NTSSC: "Does God Exist" Debate with Dillahunty/Eberhard vs Ferrer/Lee
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 3 ต.ค. 2024
- This debate was hosted by the North Texas Secular Student Convention, held on April 14, 2012 at Collin College in Frisco, Texas. The debate question: "Does God Exist?" Arguing for the affirmative: John Ferrer from Tarrant Community College and Dr. R. Sloan Lee from the Cambridge School of Dallas. Arguing for the negative: Matt Dillahunty from The Atheist Experience and JT Eberhard from the WWTJD blog. Moderator: Steve Lee.
The very fact that there IS debate on the existence of god speaks volumes as to the lack there of.
or vice versa.
ikawpipa no, not vise versa. If there’s is some all powerful god we should need to debate its existence. It should be an easily proved fact.
ikawpipa um.. no
Wow!! Really? Are you serious? Scientific American: article, Why Materialism Is (probably) Wrong
@@KC-py5vq why? The Bible says God is Spirit. Most atheists claim God didn’t give them enough evidence. Thomas went to India. East India. Because he had the proof seen with his own two eyes. Smh
Dear god, they formalized the "look at the trees" argument...
+Google stop it I know, right? "Zomg nature is so beautiful, therefore gods"
+Yekkt Well, I have heard a pastor saying that viruses and parasites are incredible as well...I kid you not, it was in an episode of the atheist experience. But my question then becomes, why do you use the "look at the trees" argument instead of "look at the cancer and AIDS"?
Every time Ferrer/Lee said "therefore" I was gobsmacked. The conclusion never followed from the premises
1:19:30
“I didn’t argue that god is perfect.
I argued that God is the greatest conceivable. So that was a straw man”
Uh dude that’s what perfect means.
I can’t with these people.
My one question about Christianity, at least, is... If God's omniscient, how can he be disappointed when Adam and Eve eat the fruit? If you know it's going to happen, anyway, you don't GET to be disappointed.
Especially if it is part of his plan! bullshit
It suggests that he was delusional and/or at some point insane... at least logic says so.
That goes further if he knows everything he would stand out of time and his character wouldn´t change from the old testament to the new (and eventually to Muhammed)
+vernonclassic Actually, God lied through his teeth (does God have teeth??). He said they would "surely die". The *serpent* told the truth that God wanted to hide from them.
The story contains truth about you.
If there is a god, he sent Matt Dillahunty to disprove himself.
You made me chuckle, thanks
If there is free will, God didn't make Matt do a single thing.
God made Matt and you possible with the ability to experience physical things and therefore to trust the Creator of physical things.
A god that is both all-knowing and all-powerful is incompatible with truly free will, since he would be aware of every action you would ever take, in every iteration of you he could have created, before he decided which one of those iterations to create. To marry the Abrahamic god and free will is akin to laying down train tracks then pretending to be surprised where the train goes.
Hey up, TheMisterCat : What do you mean ? Do you mean that if there is a god then he sent Matt Dillahunty to disprove Matt Dillahunty ?
Or do you mean that if there is a god then god sent Matt Dillahunty to disprove god ?
QED.
It's crazy how you can instantly and completely destroy every single argument given by a theist once you understood the reasoing of an atheist...
I was lied to my entire life.
Merthalophor Most of us were. And it's liberating as fuck to realize this & live with a new found freedom without fear. Then, when you have kids, you're able to break the cycle, like I've chosen. I don't understand the wanting to see fear of anyone on your child's face, let alone a fear of eternal hell, a place that doesn't exist. Why would any parent think it's ok to instill this kind if fear in their own children?! I'll never understand.
@@linkinsmommy7908
_'when you have kids, you're able to break the cycle'_
As an atheist granddad with atheist children and now atheist grandchildren I think you make an excellent point here.
Makes me grateful that my raised Catholic parents raised me agnostic. I was a firm atheist by 15 and still am now at 50.
@@johnhammond6423 Damn!! Sounds like You're whole family's going to Hell.
@@robertdalemccollom6250
Yes, but its not all bad. At least we will save on our heating bills. 😊
i hate listening to theists speak. It just becomes a word salad and they don't actually say anything.
Somehow their circular arguments don't relate back to their premises and it boggles me
@Joy Bradford all I've seen out of you on this entire comment section has been "blah blah blah im an atheist blah blah blah therefore I'm right and you're wrong blah blah blah"
Tariq Ramadan is still my favourite word salad chef. He takes it to a level of pure artistry
@@6.0hhh... therefore god?
@@JayMaverick Considering I didn't even present an argument for God id say your response is rather dull.
IF "GOD" actually existed, then we would NOT be having this debate.
So true
That makes no sense
@@clairekinsky6073 why it doesn't makes sense?
I don’t believe in a god, but I’ll have to agree that this comment doesn’t make sense.
I’ll just posit a god who thinks it’s funny to remain undetectable to all (or maybe even just some) creatures, so now it gets to enjoy sitting back and watching everyone argue over itself.
exactly!
I don't see problem with having no object morals, I like the idea of being able to change my behaviour once new information arises.
Watching first opening statement - instant fail. Do they even read their points before presenting them? Is anyone really persuaded by those "arguments"?
I thought the same thing. Every time I start watching one of these I think to myself, "maybe this time they'll have an interesting new argument I haven't considered yet." Then they start talking . . .
Raziel Qwazar I just can't understand how people can argue the existence of a god they've never met. I can argue the existence of my friend Steve because I can invite Steve to the debate and say, "there he is. That's Steve right there." I don't need any existential, theological, philisophical justification for belief in Steve. He's sitting right there. If you need all these mental gymnastics to "prove" a being exists, then that itself proves that it probably doesn't exist. If it did, you'd just show it to me, I'd believe in it, and we can all go home and move on to more important things.
Raziel Qwazar Oh it`s like atheist arguments are infinite... "why God act like this not like that" "how you decade your religion" "we don`t know something but it`s not God,because is "God of the gaps argument" "because of suicide bombers religion is bad"...we all know this arguments and they suck :)
Nicolas Caja
yeah they sounds good if you are a kid :) when I was a kid/teen I was thinking like that but then I found an answer for many questions.
+kur vgazati God is essentially an anthropomorphised version of the 'magic' explanation. You just insert the properties of a thinking agent - a mind, intent, ability to convey shit - and then plug it in as the solution to any question you don't have the answer to and it can satisfy you as long as all you're satisfied with is answers provided by the quickest means rather than the best.
'God is maximally great in every respect' is essentially equivalent to saying 'my explanation is better than your explanation infinity times one'. It has no explanatory power and is just an attempt to end an argument with banal rhetoric (see par. 1).
During the first rebuttal at 59:20, he mentions "none of his points were addressed" before the opposition has even had their first rebuttal. Do these guys even think, I'm severely questioning it.
Damn, I posted this before JT addressed it
You can study Christian apologetics? USA you should see a doctor.
The theists went first in the opening statements and in the rebuttals. And they are so defensive that both of them expected the atheists to use their opening as a rebuttal and complained that they didn't, thus treating their own rebuttal period as a counter rebuttal. which it wasn't. Sad ... so sad.
Well done Matt & JT.
And I love how they left their microphone on so you could hear the strategy session. That was neat.
They're really a great team! JT knocked out the gish gallop while Matt attacked back with arguments of his own. Very well done.
Fighterdoken lol....gish gallop? I have no idea what that means...but I like the sound of it...and the alliterative quality. Smashing Pumpkins' first album "Gish" is pretty damn great as well...
avedic Gish Gallop is a technique used by most theists in which they bring up so many arguments for the existence of God that the atheistic side/opposition Can not Possibly respond to all the arguments in the amount of time given in the debate. Also known as the shotgun technique.
wonder if matt needing to go to the bathroom hindered him in any way. lol we heard during the strategy section he didn't have time to go lol
@@jeffsole8653 Lol ive seen this happen to him in another debate, hes a pro at holding it and still being sharp mentally
Matt Dillahunty is the only one seems to talk directly from his mind without a prepared speak. The man is a genius.
_"Matt Dillahunty is the only one seems to talk directly from his mind without a prepared speak. The man is a genius."_
This comment is 6 years old. Matt achieved god level at least 6 years ago and only improved. Something that other gods failed to do. Matt > god :D
His writing it while listing lols get of his beef
If he was a genius he wouldn’t be so wrong about the subject. Smh
@@michaelbrickley2443 Wrong about the inability of god fantasizers to meet their burden of proof? How so?
@@highroller-jq3ix smh….too many debates between people of intelligence. Seek and you will find. The resurrection is the linchpin
4:55 Ferrer opening statement
15:15 Lee opening statement
25:14 Eberhard opening statement
35:15 Dillahunty opening statement
45:25 [strategy break]
56:24 Ferrer rebuttal
1:01:35 Lee rebuttal
1:07:11 Everhard rebuttal
1:12:17 Dillahunty rebuttal
1:17:42 Lee closing statement
1:22:48 Ferrer closing statement
1:28:10 Everhard closing statement
1:33:18 Dillahunty closing statement
1:41:21 [Andrea Bocelli possesses Everhard]
1:42:18 Audience Q&A, self-evident truths
1:43:07 Audience Q&A, intelligent life
1:44:58 Audience Q&A, conditions for life
1:48:00 Audience Q&A, intuiting truth
1:53:00 Audience Q&A, objective morality
1:57:12 Audience Q&A, atheism and beauty
2:02:09 Audience Q&A, thermodynamics
2:05:33 Audience Q&A, divine morality
2:13:17 Super Smash Bros Melee
Thank you for this. Really useful.
@@wkworld6741 you’re welcome 😊
This is such a dry debate format, open discussion is where the good stuff happens.
Why can't theist prove why God exists instead of why Atheism is wrong.
Matt Dillahunty was quite obviously the most educated presenter here in terms of logic and the understanding of passé fallacies. This is rather distressing, since the first Theist presenter actually teaches logic. He should be absolutely ashamed at his presentation.
The same "evidence" for god as usually
1) I have no education in the field I am talking about (science, physics, chemistry, biology), therefore god
2) I willfully misrepresent reality, therefore god
3) I don't understand reality, therefore god
Nicely summed up
btw I HATE when theorists try bring in science to back their gods
I can't argue with that. Take my money
That opening statement was made with random speech generator.
The opening statement by Dillahunty is priceless--here we are still debating since the beginning of time, someone still hasn't met the burden of proof. Another notch in the belt for Matt Dillahunty.
I don’t know how it’s possible that of the hundreds of debates about this per year, every single theist has attempted to push that burden to the atheists. How many times do they have to be told how things work? Lmao.
Dillahunty is a league above his teammate and the opposition lol
crazy how people worship dillahunty like he is jesus
@@jw2897 ...which is an epic burn against those people. Meanwhile, at least Dillahunty offers compelling evidence for his existence...
@@jw2897 he did search for Jesus for a big chunk of his life. Maybe he is trying to go Paul's way and force an answer.
@@jw2897 name one person who worships Matt as if he died and resurrected for their sins.
@@sjwright2 Dillahunty offering evidence for his existence is more than any god has ever achieved. I say we should nominate Matt for the office of god. He'd probably hang up on us every time we ask stupid questions but at least you get a clear answer, which also is more than anyone has ever gotten from a god :p
"No, no, no, you're done! Make your own damn coffee, you lazy twit!"
I'd pray to that god :D
...these theists fail at logic.
DB and they are "experts in logic"
How do you know your relative logic is true? The theists didn't use relative logic.
...and yet they both teach logic.
how do you know they didnt use relative logic? since you are using your relative logic just the same as DB.
CauseAndEffect logic isn't relative at all no matter who uses it.
I’ve seen it so many times when after both sides give their opening arguments, the affirmative side points out all the things that the other side didn’t respond to. Well, it was their opening statement, not a response segment. How is that so difficult to understand?
Well there you go. Whoever has the most believers in a god is right. Why aren't these apologist advocating for Allah? Also sad day when two logicians can't follow the rules of a debate (I.e. Knowing when a rebuttal segment is).
The theist in the glasses pretty much never actually says anything. He just says what arguments he would use, never gives them, then continues to say those were the arguments he used. He made this video hard to watch.
Crazy isn't it. I've got an invisible dragon in my garage so the burden of proof is on you to show I haven't (don't think so lol)
"Even though our opponents have not yet had their rebuttal we were disappointed in their inability to rebut our opening statements..." :)
As soon as I hear "OBjective" I know they're going the way of William Lane Craig and I prepare my eyes for 1.25 hours of rolling.
Objective moral values and duties
The positive case was pure word salad. The negative addressed every point. This was the best showcase of contrasting logical consistency versus fuzzy woo.
This wouldn't even be a debate if Yaweh or Allah or God or Zeus or whoever could just come down and appear and do stuff like he used to. Interesting that he can't. I wasted 35 years with a mirage.
Paula Catlover Zeus still comes down and visits us. 🌩⚡️
Wow. Ten minutes in, and Ferrer has already got logic completely backwards and utterly misunderstood the burden of proof.
Drinking game! Every time someone says "uh", you thake anurther short ofh scotcyhnbvfhiop
5 "arguments," to demonstrate that God exists.
Great, thanks, heard them over and over..*but* even if all of that were true, then what on earth does it have to do with the God of the Bible?
This is William Lane Craig type stuff and equally as unconvincing.
And I'm willing to bet my money on it that those arguments are not why they became theists in the first place. Talk about dishonesty right there
Actually they are because I know one of them
Summary was given at around 1:00:30: theism is extremely adaptable. Indeed, the amount of philosophical elasticity filling up the first 25 minutes was only bearable thanks to playing fricking colored lines simultanously. As they were accumulating sophistic hocus-pocus, it became clear, that Ferrer and Lee truly think that (even a bad) argument equals evidence.
Lee also seems to be disoriented in his rebuttal time, as he apparently assumes that the opening statements of Dillahunty and Eberhard were supposed to be rebuttals of his opening statement.
No case of nonmind producing mind? Perhaps he never heard about neuroscience. Where was his mind before he was born and how does he know that?
its simpler then that ! whenever they use empirical evidence for inteligence in nature they HAVE to accept that there is not a single case of a mind without a material subtrace, therefore GOD beiin immaterial has nothing to do with nature AT BEST!
Introduction: I'm going to strawman you.
wow, the creationists are really good at reading their material. to me, it seems like they don't actually have a thought of their own...
Hey god are you there🤔 30 minutes later I rest my case
This must be about the hundredth debate on 'Does God Exist' I have witnessed, I have not been convinced by any Theist at any point in any of the debates, that God does in fact exist, either now, or indeed any time in past history. I really don't know why this question still needs to be debated. I think it is time the human race shook off these ancient superstitions and grew up. There is no advantage in believing in a God, apart from those that wish to have control over certain parts of the population and/or, to line their pockets from tithes paid into their particular church, of which many charlatans have become very wealthy. I include the criminal and corrupt, Roman Catholic Church in that number, which is without a doubt the largest faith based organisation in the world, and don't get me started on young earth creation organisations... Silly Sods... :-)
It's a sad world when the same person is considered competent enough to teach logic and religious apologetics.
"Theism is remarkably adaptable." Translation: we can come up with all kinds of bullshit explanations for everything and anything.
amen to that ;)
If god existed, we wouldn't have debates of finites beings about its existence or non existence. If god existed he/she/it would have the power to make us know that. The christian god created angels with the knowledge of its existence. But we, mere mortal, finite and faliable beings, weren't "blessed" with that inate knowledge. lol
And free will is not the answer. Angels have free-will to. Lucifer rebeled against god (of course not... but you know what I mean). We could have free will and knowledge od god too. But we don't. And we don't because probably god does not exist.
Actually, some argue Angels dont have free -will this is the islamic viewpoint. Satan in islamic theology was not an angel he was a jinn and jinns like humans have free will, some are good and others are bad (demons). So my point here is there are internally consistent models of theistic beliefs.
Of course your first paragraph is quite right .. why does a god continue to leave us in ignorance only to punish us afterwards. Makes no sense. As a general rule the world as we see it, is completely unlike what we would predict it to be if the Judaeo-Christian-(muslim) god were true.
If god existed, we wouldn't have debates of finites beings about its existence or non existence....non sequitur
If god existed he/she/it would have the power to make us know that...and God did just that
If god existed he/she/it would have the power to make us know that...since they are in his presence ummm state the obvious
But we, mere mortal, finite and faliable beings, weren't "blessed" with that inate knowledge...false "premise"
We could have free will and knowledge od god too. But we don't. And we don't because probably god does not exist.....non sequitur
at least we know God created logically inept dummies...guess you have to learn more before you die
Ricardo Almeida Then another question is, if god is all powerful, all knowing, & everything is part of "gods plan" how the fuck does anyone have free will?
IcanFartLOUD 1 Just stating something is "wrong" doesn't make it true.
zzz pt
Nothing has any free will, that's hilarious. Physics makes things happen as they do, even YOU. You can make choices, but you can't control your choices. The delusion that you can is your mistake in understanding that the past CANNOT change or be changed. Only the future can be different. When you wonder why you chose chocolate instead of vanilla, it doesn't matter, the past is FIXED!! Imagining you could have chosen otherwise is obviously wrong, or else you WOULD have chosen different and THAT would be the fixed past!! You're mistaking the fixed past for the unknown future. In some future you MIGHT choose vanilla, but that isn't the fixed past!! And you won't be able to choose different than you do in that future either!! The future is just a fixed past that YOU don't KNOW yet!! Every future will become a fixed past and be unable to be changed. Whatever happened, that is what was always going to happen, or else it would be something else.
Right now I'm attempting to discern between weather or not a professor in logic doesn't understand occurs razor, or he's being dishonest.
Yeah occams razor the strongest sword atheists have! Sad thing is its just a heuristic and is most certainly not true. Thats why they dont understand it and dont use it.
Dylan Ost
Occam's Razor
not done with it yet, but love that Matt and JT's mic was still on for the "Strategy Session" break.
God never did nothing for nobody
nice debate, Matt and JT make a great duo
These debates on youtube are fantastic as it allows people to hear the best arguments for each position (theism vs. atheism). In every debate, the theist argument hasn't presented a shred of credible evidence or logical argument that supports their claim that a god exists.
That's why "faith" is always used by theists - because it is the belief without evidence or rational support. What other area of one's life does one accept something without evidence or reason?
Yet the theists keep claiming that they *are* using reason and logic. Annoying.
greedobob
they are using reason and logic "the different ones" tho ;D
It's because neither a theist can prove the existence of God to a scientist using philosophy or metaphysics nor a scientist or atheist or disprove to a theist the existence of God using science. Proving or disproving the existence of God using science can't be possible. It's like using biology to show how the earth rotates on its axis or using physics to prove that an accused indeed committed a crime. This can't be possible.
Telesphor Magobe that's a claim you'll need to support with evidence.
@@keruis Alternative reason and logic XD
Seems a bit like their alternative eye witnesses who are all dead and might not even have existed outside the claims that they did :p
Matt did a beautiful job here. An even, measured, sincere presentation. He is a better voice for the atheist position than some of the more famous people who've taken up that role. As worked up as he often gets on his show (understandably), he showed passion with restraint here.
Empathy is a characteristic that is also helpfull for mutual survival. People who are empathetic are more likely to survive as teams that were able to work together were more able to survive than individuals fending for themselves. An empathetic person generally would not condone torture. A lesson most probably learnt well before Jesus walked the Earth.
“Can you show me sufficient evidence that god exists?”
“I can tell you why I believe he does.”
“But can you produce sufficient evidence that he does exist?”
“I can cite the Bible and all of the other people who believe in god.”
“But can you show any sufficient evidence?”
“I can present ten arguments as to why god must exist.”
“Okay.”
At ~41min, as an astronomer Dillahunty is dead wrong when he claims its arrogant and absurd to think there might not be life out there. The fact is, the half of the Drake eqn pertaining to probability of life arising on a given body is *unconstrained*. It could be common, it could be rare, it could be mind-bogglingly rare. We don't know. Period.
If we go and say maybe there are ~10^24 planets in our Hubble volume, and you guys can recognize that that's a huge number, it's flat out wrong to assume the probability of life arising on any one of those CAN'T be less than 1 in 10^24. It very well could, it very well might not, it's *unconstrained*. That's the key point. In my opinion, it seems like the absurdity/arrogance is to have half of the eqn pinned down and then jump to the conclusion you find more intellectually satisfying (i.e., extrapolating the history that we first thought we were the center of the solar system, then the galaxy, ect ect, and were always wrong).
Anyways, that's my rant, Neil DeGrasse Tyson even gets this wrong in public (so I can understand why the idea is so pervasive). Thanks for reading if you made it this far :)
I personally don't give much credence to the drake equation. I don't know that it is really possible given our current levels of understanding to make any assertions about life elsewhere.
But i think that is not the point being made. Rather it is that the enormity of the universe and uniformity of celestial bodies we see in every direction show us that we (our solar system) are not special . It seems ridiculous to claim there isn't life elsewhere. There may not be but given that there is everything else elsewhere that there is here, it is at least slightly arrogant to presume we are alone. Isn't it?
oh and thank *you* for your post :-)
mzenji The Drake eqn, when written out in its full nitty-gritty glory, is basically worthless. And your 2nd sentence is my main point.
Yea, so I'm probably just being overly semantic, if I pushed on Matt or Neil, I'm sure they would end up agreeing with me. The content of their claim would still stand; it'd be absurd to claim "there isn't life elsewhere" or to "presume we are alone". Instead, I'm arguing for a strictly agnostic approach, since the truth is we just have no idea one way or the other. So making the opposite claim, that "there has to be" life out there, is just plain wrong.
And thank you for yours :)
Basically what I heard in their opening (paraphrasing). Our reality exists therefore god, nature is beautiful therefore god, we cannot explain every detail of our origin (even though inserting god is incredibly stupid) therefore god. So god of the gaps and the reality you want defense
Eyes do not compensate for the blind spot by jiggling. The blind spot is compensated for by the brain, after the eye is done with the information it's received. The jiggling is actually a compensation for retinal adaptation, where light-sensitive cells stop sending signals when the stimuli doesn't change. The jiggling constantly changes which cells are receiving light stimuli, and prevents this adaptation.
***** Yes, but this isn't what compensates for blind spots. I have some personal experience in this matter - a few years ago I developed a new blind spot in my left eye, and it took a very very long time for this blind spot to fade from my every-day notice. It's still there - I can verify its existence the same way I verify the existence of the normal blind-spots - but if 'jiggling' was the mechanism by which blind-spots were compensated for, then I might never have noticed it in the first place. The reason I noticed it for so long (years, continuously) was because my brain wasn't acclimated to its presence. Now it is, and so I don't notice it day-to-day anymore.
No, I don't know what caused the blind spot. When it occurred I saw an eye doctor, who referred me to another eye doctor, who referred me to an eye specialist, who referred me to a neuro-opthamologist - none of which were able to tell me where the spot had come from. I did learn an awful lot about eyes during this process, though, so it's not all bad. =)
***** I follow what you're saying. I don't really know whether either of us are correct in this - I was just describing what it feels like for me to have more than one blind spot in my eye.
The reason I think it's the brain that compensates for the new blind spot is because when it first appeared, the spot was *incredibly visible* - it was very distracting. Over time, the distraction lessened, until eventually I stopped noticing it all the time. This to me sounds like an application of brain plasticity, where the brain slowly learns to compensate for new circumstances - but I am not a neurologist.
Yes, Sijan Rai?
Erik Actually this jiggling *does* serve for some of the compensation in the eye, at the retina. Rods and cones depend on a differential photochemical action that exhibits rapid 'fatigue' or neutralization of nerve-activating chemistry; the jiggling image keeps the photochemistry active & refreshed by changing light intensity & chroma on individual rods & cones. In old-style photographic darkroom practice, agitating the film & prints in the image development chemicals was done for a similar reason. An engineer would refer to this as an anti-hysteresis compensation strategy, *necessarily implemented at the point-of-detection.* Of course, the discontinuous image samples must be re-composed by the visual cortex as a secondary compensation, but the main purpose of eye twitching is for systems within the eye, with some attendant blind-spot filling done in image processing elsewhere.
SIMKINETICS Yes, but I'm talking about the blind spots caused by the blood vessels that enervate the retina. At that location of the retina, there are no rod or cone cells to compensate for. Those are not compensated for by jiggling.
Thank you for adding more information on how my artificially-created blind-spots might be compensated for, though.
The Moby Want-to-be is almost painful to listen to.
Atheists win.. despite Eberhard talking like a nervous spaz 😅🤦♂️ slow down and take a breath my guy.. gee wiz.. I need a Xanax after listening to him lol
When the argument is, "if a mind created the universe, it would be ordered and intelligible. The universe is ordered and intelligible, therefore, a mind created the universe", then the argument is invalid because it's based on an affirming the consequent fallacy (even if the shaky premises are accepted for the sake of argument).
Goes like this. "All airplanes fly in the sky. That bird is flying in the sky. Therefore, that bird is an airplane." A property of a premise is not necessarily an exclusive property of that premise, which is why the argument is fallacious. Even moreso when the premise is unjustified and completely invented.
Second religious speaker, argument from ignorance. He can't imagine how we might evolve a moral sense, therefore God. Empathy, altruism or our social, cooperative species don't feature in his thinking. He looks at our imperfect society somehow concludes we're all carrying a perfect, god-given moral sense, despite it being apparent that we're not all using it. But doesn't an imperfect but evolved moral sense map more accurately with the reality we see?
Matt is so correct, if he made a mistake, reality would think it fucked up and it would alter itself to match what Matt said.
Lol...that sounds a bit like a chuck Norris joke!!!!
Second guy:Most people who are non theists have a moral code they act upon
Therefore God exists?
That's because he presupposes that morality can't exist without god
You would think that would be evidence against their position, lol
First 15 minutes
Request that we approach with an open mind.
Three arguments
First Argument
Moral argument
1. Objective Moral Values exist
2. Objective moral values imply an objective moral grounding
-therefore an objective moral grounding exists.
-objective means it is binding even if the person or culture disagrees
-objective moral grounding is implied because the alternatives fail
-moral relativism and naturism fail
-naturism trivializes morality and prevents cross cultural judgments and discriminates against minority ethical views
-naturism describes what is, not what ought to be
3. Since Moral Objective Grounding exists, therefore a God exists.
Second Argument
Burden of Proof argument
Positive Atheism says "No God Exists"
Negative Atheism not defined.
Presumptive Atheism. They claim to have no burden of proof. To be rational it must have sufficient evidence to justify withholding any belief in god. The evidential case for presumptive atheism is left wanting. (In other words, there is no proof that God doesn't exist) It is no safe bet for rational people.
1.) Presumptive Atheism denies religious experience of billions of people across the globe as evidence.
-God belief is a cultural universal
-Realist are justified in believing the god claim until it's been proven untenable.
-So many people believe in God
2.) Presumes that none of the miracles are true
3.) Presumes that none of the personal revelations are true
4.) We are neurologically hardwired for theism
5.) Presumes that natural causes can explain everything
6.) Treats design as illusory
7.) Origin of the universe
8.) Origin of life
9.) Militates against positive Atheist telling them that there isn't enough evidence against god to rationally merit denying God's existence
10.) Is compatible with God's existence
Is unrealistically skeptical - better belief is to believe in God as an operating hypothesis prima fascia true and worthy of inquiry
Third Argument
Natural causes plus a divine cause provide a better explanatory set than nature alone.
Supernatural + Natural cause is better explanatory that Natural Causes alone.
The better explanation is more likely true, therefore Theism is likely true.
Natural science can't tell us nature is a closed system
Nothing for or against God can come from science unless it interweaves with Theology
The best explanation for origin of life and the universe or other things.
Occam's razor means we don't need to propose an endless list of possibilities when we already have the most likely possibility.
I'm glad that you got an idea of my education from a youtube comment. And I'm glad that I have your approval!
And preparing matters in a DEBATE. If it's just points it can be done somewhere like a but when you are dialogue with someone else, preparing matters.
13:40 that fruedian slip though
That is just brilliant!
The one time he makes sense he corrects it to be bullshit like the rest of what he said.
It isn't "extraordinary" that we can understand the world around us. Any creature that can understand the world around it has a massive advantage in terms of its own survival and its advantage over other creatures.
+VideoAudioDisco09 I'd rather live than survive.
+Smaakjeks Kjeks You have to survive to live, n'est-ce pas? And please define the difference.
Paw Bechmann Andersen
To survive is merely to keep breathing. To live is to experience life and all it has to offer. I'm using poetic language.
1:23:50 There is no demonstration that non-mind can produce mind - this is false. But if we are going down this track then there is also no demonstration that mind's exist outside of brains.
Theist: Things that look designed must be designed, and the universe and life looks designed, therefore God exists!
Atheist: Your God looks designed, therefore God-creating magical pixies exist! If God can exist, looking designed without actually being designed, then why not the universe and life?
"As evidence I will bring forward five arguments" ... Yeah, you already failed in the first minute.
“Theism is extremely adaptable”
Ain’t no way in hell you just said that
There is no such thing as objective morality. Anyone who claims that is just trying to push their morality onto other people. Morality is subjective or relative.
Go out an investigate the supernatural or the existence of God, no one is against that. But you can't claim that there is a God and that you know for a fact that he's real. Until you provide reasonable good evidence. Not just circular reasoning, claims or feelings.
Matt's delivery has gotten so good! It seems that he has slowed down his delivery quite a bit, instead of cramming all the info in.
Funny the theist mentioned "rape" in his example of objective morality since "rape" isn't even mentioned in the Bible as an immoral act and certainly not in the ten commandments. Where does he get this "objective moral law" from?
"As evidence I will present 5 arguments."
Sorry dude, you already failed. 15:40
I like Eberhard a lot, but next to Dillahunty he almost disappears. Dillahunty is such a well versed debater.
I can hear that to. I think Matt is really showing JT the ropes even though he made some good points himself.
This is a terrible debate format. I don't believe that any of the debaters had enough rebuttal time and both sides should be able to address questions
I think it is really silly when the theist’s rebuttal is trying to get points by complaining the other side has not rebutted their argument. Do they not understand that the other side has not yet had their rebuttal phase?
Painful to listen to the religious trying to argue the existence of Zeus, or whatever his name is.
I have a question for the believers :
Was any of the points made by the apologists what convinced you of believing ?
If not, what convinced you ?
Ferrer and Lee seem completely incompetent in a debate setting. Maybe they should have practised?
Hilde it is a good thing these two ,& their ilk , stay ignorant because they can only get louder Ferrer & Lee are just annoying
Why did they invite Matt to a 1st grade debate
Punishing children is torturing people for a reason, that reason may or may not have been an adequate reason, but it was always weighed against the fact that torturring children was in itself morally wrong
Yikes these theists are worse than usual
If god somehow exists, but is undetectable scientifically he/she/it is irrelevant, and NO ONE should be telling me his/her/its nature, demands, or desires.
That's why we make it as clear, NOW, as we possibly can. It's how you build on knowledge. You don't do it by talking everybody in circles and refusing to discuss actual arguments that make logical sense.
Basically teaching science, rational thinking, and philosophical argumentation to theists.
Chess in the computer era has kind of diminished that metaphor somewhat. Sometimes the objectively BEST, single best, move is not seen by a person, or perhaps the best move is counter-intuitive to the player's plan
"but your own position is highly illogical" hmm... great way to win an argument in a single sentence, without even thinking! Ill keep this in mind.
Not ten minutes into this and guys already demonstrating he has no idea about basically anything ever.
A premise is true when it's shown to be valid.
If one took a survey of everyone in the world, the people that found nature beautiful would far outweigh the people who did not.
Eberhard was showing off when he asked what language lol but he sounded really good!
I think Matt found the answers. I feel that because things don't change much day to day, that things are easy to predict, makes for many bored people who resort to fanciful and supernatural investigation / justification / gratification? Bored bored people. It's so exciting to get to the bottom of everything, to find the links and dig through hard evidence. To hear the voice of reason and to see the just actions. Super exciting. More exciting than forced order and contrived expectations, orchestrated answers for everything, no one is right but the one word itself.
Why is delusion and illusions so alluring? Why is it so seductive to suppress one's own IQ ? Boggles my brain, you hurt my head with your religious ramblings, it's all so discombobulated and vexing, stop it!
Bravo for presenting this debate. I can't get enough of reason and evolution. Yay IQ exercise !
Experiments to show a curvature of space did not find such, which fits a open flat universe.
Oners82 my apologies for misuse of established terms.
I meant "flat universe with infinite extent".
_embarrassing_
Oners82 when i answered "fucking kidding?" i was thinking you were implying a flat universe could be finite. Now you do the exact thing :D
Because if its finite and flat you would hit a invisible wall when travel far enough. But if you travel far enough and end up where you started its curved in a additional dimension that makes it a 4 dimensional sphere.
Oners82 Thanks for your answer.
Yes, my english vocabulary is somewhat limited and you kindly help me to expand it.
Even tho I expected the torus answer.
But how our universe could be a torus *and* flat is indeed beyond my understanding.
Oners82 I am very thankful for your time and explanation!!!
But when i "Roll the cylinder into a torus" there will be compression and stretching. Which i would expect to change the 180° sum. Especially on the inner part that resembles partially the saddle-shape plane.
Oners82 I'm confident enough to understand such mathematical explanation if given. I tried to search but did not find. Maybe you know such by any chance, it would be highly appreciated again.
(yet again i cant "twist" a cylinder into a torus, the paper does not stretch or compress. Thats like saying twist a sheet of paper into a sphere.)
Both Matt and Eberhard said things I liked in this one. Matt opened up with pointing out how long we've been debating this subject and I think Eberhard's metaphor about the boxers summed it up nicely. You bet on the one that always wins. It's kind of a no brainer.
The other thing I'd like to add is I don't think it's entirely accurate that we're hardwired to believe in god but we are however hardwired to be uncomfortable with ignorance so we feel compelled to fill in the gaps... more to come...
JT’s got a set of pipes on him. Cool guy.
the creation is smarter than the creator ? LOL !
Your definition of empathy rests upon the assumption that pain is evil. When this is considered one could realize that while people with better team building skills which might confer a slight survival advantage, this no longer applies, if the persons toward which one is acting "empathetic", are of no use to the team.
I love Matt. So intelligence and well spoken.
How can I get that smart?
You got to be able to see failure as a learning experience rather than a personal shortcoming
Ok, here it is: "I had a psychic change in depth which healed me from a fatal disease after I heard a female voice in my head. I attributed that voice to Sophia (a manifestation of God), and I interpreted my experience in a gnostic context." I'll grant you that none of this is justifiable to anyone else. But I could flip it around and ask you: why not simply rejoice in my healing rather than pick apart my statement?
This is exactly the point, the debate starts from the assumption that there is objective morality, and frankly there is as much doubt about that as there is doubt about 2+2=4. The debate then proceeds to ask the question, how do we transfer this morality floating in idea space to natural beings, if the universe is reducible to particle physics?
I don't know about the evidence submitted in the debate, but I personally believe that the Kalam Cosmological Argument is a good place to start.
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause
2. The Universe began to exist
3. The Universe has a caus
I know I am writing a lot, but I don't mean to be overbearing. I read up on what you were talking about and I think I understand what you mean. Although the singularity is not a widely accepted theory, and could be technically considered a different big bang, it is not different in the sense that the overall concept is different. It is merely a dispute on the singularity itself.