@@0x974 try condensing your post down. It has a lot of meaning it’s just to complicated for 90% of people to understand. Einstein said it best make it simple
Was his opening argument "the matrix, therefore solipsism is... " Actually I have no idea what he was getting at aside from throwing out as many pop psychology buzzwords as possible.
Poor Ben. He didn't seem to realise he was expected to interact with a world outside his own head. Well done for your patience, Matt - that must've been tough.
The fact that Ben has to start by explaining how we know what is true, shows that there is no good evidence. If there was good evidence he could just present the evidence.
It’s suspicious that apologists always have to redefine the meaning of "true“, "evidence“ or "reliable“ to make their case. If I change the meaning of evidence then we have really good evidence for the existence of the Christian God. If I change the definition of reliable then the gospels are historically reliable. Ironically this makes them sound like Postmodernists.😂
As soon as Ben said “how to defeat skepticism,” as if it was a bad thing to not believe things without sufficient evidence, I knew it was going to be a lame duck presentation from him.
I instantly said "Oh. Is your websites name just...like you admitting defeat in this topic now? Is this going to be Matt steelmanning your side and you steelmanning Matts side?"
I can’t remember the name of the argument. But it’s like look at the trees but more in depth. Things fall into patterns and theists argue that regularity means god. It’s a conflation of probability and possibility
There isn't anything of worth to present. That's why theists always dance around the topic but never directly address it. I.e. Atheist: give me some testable & observable evidence for your god Theist: But how do we know reality is real?
JMUDoc: There IS evidence for God of the Bible - He told us He placed evidence all throughout creation so we could SEE for ourselves. "NASA's Planck probe was able to fully map an image of the known universe, the arrow at the bottom left of the digitally enhanced galaxy map above points out that the Earth is at the center of everything and that all galaxies seem to be a meticulously aligned, geometric web around Earth and the Milky Way as the center of the known universe." www.reach-unlimited.com/p/1039043492/planck-satellite-data-confirm-earth-may-be-the-center-of-universe The words "meticulously aligned" is strange - given the belief that there is no God... John 3 !6 is an invitation to YOU that reveals how much God loves you, what the desire of His heart is for you and what His promise is to you - all meticulously carried out from the beginning - in its designated time and generation - that YOU may know Him. Have a good day.
the thing is, the intelligent, honest theists will admit there's no actual evidence for their god, and that they're taking it all on faith, and thus would never accept a debate on this topic. meaning only a theist who is a delusional idiot would accept this debate, completely unaware that they're about to be completely obliterated.
@@Keira_Blackstone I am a former theist and I sincerely thought that I had good reasons. I was immersed in apologetics and theistic philosophers and I thought I had clear and convincing arguments. Remember, believers live in a world where the majority believe in some sort of god.
@@LouigiVerona Most likely the sin the creeped into your soul started blinding you and that gave room for doubt and anger towards God. Repentance can cure that
To all you Atheist , scientists , where do you get the herbs to produce the so called medicine ? . If you are truly a scientists , produce your own herbs , without the sun , the water , the soil . Then l will give you thump up . You are all fake , you steal the gifts of God , then pretend there is no God, shame unto you . The herb , the sun , the water , the air etc, all are the property of God , which is your property ?
@@fallfromgrace3060 except any decent scientist can explain how all those things can come into being without the necessity of a god existing. just because you don't know the answer doesn't mean that 'god' did it, and not everyone is as ignorant about how the universe works as you are.
@@fallfromgrace3060 And the poisonous plant that grows near my home which will kill me if I eat from it, is this also a gift from God? One can be amazed by the only environment in which one can live because one is alive but the fact is, out of all that exists in the known universe, almost everything tries to kill us and eventually will.
I completely disagree. Ben taught me a lot here. Like now think I can beat Mike Tyson, as long as I can redefine what boxing means in such a way that he's not allowed to hit me.
@@antediluvianatheist5262 I was expecting at least a degree of realisation that at least his picture of axioms is in error. That shouldn't have been hard.
Lol. Is there evidence for God, is the question. The pro god guy didn't even attempt to present any evidence lol. Are there any theists that aren't clowns?
I don’t thank there are. They’ve given up trying to present actual verifiable evidence because they know they don’t have it. They never have. The new tactic is to use pauedophilosphical word salad to define a god into existence. This is the death knell for their argument. Of course they will still believe. They just have no good reason.
Please, present your evidence that you have. Remember, you can't use the bible to prove the bible. Don't know what your "theists that aren't clowns" means. Go.
Thanks for the debate. Theist arguments are always good for a laugh. though i kinda tuned him out after he called skepticism a "problem". its only a problem to bullshitters.
I had a whole mountain of documented evidence that god exists but I let Tucker Carlson mail them out to various educational institutions and they were lost.
I have watched endless of these types of debates, but gave up some time ago, as I never once heard any sensible utterance from the theist side. For some reason I decided to make an exception and watch this one and only managed to get through it from a ghoulish fascination with just how bad this guy was. WOW! This Ben guy was indescribably hopeless, and I have seen plenty of hopeless theists before. This guy takes the cake. It is amazing the mental gymnastics some theists will perform in order to convince themselves.
@@BrianBattles I am familiar with all except the first one you mentioned. All pretty low self-delusionists, and especially Ken Ham who is in a league all of his own when it comes to utter stupidity.
@@Andre_XX Sye Ten Bruggencate with either make you laugh your ass off or tear all your hair out. World champion intensely deluded stubborn presuppositionalist.
Even beyond the nonsensical statements, Ben is terrible at arguing. It is so difficult to understand what he's trying to get at. I'm not even convinced he understands what he's trying to say.
lightning has a beginning therefore Zeus did it the universe expanded from a dense spot and might have a begging..... therefore a space ghost did it ..... same type assertion ...different word salad ...and no way to demonstrate it
Ben seems to be speaking from a script. The only argument from skepticism is that any claim requires sufficient evidence before belief is warranted. If the " argument from skepticism fails ", it means the argument based on evidence has not been applied, and that an assertion that the given claim is true is not based on observable evidence, but has been arrived at by some other method.
Russel, It truly takes courage to look a a new reality beyond our ideas and beliefs. You may be right that there is nothing here worth looking at--but how can you know if you don't look more deeply??? Greater Community Spirituality - Chapter 1: What is God
@@darielblackburn9771 Skepticism isn't "there is no other realm", it's "we can't take other realms into account before you provide evidence there even is one."
@@StuntpilootStef Stef, God is beyond our ideas and belief. Scientific evidence is only an approximation of the paradigms scientists are adhering to today. We cannot know God with our intellect but we can experience God. Each of us contains the knowing mind within but we have forgotten how to access it. God is not limited by our ideas of God. There is a greater knowing within you that knows this to be true. NewMessage[dot]org
Imagine being the person that listened to Ben and thought, "wow, that was really good evidence that god exists. I am now a believer." Imagine that. and then feel very bad for the world.
Holy Guacamole (and salsa be praised), Ben is one dense dollop of sour cream. Doesn't seem to have all his chips together. His entire argument crumbles to dust. This is nacho finest moment, Ben.
I love the fact that Fisher tried to use visuals to explain logical rules in the style of "if P then Q", but he accidently wrote Q on both sides (probably by reversing the camera) and then argued that god is axiomatic... just incredible.
Yes, he did and then made God independent of empirical evidence. So in that little moment of his he really was "vacant' and in the realm of God. Well it surely looked and sounded that way - pity God couldn't have given some mark to back his claim, but then I wouldn't want the poor fellow to carry the Stigmata for his self-deception. God thought so too: "Ben! You must do better.. 💯
I have a math degree. This man does not know what the word axiom means in any sense other than that it is vaguely “true” which is about 15% accurate and 100% misleading
It’s honestly really obnoxious, the amount of people who debate or engage with Matt in any fashion who say “right” or “exactly,” and then go on to completely disagree with what he said. Or it’s the reverse where they say one thing, Matt refutes it and then they still start going “yeah, exactly”. They don’t even listen.
You're asking too much of these people. The reason they believe in the supernatural is that they don't want their beliefs to be destroyed. It's annoying but kinda sad in a way. Oh well...
Ahhhh jeez, with the Ps and Qs. I'm always so impressed with Matt's ability to follow and understand these types of arguments. I'm dizzy and I have no idea what he's saying. Hopefully Matt's response later will clarify. Might have watch a few times
I think he is in the same situation many believers find themselves: they have invested so much of their life's resources into belief that they cannot let go and risk bankruptcy.
13:15 "Notice hat the test subject, has failed to personally sense a knowledge of pee" "Unfortunately, pee is now unknowable" Look, I know I messed with the spelling, but let's just say someone has a new ringtone.
Never in my life did I see a more prominent example of mental gymnastics, begging the question, self convincing and denial as in the case of Ben Fischer The guy is impervious to reason.
Debate recap: Ben: God's existence is obvious. Matt:ok present your evidence Ben: God's existence is obvious Matt: That's not evidence Ben: God's existence is obvious Matt:ok I think we're done here.
Theist: "I have evidence for god" Atheists: "Ok, show me what it is" Theist: "Let me first start by trying to redefine every concept we are ware of..."
I'm impressed with how this Ben Fischer guy exudes such supreme confidence considering the drivel spilling out of his mouth. Also, he has an amazing ability to maintain a calm and polite demeanor throughout Matt's attempts to pull, at least, a shred of meaningful content from him. I thought it was put on at first, however, now that I'm further in, it seems he was actually maintaining a genuine display of steady dispassion.
He got demolished and stated steady calm. There's many ways to interpret his reaction. That he actually thought his P's & Q's equation was some kind of "good evidence" for God, is preposterous.
I'm sure they don't know. They don't really seem to think about it. They appear to become convinced and then have their own individual concept in their head, everyone subtly different and personal to the individual. That is then it. They don't seem to then question it. It is taken as real, to them. But get them to describe or explain. The ones who convince themselves they can make a good attempt never can. Get two together, they will either fight over who's is real if they are from different sects or religions or they will strain themselves trying to make disparate, contradictory bullshit fit together, if they are from the same flavour. To be frank, I think everyone, if they were to be brutally honest, would have to admit to being an Igtheist. As I would argue NO ONE knows what a god is, is like or composed/comprised of. The folk who maintain they indeed do, I would say are not being entirely honest and are making shit up.
@rafalab777 Below is a very recent example of what can actually happen if an atheist does not have a proper definition/description of God. I posted the following in a TH-cam comment thread: God has been described as spaceless and timeless and science has shown how it is possible to be spaceless and timeless. In Einstein’s special theory of relativity (SR) it has been shown that at the speed of light time totally stops and that even infinite distance becomes zero for light. The first one is the scientific explanation for timelessness and the second one is the same for spacelessness. If a certain volume of space (say, a room) is filled up with light only, then due to these properties of light the volume of that space will be zero, and time will also stop there. If the entire universe is filled up with light only, then the volume of the entire universe will also be zero. As zero volume means no space, so in this way, a spaceless and timeless state would obtain. So, it can in no way be denied that science has shown how it is possible to be spaceless and timeless. On the basis of the above, it can be said that spacelessness and timelessness are not the attributes of an imaginary being or an imaginary thing; rather, they are the attributes of a real being or a real thing. This is because science will never give an explanation for anyone or anything that is purely imaginary and non-existent because in that case, science will lose all its reliability. So, here we can say that there are three possibilities altogether: 1) Science is fully reliable and so, there is a spaceless and timeless being; 2) Science is fully reliable and so, there is a spaceless and timeless thing; 3) Science is not reliable at all, at least in this particular case. If we cannot accept possibilities 1) and 2) as true, then we will have to accept that science is not reliable in one particular case. SR has provided an explanation for someone or something that does not exist at all. The story does not end there. In the 21st century, physicists have come to the conclusion that spacetime is not fundamental and that it has emerged from something non-spatiotemporal. 'Non-spatiotemporal' is the new scientific term for the old term 'spaceless and timeless'. This word is an adjective form of no-spacetime. That means physicists are now saying that there is a region in nature where there is no spacetime and from where our known spacetime has emerged. Now, it is yet to be seen whether this no-spacetime region has got consciousness or not. Then only it can be said that there is a God. An atheist replied to the above post in the following manner: ‘Wow . . . you've convinced me. Finding a word that fits your neurotic beliefs isn't proof of anything. Quit pulling stuff out-of-your-ass . . . it's smellin' up the place.’ But when he was asked to show by a direct quote where I have asserted that there is a God, he became silent. But another atheist in another TH-cam comment thread did not remain silent. His reply to the above question was this: The answer for the redherring '‘Can you show by any direct quote where in my comment I have asserted that there is a God?’ is answered when you previosly claimed that "God has been described as spaceless and timeless and science has shown how it is possible to be spaceless and timeless" therefore "it can be said that spacelessness and timelessness are not the attributes of an imaginary being or an imaginary thing; rather, they are the attributes of a real being or a real thing". So, I had to show him that he was damn wrong there: You have not thoroughly read what I have actually written and that is why you have made such a silly mistake. At the end of my post, I have written this: ‘Now, it is yet to be seen whether this no-spacetime region has got consciousness or not. Then only it can be said that there is a God.’ That means I have not yet asserted that there is a God. If I have asserted anything at all, then that is merely this: There is something spaceless and timeless in nature. But the question as to whether this spaceless and timeless thing is having consciousness or not has not yet been answered by science and so, it is not yet known whether there is any God or not. Atheist did not admit that he was wrong. Rather he pretended that he did not know that the theistic God was also a conscious being.
This was his reply: Too bad that I already proved that you already asserted by argumentation that your god is real. Now, if your claim is that you later on (after getting wrong what science actually proves) changed your claim by adding more attributes (like consciousness) to your god, then yes, you retracted your assertion that your god exists. So, if an atheist does not have a proper definition/description of God, then sometimes he will have to pretend just like the above atheist that he does not know that theists’ imaginary God is a conscious being.
@rafalab777 Did not your parents give you a proper education? I am beginning to have doubts about it. Perhaps due to that reason you have failed to understand that in my comment it was not my purpose to show that there is a God. My main purpose was to show what could actually happen if an atheist did not have a proper definition/description of God. In such a case an atheist may sometimes have to falsely pretend that despite being an atheist he does not know this basic thing about theists’ imaginary God that he/she/it is a conscious being.
@rafalab777 I have never stated that it is for atheists to define God. I have only stated that they should have a proper definition/description of God so that just like the atheist in the example they need not have to make any such pretension that they do not know that theistic God is a conscious being.
Amazed through every passing minute. I’m embarrassed for Ben. One of his first forays into debating atheists pits him against Matt D. By the end of his opening statement, I can confidently say that Ben has never experienced actual arguments against his beliefs. I’m amazed. The arguments he _did_ use included debunking an obscure claim about Constantine destroying early manuscripts. Yes, I am _very_ confident that Ben hasn’t experienced actual resistance against his beliefs. I was the same way until finding Darkmatter2525’s animated biblical stories. I hope Ben finds them as well.
Just watched this. I've never heard anyone ever be able to use the word "axiomatic" in almost every sentence somehow. How long will I expect to have it stuck in my head? If it was a drinking game we'd all die of alcohol poisoning by the 3/4 mark.
This is kinda like fighting a swarm of insects: they're annoying and confusing, they fly in all directions, the swarm has no solid core so you can't pin them down, and catching them one by one doesn't really achieve anything.
whenever I watch these, I like to track the exact point where the theist completely loses the argument for me, and with this guy, it's when he's introducing himself and lists his website as 'howtodefeatskepticism.com'. He's walking into a formal debate when he literally opposes critical thinking itself.
I tried, I really tried to listen to what Fischer was saying but I found it impossible to make any sense of it. Why it is necessary to go through verbal gymnastics to show evidence for something he says is readily apparent to everyone?
Come on! Be honest. How many of you were not following a single bit when he (Ben) was explaining the P’s and Q’s and therefore this or that...... It’s like.....you’ve lost me. Such a messy explanation.
The P and Q stuff confused the heck out of me because I studied symbolic logic in college and different propositions, given different symbols, like P and Q, don't have any automatic relation to each other. So the whole time I was wondering where we established how P and Q are mutually exclusive.
I think he "understands" it just enough in his own head. Simply assumes it's good, works, and is in some way an answer for his god entity. Obviously ONLY his god entity is real. So he needs only address that. I think he's been reading a little apologetics and one might have sent him down this philosophical reading path. It's some wise, sage Toga'd and Sandaled old geezer with a great Moniker in a book, with some weird, complicated and profound sounding stuff. That he's been informed "explains" or "justifies" his god belief. What's not to like. He doesn't appear to understand that the way he tells it, giving him maximum credit, with the most favourable of interpretations, steelmanning him as best one can, that it is little better than him appealing to faith. He seems to expect that we should accept his assertion that something is axiomatic, and then accept this means a Universe Creating deity is an inevitability. He thinks this is reasonable and should hold water? He can't see why we should not.
Yeah i had no idea what the heck he was talking about. I think it's because he was talking too fast and using P and Q instead of just providing a real life example.
Yea he lost me. The modern apologist has given up presenting evidence because they know they don’t have any. They’ve devices into psuedo-philosophical word salad.
Yes, I tried to follow it but definitely got lost. I think part of the problem was I was expecting him to present evidence for a god but all he did was talk about P and Q.
It worries me the idea that he seems to be teaching this professionally. While he is clearly well versed on certain aspects of philosophy, not seeming to understand what an axiom is concerns me.
There’s no problem building knowledge on a foundation of axioms. Arithmetic, Algebra, and Geometry all work this way and they are invaluable tools the make the human condition better. The truth of the knowledge built on their axioms is indisputably validated every day by the completeness, consistency, and correctness of everything built with math. It’s perfectly valid for Ben to try to build knowledge of God on a foundation of axioms instead of syllogisms. To do so, we all need to agree that the axioms are true and necessary. We would then work logically from the axioms to proven propositions. Then these proven propositions need to stand up to scrutiny to show that the knowledge they convey is accurate, consistent, and unique. Nothing like that was offered by Ben.
"It´s very problematic that the range of validity of every mathematical theory is defined by its axioms and therefore only statements can be made about its dimensions within this range of validity. However, every mathematical theory represents only a very small part of all conceivable possibilities and therefore cannot make any statements about all-encompassing entities as a whole because of its limited scope." The use of axioms for proof of God is not only problematic, it´s incorrect. Source/credits: "Logic gone astray", Professor Dr. Bernhard Beckert, University of Koblenz-Landau
02:01:23 I'd like to thank Th Quiet Gorilla for submitting such a moving and thought provoking question that I appreciated more than I will say here. Bless You.
"Religious skepticism is now a soundly refuted argument." There is so much wrong with just that one sentence that I automatically knew that Ben was way outmatched.
Ben Fischer presentation is ... irritating. I'm just a layman in philosophy and very unsure of his argument and therefore would like to ask if someone could confirm or disconfirm whether or not i understood him right (as follows). To me, his argument seems to be pointed out between 13:15 - 13:45: Religious Skepticism holds the same position as Robert Nozick, which violates the Closure Principle; therefore Religious Skepticism is a wrong position to hold, because that makes "god exists = true|false" unknowable. In case i have understood him right - how should that be an argument? Or if it were - how should that support his position? Edit: And in case i didn't get it, could someone explain what his argument is, please?
Complete waste of time. The atheist's patience was monumental. If the theist is not willing to give any evidence for the existence of god why did he take the debate?
All the "uh-huh's" and "yeah" and "exactly" are attempts at hiding the fact that he is completely lost and learning something new. I used to do this with math when people would "talk over my head".
Just starting this and I’m wondering how quickly this will go from ‘evidence’ to ‘faith’ therefore I have no evidence. EDIT: Oh, an argument to refute skepticism. Not evidence for god but at least more entertaining than the faith argument.
Every debate I watch is the same thing. Thiest speaks in overly complicated nonsense and claims to spit out a god on the other end. Then Matt makes complete sense in simple terms. And makes the opponent look really foolish in the process.
Ben will walk away satisfied that he showed that it is logical to assume God as an axiomatic belief. But what he chooses to presuppose about God is not evidence for God. Ben brought no "Good Evidence" for God because no good evidence exists. BTW; *Not leaving sufficient evidence for us to be able to CONFIRM his existence is Gods fault alone*
Fischer is quite literally _frightened_ of directly answering Matt's questions so all he can do is answer ones he isn't asking & nods his head all the time as if he understands Matt's points when he can't even register them between his ears. If he did he'd have to agree that he has no good reason to believe what thinks is true.
If Ben thinks that saying God is self evident, therefore there is a God, I assume by saying that it is self evident there isn't a God I have debunked his argument 🤔
Ben... When I was a christian it was babble like yours, that convinced me almost more than actual atheist arguments, that my former position is not only on shaky grounds but on none at all...
![Does God Exist? William Lane Craig vs. Christopher Hitchens - Full Debate [HD]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/0tYm41hb48o/mqdefault.jpg)
![Does God Exist? William Lane Craig vs. Christopher Hitchens - Full Debate [HD]](/img/tr.png)
Matt, Never stop. The World needs more of your mindset around.
@@0x974 try condensing your post down. It has a lot of meaning it’s just to complicated for 90% of people to understand. Einstein said it best make it simple
Matt Dillahunty is a gift to Theists everywhere.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@devinkane6476 So says the person who doesn't even know the difference between "too" and "to". Basic English.
🤣
Anybody else constantly going "what is ben even talking about?"
Yup.
Me me me🙋♂️🙋♂️🙋♂️🙋♂️
Just a couple of minutes in his argument and i want to slap him while shouting : MAKE SOME SENSE MAN, YOU'RE TALKING GIBBERISH.
Yes idk if he’s dumb or I am 😂😂
My head is going to explode if I hear him say “axiomatic” one more time.
He's trying to refute skepticism. Oh boy this is going to be hilarious.
I laughed so loud when I read this. The Skepticism of skepticism lol
@rafalab777 I am sure one of them will try.
@rafalab777 I'm afraid the answer is "yes". These idiots have no Off Button.
@rafalab777
Unfortunately, most probably.
Looking at his followers would be a good starting point.
yeah why be sceptical when u can just believe one or a few of the countless myths we have made up to pass the time :P
The idea that a perfect entity chose this guy as its advocate is MORE THAN ENOUGH proof that it CANNOT exist. Now THAT is axiomatic. :)
Hilarious
Soooooooo truuuuuuuuuueee
Underrated comment
@@matthew6427 Thanks. It seems so obvious except to those with an utter lack of self-awareness. 😀
This was actually painful to watch. I like how Matt keeps his integrity throughout when it could've been so easy to just hang up on this guy!
Holee crap. Man Dillahunty has MONUMENTAL patience. Just WOW.
I thought the same thing after bens opening.... half way tthrough i swear matts eye glazed over
Atheists are ignorant.
@@mikerodgers7620 Great counterargument. I´m sold.
Scientific instruments can't and don't measure everything. That's what I meant by saying atheists are ignorant.
Ben seems to be able to assemble a lot of words together that don't make any kind of sense. What!
It's straight out of the Deepak chopra word generator.
Was his opening argument "the matrix, therefore solipsism is... "
Actually I have no idea what he was getting at aside from throwing out as many pop psychology buzzwords as possible.
Actually, now that I think of it. Did ben try to confuse solipsism with skepticism in his opening statement?
I'm pretty sure Ben is a chatbot trying to pass the Turing test :D
He doesn’t have any substance. Am not even sure that he understands the issues.
Matt has far more patience for playing chess with pigeons than I ever will.
Poor Ben. He didn't seem to realise he was expected to interact with a world outside his own head. Well done for your patience, Matt - that must've been tough.
Fool
Here's a tip, don't use p & q
... then reverse your camera
Little q and big Q lol
@@danielalbornoz9081 this made me laugh
This comment should be pinned at the top
The fact that Ben has to start by explaining how we know what is true, shows that there is no good evidence.
If there was good evidence he could just present the evidence.
It’s suspicious that apologists always have to redefine the meaning of "true“, "evidence“ or "reliable“ to make their case.
If I change the meaning of evidence then we have really good evidence for the existence of the Christian God.
If I change the definition of reliable then the gospels are historically reliable.
Ironically this makes them sound like Postmodernists.😂
That's a non sequitur. He's setting a foundation to find common ground. Which Matt does too
@@dukeofdenver Well, it was not an argument, just an observation.
However, I did not hear any evidence presented for the god claim in this debate.
@@dukeofdenver He spent the entire debate not even understanding what evidence is. He called epistemology, evidence. Your guy is a clown.
@@ramigilneas9274 exactly that mate. Always trying to move the goal posts to suit them.
As soon as Ben said “how to defeat skepticism,” as if it was a bad thing to not believe things without sufficient evidence, I knew it was going to be a lame duck presentation from him.
Same I just started watching and I already want to shoot myself
I instantly said "Oh. Is your websites name just...like you admitting defeat in this topic now? Is this going to be Matt steelmanning your side and you steelmanning Matts side?"
being skeptical of scepticism... the irony is palpable.
I literally had to rewind to hear it again cause I couldn't believe he said that. and kudos to Matt for not facepalming as often I had.
Just once I want a theist to argue
"Here are some facts, and here is why they would not be the case if my god did not exist."
Just once.
I can’t remember the name of the argument. But it’s like look at the trees but more in depth. Things fall into patterns and theists argue that regularity means god.
It’s a conflation of probability and possibility
@@ninjaturtletyke3328 Teleological, probably.
@@JMUDoc ya that sounds right
There isn't anything of worth to present. That's why theists always dance around the topic but never directly address it.
I.e.
Atheist: give me some testable & observable evidence for your god
Theist: But how do we know reality is real?
JMUDoc: There IS evidence for God of the Bible - He told us He placed evidence all throughout creation so we could SEE for ourselves. "NASA's Planck probe was able to fully map an image of the known universe, the arrow at the bottom left of the digitally enhanced galaxy map above points out that the Earth is at the center of everything and that all galaxies seem to be a meticulously aligned, geometric web around Earth and the Milky Way as the center of the known universe." www.reach-unlimited.com/p/1039043492/planck-satellite-data-confirm-earth-may-be-the-center-of-universe The words "meticulously aligned" is strange - given the belief that there is no God... John 3 !6 is an invitation to YOU that reveals how much God loves you, what the desire of His heart is for you and what His promise is to you - all meticulously carried out from the beginning - in its designated time and generation - that YOU may know Him. Have a good day.
The fact that we're still debating if there's evidence for something for centuries pretty much hints at an answer.
the thing is, the intelligent, honest theists will admit there's no actual evidence for their god, and that they're taking it all on faith, and thus would never accept a debate on this topic. meaning only a theist who is a delusional idiot would accept this debate, completely unaware that they're about to be completely obliterated.
@@Keira_Blackstone I am a former theist and I sincerely thought that I had good reasons. I was immersed in apologetics and theistic philosophers and I thought I had clear and convincing arguments. Remember, believers live in a world where the majority believe in some sort of god.
@@LouigiVerona Most likely the sin the creeped into your soul started blinding you and that gave room for doubt and anger towards God. Repentance can cure that
@@RaulTorresMorfin which god?
@@kenthazara5477 The one that conveniently seems to always agree with his world view, I'm sure.
Anyone who starts from position that there IS scientific evidence for God is on the lost position.
Begging the question fallacy
To all you Atheist , scientists , where do you get the herbs to produce the so called medicine ? .
If you are truly a scientists , produce your own herbs , without the sun , the water , the soil .
Then l will give you thump up . You are all fake , you steal the gifts of God , then pretend there is no God, shame unto you . The herb , the sun , the water , the air etc, all are the property of God , which is your property ?
@@dukeofdenver you're a fool
@@fallfromgrace3060 except any decent scientist can explain how all those things can come into being without the necessity of a god existing. just because you don't know the answer doesn't mean that 'god' did it, and not everyone is as ignorant about how the universe works as you are.
@@fallfromgrace3060 And the poisonous plant that grows near my home which will kill me if I eat from it, is this also a gift from God?
One can be amazed by the only environment in which one can live because one is alive but the fact is, out of all that exists in the known universe, almost everything tries to kill us and eventually will.
I'm going to need a bigger spade to move Ben's pile of crap. What utter rubbish Ben off topic, wondering aimlessly and lost.
He was totally humiliated
I completely disagree. Ben taught me a lot here. Like now think I can beat Mike Tyson, as long as I can redefine what boxing means in such a way that he's not allowed to hit me.
@@ChristopherStendeck Ha ha!!!!!! excellent !
I invented a new drinking game every time Ben says axiomatic you drink and you keep doing that until you can finally see God
@@davebaruch you will go blind after about 30 mins if you drink that much so quixjly
There's good reason to believe... that Ben is out of his depth.
How can a discussion with one person be so like herding cats? Fischer's mind is all over the place.
I really ask me, does thinking like he does, hurt? My brain went on strike after listening to this guy for awhile.
@@teardrop-in-a-fishbowl same, i am amazed of how someone can think they sound smart while talking gibberish.
He believes in magic.
Despite it being impossible, and there being no evidence for it.
What were you expecting?
@@antediluvianatheist5262 I was expecting at least a degree of realisation that at least his picture of axioms is in error. That shouldn't have been hard.
Ben Fischer only demonstrated he couldn't provide good and reasoned evidence for his god beliefs.
Like all the rest
Lol. Is there evidence for God, is the question. The pro god guy didn't even attempt to present any evidence lol. Are there any theists that aren't clowns?
I don’t thank there are. They’ve given up trying to present actual verifiable evidence because they know they don’t have it. They never have. The new tactic is to use pauedophilosphical word salad to define a god into existence. This is the death knell for their argument. Of course they will still believe. They just have no good reason.
Please, present your evidence that you have. Remember, you can't use the bible to prove the bible. Don't know what your "theists that aren't clowns" means. Go.
@@jimmypoobah8094 evidence for what?
To "Cole Trickle
", he claims there is evidence of god. I asked him to present his evidence.
@@jimmypoobah8094 he wasn’t saying there was evidence for god. He was asking if there was. And if so, what is it.
I could write a college level philosophy paper with Ben’s argument using predictive word generation.
And it would make more sense.
Is it me or gibberish has a human form in Ben’s shape?
Yup
It's you, seek a Doctor.
@@TestTheSpiritsIfTheyAreOfYAH (well at least a doctor Can be found; thank you for not suggesting another appeal to a supernatural being)
Thanks for the debate. Theist arguments are always good for a laugh. though i kinda tuned him out after he called skepticism a "problem". its only a problem to bullshitters.
"Is there good evidence for God"
Fischer: I don't like Skepticism
I had a whole mountain of documented evidence that god exists but I let Tucker Carlson mail them out to various educational institutions and they were lost.
😂
is this axiomatic?
Well played sir. (Or ma’am)
😆
I have watched endless of these types of debates, but gave up some time ago, as I never once heard any sensible utterance from the theist side. For some reason I decided to make an exception and watch this one and only managed to get through it from a ghoulish fascination with just how bad this guy was. WOW! This Ben guy was indescribably hopeless, and I have seen plenty of hopeless theists before. This guy takes the cake. It is amazing the mental gymnastics some theists will perform in order to convince themselves.
You need to see Bruggencate, Lennox, Ham or Craig, all hilariously lame.
@@BrianBattles I am familiar with all except the first one you mentioned. All pretty low self-delusionists, and especially Ken Ham who is in a league all of his own when it comes to utter stupidity.
@@Andre_XX Sye Ten Bruggencate with either make you laugh your ass off or tear all your hair out. World champion intensely deluded stubborn presuppositionalist.
@@BrianBattles Yes, I checked out Sye Ten Bruggencate a bit. From what I saw it looks like he is stiff competition for Ken Ham.
@@Andre_XX He's a stiff, all right!
Even beyond the nonsensical statements, Ben is terrible at arguing. It is so difficult to understand what he's trying to get at. I'm not even convinced he understands what he's trying to say.
It is axiomatic that Spider-Man exist. Done.
lightning has a beginning therefore Zeus did it
the universe expanded from a dense spot and might have a begging..... therefore a space ghost did it
..... same type assertion ...different word salad ...and no way to demonstrate it
Holy shit, I knew it!
LOL
Talk about saying a lot without saying anything at all. Ben needs to learn to listen instead of just ignoring all conversations when he's not talking.
Working off a script against someone who can freestyle never ends well
oh yeah, you can definitely tell dude on the left was reading off a script.
Ben seems to be speaking from a script. The only argument from skepticism is that any claim requires sufficient evidence before belief is warranted. If the " argument from skepticism fails ", it means the argument based on evidence has not been applied, and that an assertion that the given claim is true is not based on observable evidence, but has been arrived at by some other method.
Russel, It truly takes courage to look a a new reality beyond our ideas and beliefs. You may be right that there is nothing here worth looking at--but how can you know if you don't look more deeply??? Greater Community Spirituality - Chapter 1: What is God
He rehearsed this opening statement in the mirror a minimum of 25 times
@@darielblackburn9771 Skepticism isn't "there is no other realm", it's "we can't take other realms into account before you provide evidence there even is one."
@@StuntpilootStef Stef, God is beyond our ideas and belief. Scientific evidence is only an approximation of the paradigms scientists are adhering to today. We cannot know God with our intellect but we can experience God. Each of us contains the knowing mind within but we have forgotten how to access it. God is not limited by our ideas of God. There is a greater knowing within you that knows this to be true. NewMessage[dot]org
@@darielblackburn9771 If I experience god, can this be verified by somebody else? For example, does he answer prayers?
Imagine being the person that listened to Ben and thought, "wow, that was really good evidence that god exists. I am now a believer."
Imagine that. and then feel very bad for the world.
Trouble is, there are millions who do
@@BrianBattles That really IS a worry!
MATT: Wheres your premise and conclusion?
BEN: AXIOMS!!
I feel so bad for Ben, he seems nice but incredibly out of his depth.
Holy Guacamole (and salsa be praised), Ben is one dense dollop of sour cream. Doesn't seem to have all his chips together. His entire argument crumbles to dust. This is nacho finest moment, Ben.
This comment made me laugh and get hungry.
This man has broke the world record with fallacious word salad.
You clearly haven't had the displeasure of listening to "mr batman" in this channel...
I love the fact that Fisher tried to use visuals to explain logical rules in the style of "if P then Q", but he accidently wrote Q on both sides (probably by reversing the camera) and then argued that god is axiomatic... just incredible.
Yes, he did and then made God independent of empirical evidence. So in that little moment of his he really was "vacant' and in the realm of God. Well it surely looked and sounded that way - pity God couldn't have given some mark to back his claim, but then I wouldn't want the poor fellow to carry the Stigmata for his self-deception. God thought so too: "Ben! You must do better.. 💯
I have a math degree. This man does not know what the word axiom means in any sense other than that it is vaguely “true” which is about 15% accurate and 100% misleading
All of Ben’s uh huh are so irritating, I wish he would just shut up and listen.
It’s honestly really obnoxious, the amount of people who debate or engage with Matt in any fashion who say “right” or “exactly,” and then go on to completely disagree with what he said. Or it’s the reverse where they say one thing, Matt refutes it and then they still start going “yeah, exactly”. They don’t even listen.
You're asking too much of these people. The reason they believe in the supernatural is that they don't want their beliefs to be destroyed. It's annoying but kinda sad in a way. Oh well...
The reasons people keep believing is their heads aren’t screwed on properly
Matt throws the death blow at 47:11. He sums up Ben's entire argument perfectly
Ahhhh jeez, with the Ps and Qs. I'm always so impressed with Matt's ability to follow and understand these types of arguments. I'm dizzy and I have no idea what he's saying. Hopefully Matt's response later will clarify. Might have watch a few times
Fischer doesn't listen. No wonder he doesn't understand .
I think he is in the same situation many believers find themselves: they have invested so much of their life's resources into belief that they cannot let go and risk bankruptcy.
Well said. 👌🏽
God - "Hmm, should I bless Ben with logic ... nope, it will be more hilarious".
“Religious skepticism doesn’t work”....based on these 3 strawman arguments I’ve created that NO atheist or skeptic ever use.
13:15 "Notice hat the test subject, has failed to personally sense a knowledge of pee" "Unfortunately, pee is now unknowable"
Look, I know I messed with the spelling, but let's just say someone has a new ringtone.
Never in my life did I see a more prominent example of mental gymnastics, begging the question, self convincing and denial as in the case of Ben Fischer
The guy is impervious to reason.
Sweeeeeeet! Didn't know a new debate was happening. Super psyched to watch
In the year 2020 we're still 'arguing' whether or not a gawd exists.
Your confusion is that you think that people mentally evolved with time.
@@MoxxMix Correct. I just figured I couldn't be the only one it happened to. I'm really not that special.
Debate recap:
Ben: God's existence is obvious.
Matt:ok present your evidence
Ben: God's existence is obvious
Matt: That's not evidence
Ben: God's existence is obvious
Matt:ok I think we're done here.
Theist: "I have evidence for god"
Atheists: "Ok, show me what it is"
Theist: "Let me first start by trying to redefine every concept we are ware of..."
Modern Day Debates is always a trainwreck, but keep up the good work. :)
And I thought "debating" Ray Comfort is pain... :/
I'm impressed with how this Ben Fischer guy exudes such supreme confidence considering the drivel spilling out of his mouth. Also, he has an amazing ability to maintain a calm and polite demeanor throughout Matt's attempts to pull, at least, a shred of meaningful content from him. I thought it was put on at first, however, now that I'm further in, it seems he was actually maintaining a genuine display of steady dispassion.
He got demolished and stated steady calm.
There's many ways to interpret his reaction.
That he actually thought his P's & Q's equation was some kind of "good evidence" for God, is preposterous.
Once again. There is no argument for a god. Enough said! Thank you Matt!!
Still yet to hear a coherent consistent definition of what people are actually referring to when they use the word God
I'm sure they don't know. They don't really seem to think about it. They appear to become convinced and then have their own individual concept in their head, everyone subtly different and personal to the individual. That is then it. They don't seem to then question it. It is taken as real, to them.
But get them to describe or explain. The ones who convince themselves they can make a good attempt never can.
Get two together, they will either fight over who's is real if they are from different sects or religions or they will strain themselves trying to make disparate, contradictory bullshit fit together, if they are from the same flavour.
To be frank, I think everyone, if they were to be brutally honest, would have to admit to being an Igtheist.
As I would argue NO ONE knows what a god is, is like or composed/comprised of. The folk who maintain they indeed do, I would say are not being entirely honest and are making shit up.
@@rationalmartian
sekharpalongod.wordpress.com/2019/11/10/most-atheists-do-not-have-a-proper-definition-description-of-god/
@rafalab777
Below is a very recent example of what can actually happen if an atheist does not have a proper definition/description of God.
I posted the following in a TH-cam comment thread:
God has been described as spaceless and timeless and science has shown how it is possible to be spaceless and timeless. In Einstein’s special theory of relativity (SR) it has been shown that at the speed of light time totally stops and that even infinite distance becomes zero for light. The first one is the scientific explanation for timelessness and the second one is the same for spacelessness. If a certain volume of space (say, a room) is filled up with light only, then due to these properties of light the volume of that space will be zero, and time will also stop there. If the entire universe is filled up with light only, then the volume of the entire universe will also be zero. As zero volume means no space, so in this way, a spaceless and timeless state would obtain.
So, it can in no way be denied that science has shown how it is possible to be spaceless and timeless.
On the basis of the above, it can be said that spacelessness and timelessness are not the attributes of an imaginary being or an imaginary thing; rather, they are the attributes of a real being or a real thing. This is because science will never give an explanation for anyone or anything that is purely imaginary and non-existent because in that case, science will lose all its reliability.
So, here we can say that there are three possibilities altogether:
1) Science is fully reliable and so, there is a spaceless and timeless being;
2) Science is fully reliable and so, there is a spaceless and timeless thing;
3) Science is not reliable at all, at least in this particular case.
If we cannot accept possibilities 1) and 2) as true, then we will have to accept that science is not reliable in one particular case. SR has provided an explanation for someone or something that does not exist at all.
The story does not end there. In the 21st century, physicists have come to the conclusion that spacetime is not fundamental and that it has emerged from something non-spatiotemporal. 'Non-spatiotemporal' is the new scientific term for the old term 'spaceless and timeless'. This word is an adjective form of no-spacetime. That means physicists are now saying that there is a region in nature where there is no spacetime and from where our known spacetime has emerged.
Now, it is yet to be seen whether this no-spacetime region has got consciousness or not. Then only it can be said that there is a God.
An atheist replied to the above post in the following manner: ‘Wow . . . you've convinced me. Finding a word that fits your neurotic beliefs isn't proof of anything. Quit pulling stuff out-of-your-ass . . . it's smellin' up the place.’
But when he was asked to show by a direct quote where I have asserted that there is a God, he became silent.
But another atheist in another TH-cam comment thread did not remain silent. His reply to the above question was this:
The answer for the redherring '‘Can you show by any direct quote where in my comment I have asserted that there is a God?’ is answered when you previosly claimed that "God has been described as spaceless and timeless and science has shown how it is possible to be spaceless and timeless" therefore "it can be said that spacelessness and timelessness are not the attributes of an imaginary being or an imaginary thing; rather, they are the attributes of a real being or a real thing".
So, I had to show him that he was damn wrong there:
You have not thoroughly read what I have actually written and that is why you have made such a silly mistake. At the end of my post, I have written this: ‘Now, it is yet to be seen whether this no-spacetime region has got consciousness or not. Then only it can be said that there is a God.’
That means I have not yet asserted that there is a God. If I have asserted anything at all, then that is merely this: There is something spaceless and timeless in nature. But the question as to whether this spaceless and timeless thing is having consciousness or not has not yet been answered by science and so, it is not yet known whether there is any God or not.
Atheist did not admit that he was wrong. Rather he pretended that he did not know that the theistic God was also a conscious being.
This was his reply: Too bad that I already proved that you already asserted by argumentation that your god is real. Now, if your claim is that you later on (after getting wrong what science actually proves) changed your claim by adding more attributes (like consciousness) to your god, then yes, you retracted your assertion that your god exists.
So, if an atheist does not have a proper definition/description of God, then sometimes he will have to pretend just like the above atheist that he does not know that theists’ imaginary God is a conscious being.
@rafalab777
Did not your parents give you a proper education? I am beginning to have doubts about it.
Perhaps due to that reason you have failed to understand that in my comment it was not my purpose to show that there is a God. My main purpose was to show what could actually happen if an atheist did not have a proper definition/description of God. In such a case an atheist may sometimes have to falsely pretend that despite being an atheist he does not know this basic thing about theists’ imaginary God that he/she/it is a conscious being.
@rafalab777
I have never stated that it is for atheists to define God. I have only stated that they should have a proper definition/description of God so that just like the atheist in the example they need not have to make any such pretension that they do not know that theistic God is a conscious being.
Amazed through every passing minute.
I’m embarrassed for Ben. One of his first forays into debating atheists pits him against Matt D. By the end of his opening statement, I can confidently say that Ben has never experienced actual arguments against his beliefs. I’m amazed. The arguments he _did_ use included debunking an obscure claim about Constantine destroying early manuscripts.
Yes, I am _very_ confident that Ben hasn’t experienced actual resistance against his beliefs. I was the same way until finding Darkmatter2525’s animated biblical stories. I hope Ben finds them as well.
Just watched this. I've never heard anyone ever be able to use the word "axiomatic" in almost every sentence somehow. How long will I expect to have it stuck in my head?
If it was a drinking game we'd all die of alcohol poisoning by the 3/4 mark.
2+2=4 is an axiom? This is disturbingly ignorant of basic mathematics. I'm disappointed
Matt going after Ben about the axiomatic argument was great.
This is kinda like fighting a swarm of insects: they're annoying and confusing, they fly in all directions, the swarm has no solid core so you can't pin them down, and catching them one by one doesn't really achieve anything.
Perfect analogy. Insightful, expressive, and entertaining. Hell, I'm stealing it and claiming it as my own!
Exactly. Gish galloping
That’s why we use insecticides
Did you mean “Bensecticides”?
whenever I watch these, I like to track the exact point where the theist completely loses the argument for me, and with this guy, it's when he's introducing himself and lists his website as 'howtodefeatskepticism.com'. He's walking into a formal debate when he literally opposes critical thinking itself.
A year later, his website redirects to click funnels. lol
I tried, I really tried to listen to what Fischer was saying but I found it impossible to make any sense of it. Why it is necessary to go through verbal gymnastics to show evidence for something he says is readily apparent to everyone?
1:20:18 Ben proves that he does not understand Atheism and the burden of proof thereof or willingly ignores it.
Come on! Be honest. How many of you were not following a single bit when he (Ben) was explaining the P’s and Q’s and therefore this or that......
It’s like.....you’ve lost me.
Such a messy explanation.
The P and Q stuff confused the heck out of me because I studied symbolic logic in college and different propositions, given different symbols, like P and Q, don't have any automatic relation to each other. So the whole time I was wondering where we established how P and Q are mutually exclusive.
I think he "understands" it just enough in his own head. Simply assumes it's good, works, and is in some way an answer for his god entity.
Obviously ONLY his god entity is real. So he needs only address that.
I think he's been reading a little apologetics and one might have sent him down this philosophical reading path. It's some wise, sage Toga'd and Sandaled old geezer with a great Moniker in a book, with some weird, complicated and profound sounding stuff. That he's been informed "explains" or "justifies" his god belief.
What's not to like.
He doesn't appear to understand that the way he tells it, giving him maximum credit, with the most favourable of interpretations, steelmanning him as best one can, that it is little better than him appealing to faith. He seems to expect that we should accept his assertion that something is axiomatic, and then accept this means a Universe Creating deity is an inevitability.
He thinks this is reasonable and should hold water? He can't see why we should not.
Yeah i had no idea what the heck he was talking about. I think it's because he was talking too fast and using P and Q instead of just providing a real life example.
Yea he lost me. The modern apologist has given up presenting evidence because they know they don’t have any. They’ve devices into psuedo-philosophical word salad.
Yes, I tried to follow it but definitely got lost. I think part of the problem was I was expecting him to present evidence for a god but all he did was talk about P and Q.
It worries me the idea that he seems to be teaching this professionally. While he is clearly well versed on certain aspects of philosophy, not seeming to understand what an axiom is concerns me.
Did he say "how to defeat skepticism"?
@8:26 Ten words per seconds and confidence scale 10/10
@56:26 one word per second and confidence very confidential
🙌🏽
I love when Ben said, " then I guess we're just stuck with him!" LOL! Matt, keep up the excellent work!
“What’s the evidence?
for god ?”
“There is evidence”
“What’s the evidence for god?”
“There is evidence”
😂😂😂😂
There’s no problem building knowledge on a foundation of axioms. Arithmetic, Algebra, and Geometry all work this way and they are invaluable tools the make the human condition better. The truth of the knowledge built on their axioms is indisputably validated every day by the completeness, consistency, and correctness of everything built with math.
It’s perfectly valid for Ben to try to build knowledge of God on a foundation of axioms instead of syllogisms. To do so, we all need to agree that the axioms are true and necessary. We would then work logically from the axioms to proven propositions. Then these proven propositions need to stand up to scrutiny to show that the knowledge they convey is accurate, consistent, and unique. Nothing like that was offered by Ben.
"It´s very problematic that the range of validity of every mathematical theory is defined by its axioms and therefore only statements can be made about its dimensions within this range of validity. However, every mathematical theory represents only a very small part of all conceivable possibilities and therefore cannot make any statements about all-encompassing entities as a whole because of its limited scope." The use of axioms for proof of God is not only problematic, it´s incorrect.
Source/credits: "Logic gone astray", Professor Dr. Bernhard Beckert, University of Koblenz-Landau
Two hours and twenty-six minutes later, I saw no evidence for god, and I learned NOTHING....
Oh, you learned a lot. Not what you expected though...
Yes you did,there's no god..
.
1:23:00 i like when streamers interact with chat! :)
great debate Matt, thanks
Matt hasn't said a word yet, and I'm convinced he's the winner already. If Matt says hello he wins, because he said something.
02:01:23 I'd like to thank Th Quiet Gorilla for submitting such a moving and thought provoking question that I appreciated more than I will say here.
Bless You.
I just feel sorry for this Ben guy... he seems to be stuck...he doesn't even know what an axiom is...
Ben gave me the impression he's so far up his own ass, he can't give a coherent answer to any question, let alone the reasonable ones Matt was asking.
I also don't know what an axiom is, to be fair.
@@deathwishgaming4457 you should if you wish to debate philosophical problems...
After watching the debate it would be good to have Matt time stamps, so you can see him explain what ben was trying to say.
I'm dumber academically for listening to Fischer. Thanks Fischer.
👍
Ben is young,that is all however both have valid and or interesting points and perspective,proveable or not.
One of the things I like about Matt's debating is that he talks clearly, slowly and calmly besides engaging in the evidence or lack of.
"Religious skepticism is now a soundly refuted argument." There is so much wrong with just that one sentence that I automatically knew that Ben was way outmatched.
Ben Fischer presentation is ... irritating. I'm just a layman in philosophy and very unsure of his argument and therefore would like to ask if someone could confirm or disconfirm whether or not i understood him right (as follows).
To me, his argument seems to be pointed out between 13:15 - 13:45:
Religious Skepticism holds the same position as Robert Nozick, which violates the Closure Principle; therefore Religious Skepticism is a wrong position to hold, because that makes "god exists = true|false" unknowable.
In case i have understood him right - how should that be an argument?
Or if it were - how should that support his position?
Edit: And in case i didn't get it, could someone explain what his argument is, please?
I’m a theist.. I’m very unsure of what Ben was talking about.
If you have better evidence than Ben, you’re free to present it.
36:30 That might be the worst presentation of the 'infinite regress' I have ever heard.
Complete waste of time. The atheist's patience was monumental. If the theist is not willing to give any evidence for the existence of god why did he take the debate?
1:55:14 this guy has _students_ ?
What an amazing copout, 'Everything in this book that I agree with is true, and everything that goes against my personal morality is hyperbole."
All the "uh-huh's" and "yeah" and "exactly" are attempts at hiding the fact that he is completely lost and learning something new. I used to do this with math when people would "talk over my head".
Sure
Does anybody else think that Ben doesn't have a clue what "axiom" means?
Debate begins at 19:16
Just starting this and I’m wondering how quickly this will go from ‘evidence’ to ‘faith’ therefore I have no evidence.
EDIT: Oh, an argument to refute skepticism. Not evidence for god but at least more entertaining than the faith argument.
Every debate I watch is the same thing. Thiest speaks in overly complicated nonsense and claims to spit out a god on the other end. Then Matt makes complete sense in simple terms. And makes the opponent look really foolish in the process.
Wake me up when Bens opening is over.
Ben will walk away satisfied that he showed that it is logical to assume God as an axiomatic belief.
But what he chooses to presuppose about God is not evidence for God.
Ben brought no "Good Evidence" for God because no good evidence exists.
BTW; *Not leaving sufficient evidence for us to be able to CONFIRM his existence is Gods fault alone*
Fischer is quite literally _frightened_ of directly answering Matt's questions so all he can do is answer ones he isn't asking & nods his head all the time as if he understands Matt's points when he can't even register them between his ears. If he did he'd have to agree that he has no good reason to believe what thinks is true.
Stopped watching MDD, because it got to the point where they were platforming the lowest trash on the internet, so thanks for posting this here.
I have a head injury from multiple face palms. This is why I think Matt is bald.
If Ben thinks that saying God is self evident, therefore there is a God, I assume by saying that it is self evident there isn't a God I have debunked his argument 🤔
"Axiomatic evidence" sounds suspiciously oxymoronic to me.
Ben... When I was a christian it was babble like yours, that convinced me almost more than actual atheist arguments, that my former position is not only on shaky grounds but on none at all...
Wow, Ben simply couldn't answer the question if god is eternal. He simply refused to answer it.
For those who might not have the time to watch whole debate, the answer is still NO.