs before & after . Hope this helps a little bit, yet just confuses me even more.
I whole heartily agree@@251rmartin . For me I'm not just going after what the con artists babble, I'm thinking of those watching chat, getting lost & confused in the gish gallop. The more those just watching start to actually Question themselves of how & WHY the con artists they listen to NEVER Provide ANY Evidence of flerf. There's 3 reasons flerf is even mentioned on the wwwebs anymore is Platforms just love the clicks from chats (like news if it bleeds it leads for more viewers), funds BOTH sides receive & popularity or feeling Accepted.
I liked that you got into the idea of 'what would a perfect mind DO?' I don't think I've ever heard you talk about it before, but i've always thought the same: if gawd was 'perfect' ---- it would just sit in its perfection and do nothing. 'Wanting to make a universe\wanting a relationship with us' would mean gawd was lacking something or desired(again, lack) something, which is not perfection. Any perfect mind would just sit there, being perfect forever, doing nothing, making nothing because it wouldn't need\want\desire anything. I think this even covers the dodge of gawd being 'maximally' great too, but I could be wrong.
@@chrisgraham2904 "if you were absolutely perfect, with no needs, desires or expectations, why would you bother to get up in the morning?" The absolutely perfect beings weren't bothered when getting up in the morning, they simply got up in the morning by themselves. 😁 (Equivocation intended)
If nature occurs naturally, as it appears to, then we only have to explain nature, if nature occurs supernaturally then we have to explain both nature and supernature, theism is definitely not less complicated and violates occam's razor right out of the gate.
@@dnice374 Yes, the latter. He “freed” you from Salvation. Please, I don’t like to bicker as evidently it hardly ever leads to any kind of agreement. But I urge you to test my “theory” by reading Daniel 8. If you keep your mind neutral as you read it, you’ll see it is prophecy of the Desert Storm war. And the subsequent fragmentation of the USA soon after that. Can’t right now think of any other way to get through to you. But I hope this works.
@@gherieg.1091 oh gherie gherie gherie. you don't understand I suggest more time at your local church if you want to do outreach. Your god has no more power over me and I'm grateful for it daily. When you're ready, perhaps I'll be the one to show you the light. Until the day you are
I just finished watching the debate. Loved Matt’s calm and collected self. It was like seeing an educated grown up teaching a young student who is blasted with loads of cool information on science , but doesn’t know how to handle it within his own religious model. And seeing Matt, appearing to be like a wise Gandalf, explaining to this kid as best he could, and guided him into a better light of understanding. I mean, I hope he succeeded. I wish theists would realise this ahead of time - they always F up from the start of any debate right when they introduce science. If they stuck with supernaturalist and magic (which is consistent in the bible)….they’d be silly, but they could form an argument based on their hypothesis. However , when they introduce facts, science etc they are now mixing what we already know into magic and beliefs without evidence, so they struggle to blend one into the other, and that is impossible. This guy here is so desperate to message his belief into science that it always conflicts with whatever he proposes. It’s kinda sad to watch, because you’re seeing a victim of religious indoctrination struggling to make sense of what was imposed onto his mind.
Scientists before the planet Neptune was discovered: “Hmmm… there’s something odd with the way the planets are orbiting. Maybe there’s another planet out there causing this effect. I know, let’s go look for it.” Also Scientists: Looks for this planet. Finds it. Theists: “Hmmm… I wonder how reality came into being. Maybe there’s a perfect entity that created everything. Also Theists: God therefore exists.
Matt, thankyou, and all Atheist activists. I know some of this gets tedious, but we must remember, there are newly 'freed' YECS or young christian students seeking answers or making same old claims every Year! They need these, and other voices! It can take many different approaches to plant those 'seeds' ! So many have so little knowledge of their 'holy books'. And showing that God did lie, or didn't know stuff! Plus how he 'evolves' throughout the early books! They can shut down, or try to find out more! Not to mention, how bad the universe is! 👍🌊💙💙💙🌊🥰✌
Alive or dead, hell or heaven. Your choice. God doesn’t control man’s will and eternal life in heaven is free. There are consequences if you die without Jesus.
Fun fact: aircraft black boxes are usually orange so they’ll stand out amongst wreckage. Thanks for the review MD. I tend to avoid debates these days so I appreciate the recaps.
The mathematicians ive encountered who ponder infinity are extremely more grounded, interesting and logical than those theists I've encountered who ponder infinite perfection.
@@subvind Not sure I follow the first sentence . What is endless perfection And what is the war on it . Also not sure what you mean by "math world". In my previous comment I was referring only to those mathematicians I've come in contact with, I'm not one myself.
@@subvind Correct, infintity is not a number. My original comment was in response to the OP btw. There's an intriguing doc on Netflix called 'a trip to infinity'. It's not a lesson or lecture. Short interviews on the topic along with captivating animation. More on the Open to Wonder side of things. Checked out the link. Opens up another whole new world of knowledge. Again! Need a few lifetimes to take in all of what's known. 🤓😢 So was "endless perfection " sarcasm? You didnt clarify that.
you made a good argument regarding the incompatibility of a perfect mind and the inevitable shortcomings and irrationality of the consequences of that 'concept'.
Really enjoyed the breakdown of this, also really liked the debate. This critical thinking is really enjoyable to watch and experience on your channel.
I loved your use of the word "grok". I've read Robert Heinlein's "Stranger in a Strange Land" several times and consider it a classic of the science (or speculative) fiction genre. It's a must read in my opinion even if you are not a fan of the science-fiction genre because it illustrates one manner, albeit imperfectly, in which many religions may be true. Also, it's just dog-damn fun read. 😄
@@exceptionallyaverage3075 But the vast majority of religions are logically mutually contradictory. They *can't* all be true, because each disagrees with the others.
@@jursamaj No one here has said anything different. At least not yet. And Stranger in a Strange Land is a novel. It can be read and enjoyed without believing it's true.
@@exceptionallyaverage3075 No one has said different? I quote: "it illustrates one manner, albeit imperfectly, in which many religions may be true". It's been a few years, but yes, I enjoyed the novel. That doesn't mean it's anything more than an entertaining novel.
Just defining "A perfect mind" is problematic, much less how such a mind operates in a state of no duration. In the end, it's trying to posit an inexplicable entity as a reason for an unexplained reality. It being inexplicable doesn't in and of itself disprove it as a possibility. Just because no one understands how that could work doesn't mean it doesn't, but it sure doesn't lend to any confidence that it's a rational explanation.
Isn't it a fallacy to think that an imperfect mind [humans], could imagine or create a perfect mind [god or god-like], because they don't know what a perfect mind could be?
@@fairwitness7473 Isnt a big part of Christianity simply this imagining? From the perspective of ancient bible authors simply making up stories havent they imagined their perfect god ? I mean theyve imagined something is perfect whether there is anything perfect or not. It might just be an issue of defining, which has obviously proven to be so difficult if not nearly impossible.
@@playtime5051 you're talking about epistemic regress, but I want to hear Matt's thoughts on infinite regress when it comes to arguments about the existence of gods and existence itself.
The black box segment reminded me of the IT Crowd's sketches about "The Internet". Represented as a black box with a blinking red light by IT guys, to pull a prank on a particularly gullible Jen. It's hysterically funny. :)
I think you can only define perfect in relation to a given field. You can call something a "great song", and this means something (mostly what you think of it), but it means nothing to call that song "perfect" unless you define what precise field you're talking about. You can be talking about the "perfect instrumental skill of the players" (which would mean either that they all are virtuosos, or that the way their instrumental imperfections blend together make for a unique and full sound), you might say this song is "perfectly written", which would mean that it checks all the boxes of songwriting technique that we recognize (notice that saying "perfectly written" does not mean that the song is actually "good"), you can say that the song is "perfect" for a. certain mood or specific setting (as in "romantic", "depressive", etc - but then you're again talking about your subjective view of the track). So, basically I've changed my mind. "Perfect" doesn't ever mean anything. It's either a statement about how much you like something, or a statement about whether something checks all the boxes in a specific setting. Thus "perfect mind" is literally a meaningless statement, unless you mean that "I like it best".
Yep, something can only ever be perfect for a specific purpose. A specific drill might be perfect for drilling a specific hole, but it'll be anything _but_ perfect for hamming a nail into something. A piece of music _could_ (in theory) be perfect when you analyse it with music theory, it could perfectly evoke the intended emotions in everyone, paint exactly the intended pictures in everyone's mind, ... - but it would be anything but perfect when it comes to evoking any _other_ emotions, let alone for luring birds, or for echo location, or... So the very moment anyone brings up the word "perfect" (or even "ideal" or "optimal") without narrowing down the intended purpose, one should immediately ask, "perfect for what?"
Honestly, I can only worry about the possibility of a perfect (and thus perfectly capable) evil. Weather or not it actually exists, it's sufficient as a perfect source of torment. Thanks for your video.
Apply the same rational and logic to a "perfect evil" that you would apply to a "perfect good" or a "perfect mind". When you rationally realize that a "perfect evil" either; does not exist, or can not be proven to exist you should be able to remove the source of torment or at least be confident that it is not perfect.
@@chrisgraham2904 Unfortunately logic has its limits. That it cannot be proven to exist doesn't let me off the hook. I'm still not afforded the luxury of a certainty that it does not exist. Even so, I respect your response.
@@somethingyousaid5059 It is very rare for any of us to enjoy absolute certainty, but I hope the reality of the natural world will help to reduce the anxiety that has been indoctrinated into so many, since a very young age. Place the concept of an evil entity in the same box as the; monster in the closet, Boggeyman under the bed, the fear of alien abduction, or being toasted by the breath of a dragon.
@@chrisgraham2904 I didn't used to worry about it until it became part of a fullblown (and I hate to use the term) "existential crisis" that I inadvertently got caught up in. One that breaks down into a crisis of faith, a crisis of identity, a (so called) mid-life crisis, and whatever else. All of it taken together makes for quite a hell. Suicide anyone? Oh well, what are ya gonna do, right? 🤷♂
How many minds were involved with the origin of our universe? I see no reason to conclude that the number is greater than zero. I also see no reason to conclude that the number is equal to one. What aspect of this universe suggests that only a single agent was involved? How can you eliminate teamwork? It seems that monotheism is an unquestioned assumption at this point. Why? Have monotheistic religions ever actually managed to establish even monotheism? Let alone their particular religious aspects? It seems that all they have is some wishy-washy appeal to some kind of "maximally wonderfully perfect being", as ill-defined and logically unsound as that is...
@@friendo6257 J.L. Mackie noted decades ago that not only is "multiple minds" an equally valid concept (and, he notes, more in line with our experience -- one person doesn't will a building into existence, a team of construction workers and architects cooperate to build it), so is panpsychism (that everything in the universe, or the universe itself, has a mind) or some kind of weird idealism where reality is a collective construct of all thinking beings. He doesn't actually endorse or defend any of these positions, just points out that it seems unnecessary to postulate a singular mind. There are of course apologetic claims that seek to establish the necessity of a single will, but many seem to just be begging the question, i.e. defining omnipotence such that only one being can have it, and then defining the supreme will or first cause as omnipotent, and then declaring this proves there's only one.
"Grok" is a term from the book "Stranger in a Strange Land." by Robert Heinlein. It was used as a word meaning a connection with deep understanding. (I think)
Hard to believe a perfect mind (which, according to Christians, necessarily includes “perfectly all-loving) would devise a universe in which his most prized creation was to suffer for hundreds of thousands of years and just for the little moment that they stopped suffering, they still were subjected to disease, starvation, hatred and wars, until the moment in all likelihood that we all eradicate one another.
Religion is silly. Surely I can't be the only one who knows this. Listening to these people try to explain what is obviously absurd makes me ill and angry.
The word, "perfect", is highly subjective. A perfect square makes for a pretty poor circle, and vice versa. The word, "perfect", is really just a synonym for exact. Begs the question, "Exactly what?".
Matt, I was listening to a story of a boy who asked why people who had not been introduced to Christ were being denied the glory of heaven due their ignorance of him. It got me wondering why, are there different religions at all? If God has all power than he could have overcome our lack of communicative ability and spread his message to everyone at once. Or there would be one consistent message given to people no matter where they lived or when they received it. The fact that isn't how it was done, or one of the choices I mentioned chosen puts a serious question mark on God's omnipotence. Thanks for opening my eyes to the truth. I used to be an agnostic.
Yes he addressed this many times in the AE podcast. The only defense anyone ever has against this argument is either to attempt to ignore it completely, or the more common, "My religion is correct because my religions book says so." I heard this one a lot too: "(insert prophet) reveals himself to everyone, it's their choice wether they accept him or not". They simply don't see other people as genuine people with different experiences and can't fathom how anything works outside of their illusion.
Perfection is such a poorly thought out concept. Even in more limited examples we can see that there is subjectivity almost inherently involved, the criteria is often unclear, and the evaluation isn't unequivocal. What's the best universe? Does it have to do with the number/qualities of planets, number/qualities of sentient beings, the physical mechanisms/laws, number of purple photons, etc. etc. This is like children arguing about what car is the "best".
It's seems quite reasonable why a person wants to believe the universe is made by intelligence. However there is also good reasons to think the universe did not require a mind. The significance here is that we don't know. It come down to what you believe.
Matt I have been enjoying your show for some time now, love how you try to make sense of the irrationality that callers throw at you. Only one thing annoys me,just one....when you have another speaker on the show and don't let them speak!! You say,I'll let so-and-so answer your question, a few words in,you jump right back in, essentially cutting Forrest,or whoever else you have on,out of the conversation. Taking control as if you're the only one who has the right answers. If you want to always be the hotshot, spare Forrest, et al,the insult of being repeatedly cut off!
14:10. I work for a company that made planes. They had four simulators in the building I worked in. Each simulator used the actual avionics for the plane, set out on benches. All were black or Grey boxes apart from one bright orange one - The flight record or 'Black Box'. This always amused me?
there's a saying, that nobody is perfect. I say that everyone is the perfect them, and that maybe that should apply to the mind. we don't all think and feel exactly the same, from what I gather. Our minds are the only determining factor to the presumption of perfect.
Inches to millimeters. Metric is now used in all countries (and for over 50 years in many places) bar America and some small island somewhere. The reason why metric won the war on the best method to measure sometbing (and even why NASA only uses metric, although I note the US reporters don't tend to) is because its easier/simpler and quicker to learn. I can teach any American metric in about 5 seconds. Its base 10. No 12's, no fractions, no different multipliers for different measurements! No odd outdated terms such as pounds, or yards (?) or feet (Lol) or any other obscure word. Metric is base 10. Ten millimeters in a centimeter. Ten, ten ten. From nano technology (10 to the negative 9 places) all the way to kilo (1000 of 1s, or 100 of tens, or 1 of a 1000). If I said: 10 kms to the next town, you could divide the distance by 10 to get to 100 meters, then divide by 10 to get 10 meters. Its easy to work out how far away is 10 kms. But what of miles? What do you suspect children wonder how far away is 10 miles? They obviously can't divide it by tens to break it down! And even if they did, they'd get yards and feet, and not a 1000 feet, oh god no, its 52800 feet in 10 miles! ie The child is confused as all sh1t. And then to make matters worse (with obscure roman day terms and a whole range of totally different multipliers for each individual measurement) THEN the child must deal with fractions! Metric uses decimal, you know like $10 and 50 cents (10.5) Not 1/2 dollars or 1/4 miles or whatever other ridiculous outdated fraction you use there. All these fractions, multiply individual multipliers, ridiculous terms. All add up to > Confuse the child and make it mega (10,000) difficult to learn. It is abundently clear that America want to keep children scared of maths and science! I asked my daughter, What's an inch?. She replied: I don't know. I said its an outdated old difficult measurement to learn. However shipping does seem to use imperial still. I think its because big old ships last for decades, and the shipping industry are still full of ol' timers. Metric is easy to learn, easy to understand distances, weights you name it. And the reason why metric won over imperial is because kids take to it with happiness not fear. What the hell is happening in America? Do they hate kids learning?
To increase scalar linearity in a gradient, take half the smallest increment and offset the two scales of the same measure, i.e. a 1/4 gradient can simply be made into an 1/8 gradient. Use one scale and offset by the half mark and combine. Decimal gradients may be more problematic but is still doable.
I wonder if this topic switching happened in Christopher Hitchen's debate with Frank Turek, because I always found it so bizarre that Christopher Hitchens was arguing a completely different topic than Frank Turek was (Frank Turek arguing that god made the universe and that god is personal, spaceless, timeless, etc.) and Hitchens arguing that god is immoral and that religion causes immorality.
Absolutes (perfection, infinities, etc.) do generally not exist in reallity, exept as a concept. And they cannot even be definied above that conceptual stage.
Anytime someone thinks to the perfect mind created the universe I'm reminded of some really Panglossian shit from Candide. Like I thought that Voltaire took this argument down 300 years ago but I guess not huh
I took on some of his videos years ago and he spent his entire time responding by essentially screaming "I'm right, so there!" Zack is an idiot. It's a complete waste of time trying to argue rationally with someone who doesn't even know what rationality is.
The big bang model, evolution, abiogenesis. These theories attempt to describe how life emerges from a chaotic system of particle interactions driven by fundamental forces. I ask you at what point did the chaotic system determine anything to be useful? Life evolved out of chaos right? So what I am asking is at what point did this chaotic system determine anything to be useful? The moment you acknowledge that it has deemed something useful you already left the notion of chaos behind entirely because what appeared chaotic truly had a purpose and intention behind it. What is required in order to determine something to be useful? Evolution requires conscious agency otherwise it has no way to determine usefulness in order to evolve into something. What are we evolving into? What is the end result of evolution what is the system evolving into? You know how people create simulations on computers which simulate evolution in a simplistic form? The "simplistic" is an illogical position because the system which is producing that simple simulation is quite sophisticated in terms of the programming and software/hardware that goes into driving that simplistic evolution. So what appears random and chaotic isn't actually random and chaotic. What seems simplistic is actually quite sophisticated and hands on because we programmed and constructed the physical hardware and software for that simulation to be taking place, none of which are simplistic and that is without touching on the power supplied to operate the system. So although it's simple to create such a simulation in reality it's not as simplistic as one would lead you to conclude.
Easy. The "chaotic" system didn't "determine" anything to be "useful". There is no evidence to suggest any consciousness existed to make any determinations about anything, nor was "useful" a prerequisite or a goal to be achieved for any existence, nor was it necessarily "chaos".
Perfect is one of those words in which there are no good examples of in nature. It's a conceptual word. The fact that there are no perfect circles in nature doesn't mean that the concept of a perfect circle or a perfect line or a perfect point in space can be useful even though they are theoretical and conceptual in mathematics and don't actually exist in nature. People make stories up of a perfect being and that being never seems to come out of the realm of the conceptual and imaginary.
Thinking that we could ever judge perfection is arrogance in the extreme. Even if we somehow could measure perfection, which we can't, we still would not have access to most of the universe to measure it! Or would measuring the smallest thing and seeing that it was perfect tell us that the rest of the universe must therefore be perfect since a single perfect component would imply perfection in the whole thing.
4:25, the prompt doesn't require a currently existing agent. Its possible that the mind created the universe and then ceased to exist, something like that. That aside, I wouldn't agree to that topic. 'perfect' in this context makes no sense to me. I don't understand how a thing can be 'perfect', because 'perfect' is something that we ascribe to things based on what we want them to do. Perfection is about how well things conform to what we want them to do, not anything about what they actually are. 'This hammer is the perfect tool to drive this nail into that wood' makes sense, 'this hammer is perfect' does not.
This is honestly a really interesting question: What's so great about a mind? What leads us to believe a thinking entity is so great? Why should we conceptualize a maximally great being, if such a thing even can exist, as having a thinking mind at all? Suppose a mind is just a thing imperfect beings have to help them deliberate on matters they can't resolve through their inherent nature? Perhaps "maximal greatness" actually entails pure instinctual volition, a being that merely acts instantly with no mind encumbering its decisions. Such a being could have no explanation behind its decision-making processes; it would simply DO, in the greatest possible way. Would it be better if it could think about the acts it undertakes? Why?
@@Uryvichk My impression is that... its human ego... humans have minds, which we experience as personally significant.. but as a smart man once sid .. 'personal is not the same as important.'
If there was a GOD, then our “imperfection” IS proof that this GOD is NOT perfect, our suffering is proof, that it is NOT a “benevolent loving GOD” and the fact that we need to believe in GOD without this GOD ever revealing is proof that he is not “all present”.
You wouldn't use a ruler to figure out if smthng is or is not. You would use a gauge, but the problem stays the same. You can not recognize perfection with a non perfect tool, as you can not declare probabilities of properties of a thing, when you don't have an example/template for asumed properties.
From the Latin word roots 'per-' completely, and 'facere,' to make or fashion. The original meaning of perfect is "to make or fashion completely." This original has a different intent than the more modern perfect, which is 'without scratch, infinitely intelligent, without sin,' etc. The word has morphed from a simple statement of craftsmanship to one that is all-encompassing of an imaginary state.
Putting forth arguments for bare minimum to prove their specific version of god is what theists do nowadays. Unfortunately, they don't realize that there's still a long way from that bare minimum to their specific god. I've seen some Muslim debaters argue for the existence of a "necessary being" to earn a gotcha moment against atheists. They also change the definition of "being" to "anything that exists" using a philosophical approach. 🤦♀ Tbh, philosophy is important and it has its place, but it's wasted on religion.
6:40 - I can just hear it now though, Matt; our inability (our being man's) to even try to define our parameters on which we're trying to describe a potential characteristic of a "god" (in this instance a perfect mind), will in itself be argued as evidence for the existence of god. "See, he's so great and amazing and omnipotent we couldn't even begin to try to understand or explain anything about god because we're so much lesser than he." They've got you coming and going in that revolving door of theistic obsession.
I don't see any good reason not to propose that (given we are sentient, conscious, loving, thinking, laughing,creating, imagining, self-transcending etc etc persons) the ultimate ground of being or existence is also personal and likely to possess mind of a greater order than ours as human persons. It makes more sense to me than we finding ourselves here due to any senseless and mindless process. I don't think we have to accept the irony that we are mind wrought by mindlessness. If it's reasonable to propose an ultimate personal ground of existence then it's reasonable to attempt to ascribe the characteristics of that personal ground of existence as much as our limited minds allow. Even though we cannot fully comprehend we at least have notions of what e.g, perfection, infinity, nothingness mean. So I think I'll stay where I am and respectfully decline to have my flawed mind" fixed" by Mr "that's what we're here for"Dillahunty. : )
My position with my Christian friends is: Let's assume that god exists and that that god is omnipotent and omniscient etc. Is it not just as likely as not that that god created us in this exact moment with all our knowledge and memories in place, and, if that is true, there is no point in even having this discussion in the first place. Is that within the possibilities of this god which you assume into existance? If so, can you agree on the utter futility of this discussion altogether? ( I always have fun with that one) I also tell them that I hope that they are right in their belief because I have nothing invested and they have lived their whole lives based upon that belief.
Jim, it's a great point....rather like the one you can make with the hard solipsist. To the hard solipsist the only proper response is, if you really mean what you say then the only thing for you to do is stop arguing for your position since the very act of arguing is an attempt to convince another mind of your position. So while you may enjoy playing at the idea of solipsism....in reality....you are forced to "behave is if" solipsism isn't true. Same goes for the "we live in a simulation" folks. I always ask: What is the qualitative difference between an illusion so complete it cannot be pierced or escaped......and reality itself? Would we not be entitled to treat such an illusion as "our reality" and just get on with it?
@@neologian1783 I take that position with "string theorists" too. If it cannot be tested, and there is little or no hope of it ever being tested, what's the point? I like pretty math as much as anyone, but come on.... :P
You/Zac are doing a bit of a bait-and-switch here. A perfect mind is not the same as perfect being/designer (which may or may not be the same as an all-powerful one). One could say, hypothetically, a human with a perfect mind exists, but they would still be subject to the limitations of their body. A god's mind may be perfect even if they are not all-powerful. If you're equating those two, then the topic is just "Did a perfect being create the universe", not "Did a perfect mind create the universe". Although the existence of a being outside of space and time is beyond our ability to conceptualise and we have no evidence to suggest that it's even possible for a mind or thinking being to exist outside of space or time (our minds, and the mind of every being we know of in observable reality, seem to require both), never mind what the existence of such a being would involve and whether they'd have anything that can reasonably be described as a body. If I were to try to narrow down what a "perfect mind" means, I'd probably say it's the ability to reason perfectly, to be perfectly moral and to not have any harmful desires (whether this should be extended to not having any desires whatsoever is arguable, because this suggests that wanting something is necessarily a shortcoming, which I don't think it is). In terms of identifying perfection, we can't do that conclusively, but we can identify things likely to be imperfect, if we can imagine something better. And we can zoom in and look for flaws in the small details to perhaps get a gauge closer to perfection than we are, in the same way that you can look at the complexity of every part of a car engine to understand the overall complexity in a way you may not be able to quite grasp by just looking at the engine as a whole. Although it might be the case that one could imagine something that could be better on a small scale, despite this not being possible on a large scale. If one holds that a god created the universe, and one cannot imagine anything in the universe that could be better, then one might reasonably conclude that said god is perfect. Although if you cannot imagine anything in the universe that could be better, then you're probably not a human being with even a basic ability to think and to understand the world around them. * One can have a whole debate on whether being able to imagine something better is sufficient to conclude that something is imperfect, what it means to imagine something, and in how much detail one would need to imagine it to meet this burden. But this comment is already long enough without getting into that.
A child wakes up Christmas Day, the cookies are eaten, the milk has been drunk & there are presents in their stocking. This is all consistent with Santa existing.. so must it be true?
I was most concerned with his claim of explanatory power. Every time you tried to get him to demonstrate that his explanation had explanatory power, he kept going back to "theism is more probable than atheism". Demonstrating explanatory power requires no comparison. The explanation must stand alone. It seemed he dodged the questions before they even began by saying "I'm not saying atheism can't explain these things, only that they're more likely on theism". Explanatory power requires necessity, and this nips it from the start. If you want to say the god claim has explanatory power, you have to show how the god claim is necessary to explain the phenomenon. He's working solely on the sufficient prong of explanatory power, and completely ignoring the necessary prong. Yes, if we look at the sufficiency of theism to explain any phenomenon, it's been defined as sufficient, so it is sufficient. Now, show necessity. You did a good job explaining how his justification for explanatory power didn't add anything, I just wish you had asked him for necessity. "Hard to vary" is another way to tell whether something has explanatory power, though it's a more general approach, yet it works to show the explanatory impotence of god claims. You touched on it a little when asking "why stop at 1 god?" You can vary the god with another god, or some other type of supernatural entity or process, and the explanation is equally powerful. It isn't.
A perfect being would not have any needs or wants, yet alone the desire to create anything. Much less require being glorified by it's creations.
Typo? [Would]
I've been saying that for years, It's purely logical. That which is perfect doesn't have needs. If it has a need..it's not perfect any longer.
@@fairwitness7473 Sorry, fixed
@@_Omega_Weapon no worries I just didn't want anyone to be a damn tool over a typo. 😉🙌 cheerio!🤗
@@subvind I still puzzle over that one. It seems so strange to me.
"The butler did it."
"The butler?"
"Yes. Consider just an ordinary random day. What are the chances that this man would just randomly get stabbed 15 times? Now consider a situation where there is a butler, and he owes this guy lots of money he can't pay off, and he hates him, and they had a huge fight earlier, and the butler had a knife. In which scenario is this person more likely to get stabbed?"
"That's just a situation you created to fit the scene. It doesn't work as an explanation."
"Well, I don't see you giving any explanations."
"We don't have an explanation yet. I don't even think we have a butler."
"We probably do, if the butler did it."
"That seems backwards."
"And by the way, that butler is a perfect killer."
"This doesn't seem perfect. Just seems like the man was stabbed 15 times. Is that perfect?"
"Probably. This man needed exactly 15 stabs to die."
"How do we know that's exactly what he needed? It's not like we can kill him twice to test it."
"You really going to sit here and question a perfect killer?"
"I just want to figure out what happened."
"I just told you, it was the butler."
Beautiful
😂
Thank you for all you do Matt! We need more minds like you
Love your work Matt. You've been a big part in helping me hone my critical thinking skills. Now when I take in information I ask important questions and even search for information on my questions. Thank you for teaching me these skills. I try to challenge myself when I watch your shows by trying to predict the logical fallacy. I'd say I'm at about 60/40 on my best days. Anyway, thank you. I Grok.
@Fair Witness - "Never thirst."
Thank you for sticking around; I’ve been a fan since the Jeff D and Martin days so hearing from you is like hearing from an old friend. Keep up the good work 👍
Matt I am forever indebted to you for being the guidance I needed to free myself from brainwashing and religious trauma I actually endured physically
Food goes in, poop comes out. You can't explain that!
I found it interesting that in the comments to that debate, no one was defending Zack. They attacked Matt's intelligence. They tried to attack some of Matt's assertions (one was attacking "Claims are not evidence." Lol). No one seemed to defend anything Zack said. They couldn't even attack the points Matt made specifically in this debate but, found past statements to attack (unsuccessfully imo). Just funny.
Yes, I noticed that too. It's very telling..When you knock down someones intelligence, rather than adress their arguments. You are showing your inferior intelligence to the person you are critcizing..Yes, and that goes for both sides.
Not sure if it was published elsewhere, I watched it from the Theology Unleashed channel.
Overall I like engaging with that channel as an exercise in getting out of my echo chamber. But I do find they shovel hard on the woo train. Usually I find people there tend to push back pretty hard on materialists, but when Matt shows up he brings his audience, and the comment section is dominantly naturalist for that specific show.
People get emotional when their views are possibly not true. It makes sense to me why people act this way, doesn't make sense to me why they present themselves this way however.
I actually didn’t see many instances of people attacking Matt nor his intelligence but I concede that I might have just missed that. I would ask that are you sure the “claims are not evidence” argument/statement wasn’t in defense of Matt rather than against him? Mind you I agree wholeheartedly with Matt in this debate and I don’t think his opponent had ANY good answers, explanations, or arguments. I was just curious and looked through the comments and didn’t see many that said that and I just can’t imagine someone would be foolish enough to use “claims are not evidence” against Matt considering that’s pretty much the entire point Matt was making. That by no means is to say someone is incapable of being that foolish I’m just trying to hold out hope for humanity here by giving the benefit of the doubt.
@@HeavenlyReaver Oh, it was definitely against Matt. There was a whole thread there starting with someone posting how smart Matt is and there was a lot of people disagreeing...
I found Zack did what flat earthers do all the time: think that the claim is evidence. When after they make a claim, they are asked for evidence, they act confused and refer back to their claim. They don't get that all they are doing, at best, is showing their claim is internally logically consistent. However if it's not supported by something in reality no one should take it seriously.
Most con artist flerfers I've watched just Deflect to another talking point, doing everything they can to NOT answer by answering with Another Question that has Not a Damn thing to do with flerf.
@@tpseeker3367 Many flerfs are religious flerfs. Just makes me wonder at the correlation.
@@ScottM1973 here's a couple to look up & roll your eye's at:
Daniel 4:10-11 "Now these were the visions in my mind as I lay on my bed: I was looking, and behold, there was a tree in the midst of the earth and its height was great. ‘The tree grew large and became strong
And its height reached to the sky,
And it was visible to the end of the whole earth."
To me means being able to see the Horizon
Revelation 7:1
"After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding back the four winds of the earth, so that no wind would blow on the earth or on the sea or on any tree. "
Four Corners? Sooo earth is a flat Square to them??? Merrffff can't recall any flerf saying flerf is squared though TBH.
Isaiah 40:22
"It is He who sits above the circle of the earth,
And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers,
Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain
And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in."
That one might be where they figure the veil/dome is maybe? And Why compare us to Grasshopers????
1 Chronicles 16:30, Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10 all have this in them: "the world is firmly established, it will not be moved."
We know Earth is 3rd planet orbiting the Sun & you'll Never hear a flerf mention or even admit Mercury, Venus are between the Sun & Earth. Let alone even admitting that there are Other Planets. Cloest flerfs come to references of planets are ""Heavenly Bodies"" ie Isaiah 14:12, in a taunt to the king of Babylon, refers to him as Helel, a Hebrew word meaning The Morning Star, which would be Venus.
Then again as much Cherry Picking is done no wonder they don't do more research. They just read what they want to instead of the paragraphs before & after .
Hope this helps a little bit, yet just confuses me even more.
I whole heartily agree@@251rmartin . For me I'm not just going after what the con artists babble, I'm thinking of those watching chat, getting lost & confused in the gish gallop. The more those just watching start to actually Question themselves of how & WHY the con artists they listen to NEVER Provide ANY Evidence of flerf.
There's 3 reasons flerf is even mentioned on the wwwebs anymore is Platforms just love the clicks from chats (like news if it bleeds it leads for more viewers), funds BOTH sides receive & popularity or feeling Accepted.
For a while there was the Birds are Fake BS @@251rmartin . The things people do for the Look at Me Look at Me
I liked that you got into the idea of 'what would a perfect mind DO?' I don't think I've ever heard you talk about it before, but i've always thought the same: if gawd was 'perfect' ---- it would just sit in its perfection and do nothing. 'Wanting to make a universe\wanting a relationship with us' would mean gawd was lacking something or desired(again, lack) something, which is not perfection. Any perfect mind would just sit there, being perfect forever, doing nothing, making nothing because it wouldn't need\want\desire anything. I think this even covers the dodge of gawd being 'maximally' great too, but I could be wrong.
If you were absolutely perfect, with no needs, desires or expectations, why would you bother to get up in the morning?
@@chrisgraham2904 Lots of mornings, I don't 😇 🍷
@@chrisgraham2904 "if you were absolutely perfect, with no needs, desires or expectations, why would you bother to get up in the morning?"
The absolutely perfect beings weren't bothered when getting up in the morning, they simply got up in the morning by themselves. 😁
(Equivocation intended)
@@richiejohnson Clear evidence of perfection. I think I’ll lounge in bed today too. 😉
@@chrisgraham2904 exactly. I certainly wouldn't.
If nature occurs naturally, as it appears to, then we only have to explain nature, if nature occurs supernaturally then we have to explain both nature and supernature, theism is definitely not less complicated and violates occam's razor right out of the gate.
Matt, you played a part in freeing my mind a long time ago. Thank you.
Good to see you still at it.
Sir, he freed your mind from salvation. I advise you to take another look. I am positive about this.
Wish you all the best 💚🙂
@@gherieg.1091 Well yes, I did it myself. But his logic was useful in helping me do so.
@@gherieg.1091 Wait. You're not saying that I just "freed" myself from salvation, are you?
@@dnice374
Yes, the latter. He “freed” you from Salvation.
Please, I don’t like to bicker as evidently it hardly ever leads to any kind of agreement. But I urge you to test my “theory” by reading Daniel 8.
If you keep your mind neutral as you read it, you’ll see it is prophecy of the Desert Storm war. And the subsequent fragmentation of the USA soon after that.
Can’t right now think of any other way to get through to you. But I hope this works.
@@gherieg.1091 oh gherie gherie gherie. you don't understand
I suggest more time at your local church if you want to do outreach. Your god has no more power over me and I'm grateful for it daily.
When you're ready, perhaps I'll be the one to show you the light.
Until the day you are
I just finished watching the debate. Loved Matt’s calm and collected self. It was like seeing an educated grown up teaching a young student who is blasted with loads of cool information on science , but doesn’t know how to handle it within his own religious model. And seeing Matt, appearing to be like a wise Gandalf, explaining to this kid as best he could, and guided him into a better light of understanding. I mean, I hope he succeeded.
I wish theists would realise this ahead of time - they always F up from the start of any debate right when they introduce science.
If they stuck with supernaturalist and magic (which is consistent in the bible)….they’d be silly, but they could form an argument based on their hypothesis.
However , when they introduce facts, science etc they are now mixing what we already know into magic and beliefs without evidence, so they struggle to blend one into the other, and that is impossible.
This guy here is so desperate to message his belief into science that it always conflicts with whatever he proposes.
It’s kinda sad to watch, because you’re seeing a victim of religious indoctrination struggling to make sense of what was imposed onto his mind.
"There's a dead body, and a butler stood near it. Spiderman is the murderer!" - J. Jonah Jameson probably
Scientists before the planet Neptune was discovered:
“Hmmm… there’s something odd with the way the planets are orbiting. Maybe there’s another planet out there causing this effect. I know, let’s go look for it.”
Also Scientists:
Looks for this planet. Finds it.
Theists:
“Hmmm… I wonder how reality came into being. Maybe there’s a perfect entity that created everything.
Also Theists:
God therefore exists.
It's worse than that. They're trying to create a situation in which their preexisting belief is logically necessary.
@@robertmiller9735 presups are the ultimate in pathetic
@@asagoldsmith3328 It's the final line of defense... except for "God exists because if you say otherwise I'll cut your head off", I suppose.
@@robertmiller9735 HOW DO U EVEN KNOW REALITY IS REAL THO
Seriously @@asagoldsmith3328 ???
Love your work and admire your incredible patience. Thanks for continuing your work. I always find your posts interesting.
I found Zach severely under qualified to debate someone as knowledgeable on the subject as Matt.
Matt, thankyou, and all Atheist activists. I know some of this gets tedious, but we must remember, there are newly 'freed' YECS or young christian students seeking answers or making same old claims every Year! They need these, and other voices! It can take many different approaches to plant those 'seeds' ! So many have so little knowledge of their 'holy books'. And showing that God did lie, or didn't know stuff! Plus how he 'evolves' throughout the early books! They can shut down, or try to find out more! Not to mention, how bad the universe is! 👍🌊💙💙💙🌊🥰✌
Alive or dead, hell or heaven. Your choice. God doesn’t control man’s will and eternal life in heaven is free. There are consequences if you die without Jesus.
Fun fact: aircraft black boxes are usually orange so they’ll stand out amongst wreckage.
Thanks for the review MD. I tend to avoid debates these days so I appreciate the recaps.
Orange is also pretty much the easiest colour (on average) to spot in any environment, including underwater :)
Sounds more like trying to measure an infinite distance with a finite ruler.
Love that! I'll be swiping that, thank you! Lol
The mathematicians ive encountered who ponder infinity are extremely more grounded, interesting and logical than those theists I've encountered who ponder infinite perfection.
@@subvind
Not sure I follow the first sentence .
What is endless perfection
And what is the war on it .
Also not sure what you mean by "math world".
In my previous comment I was referring only to those mathematicians I've come in contact with, I'm not one myself.
@@subvind
Correct, infintity is not a number.
My original comment was in response to the OP btw.
There's an intriguing doc on Netflix called 'a trip to infinity'.
It's not a lesson or lecture. Short interviews on the topic along with captivating animation. More on the Open to Wonder side of things.
Checked out the link. Opens up another
whole new world of knowledge. Again!
Need a few lifetimes to take in all of what's known. 🤓😢
So was "endless
perfection " sarcasm?
You didnt clarify that.
My favorite part of the debate was Zach trying to measure some lesser degree of perfection.
you made a good argument regarding the incompatibility of a perfect mind and the inevitable shortcomings and irrationality of the consequences of that 'concept'.
Like what exactly?
A great review Matt -
Thank you for the link Matt. I’ll check the debate out first, then listen to this clip. 😉
Really enjoyed the breakdown of this, also really liked the debate. This critical thinking is really enjoyable to watch and experience on your channel.
Interesting thought... Theoretically, the only thing (an almost) Perfect mind would lack (or perhaps want for) is "imperfection".
I loved your use of the word "grok". I've read Robert Heinlein's "Stranger in a Strange Land" several times and consider it a classic of the science (or speculative) fiction genre. It's a must read in my opinion even if you are not a fan of the science-fiction genre because it illustrates one manner, albeit imperfectly, in which many religions may be true. Also, it's just dog-damn fun read. 😄
Imperfectly true? So… not actually true?
@@jursamaj Imperfectly illustrated.
@@exceptionallyaverage3075 But the vast majority of religions are logically mutually contradictory. They *can't* all be true, because each disagrees with the others.
@@jursamaj No one here has said anything different. At least not yet. And Stranger in a Strange Land is a novel. It can be read and enjoyed without believing it's true.
@@exceptionallyaverage3075 No one has said different? I quote: "it illustrates one manner, albeit imperfectly, in which many religions may be true".
It's been a few years, but yes, I enjoyed the novel. That doesn't mean it's anything more than an entertaining novel.
I have yet to see a mind that does not require a brain.
Just defining "A perfect mind" is problematic, much less how such a mind operates in a state of no duration. In the end, it's trying to posit an inexplicable entity as a reason for an unexplained reality. It being inexplicable doesn't in and of itself disprove it as a possibility. Just because no one understands how that could work doesn't mean it doesn't, but it sure doesn't lend to any confidence that it's a rational explanation.
Isn't it a fallacy to think that an imperfect mind [humans], could imagine or create a perfect mind [god or god-like], because they don't know what a perfect mind could be?
@@fairwitness7473 Correct, that being the main problem with defining a perfect mind.
@@fairwitness7473
Isnt a big part of Christianity simply this imagining?
From the perspective of ancient bible authors simply making up stories havent they imagined their perfect god ?
I mean theyve imagined something is perfect whether there is anything perfect or not.
It might just be an issue of defining, which has obviously proven to be so difficult if not nearly impossible.
@@bellezavudd the first and second answer is I don't I know how or why they think what they do.
I still want to hear your full thoughts on 'infinite regress'!
a belief is justified because it is based on another belief that is justified. Wikipedia
@@playtime5051 you're talking about epistemic regress, but I want to hear Matt's thoughts on infinite regress when it comes to arguments about the existence of gods and existence itself.
Although it didn't get anywhere, I think your point came across well
The black box segment reminded me of the IT Crowd's sketches about "The Internet". Represented as a black box with a blinking red light by IT guys, to pull a prank on a particularly gullible Jen. It's hysterically funny. :)
I think you can only define perfect in relation to a given field. You can call something a "great song", and this means something (mostly what you think of it), but it means nothing to call that song "perfect" unless you define what precise field you're talking about. You can be talking about the "perfect instrumental skill of the players" (which would mean either that they all are virtuosos, or that the way their instrumental imperfections blend together make for a unique and full sound), you might say this song is "perfectly written", which would mean that it checks all the boxes of songwriting technique that we recognize (notice that saying "perfectly written" does not mean that the song is actually "good"), you can say that the song is "perfect" for a. certain mood or specific setting (as in "romantic", "depressive", etc - but then you're again talking about your subjective view of the track).
So, basically I've changed my mind.
"Perfect" doesn't ever mean anything.
It's either a statement about how much you like something, or a statement about whether something checks all the boxes in a specific setting.
Thus "perfect mind" is literally a meaningless statement, unless you mean that "I like it best".
Yep, something can only ever be perfect for a specific purpose. A specific drill might be perfect for drilling a specific hole, but it'll be anything _but_ perfect for hamming a nail into something. A piece of music _could_ (in theory) be perfect when you analyse it with music theory, it could perfectly evoke the intended emotions in everyone, paint exactly the intended pictures in everyone's mind, ... - but it would be anything but perfect when it comes to evoking any _other_ emotions, let alone for luring birds, or for echo location, or...
So the very moment anyone brings up the word "perfect" (or even "ideal" or "optimal") without narrowing down the intended purpose, one should immediately ask, "perfect for what?"
Honestly, I can only worry about the possibility of a perfect (and thus perfectly capable) evil. Weather or not it actually exists, it's sufficient as a perfect source of torment.
Thanks for your video.
Apply the same rational and logic to a "perfect evil" that you would apply to a "perfect good" or a "perfect mind".
When you rationally realize that a "perfect evil" either; does not exist, or can not be proven to exist you should be able to remove the source of torment or at least be confident that it is not perfect.
@@251rmartin If there is a God, it's about time this a**hole stopped playing Hide & Seek.
@@chrisgraham2904
Unfortunately logic has its limits.
That it cannot be proven to exist doesn't let me off the hook. I'm still not afforded the luxury of a certainty that it does not exist.
Even so, I respect your response.
@@somethingyousaid5059 It is very rare for any of us to enjoy absolute certainty, but I hope the reality of the natural world will help to reduce the anxiety that has been indoctrinated into so many, since a very young age.
Place the concept of an evil entity in the same box as the; monster in the closet, Boggeyman under the bed, the fear of alien abduction, or being toasted by the breath of a dragon.
@@chrisgraham2904
I didn't used to worry about it until it became part of a fullblown (and I hate to use the term) "existential crisis" that I inadvertently got caught up in. One that breaks down into a crisis of faith, a crisis of identity, a (so called) mid-life crisis, and whatever else.
All of it taken together makes for quite a hell. Suicide anyone?
Oh well, what are ya gonna do, right? 🤷♂
How many minds were involved with the origin of our universe?
I see no reason to conclude that the number is greater than zero.
I also see no reason to conclude that the number is equal to one.
What aspect of this universe suggests that only a single agent was involved? How can you eliminate teamwork?
It seems that monotheism is an unquestioned assumption at this point. Why?
Have monotheistic religions ever actually managed to establish even monotheism? Let alone their particular religious aspects?
It seems that all they have is some wishy-washy appeal to some kind of "maximally wonderfully perfect being", as ill-defined and logically unsound as that is...
Define a mind
Right? If a mind is needed, there's nothing that shows that only one mind is needed.
@@friendo6257 J.L. Mackie noted decades ago that not only is "multiple minds" an equally valid concept (and, he notes, more in line with our experience -- one person doesn't will a building into existence, a team of construction workers and architects cooperate to build it), so is panpsychism (that everything in the universe, or the universe itself, has a mind) or some kind of weird idealism where reality is a collective construct of all thinking beings. He doesn't actually endorse or defend any of these positions, just points out that it seems unnecessary to postulate a singular mind.
There are of course apologetic claims that seek to establish the necessity of a single will, but many seem to just be begging the question, i.e. defining omnipotence such that only one being can have it, and then defining the supreme will or first cause as omnipotent, and then declaring this proves there's only one.
Love the 1970s pbs font with Matt Dillahunty ascew to the left 2 spaces. You need to add the vhs lines.
"Grok" is a term from the book "Stranger in a Strange Land." by Robert Heinlein.
It was used as a word meaning a connection with deep understanding. (I think)
Hard to believe a perfect mind (which, according to Christians, necessarily includes “perfectly all-loving) would devise a universe in which his most prized creation was to suffer for hundreds of thousands of years and just for the little moment that they stopped suffering, they still were subjected to disease, starvation, hatred and wars, until the moment in all likelihood that we all eradicate one another.
Religion is silly. Surely I can't be the only one who knows this. Listening to these people try to explain what is obviously absurd makes me ill and angry.
The word, "perfect", is highly subjective. A perfect square makes for a pretty poor circle, and vice versa. The word, "perfect", is really just a synonym for exact. Begs the question, "Exactly what?".
Matt, I was listening to a story of a boy who asked why people who had not been introduced to Christ were being denied the glory of heaven due their ignorance of him. It got me wondering why, are there different religions at all? If God has all power than he could have overcome our lack of communicative ability and spread his message to everyone at once. Or there would be one consistent message given to people no matter where they lived or when they received it. The fact that isn't how it was done, or one of the choices I mentioned chosen puts a serious question mark on God's omnipotence.
Thanks for opening my eyes to the truth. I used to be an agnostic.
Yes he addressed this many times in the AE podcast. The only defense anyone ever has against this argument is either to attempt to ignore it completely, or the more common, "My religion is correct because my religions book says so."
I heard this one a lot too: "(insert prophet) reveals himself to everyone, it's their choice wether they accept him or not". They simply don't see other people as genuine people with different experiences and can't fathom how anything works outside of their illusion.
Perfection is such a poorly thought out concept. Even in more limited examples we can see that there is subjectivity almost inherently involved, the criteria is often unclear, and the evaluation isn't unequivocal. What's the best universe? Does it have to do with the number/qualities of planets, number/qualities of sentient beings, the physical mechanisms/laws, number of purple photons, etc. etc.
This is like children arguing about what car is the "best".
It's seems quite reasonable why a person wants to believe the universe is made by intelligence. However there is also good reasons to think the universe did not require a mind. The significance here is that we don't know. It come down to what you believe.
Does the perfect anything exist?
Damn, that engine analogy is really good.
thanks for this matt
Matt I have been enjoying your show for some time now, love how you try to make sense of the irrationality that callers throw at you. Only one thing annoys me,just one....when you have another speaker on the show and don't let them speak!! You say,I'll let so-and-so answer your question, a few words in,you jump right back in, essentially cutting Forrest,or whoever else you have on,out of the conversation. Taking control as if you're the only one who has the right answers. If you want to always be the hotshot, spare Forrest, et al,the insult of being repeatedly cut off!
14:10. I work for a company that made planes. They had four simulators in the building I worked in. Each simulator used the actual avionics for the plane, set out on benches. All were black or Grey boxes apart from one bright orange one - The flight record or 'Black Box'. This always amused me?
there's a saying, that nobody is perfect. I say that everyone is the perfect them, and that maybe that should apply to the mind. we don't all think and feel exactly the same, from what I gather. Our minds are the only determining factor to the presumption of perfect.
A perfect mind created my body with my crappy genetics 🤦🤷
It's all a test you know... Only crappy genetics can show if you are worthy of singing in heaven with other gullible people.
I love it when he uses groceries, stranger in a strange land is one of my very favorite books!
Love ya Matt, odd debate this was
well explanned matt ,thanks
I loved how you schooled Zach on his verbage.
How would a perfect mind have all knowledge before anything ever existed that to me is just so contradictory.
Inches to millimeters.
Metric is now used in all countries (and for over 50 years in many places) bar America and some small island somewhere.
The reason why metric won the war on the best method to measure sometbing (and even why NASA only uses metric, although I note the US reporters don't tend to) is because its easier/simpler and quicker to learn.
I can teach any American metric in about 5 seconds. Its base 10. No 12's, no fractions, no different multipliers for different measurements! No odd outdated terms such as pounds, or yards (?) or feet (Lol) or any other obscure word.
Metric is base 10. Ten millimeters in a centimeter. Ten, ten ten. From nano technology (10 to the negative 9 places) all the way to kilo (1000 of 1s, or 100 of tens, or 1 of a 1000).
If I said: 10 kms to the next town, you could divide the distance by 10 to get to 100 meters, then divide by 10 to get 10 meters. Its easy to work out how far away is 10 kms.
But what of miles? What do you suspect children wonder how far away is 10 miles? They obviously can't divide it by tens to break it down! And even if they did, they'd get yards and feet, and not a 1000 feet, oh god no, its 52800 feet in 10 miles! ie The child is confused as all sh1t. And then to make matters worse (with obscure roman day terms and a whole range of totally different multipliers for each individual measurement) THEN the child must deal with fractions!
Metric uses decimal, you know like $10 and 50 cents (10.5) Not 1/2 dollars or 1/4 miles or whatever other ridiculous outdated fraction you use there.
All these fractions, multiply individual multipliers, ridiculous terms. All add up to > Confuse the child and make it mega (10,000) difficult to learn. It is abundently clear that America want to keep children scared of maths and science!
I asked my daughter, What's an inch?. She replied: I don't know. I said its an outdated old difficult measurement to learn.
However shipping does seem to use imperial still. I think its because big old ships last for decades, and the shipping industry are still full of ol' timers.
Metric is easy to learn, easy to understand distances, weights you name it. And the reason why metric won over imperial is because kids take to it with happiness not fear. What the hell is happening in America? Do they hate kids learning?
the imperial system is a mathematically inferior system of measurement to the metric system.
Can a perfect mind create another perfect mind? The questions are endless.
Could a perfect mind create ANY OTHER mind?
Matt and Tracy should start their own call in show
The black box on a plane to record data is actually the colour orange!
Yep. Makes 'em easier to find.
Love the engine/mechanical analogies
This perfect mind created the universe and that is why 99% of his cration is already extinct.
Ah because god is dead?
@@playtime5051 for me. god cannot be dead. because god never existed.
17:22 "Food goes in, poop comes out. Explain that." - Bill O'Reilly
To increase scalar linearity in a gradient, take half the smallest increment and offset the two scales of the same measure, i.e. a 1/4 gradient can simply be made into an 1/8 gradient. Use one scale and offset by the half mark and combine. Decimal gradients may be more problematic but is still doable.
How would you take 'half the smallest increment' and make sure you are not taking more or less than half?
I wonder if this topic switching happened in Christopher Hitchen's debate with Frank Turek, because I always found it so bizarre that Christopher Hitchens was arguing a completely different topic than Frank Turek was (Frank Turek arguing that god made the universe and that god is personal, spaceless, timeless, etc.) and Hitchens arguing that god is immoral and that religion causes immorality.
Absolutes (perfection, infinities, etc.) do generally not exist in reallity, exept as a concept. And they cannot even be definied above that conceptual stage.
Anytime someone thinks to the perfect mind created the universe I'm reminded of some really Panglossian shit from Candide. Like I thought that Voltaire took this argument down 300 years ago but I guess not huh
Doctor matt has cracked the secret code of human existence
Food goes in, poop comes out
We are the stardust excrement of a universe consuming God
"Greatness" is so vague. "Perfect" is vague. Zac was going to lose from the start.
aside from counting up the ontological entities, how do you quantify what is simpler in this case?
love it, my friend 💪🏻
Perfection is an unnatural belief about natural phenomenon, “perhaps “eternal” mind would be debate worthy(?).
"Perfect" is a concept that is situational and like infinity, is a goal that can be approached but cannot be reached.
I took on some of his videos years ago and he spent his entire time responding by essentially screaming "I'm right, so there!" Zack is an idiot. It's a complete waste of time trying to argue rationally with someone who doesn't even know what rationality is.
Spot on my man!
Minds don't create universes.
Universes create minds.
None of them perfect.
The big bang model, evolution, abiogenesis. These theories attempt to describe how life emerges from a chaotic system of particle interactions driven by fundamental forces. I ask you at what point did the chaotic system determine anything to be useful? Life evolved out of chaos right? So what I am asking is at what point did this chaotic system determine anything to be useful? The moment you acknowledge that it has deemed something useful you already left the notion of chaos behind entirely because what appeared chaotic truly had a purpose and intention behind it.
What is required in order to determine something to be useful? Evolution requires conscious agency otherwise it has no way to determine usefulness in order to evolve into something. What are we evolving into? What is the end result of evolution what is the system evolving into?
You know how people create simulations on computers which simulate evolution in a simplistic form? The "simplistic" is an illogical position because the system which is producing that simple simulation is quite sophisticated in terms of the programming and software/hardware that goes into driving that simplistic evolution. So what appears random and chaotic isn't actually random and chaotic. What seems simplistic is actually quite sophisticated and hands on because we programmed and constructed the physical hardware and software for that simulation to be taking place, none of which are simplistic and that is without touching on the power supplied to operate the system. So although it's simple to create such a simulation in reality it's not as simplistic as one would lead you to conclude.
Easy. The "chaotic" system didn't "determine" anything to be "useful".
There is no evidence to suggest any consciousness existed to make any determinations about anything, nor was "useful" a prerequisite or a goal to be achieved for any existence, nor was it necessarily "chaos".
Perfect is one of those words in which there are no good examples of in nature. It's a conceptual word. The fact that there are no perfect circles in nature doesn't mean that the concept of a perfect circle or a perfect line or a perfect point in space can be useful even though they are theoretical and conceptual in mathematics and don't actually exist in nature. People make stories up of a perfect being and that being never seems to come out of the realm of the conceptual and imaginary.
Thinking that we could ever judge perfection is arrogance in the extreme. Even if we somehow could measure perfection, which we can't, we still would not have access to most of the universe to measure it! Or would measuring the smallest thing and seeing that it was perfect tell us that the rest of the universe must therefore be perfect since a single perfect component would imply perfection in the whole thing.
I reject the trinity because one being in one person is simpler than one being in three persons.
Marcel Marceau was a perfect mime.
4:25, the prompt doesn't require a currently existing agent. Its possible that the mind created the universe and then ceased to exist, something like that.
That aside, I wouldn't agree to that topic. 'perfect' in this context makes no sense to me. I don't understand how a thing can be 'perfect', because 'perfect' is something that we ascribe to things based on what we want them to do. Perfection is about how well things conform to what we want them to do, not anything about what they actually are. 'This hammer is the perfect tool to drive this nail into that wood' makes sense, 'this hammer is perfect' does not.
Why would something as trivial as a mind be responsible for something as complex and huge as the cosmos?
This is honestly a really interesting question: What's so great about a mind? What leads us to believe a thinking entity is so great? Why should we conceptualize a maximally great being, if such a thing even can exist, as having a thinking mind at all? Suppose a mind is just a thing imperfect beings have to help them deliberate on matters they can't resolve through their inherent nature? Perhaps "maximal greatness" actually entails pure instinctual volition, a being that merely acts instantly with no mind encumbering its decisions. Such a being could have no explanation behind its decision-making processes; it would simply DO, in the greatest possible way. Would it be better if it could think about the acts it undertakes? Why?
@@Uryvichk My impression is that... its human ego... humans have minds, which we experience as personally significant.. but as a smart man once sid .. 'personal is not the same as important.'
Wierd... got notification of another reply... but nothing evident here.
If there was a GOD, then our “imperfection” IS proof that this GOD is NOT perfect,
our suffering is proof, that it is NOT a “benevolent loving GOD” and
the fact that we need to believe in GOD without this GOD ever revealing is proof that he is not “all present”.
You wouldn't use a ruler to figure out if smthng is or is not. You would use a gauge, but the problem stays the same. You can not recognize perfection with a non perfect tool, as you can not declare probabilities of properties of a thing, when you don't have an example/template for asumed properties.
Food goes on, poop comes out. You can't explain that.
From the Latin word roots 'per-' completely, and 'facere,' to make or fashion. The original meaning of perfect is "to make or fashion completely." This original has a different intent than the more modern perfect, which is 'without scratch, infinitely intelligent, without sin,' etc. The word has morphed from a simple statement of craftsmanship to one that is all-encompassing of an imaginary state.
Putting forth arguments for bare minimum to prove their specific version of god is what theists do nowadays.
Unfortunately, they don't realize that there's still a long way from that bare minimum to their specific god.
I've seen some Muslim debaters argue for the existence of a "necessary being" to earn a gotcha moment against atheists. They also change the definition of "being" to "anything that exists" using a philosophical approach. 🤦♀
Tbh, philosophy is important and it has its place, but it's wasted on religion.
The only goal in life is creation or creating imho. Perfect doesn't mean anything.
Come visit Princesa de la luna Ecolodge . Costa Rica .. Starman .. all the best
Maynard would disagree that his band, "A Perfect Circle", doesn't exist.
Sounds like a real Tool.
Some say he doesn't Puscifer around sensitive topics.
I'm watching this vid 7 days after it posted ... I mean ... 7, seven, se7en? That's a week.
6:40 - I can just hear it now though, Matt; our inability (our being man's) to even try to define our parameters on which we're trying to describe a potential characteristic of a "god" (in this instance a perfect mind), will in itself be argued as evidence for the existence of god. "See, he's so great and amazing and omnipotent we couldn't even begin to try to understand or explain anything about god because we're so much lesser than he." They've got you coming and going in that revolving door of theistic obsession.
I don't see any good reason not to propose that (given we are sentient, conscious, loving, thinking, laughing,creating, imagining, self-transcending etc etc persons) the ultimate ground of being or existence is also personal and likely to possess mind of a greater order than ours as human persons. It makes more sense to me than we finding ourselves here due to any senseless and mindless process. I don't think we have to accept the irony that we are mind wrought by mindlessness. If it's reasonable to propose an ultimate personal ground of existence then it's reasonable to attempt to ascribe the characteristics of that personal ground of existence as much as our limited minds allow. Even though we cannot fully comprehend we at least have notions of what e.g, perfection, infinity, nothingness mean. So I think I'll stay where I am and respectfully decline to have my flawed mind" fixed" by Mr "that's what we're here for"Dillahunty. : )
My position with my Christian friends is: Let's assume that god exists and that that god is omnipotent and omniscient etc. Is it not just as likely as not that that god created us in this exact moment with all our knowledge and memories in place, and, if that is true, there is no point in even having this discussion in the first place. Is that within the possibilities of this god which you assume into existance? If so, can you agree on the utter futility of this discussion altogether? ( I always have fun with that one) I also tell them that I hope that they are right in their belief because I have nothing invested and they have lived their whole lives based upon that belief.
Jim, it's a great point....rather like the one you can make with the hard solipsist. To the hard solipsist the only proper response is, if you really mean what you say then the only thing for you to do is stop arguing for your position since the very act of arguing is an attempt to convince another mind of your position. So while you may enjoy playing at the idea of solipsism....in reality....you are forced to "behave is if" solipsism isn't true. Same goes for the "we live in a simulation" folks. I always ask: What is the qualitative difference between an illusion so complete it cannot be pierced or escaped......and reality itself? Would we not be entitled to treat such an illusion as "our reality" and just get on with it?
@@neologian1783 I take that position with "string theorists" too. If it cannot be tested, and there is little or no hope of it ever being tested, what's the point? I like pretty math as much as anyone, but come on.... :P
You/Zac are doing a bit of a bait-and-switch here. A perfect mind is not the same as perfect being/designer (which may or may not be the same as an all-powerful one). One could say, hypothetically, a human with a perfect mind exists, but they would still be subject to the limitations of their body. A god's mind may be perfect even if they are not all-powerful.
If you're equating those two, then the topic is just "Did a perfect being create the universe", not "Did a perfect mind create the universe".
Although the existence of a being outside of space and time is beyond our ability to conceptualise and we have no evidence to suggest that it's even possible for a mind or thinking being to exist outside of space or time (our minds, and the mind of every being we know of in observable reality, seem to require both), never mind what the existence of such a being would involve and whether they'd have anything that can reasonably be described as a body.
If I were to try to narrow down what a "perfect mind" means, I'd probably say it's the ability to reason perfectly, to be perfectly moral and to not have any harmful desires (whether this should be extended to not having any desires whatsoever is arguable, because this suggests that wanting something is necessarily a shortcoming, which I don't think it is).
In terms of identifying perfection, we can't do that conclusively, but we can identify things likely to be imperfect, if we can imagine something better. And we can zoom in and look for flaws in the small details to perhaps get a gauge closer to perfection than we are, in the same way that you can look at the complexity of every part of a car engine to understand the overall complexity in a way you may not be able to quite grasp by just looking at the engine as a whole. Although it might be the case that one could imagine something that could be better on a small scale, despite this not being possible on a large scale.
If one holds that a god created the universe, and one cannot imagine anything in the universe that could be better, then one might reasonably conclude that said god is perfect. Although if you cannot imagine anything in the universe that could be better, then you're probably not a human being with even a basic ability to think and to understand the world around them.
* One can have a whole debate on whether being able to imagine something better is sufficient to conclude that something is imperfect, what it means to imagine something, and in how much detail one would need to imagine it to meet this burden. But this comment is already long enough without getting into that.
Matt could it be called the ‘Black box’ fallacy? Or is there another name for it?
A child wakes up Christmas Day, the cookies are eaten, the milk has been drunk & there are presents in their stocking. This is all consistent with Santa existing.. so must it be true?
"We're not maximally great."
Speak for yourself.
I was most concerned with his claim of explanatory power.
Every time you tried to get him to demonstrate that his explanation had explanatory power, he kept going back to "theism is more probable than atheism".
Demonstrating explanatory power requires no comparison. The explanation must stand alone.
It seemed he dodged the questions before they even began by saying "I'm not saying atheism can't explain these things, only that they're more likely on theism". Explanatory power requires necessity, and this nips it from the start. If you want to say the god claim has explanatory power, you have to show how the god claim is necessary to explain the phenomenon. He's working solely on the sufficient prong of explanatory power, and completely ignoring the necessary prong.
Yes, if we look at the sufficiency of theism to explain any phenomenon, it's been defined as sufficient, so it is sufficient. Now, show necessity. You did a good job explaining how his justification for explanatory power didn't add anything, I just wish you had asked him for necessity.
"Hard to vary" is another way to tell whether something has explanatory power, though it's a more general approach, yet it works to show the explanatory impotence of god claims.
You touched on it a little when asking "why stop at 1 god?" You can vary the god with another god, or some other type of supernatural entity or process, and the explanation is equally powerful. It isn't.
We have no reason to think so, next question!
This should be the only rational answer.