Atheist Debates - Debate Review - Is Christianity True? W/Trey Jadlow

This is a review of this debate on Modern Day Debates:
• Matt Dillahunty Vs Tre...
Trey wasted all but 30 seconds of his opening on what he wasn't going to talk about and then wasted the first hour on desperately trying to get me to concede a very specific point about contingency - while presenting a flawed argument, being unwilling to accept "I don't know" as an answer and more.
So, in the review, I attempt to rehabilitate his LONE argument to something that is better and gets closer to the point he seemed to want to make.

[@Vondoodle]

Trey broke about 32 mins in where Matt broke his script with a ‘I dont know’ and then it was Darth Darwkins all the way till the end

[@existdissolve]

This is a perfect description of what went down. Trey is the worst, and an idiot. He doesn't listen and seems incapable of hearing and answering straightforward questions. All Christians should be ashamed of him, and all thinking humans should be horrified that valuable energy is wasted on him.

[@theghazinator]

Darth Dawkins is still a thing? Haven't read that name in a couple of years

[@thegod-emperorofmankind6638]

​@@theghazinatorit's not a name the Jedi would tell

[@stevencurtis7157]

​@@theghazinator Looks like he is, unfortunately, and running the same pathetic presup, surrounded by sycophants.

[@blondequijote]

​@@thegod-emperorofmankind6638jedi suck. They're glorified incels who turned their own chosen one evil just bcuz they had to cockblcok. The magical enw relgion of tadaism from Good Wizard (G-d for short) teaches that Harry Potter is the magical savior, believers in his victory over vodlemort can go to hogwarts, and it's nobody's business but urs and ur partner(s) what u do with ur wand.

[@fmlunchbox]

The debate was so bad, Matt is less reviewing it and more teaching Trey how debates actually work. Thank you for your thoughts, Matt. It sucks you had to deal with such a dishonest opponent.

[@brucetopping248]

truly. I loved how he basically re-wrote Trey's pathetic opening.

[@Rusty-Shackleford69]

This is what honest review looks like.👍✌️

[@A-non-theist]

​@@brucetopping248I agree😂

[@A-non-theist]

I can't figure out how Matt didn't just walk out. The guy was an idiot. 😂

[@therationalanarchist]

@@A-non-theist He's running out of fools. Now he's scraping the bottom of the barrel

[@stsbb2022]

The smug laughter throughout was like nails on a chalkboard. Kudos to you for holding it together as well as you possibly could. Within 10 min he would have gotten hung up on and banned from any of the Line’s shows.

[@biggregg5]

Yep, Trey's smug laughter was annoying. At least when Matt is smug, which seems to be all the time now, it's not accompanied by laughter. Go Matt.

[@4Mr.Crowley2]

​@@biggregg5 Matt is “smug” “all the time now?” What? Seriously? Matt showed Trey more respect than Trey showed Matt AND the audience by giggling like a pre teen, refusing to make any clear claims about the topic of the debate - is Christianity true - playing silly games, making dumb statements like “Matt is mad at me” etc. Trey refused to make any propositions and just attacked Matt repeatedly in a weak junior high school bully manner so he could get a clip of Matt expressing annoyance so Trey could clip it for TikTok etc and yelp that he “won” a debate with a scary atheist. What single meaningful thing could a believing Christian take from Trey’s “points?” His few basic claims about the biblical texts were riddled with simple errors and a lack of comprehension. His behavior was extremely disrespectful to the KZbin channel MDD and to the audience - especially his fellow Christians.

[@luamaynard6075]

the smug laughter/giggles could be an uneasy, nervous coping mechanism, especially when he recognizes he's strayed out of his lane & is over matched..😅.😂

[@Chrisbcfc]

​@@luamaynard6075 Trey definitely doesn't think he strayed out of his lane or was over matched. His arrogance on Twitter to the debate shows that

[@deizal1234]

My favorite part is when Matt said "we all lost this debate"

[@Z4r4sz]

Trey claimed his argument has never been refuted but, as someone pointed out in the comments, trey forgot to bring the argument to the debate.

[@IOverlord]

That's just how creationists are

[@Z4r4sz]

@@IOverlord To be fair, Ive seen creationists who had an argument. They all suck but they had more than trey.

[@pansepot1490]

Lol, if you never present your argument, nobody can refute it. 😅 And you can go on truthfully bragging that nobody refuted it. 😎 Not a stupid tactic after all. 😂

[@Rob_Jacobs]

@@pansepot1490I didn’t actually realize how intelligent this tactic was until you put it so succinctly 😂!! He’s TECHNICALLY not lying 🤣

[@Julian0101]

@@pansepot1490 That is what most trolls here have ended up doing lately. I didnt expect someone to do it live.

[@malcolmhodnett8874]

I been waiting for this after that debate. Nobody should ever speak to Trey in any serious context again. He is absolutely dishonest and useless as an interlocutor

[@brucetopping248]

I commented this almost verbatim after Trey's debate with David Smalley. Truly child-like thinking dressed up with nervous laughter, smugness, and lots of Latin inserted in simply in an attempt to to impress. I hope he never wastes anyone's time debating ever again.

[@MrCanis4]

It's like, throw some salad in a bowl, sprinkle with vinegar and then think you're a three star chef.

[@a-borgia4993]

@@brucetopping248 I will look up the Trey-Smalley debate.

[@Nocturnalux]

@@brucetopping248And he has been doing that for years on end, too.

[@lreadlResurrected]

Been there. Done that. You are 1000% correct.

[@iamnotgroot3693]

I have watched hundreds of debates since COVID started lock downs, as a way of keeping entertained and educated, and the debate against trey was the hardest to watch. He didn't present anything of substance the entire time, and was a jerk throughout on top of it. Matt was 10/10 justified in calling him a jackass.

[@MG-ot2yr]

Yep there's never been anyone more deserving of being called a jackass than Trey Jadlow

[@ronalddepesa6221]

Darth Dawkins is more deserving to be called a jack ass. Lol. (But Trey is a jack ass for sure)

[@ARoll925]

​@@MG-ot2yrMichael Egnor

[@thekwjiboo]

​@ARoll925 ugh, that dumpster fire was so painful to watch. Dude thinks calling a response gibberish or tapdancing is an actual argument.

[@geezerbill]

Trey still harasses random people daily on Twitter, trying to provoke them into "debate" with him.

[@robotaholic]

I have watched you for 20 years from Norman, OK and I was born into Jehovah's Witnesses religion and I wanted to thank you and Tracy and a zillion others who made me feel like I was not alone, that the religious ppl are the deranged lol for believing in talking snakes, talking donkeys, etc It was hell when ALL my friends and family disfelowshiped me. Thanks again wonderful ppl!

[@ChainsawChristmas]

Isn't it strange that humans feel the need to judge you on earth when "only God can judge you?".

[@missinterpretation4984]

Ex JW here as well ❤

[@jonherrin]

I jumped in to this debate right in the middle. And it was, of course, at a point where I said to myself, "woah Matt! Turn it down a bit." but after a few more minutes of watching, I realized, "OK, Matt, I see what a pretentious, squirrely little prick you're dealing with, carry on." Thanks for this review. Excellent work considering the shitshow you had to work with, and has been mentioned in other comments, this is a great tool for teaching how a debate should actually happen.

[@MichaelMeridius]

Myself and other atheists have all interacted with Trey; and on each occasion he lied, denied, committed endless fallacies, and demonstrated his ignorance, arrogance and hypocrisy. He is thoroughly dishonest, and incapable of having an intellectually honest debate.

[@IOverlord]

Just so he can go to heaven. Ah yes, the irony

[@Nocturnalux]

My favorite Trey moment was years ago, when he smugly stated that constitutional amendments had an hierarchy, to that the first is the most important, followed by the second and so forth. He stated this as if it were obvious. I was stunned. By this reckoning, the second amendment “trumps” the 13th.

[@ARoll925]

Not any different then any other theist/apologist

[@nitehawk86]

38:50 Could you imagine an atheist asking a christian apologist to concede a point for the sake of helping them move their own argument along? The chrstian apologist would clamp on to that point and never let go.

[@BigRalphSmith]

I love when Matt comes along and steelmans his debate opponent's arguments. If they would actually listen to him, they could have so much more interesting debates (notice I didn't say 'successful' but definitely more interesting).

[@hanybaal1]

Matt respected the audience's time. Kudos for that

[@anteronblocker]

I had the "honor" of encountering Trey in several Discussion Groups on Facebbok about 10 years ago. He is one of those that "Pigeon Chess" has been created about. However often he failed to actually make his point, he still struted around as if he won the argument.

[@airforcex9412]

Trey basically bragged about his record debating, said his opponents whined, and ended up being almost as pathetic as Sye. He gave up when he realized his script wouldn’t work with Matt. 😂

[@jonhowe2960]

@@JimMillerDrums more like pigeon checkers, amirite? hey-o!

[@imaginationave3687]

@@jonhowe2960 Hey, be fair. It was Pigeon Tic Tac Toe

[@Nick-Nasti]

Trey “I am going to win this debate without evidence” Me “good luck with that” When Trey listed his first point with 4 options, I knew he lost.

[@Leith_Crowther]

“I am going to demonstrate God without evidence.” And I’m going to be a Formula 1 driver without being born in Europe. Yeah, no, that’s not how any of this works.

[@outhousephilosophies3992]

Lol 😂 I loved how trey said all he’s going to establish but never actually presented an argument

[@nietzschescodes]

@@Leith_Crowther hmm I don't see your point. So many actual and former F1 drivers were born outside Europe (US, Canada, South America, Australia, Japan, etc) Just at the moment there is at least Perez (Mexico), Piastri (Australia), Stroll (Canada), Sargeant (USA), Ricciardo (Australia), Tsunoda (Japan), Zhou (China). And Fittipaldi (USA) has great chances to become soon a F1 driver.

[@Jake007123]

@@nietzschescodes Yeah, he should have said something like "And I'm goning to be a Formaula 1 driver without a car, motor or even wheels".

[@wdsbhb]

It’s funny. God could easily end all of these debates by showing up today. Yes it doesn’t. So either it can’t, won’t, or doesn’t exist.

[@IncipientClinic]

Honestly, I have no idea how you managed to keep your composure in that debate. You sir are a better person than I!

[@williammeck3466]

It seemed like Trey’s method was more to irritate his opponent so he can claim a win based on their justified emotional reaction. He’s a terrible debater, and you gave him way to much credit in this analysis.

[@NoStringsAttachedPrd]

The strategy appeared to be: ask a question, Matt would start to answer, interrupt the answer to give his own answer instead or "so what you're saying is X" strawman to get Matt to react to that so that Trey could respond by calling him names and laugh. He shouldn't have played his hand in his intro by showing he was planning to put words in Matt's mouth. Trey wasn't there to debate, he wanted to "rumble".

[@Nymaz]

Trey reminds me of the old lawyer quote: "If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts; if you have the law on your side, pound the law; if you have neither the facts nor the law, pound the table."

[@chris999999999999]

I don't know that it has an official fallacy name, but I agree it looks like Trey was trying to pull the "Your responses are being given in a heated/passionate tone, therefore they must be based in emotion and not reason."

[@thekwjiboo]

​@@chris999999999999 that's pretty much a non-sequitur fallacy. Since it does not follow that anything Matt says can be considered right or wrong because of the perceived or accused level of emotion. So that's what I would go with.

[@Connor.Klassen]

I asked the “could the evidence be better than it is question.” Thanks for addressing it, Treys response was very interesting

[@no_sht_sherlock4663]

Matt, Just Wanted To Say Thank You For Continuing To Educate On Logic, Critical Thinking and Reasoning Skills. It's Very Much Appreciated!!

[@Джонатан-р8д]

Every Word Doesn't Need To Be Capitalized. 😂

[@no_sht_sherlock4663]

@@Джонатан-р8д 😁😁🤣🤣

[@GameTimeWhy]

​@@Джонатан-р8дmaybe it's auto-capitilization?

[@RickReasonnz]

The more I hear of MDD debaters, the more I am convinced that Matt's interlocutors are there not to debate a topic, but to "get Matt". The double edged sword of being the "End Boss of Atheism."

[@Rob_Jacobs]

For real, people come ready for the comment section about the debate and not the debate itself.

[@FurieMan]

Thank you. Was looking forward to this debate review.

[@AndBenC]

Wow Matt, I understood about 75% of this video and hope to try to learn more about the parts I struggled to understand, but I appreciate nonetheless! Your explanations and details are wonderful. Your debate with Trey was great on your part, abysmal on Trey's, and your video explains why so brilliantly.

[@voccapoei]

Hey Matt, stay strong! Dont stress yourself too much cause we have all the BEST atheist videos on KZbin thanks to you!! GOAT Greatest Of Atheist Time yes yes!!

[@dustinrollings9440]

I'm amazed you kept your patience as well as you did. That was less a debate and more a frustrating game of chess with a pidgeon. Thanks for the review.

[@stevie-c1471]

Was really looking forward to some discussion on this. In my opinion, after about a decade of watching theological debates, Trey had the worst debate performance I've ever seen. Aside from not having any modicum of substance relating to the actual topic in his 'argument', he simply made a complete cock of himself with his behaviour. The mod had to tell him to stop interrupting and even had to mute him. He constantly laughs at things (and not nervous laughter imo, more just obnoxious condescending laughter. On being asked a question he very rarely answers, but whether he does or doesn't, he 100% of the time launches into an insane mish-mash of irrelevant preaching, anecdotes, pointless info, etc. etc. Anyways, rant over. I look forward to now watching the video, thank you for making it!

[@NoStringsAttachedPrd]

Trey was at one point talking over and interrupting the moderator _while_ the moderator was cautioning Trey for interrupting. And yeah Trey's behaviour was atrocious. In the Q&A at one point Matt held up two fingers to say "now that you've dodged the question twice", Trey slumps back loudly, flips Matt off on camera and then giggles to himself. 1:49:45

[@sypherthe297th2]

I didn't make it that far originally so i had to go see what you were talking about. It honestly would have been im charaxter for f9r him from what i had seen but he didn't do that from what I saw at your time stamp. He flashed the same two fingers back at Matt but passed out of frame and was obscured. Either way though Trey was a petulant jacka$$.

[@Byrvurra]

Well this was 1000% more interesting and edifying than the actual debate. Dude short circuited when you answered his question 'wrong' and it was all downhill from there. The whole thing was the epitome of "Never play chess with a pigeon."

[@GameTimeWhy]

Im impressed that matt keeps taking these debates against theists that domt understand logic, critical thinking or basic debate format.

[@johnbyrnes6621]

21:20 I think that's slightly wrong, the reason we use triangles in computer graphics doesn't have to do with efficiency. It is because computer graphics cares about what angle something is at compared to the camera and light source(s). This math is only really possible with planes, and triangles are useful because they are a set of points that define a plane. If you want to go all the way back to how we do math on computers, you could talk about efficiency there

[@SansDeity]

What is the most efficient number of points to define a plane?

[@johnbyrnes6621]

​@@SansDeity I think I'm being over-pedantic here, you didn't even mention computers when i went back and checked the video. 3 is the fewest number of points to define a plane (as long as they aren't all in the same line). Since computers use imprecise floating point representations, the more important aspect of triangles in graphics is the guarantee that they are ALWAYS planar. Triangles will give the most accurate approximation of any 3d manifold, unless you allow degenerate angles (where the vertex has an angle of 180 degrees), in which case triangles are more efficient for "removing" them.

[@freedomofmusic2112]

That guy was insufferable. Kept interrupting Matt, laughed every time Matt got irritated, then pretended he didn't know he was doing it

[@IOverlord]

This guy is claiming to be saved by grace. Let that sink in lmfao

[@billjohnson9472]

he would spout off a few latin terms describing philosophy and claim victory

[@BigJGTR]

I really appreciate these after debate videos. Its nice to to hear exactly why rebuttals work, flaws in whats being defended and sometimes what can be very obvious to some others may not find so obvious. This was a hard one for me. I could barely make it through the debate, because Trey was just infuriating to say the least. Thx Matt, for doing what you do!

[@Domzdream]

Yea, fair enough. I mean, you’re the only one who was pretty much reeling back the debate onto its tracks again, versus Trey, who was going on about ‘are you real’ as if it really mattered. Kudos to you for at least entertaining his simplistic take on philosophy. You’ve just gotta love pseudo intellectuals who aren’t as smart as they deem themselves to be…like Jordan Peterson.

[@Scorned405]

Jordan Peterson is completely whacked

[@glennxserge]

Oh man, I remember hearing Trey give these arguments years ago. They've absolutely been addressed before, Trey just doesn't have the honesty/ability to recognize it.

[@VaughanMcCue]

Not the sharpest in the tray.

[@Aaron-sq8fm]

I'm with Matt on that one if the person who you're debating doesn't address the topic in their opening give your rebuttal and leave.

[@TheMindovermouth]

Thank you for doing this review. I couldn't even make it an hour into the debate so this was helpful.

[@GreatCollapsingHrung]

7:34 Watching that bit made feel like Matt could present the apologists' arguments better than they themselves do. I'm actually kind of interested in seeing Matt play Devil's advocate and give a whole opening statement for the proposition that Christianity is true.

[@Rob_Jacobs]

He could literally do it better than almost anyone I’ve seen him debate

[@ARoll925]

​​@@Rob_Jacobsyou're probably right, I don't see that happening though because I can't see Matt even as a devil's advocate putting forward a fallacious argument, which as far as I can tell all theist arguments are in someway fallacious, which is probably a fallacy also, put it this way I have yet to hear an apologist put forward a argument that isn't a fallacy

[@leswatts8422]

I have the feeling that theists know they cannot win an honest debate with Matt and so resort to spoiler tactics and word games. Very funny but frustrating too.

[@ARoll925]

I don't think they give a shit about that, I think they want his audience

[@thekwjiboo]

I'm pretty sure at least a subset of his debate opponents try and frustrate/anger Matt on purpose so they can point to Matt getting frustrated and go to their creationist echo chambers and say "lol look at the angry atheist, they're always so angry". As though that actually proves anything, even if true.

[@dimitrioskalfakis]

since the truth of christianity (the subject of the discussion) is based on the life of jesus as presented in the gospels one would think that the reliability of the scriptures is of paramount importance and hence refusing to provide actual pertinent evidence to that effect (of any sort) makes the whole effort pointless. philosophical arguments are not relevant to this subject matter.

[@RustyColonsCPA]

Trey should have just said "uncle" and let Matt teach him a thing or two about debating a seasoned/ honest interlocutor.

[@ianchisholm5756]

Thanks, I really appreciate these debate reviews.

[@DapperMKVI]

This was more enjoyable than that debate by a LONG shot.

[@ramigilneas9274]

I rarely watch these debates anymore… most Theists are simply not worth debating because they are only parroting boring arguments that have been refuted decades ago or only present baseless claims without even trying to present actual evidence.

[@locococo7362]

I wish to see at least a debate where the theist will clearly define what Matt's said : "hey, here is how we can know something is true. Here is how we can see if X religion is true. Here is why I claim X religion is true". It should be just the basic stuff for such debate, and yet, it seems so hard for those apologist to get those basics. And when they do, they are using crazy illogical argument as stupid as "it's true because it's in my book, and I believe what is in that book is true." No, that's not how logic, nor truth, works. They don't even get that. It's so annoying.

[@ramigilneas9274]

@@locococo7362 Exactly, we can’t even properly define or agree on what "good evidence“ is, or how a sound epistemology should look like. I am not interested in philosophical arguments that are nothing more than purely hypothetical thought experiments with questionable premises that can’t be verified whatsoever. It also doesn’t help when all of those arguments look like the Apologists started with their preferred conclusion that God exists and then tried to formulate an argument to arrive at that conclusion instead of starting with the evidence and then following wherever it leads. And of course most arguments boil down to god of the gaps fallacies. The historical evidence is even worse than that. It’s great that we can demonstrate that some of the people and places that are mentioned in the Bible actually existed… but that doesn’t make those stories true. And of course the verifiable non-miraculous stuff isn’t evidence that the totally unverifiable miraculous stuff is also true. I guess I’ll never watch any of those debates again. Even watching the summary here is already frustrating enough.😅

[@MrRussiancoma]

I watched every minute of this debate Matt, and I was hugely disappointed and I felt he wasted all of our time. I am an Atheist, but this is an important question, and I'm open to listening and learning. It was not fair to you, the moderator, or the rest of the people in the audience that day and all views in the future. Some people will be disappointed and feel their future time is wasted. Btw, my wife and I enjoyed our time with you on the free thought cruise! I Look forward to the next event!

[@JohnSmith-gu6ii]

It's almost like the dumber the person, the stronger their faith.🤷🏾‍♂️

[@bootskanchelsis3337]

That is what the Dunning-Kruger effect is.

[@Eyrie007]

Trey came off as a troll to me. Especially towards the middle of the debate when he seemed to intentionally try to make Matt mad and was laughing about it.

[@Apanblod]

I don't think he shows any of the typical signs associated with troll debaters. It's just the way he is. He's been the same for several years and in many debates, so if he is a troll he's very consistent and persistent.

[@Eyrie007]

@@Apanblod He's a really dishonest person then. Definitely not worth any further debates.

[@IOverlord]

@@Eyrie007 Makes you happy you're not believing into whatever he is shoving up that ass

[@Apanblod]

@@Eyrie007 I don't think he's dishonest either, really, he probably believes every word he says. Obnoxious, rude, immature and of questionable intelligence I could stand behind.

[@Eyrie007]

@@Apanblod He was very dishonest for agreeing to a debate and not even trying to address the topic.

[@rahrah8962]

Hey Matt, can you do a video on how you overcame your fear of public speaking. Something a little different 😮

[@sam7bam]

Presenters like Trey are the reason I unsubscribed from that channel, and won't 'like', 'dislike', or engage at all in the live chat or comment sections. That channel has all but directly stated they care more about generating activity than promoting actual honest substantive debate, and are happy to give a platform to whomever can cause the most engagement regardless of the quality.

[@fleabitz1474]

Yeah, it was at least a year or two ago when it became obvious to me that MDD's goal is to be a circus. I would like to watch debates involving Matt but I can't put myself through this kind of crap; it's too stressful. I do enjoy Matt's post-debate videos, but MDD doesn't get my click.

[@PhysiKarlz]

The channel is purely a SuperChats money collector for the owner. That's why there is always such a great focus on the Q&A, moving through as many questions as possible, why SuperChats are the ONLY point of moderation in any debate there.

[@biedl86]

The debate was fun to watch, despite his conduct. Thanks for the review. I've learned something new.

[@TaylorWalston]

I had a discussion with Trey and he is so eager to force you to agree with his first statement he starts crowing victory before its even out of his mouth.

[@willard73]

Trey has always assumed that if you don’t agree with his argument, it’s because you don’t understand his argument. The notion that his argument can be understood then refuted by a rubber band will never occur to him 😅

[@seraphonica]

I reckon Jadlow was focused on getting your concession because his further arguments were built upon it. That may have been why he used the opening statement he did - other debators may have conceded the point just to avoid appearing unreasonable.

[@shawn092182]

I think one of the most, amongst many, pathetic thing from Trey was when he asked the moderator what he thinks.

[@_BADCHESS]

I prefer these longer debate reviews. I like longer content.

[@keaco73]

His awkward laughter is just as cringy as his constant looking up at the ceiling. Or was he looking up to god for answers maybe

[@yogi147]

That guy saying come up with another explanation, reminded me so much of the Matt Slick debate

[@WilliamJohnston]

Truly a Trey-n wreck, well done for not leaving the chat room sooner...!

[@emyerson]

I was absolutely stunned when Trey claimed that the evidence for the bible couldn't possibly be better. He had already claimed that one of the gospel writers was essentially unimpeachable as an historian. Wouldn't the evidence for the bible be better if *all* gospel writers were unimpeachable historians? Or even if just two of them were? Or even if the author of Luke-Acts had written simply one more verse? Wouldn't any of those scenarios be definitionally better evidence?

[@goldenalt3166]

He hasn't read the Bible. That would be evidential. He's just defining it that way.

[@ThatGuy-6669]

I love the first Q&A question. "No, I can't imagine a world without god. Because of the law of identity. That thing I invented, and Matt just debunked." 😂

[@TurinTuramber]

Debates can be fun but far more precise and powerful to have short written exchanges. There would be no interruptions, squabbles or evading and Trey's written sentences would be self defeating.

[@rchrd0krstng]

I really thought that Matt would have got up and left after hearing Trey's first rebuttle!

[@lennart_glimpsel]

ironically, by being one of the worst debates ever it became one of the most interesting conversations in the QnA

[@pinball1970]

Heard about it on "The Line" in chat so I will check this out.

[@michelbidart7286]

That was painful to watch. I hope we get more honest debaters in the future, at least some that are less focused on their record, or winning, and that are actually interested in bouncing ideas off each other, to create something interesting.

[@secularidiot9052]

I’m halfway through the video and I’ve heard Matt say “argument”, “statement”, and “concept”, but not what Kant actually said with “judgement”. I’m dying over here, my nerd brain can’t handle it, man.

[@AntonFoekema]

The thing about reality is that is irrelevant whether or not it is real. The fact is that is the only reality that we experience and therefor it is "real" for the purpose of having to live in it and interact with it.

[@Alun49]

I watched the debate and was utterly appalled at Trey Jadlow's inability to present any coherent argument. Matt's review is absolutely correct.

[@jaym6501]

Keep up the good. Dr.

[@AdamKlownzinger]

I actually audibly laughed out loud when he suggested that the evidence could not POSSIBLY be better. That’s so preposterous that laughter is the only reaction, not even a continuation of debate, it perplexes the rational mind too much to think thats a possibility.

[@nagranoth_]

Trey refusing to acknowledge his 'argument' has been debunked over and over again doesn't stop that from having happened.

[@KuroiShiAnimu]

I watched this in the background while playing Blue Archive. Can't wait for a Wakamo banner

[@StannisHarlock]

I didn't see the debate, but this Trey guy sounds like a hilarious character.

[@mathfairy]

The definition of triangles does NOT include that the sum of the internal angles add up to 180°, even in euclidean space. The definition of a triangle is that it is a set of three distinct points in some space that do not align (there is no line such that all three points are elements of that line). In eucledean space, it can be *proven* from the parallel postulate (which is not a necessary requirement in any space) that the internal angles of a triangle do in fact add up to 180°. So it's a consequence and not part of the definition.

[@j85grim4]

My summary of this debate which I also posted on the debate video: Trey attempted to get Matt to agree to an extremely flawed framework, set of rules/logic, right out the gate so he could attempt to trap him later but being as brilliant as Matt is he saw it right away, tore it apart and the debate was essentially over as that's all Trey came there with.

[@dq2727]

10:20 starting with the Perceptual-Eye (Kantian), nice🖖

[@bc2112320]

A statement you made at the beginning made me chuckle. "I exist because my parents had sex." Neither of my children can make that statement in the strictest sense of "sex". Both of them exist because of modern reproductive science that doesn't rely in any way on some notion of a 'god'..

[@joseyglesias3743]

Do some call ins. Also, has the ACA turn into the Vatican? What's your opinion?

[@mudslinger888]

consider adding a subtitle, like giving a topical hint? Same title could use a descriptor

[@zen-sean]

Trey was so frustrating to watch. Blatantly manipulative, gaslighting, the laughing and dismissive attitude when you pointed out how he avoided answering questions.. His performance was embarrassing

[@dougpridgen9682]

Great video Matt. Have you ever read Leonard Peikoff’s article called The Analytic Synthetic Dichotomy? You may not agree with it but it’s a different take on what you went over. The basic premise is that soundness and correspondence are key, as you point out, that all truths are primarily inductive and that’s where premises for deductive arguments come from. Analytic vs synthetic and necessary vs contingent are therefore false alternatives. I can point to a bachelor or two apples. I cannot point to god or anything supernatural.

[@Roannais]

When it came to the 'could the evidence for Christianity be better?' question, Trey simply went into defense mode, just a tiny moment of reflection is all that's needed for it to be obviously true, there are thousands of things that could have been different even in small ways to make this so, but Trey just felt obliged to defend his faith come what may and reflexively said 'no'. A preserved original copy of the Bible, that's all it would take for the evidence to be better. The Hindu Rig Veda is much older than the Bible, so it would be quite possible for an original version of the Bible to have survived. What an absolute train wreck of a 'debate'.

[@matthewwhite8882]

I wish I was the moderator in that debate - an hour in, or probably less than that, I would’ve forced Trey to actually address the debate topic. I would’ve kept muting him until he does

[@goldenalt3166]

Have you seen the "fact-checked" debates on vox channel?

[@RemnantsOfBeauty]

Probably worth putting a clause in your debates that YOU get to have the first statement. At which time you can point out all of this and what needs to be talked about and what not. Etc

[@sitr2516]

that was the silliest debate I have ever seen. He was trying to use some sort of silly pre laid out logical argument thing and it all fell apart on the very first step lol.

[@paulwalker797]

Trey is a smug, incoherent man who embarrassed himself. What an unpleasant person he must me....I pity his wife and family!

[@jimcarlson6157]

and his dog, too

[@thomasseichter5670]

I learned more by listening to this debate review than by listening to the actual debate because I was busy shaking my head in disbelief that trey was not able to follow the most basic arguments matt gave.

[@thequantumshade1556]

I love all of your stuff, Matt but if you debate him again, I will not watch it. He’s simply not worth my time and I don’t believe he’s worth yours either. I am curious to see what it is you think can come out of having any further discussions with him, should you choose to do so.

[@djhalling]

It seems that a lot of the disagreement was just due to a misunderstanding of what Trey was saying. He said, "All that exist is [one of the four options]", meaning the entirety of everything that exists, not just any thing that exists (like the elastic band). I don't really think it makes his argument much better, but if it was clear, it might have made things less awkward.

[@nativeatheist6422]

Thanks Matt. Trey is one of the most dishonest people out there.

[@MrCanis4]

@@graemerose1616 Almost

[@norcodaev]

The debate was tolerable….right up until Matt, rightly, answered “I don’t know” to one of Trey’s questions, then when Trey had to go off script, it was all down hill from there. Kudos to Matt for not standing up and walking away. The theist side is definitely scraping the bottom of the barrel with these pathetic apologists.

[@Dragoon803]

TBH I would laugh my ass off if Matt did in fact show up to a debate ,where his opponent did not address the actual topic, and leave after giving his opening. That would be hilarious.

[@kevinkelly2162]

Jesus didn't walk on water??????? Didn't Ron Wyatt find a pair of sandals at the bottom of the Sea of Gallilee? If that is not proof then I don't know what is.

[@BigSqueeGG]

Trey was a joke, so was the moderation. The only time I heard anything remotely discussing "Is Christianity true?" Was when Matt would bring up the debate topic.

[@SuperRickflick]

I think Trey was correct on the definition of "being". In the philosophical community, the term refers to all objects. Your distinction of agent was correct, Matt. Theism will propose God as agent. For physicists, there could be a non-agent being, such as fundamental particles or waves. It may be non-contingent in the sense it has always existed.

[@seanmcdonald5365]

That guy was low and seemed really lost a lot of the time. I’ve realized that some people vehemently hate “I don’t know” as they want you to take a position so they can shift burden of proof which is also dirty. He also wouldn’t stop talking and kept interrupting and then said he didn’t know he was interrupting, that was a crazy watch

[@СергейМакеев-ж2н]

Matt, I'm pretty sure that when Trey says "a being", he always just means "something that exists". You should have asked him to clarify it, the moment he introduced a new word into the discussion.

[@nagranoth_]

No, Matt should've done is exactly what he did: point out that 'a' being has different usage than 'has' being and why. It was completely clear what Matt's answer was, by explaining this, and Trey kept intentionally pretending Matt said something he already explicitly stated was not what he said, nor what anyone but Trey means when using that word.

[@nitehawk86]

I love that Matt gives a better version of his opening. Which guarantees that he will never use it, haha.

[@nullverba856]

Re: 39:08 The argument that god cannot make himself (understood) is an argument *against* the bible, right? _And does it also help explain why there are so many differing translations of the bible?_

[@simonschaller857]

Its like a disaster report: at 11:15 the unthinkable pappend!

[@jamesyoung1022]

My sincerely held religious beliefs caused me to commit many crimes against humanity, all the consequence of pretending to know things that cannot possibly be known. Pretending to know that... 1. an undetectable supernatural realm exists that is inhabited by undetectable, all-powerful, immortal beings, monitoring every human thought and act, justly entitled to micromanage every aspect of human existence. 2. I had a special intimate personal relationship with this supernatural realm that telepathically endowed me with knowledge of unknowable truths, including insight into the mind of the supreme ruler of the supernatural realm, and what it thinks and wants. 3. I had been ordained and commissioned by the supernatural world with the authority, and duty to do everything in my power to police every aspect of human thought and behavior as a representative and surrogate enforcer of the laws and regulations of the supernatural realm. 4. I had been ordained and commissioned by the supernatural world with the authority, and duty to do everything in my power to groom children into pretending to know the same unknowable, divisive, and hateful things that I pretended to know, thereby sabotaging their lives permanently, both intellectually and emotionally. 5. supernatural beings had commissioned me with the exclusive ethical moral authority and duty to do everything in my power to restrict the thoughts, questions, facts, narratives, and realities children may entertain. 6. supernatural beings had delegated to me the exclusive ethical moral authority and duty to do everything in my power to ban comprehensive sex education in public schools. 7. supernatural beings had delegated to me the exclusive ethical moral authority and duty to destroy the self-esteem of children who engage in masturbation, making them think they are sexual perverts. 8. supernatural beings had granted me the exclusive ethical moral authority and duty to do everything in my power to deny women and girls access to contraceptives and abortion services, even if doing so destroys their lives. 9. supernatural beings had decreed that a fertilized egg, zygote, fetus, or unborn baby is endowed with exclusive ownership of and sovereignty over a woman or adolescent girl's body, even in cases of rape or incest, even if that fetus is unviable, septic, or dead. 10. supernatural beings had decreed that men are entitled to subjugate women and treat them as though they are chattel property. 11. supernatural beings had delegated to me the exclusive ethical moral authority and duty to condemn your sexual thoughts, desires, dreams, and fantasies. 12. supernatural beings had delegated to me the exclusive ethical moral authority and duty to do everything in my power to regulate which adults you may cohabitate with, have sex with, love, and/or marry. 13. supernatural beings had delegated to me the exclusive ethical moral authority and duty to do everything in my power to outlaw sexual conduct that does not conform to the undetectable supernatural realm’s standards of human sexuality. 14. supernatural beings had delegated to me the exclusive ethical moral authority and duty to do everything in my power to destroy the lives of members of the LGBTQ community, including bullying LGBTQ children to the point of driving them to commit suicide. 15. supernatural beings had endowed me with the exclusive ethical moral authority, knowledge, and duty to recognize, challenge, and advocate for the shunning, imprisonment, or execution of anyone who dared to spread a blasphemous criticism of what I was pretending to know. 16. supernatural beings had delegated to me the exclusive authority and duty to do everything in my power to restrict the teaching of certain scientific theories in public schools. 17. supernatural beings had delegated to me the exclusive ethical moral authority and duty to do everything in my power to restrict access to certain genres of books, videos, and other educational materials from public schools, public libraries, bookstores, and the internet. 18. supernatural beings had delegated to me the exclusive authority and duty to do everything in my power to ban public school discussions of social justice issues and the suffering experienced by people who have been and still are oppressed by intolerant fascists like me. 19. supernatural beings had delegated to me the exclusive authority and duty to do everything in my power to ban the teaching of certain aspects of human history in public schools. 20. the supreme ruler of the supernatural realm was always on my side as I went about the business of visiting hate, discrimination, misfortune, hardship, oppression, suffering, and destruction upon those who resisted my efforts to correct them. 21. being tortured in a lake of fire for eternity is just retribution for failing to pretend to know the correct version, (my version) of unknowable truth. 22. when our ancient ancestors created their holy books, they did not include in them anything that they were pretending to know, things that they could not possibly know. 23. supernatural beings had informed me that those suffering, languishing in poverty, ostracized, or oppressed are responsible for, and deserve blame for every hardship they suffer in life. 24. supernatural beings had informed me that if you fail to dedicate yourself to a life of servitude to the supreme ruler of the supernatural realm, it is only because you have willfully chosen a life of servitude to undetectable evil supernatural beings. Please forgive me for posting this lengthy list of my crimes against humanity. Doing so helps mitigate my grief for having committed these crimes and may help others recognize the many dangers inherent in pretending to know things we cannot possibly know.

[@Chrisbcfc]

Eh?

[@jamesyoung1022]

@@Chrisbcfc I get it that supernaturalists don't get it.

[@Chrisbcfc]

@@jamesyoung1022 🥴

[@Tuna_Man2323]

This guy has been spamming this nonsense on multiple forums.

[@Chrisbcfc]

@@Tuna_Man2323 who?

[@vincentsolis5149]

I feel like opponents study his previous debates to learn how to Troll Matt specifically. With "kindness" and a dose of SMUG