Atheist Debates - Debate Review vs Matt Slick (Pt 1)

[@werelemur1138]

That debate was SO FRUSTRATING to watch. I'd love to see you have a debate on the same topic with someone who actually honestly wants to engage on the subject, rather than try to dodge the question.

[@bookwermofthefandoms]

werelemur1138 sadly, I have yet to see a debate like that, at least with a religious opponent

[@xr337]

@@bookwermofthefandoms that's because so long as your not dodging, everything you say falls apart even more than it already has.

[@theatheistpaladin]

That fine chess board you have there.

[@nd2591]

No shit, I want one.

[@TheToddBGreen]

"Well, Matt's view and strategy of chess isn't as good as mine because it doesn't explain the rules of the game."

[@muchanadziko6378]

"The Slick Dodge"

[@Z4RQUON]

Like Sye, Matt Slick`s argument boiled down to jamming his thumbs in his ears and yelling, ``I DON`T HAVE TO TALK TO YOU!!``

[@JMUDoc]

"Everything is either physical or conceptual." "OK - is your god physical?" "No." "Then he's conceptual. Good night."

[@VernonChitlen]

As if abiogenesis, chemicals to life isn't conceptual? Why can't you prove life has a natural origin?

[@JMUDoc]

@@VernonChitlen Because I don't have to. The burden of proof is on the claimant.

[@VernonChitlen]

@@JMUDoc You're not claiming there's is a natural origin of life, therefore no need for a creator? My claim is there is a Creator and the evidence is the appearance of design and purpose in biology and scientists inability to duplicate it's simplest example. And there is enough research data from studies of origin of life that the basic chemistry couldn't take place in any natural scenario. It cannot be done in a laboratory by scientists, how could it be rational it could in a mindless, "warm little pond?" (darwins words)

[@JMUDoc]

@@VernonChitlen *You're not claiming there's is a natural origin of life, therefore no need for a creator?* I'm not claiming there IS a natural origin for life; I'm claiming that a creator has not been PROVEN to have been necessary. *My claim is there is a Creator and the evidence is the appearance of design and purpose in biology and scientists inability to duplicate it's simplest example* Evolution by natural selection can also explain the _appearance_ of design, and the fact that a scientist can't do something is irrelevant. *And there is enough research data from studies of origin of life that the basic chemistry couldn't take place in any natural scenario.* "Enough research" in your opinion - are you a biochemist? If not, your opinion on the research is worthless to me. *It cannot be done in a laboratory by scientists, how could it be rational it could in a mindless, "warm little pond?" (darwins words)* Scientists have been trying for how long? A hundred years? How long did nature have to "try"? Billions of years. And even if scientists NEVER manage it, so what? Concluding that something never happened because it can't be duplicated would be idiotic.

[@VernonChitlen]

@@JMUDoc The burden of proof fallacy? I'm not talking about evolution. You have to get from chemicals to life where evolution supposedly could begin with an organism that can replicate itself. You are fine with Bo Derek ultimately being one example of time and randomness? You don't understand "natural selection" is non sequiter? What is there to select from? Only the random mutation of the previous organism. Getting cold, need hair? Tough potatoes until that mutation occurs to "select" from, nada. Hello? Scientist have a working model to reverse engineer from that a warm little pond provides them with. What did it have? No direction, guidance, purpose, goal?

[@whynottalklikeapirat]

Hmm. Matt knocked over the pieces but he did not poop on the board. Metaphor should be fully deployed, I feel.

[@alchemicalheathen]

after watching Matt Slick get his TAG torn to pieces in real time, and then witnessing him lying about it afterward, I'm convinced he is a terrible logician or a fundamentally dishonest person. This was then confirmed by his awful debate ideas. I'm not a philosopher, I'm a scientist, and I still could understand the fallacies in his argument.

[@FighterDoken]

I think the problem is that he's just bad at reasoning and logic. Which is perfectly fine by itself, those aren't really survival skills. But he is frequently surrounded by and communicates with some of the greatest logical/rational minds in the world...how could he not pick up something from them?

[@alchemicalheathen]

FighterDoken Right, no one is a perfect thinker...which is why we often bounce ideas off each other to look for flaws and weaknesses in our positions. The honest person will accept those criticisms and either fix or abandon their position. The dishonest person, as Matt Slick seems to be (though I genuinely don't like insulting people) will ignore all of that input. And the MOST dishonest people will fall back to presuppositional apologetics. To be fair, he could just be so compartmentalized in his beliefs that his mind refuses to let new information in.

[@FighterDoken]

+Michael Gorka The thing is, while he may make fun of Sye, Slick **is** a presuppositionist! He just doesn't fully understand what presuppositional apologetics are (he has just heard that they are worthless/indefensible) and so he acts like he is not that.

[@alchemicalheathen]

FighterDoken ha! are you serious?! I never heard him say that, but it's both hilarious and ironic. Really, the only difference between them is that Slick uses bigger words.

[@shantilus]

DId you make these assumptions after analyzing both sides or after watching M.D.s response?

[@nicolas4601]

I can't wait to see part 2.

[@Impostleable]

Thanks for putting this video out Matt. I look forward to the deconstruction of the debate. To be honest I don't know how you bring yourself to debate the "expert logician" Matt Slick. For him to fail to understand such basic fundamentals like the difference between asserting something is true vs demonstrating something WITH LOGIC is just incredible.

[@martinpfefferle2558]

C'mon, man, if you're gonna use the pigeon analogy, get it right. The pigeon will knock over the pieces, shit on the board, and strut around victoriously.

[@MethodSkeptic]

Martin Pfefferle when making a classical reference, it's acceptable to allude rather than directly quote the subject of the allusion ;-)

[@SansDeity]

I was waiting until he started a victorious strut before adding that. :)

[@agnosticatheist7529]

Matt Dillahunty Since Bill Craig won't debate you, will the other better known Christian apologists debate you? Like D'souza and Lennox? Or are they similar to Craig, PhD only?

[@SamLowryDZ-015]

@Joe .... and a criminal record.

[@8DX]

Please no more debates with D'Souza ever... the brains of both theists and atheist alike have suffered enough. As for Craig, there's not much point since his brilliant philosophical approach is to always make the same argument, wave away any criticisms without answering them and then claim his opponent hasn't made any case of their own to prove a negative. Lennox ... maybe? I seem to remember him being just sort of fudgily dishonest and arrogant, not an *outright* brainfrazzler.

[@mcft81]

I practiced "Dillahunty Patience" waiting for this review :)

[@DemonhunterJay]

Oh I love that chess set

[@mike54076]

Hey Matt. Thanks for these videos. I love to discuss topics regarding religion and politics and watching your videos helps me to identify fallacies which I use in my own arguments as well as those used by others.

[@Andres64B]

hey Matt, love your videos I love the show. Just a slight suggestion if I might. The audio levels on this video and the other videos like it could stand to be a bit higher.

[@garyskinner2422]

Yes and 6 naked women dancing would be a nice addition also

[@ursidae97]

Damn man. Your a legend. I'll be honest, if I only got one in the end I'd rather hear the debate but hell best case is hearing both. Your an incredible speaker and quite frankly a genius and I hope you end up very influential in history.

[@BeowulfandCoffee]

I watched the live debate with slick on the btwn show quite on accident. Cant wait to see the review. Keep it up Matt, you helped me and i know you help others.

[@GandalfThePlaid]

I keep finding myself assuming Slick is knowingly using bad logic but continues anyway as it's all he's got. But while there is evidence of his dishonesty in maters related to this debate, I have to keep reminding myself that he may not actually understand some of this and some of it could be ineptitude rather than dishonesty. The old "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity" can be tough sometimes.

[@CollapseSurvivalSite]

I can respect Christian apologists who are actually convinced their position is true. At least they're honest. But I think Matt Slick knows his arguments are bullshit, yet he defends them anyway. How the hell does he sleep at night?

[@Avicaris]

On proverbial piles of money from the people that listen to him and buy(in both senses of the word) his arguments.

[@torahislife]

Slick as shit. His stinking thinking has consistency of diarrhea. Matt D is a saint for maintaining composure while enduring this arrogant, patronizing terd

[@4idhero329]

Matt is not the brightest in the apologetics circle. He needs to phrase his arguments in a way that would actually exude meaning and veracity.

[@JMUDoc]

He prays for sleep. And takes two Nytol.

[@ragnaraxelson59]

@@Avicaris the ones that fill his rice bowl.

[@SteveFrenchWoodNStuff]

Thanks for another thoughtful, articulate analysis. P.S. The content of your videos is always great but the volume of your voice is always really low. It would be a welcome improvement if you'd crank it up a bit in editing.

[@tomatensalat7420]

I propose a new definition of the Dillahunty Dodge: It's if you point out an invalid conclusion by noticing that something is not a true dichotomy ;)

[@algi1]

That's a beautiful chess set.

[@amirkb7206]

He didn't present anything because if he did compare the two views, the debate would be over. he'd be saying "Unchangeable moral absolutes are better than arguing and thinking for ourselves"

[@EvilToaster77]

I would definitely like to see you debate Frank Turek. His argumentation is horrible to listen to. I've watched both David Silverman and Hitchens debate him, and enjoyed both of their performances in tackling the apologetic nonsense from Turek, who just makes assertions and shows blatant scientific ignorance.

[@i8910midnight]

a waste of time to debate turek. i would like to see dillahunty pummel slick again.

[@theplanespotterguy]

EvilToaster cosmic skeptic debated him on morality

[@BelRigh]

When i was SUPER active in my PC(usa) church, both me and my pastor USED sec humanism as a goal for the congregation

[@NegotiableHemingway]

I'm forever grateful to you Matt for being the main focus point on my realisation of weather my beliefs were true. Keep up the great work.

[@AGildedLie]

I've been looking forward to the review of this debate. It was head poundingly frustrating to watch.

[@madameangelique6333]

I'm so glad you did this review. Mr. Slick was infuriating with no intelligent arguments.

[@EmmaxHobbits]

26:14 Affirming I am the intended audience for this ⚡ Always appreciate the debrief.

[@AbleAnderson]

Great video, I love the backstory and think it was especially relevant and interesting here. Can't wait to see part 2

[@Danedog614]

Thank you Matt. Loved the chess analogy, i used to play quite a bit. Thanks for the show, thanks for the videos. You're awesome.

[@Towndrunk26er]

Check out Alex Malpass on his own channel. He talked twice with Matt Slick and both times it was bad for Slick.

[@jimj9040]

TownDrunk Yeah, you want to see someone exhibit "God-like" patience with an impetuous little baby, watch Alex spend hours putting up with Matt Slick

[@Towndrunk26er]

Jim J And then talking with that actual child Jason Peterson. Painful in so many ways.

[@losmanzani6849]

Glad I checked that out. Very entertaining. Alex is a cool guy.

[@DavidMichaelKalman]

I rewatched the debate, and in hindsight it's clear that Slick was not interested in dealing with any of your arguments on any topic. Instead he believes he has a universal defeater, that you Matt Dillihunty can't be correct about anything because, in his flawed epistemology, you can't account for the logic on which your arguments are based. QED. It's his perpetual get-out-of-jail-free card, which I could call the Slick Manouver. So while you may have thought the proposed debate topics were offered in good faith, they were all pointed at this one fallacious proposition. Whether you were defending methodological naturalism, scientific skepticism, or secular humanism, Slick's bone-headed answer is always the same: you can't account for the laws of logic so you lose. This is so obviously bogus, not to mention dishonest.

[@RNAlh]

Great, been waiting on this for ages!

[@HistoryofOwls]

You are one of my favorites. Thank you for all that you do.

[@Ashamanic]

When Mat started with the chess analogy, my first thought was "oh my god, I hope he doesn't just knock all the pieces over and crap on the board" I had been thinking that Matt Slick's performance did t quite sink to the Sye10 level of "I already won so I don't need to present an argument" but now I'm not so sure

[@alchemicalheathen]

Ashamanic haha yes, Matt S went with the 'I'm gonna take my ball and go home strategy"

[@dutchchatham1]

The lady at the end of the q&a almost got him with a question that no presuppositionalist/apologist had ever answered. "How do you separate the human brain/mere chemical fallibility that they insist prevents the non-believer from accounting for reason, but it's not a problem for the believer when they claim divine revelation?" Those weren't her exact words, but that was the gist. Slick admitted he didn't really understand the question.

[@santa_christ]

Slick’s little “I don’t understand” dance was exactly how I knew that he understood the question *perfectly*

[@Whatsisface4]

Interesting detailed review. My two penneth re the proposed debate topics is, Matt Slick wanted to keep the subject within the realm of logic so he could do what he did on the night. I think he thinks his logic arguments are the best way to win and I suspect no matter what the subject, he would have gone down much the same route.

[@HYEOL]

This cant be as good as the Matt vs Sye Debate Review. But lets give it a chance

[@ErkaaJ]

That's not much different than the one with Slick. 'THAT'S YOUR BRAIN TALKING, NOT YOU'.

[@mattaustin8919]

Sye: "Same as you do. God revealed it." omg facepalm!

[@MrEvan1932]

Matt S is playing Tic Tac Toe while Matt D is playing chess

[@gavsmith1980]

I noticed during the debate that you and Slick discussed logic and logical absolutes and just like in this video, you effectively said that logic doesn't fit entirely within the category of being a concept, can you explain why you think that? I only ask since it seems to me that logic is our tool for describing how things in the universe operate and prescribing how they will continue to operate, the same mathematics does, so it's a useful concept, indeed a necessary one for almost any being with the slightest cognitive ability, but a mere concept nonetheless.

[@HeartlessRival]

The dilahunty dodge, rejecting a false dichotomy

[@JMUDoc]

How can a supposed expert in logic offer "Is Atheism or Chrisitianity a logical position to hold?" as a debate topic?!

[@Valdrex]

I just watched the debate video...I'm not sure if Slick is just dishonest or if he's just a bit thick. He didn't even come ready to discuss the topic, he just insisted on pushing the "your brain made you say that" nonsense. Yes, our brians make us say everything, can we discuss the topic at hand now please?

[@jmm1233]

These are good way of learning how to debate as well as specifics of this one debate ,

[@silverwolfmonastery]

Matt Slick is slightly less annoying to Sye. The arrogance inherent in presuppositionalism is mind numbing.

[@FeliciaFelixis]

inb4 Slick whines about this in his channel and tries to make Matt look bad for reviewing stuff.

[@oliwa09]

The first topic that Matt suggested "Is atheism or christianity a logical position to hold" reminds me of Mitch Hedberg bit about how some interview questions don't make any sense. "Have you ever had sugar or PSP?"

[@paulmiller6864]

Thank you! I have learned so much from you. Also, I love the atheist experience!

[@Geddylee2000]

Yes! I've been waiting to see a debate with Frank Turek. I'm fans of both and hope it will be a great conversation.

[@nateellenberger6043]

If you are a new person to these debates...its good to have a dictionary on hand because these guys like to use alot of big/sophisticated words. I had to look up the correct definition of alot of these words...even easy words like "secular". I just had to make sure I had the correct meaning of the word in the way these debates use them.

[@romeroesquivel6736]

Excelent as always

[@gavsmith1980]

Did you ever make a video debate review of your David Robertson debate? I can't find one that you made and that debate definitely needed reviewing, he put his review on a blog.

[@Jackson-pu7gd]

This mans brain is remarkable... over the years of watching the atheist experience and watching him in debates (i was so stoked when he started doing debates) i have watched him get better and better at clearly and articulately explaining logical and rational arguments and positions, and explaining the reasons why other positions are not logical and rational. So many debaters you watch will go on these long spiels and at the end of it you're kind of confused as to what exactly they said. But not with matt. I always understand exactly what he's saying and it always just makes complete sense. Of all the atheist debaters i have ever watched, and i've watched many, it is matt dillahunty that i believe is the best at articulating arguments and pointing out the flaws in others arguments. He is straight to the point, quickly and effectively points out problems in others' arguments, and just explains himself so well. This is what sets him apart, and it's always amazed me at how good he is at this, and how much better he has gotten over time.

[@vincesolis5389]

Why should anyone consider this argument for an absolute moral law giver or the argument of "necessary preconditions for intelligibility" without proof of such a being? Apologists seem to think this argument shuts down any point an Atheist can make as if this were some sort of "trump card" for lack of a better term. However, the apologist hasn't yet proven that God, their absolute law giver, even exists. At least an Atheist can provide evidence of their ability to reason. We shouldn't be ashamed to admit that "our brain made us say that" because a brain actually exists. The apologist is appealing to something they haven't proven exists. Until this happens, they have no ground to stand on.

[@professionallylay703]

You're definitely not wrong. I wish at one point Matt D. would have said in response to slick, "Your God made you say that."

[@Archived0]

Matt, you're the greatest, man.

[@air1fire]

So he wanted you to defend philosophical naturalism, and when you agreed to defend a position that doesn't include philosophical naturalism, he still went after philosophical naturalism.

[@pierrec1590]

As humanity evolved, through centuries and centuries, the number of gods diminished. These days there are roughly two camps, one claiming the number is one, the other claiming that the number is zero. Reality has it that because it it is a complex topic, the answer has to be a complex number! With that in mind, we can safely conclude that all the non-zero answers fall on the imaginary axis.

[@narco73]

I'm actually surprised what a mess those proposed topics were.

[@drstrangelove09]

Respectfully, I don't think that you're characterizing Slick's argument about "fizz" quite right. To me he was saying something like: (steelmanning a bit, I think) "Secular Humanism asserts that the brain operates using the laws of physics. A "'device' (the brain in this case) that operates strictly using only the laws of physics (without supernatural intervention) cannot be expected to produce correct logical inferences. I.E. it cannot think logically. Therefore, based on Secular Humanism we cannot expect humans to be able to think logically. Secular Humanism promotes using logic to make decisions about human flourishing, therefore Secular Humanism is contradictory and should not be considered a valid system." I would have pointed out that computers operate purely using the laws of physics. No one asserts that computers operate with supernatural intervention. And yet computers, by their very nature, can and do use correct logical operations (Z = X AND Y;) and so this refutes his claim. Now, he would then say (as he did) "but computers are designed by thinking creatures" to which I would say "so what?" or "humans were 'designed' by evolution."

[@brockbarth7927]

Here's an alternate version of Matt Slick's argument about "chemicals" in the brain: "Turning electricity in a circuit on and off doesn't lead to calculations, so you can't trust calculations coming from a computer. Its self refuting."

[@muchanadziko6378]

that's...actually a great metaphor for what happened

[@MaximilienDanton]

I think that your expression of methodological naturalism, as you call it, is not inconsistent at all with philosophical naturalism. When taking the position of philosophical naturalism, the burden of justification has already been met. It is premised on the lack of demonstration of the possibility or discovery of the supernatural. The same rings true of your position regarding your own atheism. I look forward to seeing your video on the subject.

[@georgH]

I see all the logical arguments for god, as a desperate attempt from believers to justify their beliefs without having to resort to the bible (or any other book), because they know that saying "my book says so" does not look convincing to non-believers. Also, they don't realize that all these arguments, even if they would justify the believe in a god, that's light years away from "and that's the god in my book". Even if their argument was granted, they still have to demonstrate that their book stories are true. I've always found it hilarious that they clutch at straws trying to justify that god exists, without realizing that the "god" they are "proving" supposedly created the universe 13 000 000 000 years ago, and waited for a tiny speck of dust within the vastness of the visible universe to have such inhabitants so that they would worship him for the last 2000 years. Believers don't realize about that problem, because their beliefs are so deeply hold on faith (without reasoned justification) that prevents them from noticing that "a being that created the universe" or "a supernatural being that creates logic" or any of the "conclusions" of these arguments must necessarily be the god they believe in!

[@soulman71901]

A little unusual?Understatement of the year.

[@ErixMarcanoRivera]

love the chess set !

[@thelogoth]

Whaaaaaat?! that's crazy talk! Who doesn't like their pigeon pooping over the chess set?! 😮😮😮😂😂😂. You are awesome matt... Very interesting listening to your strategies.

[@BurazSC2]

ah, i see you opened with the Schostakovic gambit. well played.

[@Spencerwalker21]

The worst part of the slick debate was Q&A when a woman tried to ask slick why isn't your thoughts just brain fizz and slick pretended to not understand the question several times

[@topofsm]

FYI, Sean Carroll holds to Philosophical Naturalism. I'd love to hear you two have a discussion.

[@douggale5962]

Viewers should also check out the channel named Alex Malpass. He's a PhD philosopher giving Matt Slick Logic 101 lessons in one of his videos. Let's just say Slick fails to understand some simple concepts and Alex is giving extremely precise explanations that anyone should be able to understand easily. If you dislike Slick at all, you'll probably love it.

[@Amigo21189]

I'd love to see Mr. Slick write out the structure of what he calls the "Dillahunty Dodge" and indicate the nonfunctional operation that makes the argument invalid. False dichotomies abuse "or," for example.

[@marqairius]

Talking to a religious person is like talking to Naruto. Every time you ask for an answer, all you get in return is - BELIEVE IT!!!

[@Nocturnalux]

This particular debate was truly painful. The topics Slick submitted make it clear that he had no actual intention of having a discussion and once that attitude did not change during the debate proper. It's as if he crammed for the topic he'd like to debate and forced that unto the topic at hand.

[@usmale47374]

Matt Slick did not participate in the debate. He merely spit out worn-out religious "arguments" that offer no support for his assertion the God does, indeed, exist. I'm not interested in any philosophy that requires me to die to determine its validity.

[@colaboytje]

Matt Slicks proof for the christian viewpoint is the bible. When asked for proof that the bible is true, he says because god revealed himself in the bible. Circular reasoning. When you point out it is circular, he says that the bible is needed to account for the logical absolutes and you need to account for the logical absolutes, so the bible is true because it accounts for the absolutes. Again circular. And the reason why he says it isn't circular, is because without the bible, he can't prove the bible. He admits this. But does not aknowledge that it is a fallacy. Even though he admits it's circular, at the same time he claims it's not circular, but necessary. A conversation with Slick is useless for Slick. It is useful for people who believe Matt's argument or are on the fence, or are interested in his stance: it exposes him for using fallacies.

[@jjgdenisrobert]

Presuppositionalists believe that theism is better because it "explains" logical absolutes, whereas humanism admittedly cannot. The fundamental problem is that if theism does actually explain logical absolutes (hint: it doesn't), it can then explain any world; it fails to explain why our world has any characteristic it has, because it would equally explain any world that has an opposite characteristic. To use the word "explain" in the manner the presuppsitionalists do is to strip it of all meaning. That's the goal, ultimately, since presuppositionalism isn't so much a philosophical position as it is a debate parlor trick.

[@Z4RQUON]

People like Matt Slick exist to do nothing more than monopolize debate time, this is their real strategy... ``prevent the other side from talking``.

[@muchanadziko6378]

that's a mighty beautiful chess set

[@StygianEmperor]

As I understand it, Matt Slick never realized TAG was fallacious, he just thought it was initially unclear to Alex Malpass and wanted him to help clarify to others. Malpass's blog UseOfReason makes the problems with TAG very clear; I wonder if Slick has ever read it.

[@Whatsisface4]

StygianEmperor I very much doubt it. In the second conversation between Slick and Alex Malpass, Alex asked him to look at the written form of the refutation at his blog because it might be easier to digest than hearing someone talk. Slick said he wouldn't with the excuse, it's more fun talking.

[@robertw2930]

"Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory." -- Scott D. Weitzenhoffer

[@MrMcwesbrook]

It's funny that Slick has to adopt what he calls "the atheist world view" when he says that your brain is just fizz and can't account for anything. But he doesn't actually believe that. In his world view, your brain works and you can account for logic etc. Why does he care what your world view is when he knows his world view is the correct one? Imagine a monkey who randomly types, "apples are red" on a typewriter. Just because a monkey typing on a keyboard doesn't understand the words they just typed, doesn't mean that those words don't exist and can't be read understood and analyzed by a human. Matt Slick should have still been able to address what you said about Secular Humanism if you have an absurd world view.

[@KinksKomments]

Matt good video series, and love that chess set!!!

[@Charlie.c19]

Seems weird that Matt says Matt Slick likes logic and rationality and talks of others saying that too, yet Slick can't form a logical question on the topic he's supposedly got a deep knowledge of; "Is it logical to believe God did exist or didn't exist?". I mean, a 15 year old could form a more coherent question on the issue than that.

[@Ana_Cecilia615]

The debate was exactly about whose strategy is better. "Is Secular Humanism Superior to Christianity?" By default of the question, he has to explain why his worldview is superior.

[@jamesrosano9439]

The Dump I took is superior to Christianity

[@hackenslash]

Good stuff, as always. One thing I don't agree with is the idea that the negation carries a burden of proof. The burden of proof is always on the affirmative, as the full Latin moniker for the burden shifting fallacy indicates 'onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, no ei qui negat', or the burden of proof rests upon him who affirms, not him who denies. The reasoning behind this is fairly straightforward, namely that the negation can't exist in isolation. To use one of your examples, suppose I were to say that 'furgleburglemanurgleburgle doesn't exist'. Have I adopted a burden of proof? No because, absent an existence claim, the negating claim is incoherent. The statement 'god doesn't exist' cannot carry a burden of proof, for the simple reason that the onus probandi on the affirmative claim has not been met. Hope I explained that clearly. Would love to get your thoughts.

[@sandreid87]

lol, from the suggested debate topics alone, Matt Slick seems like such an amateur. But everything considered, I guess he's actually pretty much in line with all the other apologists out there. It really doesn't seem fair though: Matt Dillahunty, an intellectual, almost playing around with these kinder-garden phrasings and flawed sentences.

[@G14N14RI12]

If I recall correctly Matt Dillahunty doesn't have any formal training in logic or philosophy, so not really an intellectual in the usual sense.

[@sandreid87]

+Blake Petersen You're correct - He's said this many times, but that just goes to show what an amateur Slick really is: He makes Dillahunty seem like a professor giving a lecture at an university, in comparison. Or at least something along those lines. Slick's phrasings and way of thinking is just very flawed and it's apparent right from the start. But education or not, I still see Matt as an intellectual - He uses his intellect and critical thinking, and stays true to it. He's doing actual thinking. Which is more than can be said about many of his opponents, who are usually either just preaching, or just tripping over fallacy after fallacy, and actually not engaged in anything even slightly related to critical thinking. Most of the time, they ultimately just try to tie some form of logic into what is basically just an appeal to emotion.

[@cmack17]

Razid Matt IS an "intellectual", using any useful definition of the word or concept.

[@TheZooCrew]

+Blake Petersen I wouldn't say that. Matt is not an _academic_, but I'd describe him as an intellectual.

[@4idhero329]

Dillahunty is childish like sometimes. When he is challenged philosophically, and when he knows he has to engage in serious philosophical thinking he becomes a child and talks over you and hangs up on you over the phone. I called in once and he wouldn't let me give my points by shouting over me and accused me of arguing from ignorance and hung up on me. That's a child. A full grown adult who is intellectually honest and have the drive to be enlightened would allow me to lay out my points so he can examine it in conjunction to his points and make a rational decision. And everyone is calling him a debater of religion and atheist philosophy, I just chuckle because I know what he really is. lol

[@tombapilot04]

At 22:50, actually it's not a proper dichotomy to compare belief god exists and belief god does not exist because agnostic atheists would say that they don't possess a belief either way. . But the answer to the question of whether it is logical to believe one of the two mentioned, I would answer yes because I believe the Christian god does not exist and my justification for that belief I would say is logically sound.

[@BenWilson24]

This is a perfect analogy...

[@Phreedom]

I could listen to you talk for hours, but I think it would be more interesting if you did "director commentary" over the actual debate.

[@elizabethwear4113]

That is a SWEET chess board.

[@LoogyHead]

I feel like the debate you actually had with Slick would have been far better if it had been a more "traditional" debate with a rebuttal period before the cross examination. it seemed based on both openings that neither of you had actually agreed on the point of the debate which made it turn into you saying why you think secular humanism is superior for human flourishing and Slick was saying why he thinks that presuppositionalism is the only worldview that matters because it accounts for everything. The cross examination period confirmed this for me. I didn't see a debate about how Secular humanism was superior to Christianity; I saw you explain why it is the case, and slick stating that you need to have the meta discussion first, and because he could answer the meta question of where the rules came from that he won by default. My biggest complaint was how childish certain interactions came across at times during the cross examination - justified or not.

[@muchanadziko6378]

he didn't win by default though. If anything, he lost by default, because he didn't adress the debates topic. Also, his "meta answers" were so dumb, he couldn't win against a snail

[@michaelsommers2356]

What if you are a philosophical naturalist, and then evidence arises that something non-natural exists? Well, then you were wrong, and you have to modify your position to conform to the new evidence. Big deal. That's how science works.

[@shinjinobrave]

Kant ruined the word transcendental for me, why philososphy, why must you make everything so difficult!

[@theultimatechannel846]

So the master logician asked for Malpass' help to fix his argument? LMAO

[@adako25]

Thanks Matt

[@BelRigh]

Some year, I wanna loose on that chess board......

[@improvesheffield4824]

What is transcendentalism if not simply a concept?

[@scatton61]

It was a typical Matt Slick debate... he has nothing and he knows it and so he argues against issues that were not made, changes topic and miss quotes like a slick of crude oil as he thinks no one notices

[@Beastgrows]

Stephen Catton Just like all the other religious apologists then. When they never win any arguments you'd have thought they'd start to see sense but they just keep burying their heads deeper.

[@Avicaris]

Well, that's because it's not necessarily about winning for them. It's about putting on a good enough show for the people in their congregations that they'll be selling DVDs to afterward.

[@shantilus]

What point are you making about your assertions? Do you hold yourself to the same standard?

[@scatton61]

Just watch him debating....it is obvious

[@TheSpaceInvaderer]

I think its absolutely hilarious that Slick managed to somehow make the debate about his precious little baby, TAG.

[@Spencerwalker21]

So slick wanted to have a debate where Matt had to defend a position then when the debate finally started slick didn't defend his position but shat on the chess board and said your brain farted therefore I win

[@peterrivera8964]

That's a beautiful chess set where did you get it Matt