Atheist Debates - Interview with David Smalley on debating Frank Turek

Part of the Atheist Debates Patreon project: / atheistdebates
David Smalley, from Dogma Debate (dogmadebate.com/) recently debated Frank Turek on Justin Brierley's 'Unbelievable?' podcast (www.premierchristianradio.com/....
The debate will be live, soon (probably within the week), but David sat down to discuss his thoughts on the debate and for a discussion about what I might have done differently. Please visit the Unbelievable? podcast to listen to the full debate and add your own thoughts to the ones presented here.

[@monev3605]

Matt, this is my favorite video you've ever done! it is blowing my mind! Haven't finished watching yet, I'm at around the 55 minute mark.

[@mastercloud977]

Such a good video. Love Matt's logic bombs.

[@malouqvastor4455]

these two work incredibly well together.

[@one1charlie643]

Frank has had "atheism" explained to him a thousand times but he still uses his straw man version over and over again. That makes him simple or dishonest, and I don't think he's simple.

[@MrOttopants]

That's really one of the more frustrating things. Personally, if I am debating something like this, then I prefer to allow the others to define their own self identity. I think we should do these debates like the last round of Wheel of Fortune. Just acknowledge all of the opening debates and get to something new. Dismiss the Kalaam, among other things.

[@alexanderkorbin5953]

Deicide: Exactly. Same shit that Banana Man and WLC and others do. It would destroy their presups and pre-configured agendas to accept the correct definitions of the words they are abusing.

[@eventhisidistaken]

Turdek is a con man. It's that simple. He's making a fortune off selling books and lectures to the gullible masses who just want someone to convince them that the ridiculous things that deep down they know aren't true, still make sense to try to believe.

[@Devilsnightforlife]

Against people like Turek there is only one kind of approach that works, and that is the Christopher Hitchens approach: Counterattack hard. Don't pretend you are there to bring them around with logic and don't attempt to dance to their tune in order to get your point across - no, you are there to *destroy* your opponent and humiliate them, as is what they *will* attempt to do to you if you let them. You can't play ball with these clowns. They will use obfuscation to try and stop you in place from using your logos, so invest in pathos to steamroll over them. Nothing works as well as a good story. Also use Ethos by quoting clever minds of the past to strengthen the attack even more; not as an argument from authority of course but simply to put more weight on the hammer as you let it drop. When Hitchens debate circumcision he doesn't just calmly point out why it's wrong; he lets you fucking know the cruelty about it. It might not turn very civil - but civility is reserved for the honest debaters.

[@acerbicatheist2893]

Fuck Frank Turek. Ever since that debate with Christopher Hitchens (see if you can guess who 'won'...!) I have not been a fan.

[@jebus6kryst]

Everything I have heard from 'Unbelievable?' has been very good.

[@alicantino1151]

Mad respect for David for being willing to do this. It takes real balls to be able to humble yourself and admit when your not the best at something, but it takes even bigger balls to publicize it for all to see so we can all learn from our mistakes. Not too many people would be willing to humble themselves like this, certainly no apologist I'm aware of...

[@jesserichards729]

Christian here. Just listened to the debate they are talking about. Then came here. I'm grateful to have listened to the steel man. I will be grappling with these points for a while I'm sure.

[@annettecaraway6288]

I'm so glad I've discovered you guys. Started watching Aron about a yr ago and love all your prospectives. Matt is the calm one & Aron is the fiery one. Waiting to find the one where Matt goes off like dynamite though.

[@majormajor3630]

Does anyone know if Ozy still does stand alone vids, or does he exclusively do collaborations?

[@armadyl1212]

Who did Matt say he's doing a debate with in February? Michael who?

[@titusgray4598]

I got into a conversation with a Catholic who said to me that it's "nice to think about these things sometimes" and what that really means, to me, is "it's much more comfortable over here, where we have answers for all these questions you have." How is this not a huge red flag internally for a theist? How do you not look at a "comforting belief" and wonder if it's the belief you're attached to, or the comfort of it, and thus might be more accepting of something that is comforting, regardless of its truthiness? I love both you guys, nice to see you interact.

[@franzkiekeben4731]

Matt is right on just about everything here (at least that I've seen so far), but one minor correction: At about 44:00 he claims there are no such things as "laws of logic", that they were called "laws of thought" by Russell, among others. Actually, it was Boole who called his book The Laws of Thought way back in the 1800's, whereas Russell specifically pointed out that calling the laws of logic "laws of thought" is misleading: After all, they aren't laws about how we think.

[@btwhiz]

Dillahunty should've done the debate . I listened to the debate twice and Turek ate Smalley's lunch. Now he's here asking Matt Dillahunty what he would've said. I felt embarrassed for him when I listened to the debate, even more so now. And now that he's got Dillahunty's answers he wants to debate Turek again. That's disturbing!

[@Brickerbrack]

Gotta admit, given the title of the book, I might have expected that chapter to be the main focus, and make it the one I definitely didn't skip. :p

[@ronjohnson4566]

thanks, more like this.

[@Miss_Sweet_Pea]

Matt debate Frank! :D

[@ElfHostage]

I’d pay to see it.

[@keithevans1734]

FRANK WINS EVERYTIME

[@scfaysal]

@23MINS. Good point being made here. I disagree with Matt POV/answer. The interesting question to me though, is WHY there are two OPPOSING views on same evidence. I think that is the unanswered question that we really need to start asking (and maybe answer honestly). Why is it when we look at a piece of evidence for God, one person rejects and the other does not...one finds compelling and the other does not. Matt, if you have any input or have made videos about this particular question, I would appreciate a link. Thank you sir.

[@tragnilrats]

Do you play? I really enjoy your show.

[@miguelquintana8076]

I appreciate these deep dives, when I hear apologists talk about stuff their equivocation is too simple like their minds. These are complex ideas that can't be explained or debunked or answered with a yes or no.

[@aysikl]

"if someone can demonstrate another reality" --- not exact wording but... how does VR play into things here? still 'this reality' or does it count as a kinda sorta sufficiently different 'reality'? like, you can setup physics rules n crap if u wanna .. but I dunno.. so.. poke poke ... anyone got a few secs for explain possibly simple shlababla ? cheers!

[@BMHurley]

A little nit-pick: it was Frege not Russell who coined the term “Laws of Thought.” Russell didn’t like the term and said that the correctness ortherwise of logic had nothing to do with thought. Moreover the phrase is arguably a mistranslation of Frege; the German word, “Gedanke,” would normally be translated as “thought” but Frege uses it in a technical sense that is probably better translated as “proposition.”

[@monev3605]

you helped me to better understand the "laws of logic."

[@scottbignell]

Matt is the man. The best out there at explaining all this stuff.

[@andycarter9845]

Nice Lamy Studio!

[@waynemills206]

If a block of chert exists, does that mean a folsom spear point exists? Logic, like chert knapping, is a method or mechanism humans use to reach a goal. Using the term 'laws' opens the door for a lawgiver or teleological argument where none exists. Logic happens to be a highly effective method of maneuvering within a world where we don't necessarily know everything, but most things are predictable with enough knowledge. Selection would benefit humans who adapted to using both stone knapping and logic.

[@Oswlek]

Well said. Theists love to pretend an ability to refer to something as a noun means that it is somehow imbued with independent existence.

[@amirkb7206]

The entire pre-sup logic argument is a god of the gaps argument. we don't know what consciousness is and how a conscious being has logic, therefore god.

[@duaneenos6453]

If you don't even know what consciousness is, then how can you trust anything you think?

[@whigmin5436]

Ahhh...kinder times. I miss you guys talking.

[@123keepitsimple97]

Me too

[@TheZooCrew]

I like David Smalley, but he tends to think too highly of despicable people and isn't as hostile or challenging to ludicrous ideas as I think he should be. I don't fault him for having his own style and maybe it's my problem, but I can't listen to the Dogma Debate episodes where they have a creationist or an especially dishonest apologist on unless AronRa is also there. Frank Turek is whiny, aggressive, and obsessed with creating atheist straw men, so I'm not sure I'll be checking out the debate. Maybe I'll give it a shot.

[@b.a.s.4194]

Yeah and on the TTA podcast David even said AronRa is too aggressive in his opinion, at least while on Dogma Debate :P

[@GypsyLeah]

He may be uncomfortably forgiving for some of us but that's an excellent quality to have in someone who wants to really understand how the other side works. We can't hope to convince the other side if we don't know how they think and if we don't provide a hospitable environment in which to do the convincing. People like David Smalley are essential to that process.

[@TheZooCrew]

+GypsyLeah I agree...for some theists. Lots of Dogma Debate guests have come on and done nothing but lied their asses off, but Smalley's had some pleasant people on, too. This is also a personal thing. I know how theists think, generally, so religion isn't a mystery to me. I'm also not someone who thinks that kid gloves are the best way to change someone's mind. I needed to be mentally slapped around to shake off religion. Also, just like the calls on AXP, the guests are not the target. When I'm engaging with a theist in a public forum, I know that I have very little chance of convincing them of anything. But just letting them ramble on with tangents and dishonest tripe doesn't do much to convince the third party.

[@honeychurchgipsy6]

Great video - this format is really useful and entertaining. I think rainbows are the result of refraction not reflection (EDIT listernerd further and you said refraction later and you had just mispoke earlier sorry) - water droplets act like prisms! Its actually a neat quantum effect down to amplitudes and light waves at different frequencies (color) appear to travel at different speeds through mediums other than complete vacuums. Diamonds sparkle due to the light slowing (its does not - its due to the probabilistic wave front). Sorry I am a physics pendant. However I hope a real physicist can correct/trash what I just stated if needed. Someone in the pub one day said no one knows what fire is; I went in to a lengthy and erudite explanation of what fire is and just got silent angry stares from the whole pub:( No one likes a smart ass which you probably know hehe Anyhooos Great work both of you, thanks

[@meanmistermustard1041]

Hey Matt - I'm a fan of yours and have a question about these arguments that seem so painfully transparent, I can't imagine why they would be ever entered in to a debate. People like Sye or Frank who posit that logic is borrowed from god and therefore can't be used to deny him; isn't that exactly like saying "I'm right, and becasue I'm right I can't be wrong."?? Isn't that the exact line of reasoning? And if so couldn't one argue back, in like playground-fashion, "No Im right, and that's what automatically makes you wrong."? Honestly - I think the debate, or at least that part of the debate, ends as soon as someone posits that: they essentially can't be wrong, becasue they are right. Sorry, but that's not debate - it is a 3 year old stomping his feet. Furthermore, when someone claims that a god created logic but are still not able to prove the existence of god with 'gods' own logic - wouldn't that mean that their god is pretty dumb? Am I over simplifying this. What am I missing here?

[@alanj554]

Is the debate live yet?

[@careneh33]

I still don't see why the laws of logic should get any exceptional status in how they exist and whether and when they apply to reality. If they don't work in quantum physic (a particle _is_ a wave, or not so...) or in whatever situation, we will dismiss them without the blink of an eye in this context. The other way around, it seems we rely on many more laws than the law of logic alone to be able to reason as humans (say, the law of physics...).

[@ton6348]

How can you trust your thinking if you are NOT made of chemicals?

[@NathanaelADavis]

Isn't the whole thing with absolute certainty a fallacy? Because you can't say absolute certainty doesn't exist with absolute certainty or else it would contradict

[@rainywillow7447]

I would think that in a 'true nothing', no time, no space, no anything, the laws of logic would not apply as they are descriptive and when there is nothing to describe there are no descriptions possible.

[@abracadabra6330]

The correct approach to answering the "brain in a vat" scenario is to point out that they are actually wanting you to entertain the idea that "they" are just a figment of "your" imagination. That quickly ends the conversation about brains in vats.

[@armadyl1212]

Exactly. Given the brain in a vat scenario is true, you are under no rational obligation to answer them, since you are just imagining them like you said. So they at least have to grant some common ground if they want to have a conversation

[@PGBurgess]

i disagree with matt that the "laws of logic" are in some form of ethereal reality. they depend on our mental capacity and language , they are fundamental to us... not necessarily to the universe i think +matt dillahunty sort of cornered himself their when responding to the previous question that 'truth' is the correspondence of our thoughts to reality; so it seems the phrasing 'the are true in the abscence of minds' is false anyway. they might still be vallid.. yet i still think the physical universe does not work that way.

[@wolfwing1]

How does the non contradiction work in the 5th dimension where you can be both married and no married, alive and dead at the same time?

[@TheSpaceInvaderer]

wolf wing we no absolutely nothing about the 5th dimension, so there isn't anything we can really do with that question. The law of contradiction applies at a single instance in time (you can't be married and unmarried at the exact same point in time), but if the 5th dimension was temporal and perpendicular to our time, we could move "sideways" through time, which would give the result you're talking about. Then again, I may be talking out of my ass.

[@wolfwing1]

I may be too :> But going with the type of 5d like intersteller and such where for such beings time happens all at once and they can go to any point in time they want too, or such. Thats not even counting the wacky bizzare even higher possible dimensions where things get really crazy hehe.

[@louisng114]

Asking if thought exists is like asking if jog exists.

[@ElCatrinMuerto]

I'm a little late to the game here. I just heard that debate from Frank and David. I don't think David was avoiding the questions. 7:45 I was happy you brought him back to reality. I was so annoying every time I heard Frank say "if Athiesm is true?" Is it true that I don't believe? Seriously? ( frustrated Throws phone out the window)

[@wolfwing1]

well the laws of logic are just concepts, there is nothing that says something can't be both A and not A in our 4 dimensions, *in 5th they can* what awe call laws of logic or what ever it's called are just descriptions of what we see in reality.

[@bradgrady7497]

"Thoughts" are a process, not a thing.

[@nicosmind3]

Stick a person in a scanner and ask them to think on different things, ask them to do math etc. A thought is bioelectric signals sent through neurons in your brain. And stored in your brain. Different sections of the brain do different things

[@LughSummerson]

31:45 - 32:16 Brilliant answer to "Is there balance in the Universe?" The answer to what they actually ask rather than what they think they're asking to point out how meaningless and ill-defined their ideas are.

[@NoWay1969]

Frank's pretensions greatly exceed his intellect. "I paid full price for it." And now it sounds like maybe this was just a scam so Frank could sell a copy of his book. Can't see them flying off the shelves w/o some kind of guerilla marketing. If someone argues that they don't know anything w/o god, well, god isn't real, so consequently, they know nothing, and from what I've seen of Frank Turek he presents a good case for this. Thoughts are physical. From MIT's Engineering Dept. "Ask An Engineer," *"What are thoughts made of?"* _"They're really just electro-chemical reactions-but the number and complexity of these reactions make them hard to fully understand"_ No magic there. If a theist is asserting magic, ie god, intercessory prayer, miracles, whatever, then they should be asked to produce something supernatural. In the absence of this, their claims can just be dismissed. Frank Turek dismisses the muslims, the rabbinical jews, the heaven's gate cultists, Sai Baba, Todd Bentley with his dead raising tent, etc., as easily as I dismiss his own supernatural claims. There is no evidence for anything supernatural. We live in a naturalistic world and barring someone demonstrating something contrary to that, there is no reason for their claims to be taken seriously. We can actually, coincidentally, go to the bible for an accurate way to test supernatural claims. In I Kings Elijah goes up on a mountain with the priests of Baal and subsequently shows them to be worshiping imaginary gods by their inability to call down fire from heaven, which Elijah is able to do because, in the story, he's got the real and best imaginary friend. Any _christian_ or I would assume anyone in an Abrahamic faith, should be OK with being held to this same standard. If Frank can't call down fire from heaven then his claims should be regarded as no more plausible than a muslim's claims or a mormon's. If god is able to affect the natural world, he should be detectable. If he isn't, then he's irrelevant (or _imaginary._ I think, probably, imaginary.) How a "brain" evolved has nothing to do with whether someone's ideas are "true." He's asserting that there needs to be some ultimate arbiter for truth. That what's "true" is dictated. Whether god exists or not is true either way without anyone asserting it. David _saying_ god doesn't exist in no way makes his case more or less likely, and Frank is assuming that it does, that David should be believed or doubted based on his authority. What David or Frank think is not relevant to whether it's actually true or not.

[@izzynut]

Apologists love to play what is called in law "leading the witness" and it's an attempt to take control of the dialog to some how end up with the conclusion that advances their argument.

[@keithevans1734]

Give it to Frank who destroyed him completely.

[@OnePointSix12]

One thing I would point out to David, in regard to his overall position on atheism, is he conflates two meanings of atheism. One is the position that atheism is a single position on a single subject and the other is atheism is a belief system that can incorporate many views. This is particularly obvious at the end of the video (1:05:10) where David is giving his recap of his conversation. David over emphasises the diversity of people who also don't believe in God. Everything else, such as the world view or underlying philosophy someone adheres to is totally separate of atheism and should be handled as such.

[@jekyllendhyde9409]

Not at all surprised by how this went. Smalley is not a philosopher and not at all qualified to be the atheist representative for this topic. I truly appreciate his desire to represent the cause but he should have declined. Alex Malpass would have been awesome for this. Opportunity missed, but be sure to email Justin and make the suggestion that Alex handle any presupostional arguments in the future.

[@Mariomario-gt4oy]

JekyllendHyde how exactly is he not "qualified"? do you need a debate card? do you need a diploma? who are you to say who is and isn't "qualified"?

[@TheZooCrew]

It aggravates me to no end that being a "philosopher" is somehow relevant to debates on whether or not gods exist. 99% of the time, philosophy is a distraction in these debates; the theist dives into it in order to confuse the audience, nothing more.

[@jekyllendhyde9409]

Mario Pendic I am not a worker at the department of debate license otherwise I would institute a life time ban on WLC :) That said David is clearly not an expert on this topic. He is of course free to debate whatever subjects he likes. Likewise I am free to debate someone about the merits of string theory even though I have no science background and have not even spent time reading about the topic. Would I do a good job when faced by a debater with a specialty in that area.... Nope. David went into the debate hoping that it would be about the kind of thing that gets talked about on his show....it wasn't, he got exposed on the specific topic of the discussion, the end. I like David and Dogma debate but this topic was not in his wheelhouse.

[@jekyllendhyde9409]

TheZooCrew I agree that it would be nice if theists had evidence instead of arguments but they don't and so philosophy is the last line of defense. In this case the subject falls squarely into the real of philosophy, dealing as it does with epistemology and a priori assumptions. Hence why I wish Malpass had been the one taking it on (or an equally clear thinking philosophy type), to show clearly where the problems are in all the presupostional bs that theists spout.

[@jekyllendhyde9409]

Kertesian Taker I do t think we can assume that they are being disingenuous. Think about how frustrating it is when a Christian tells you that you secretly believe in God but are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness (sy10). I agree that their position is not sound but I do t think we can call them dishonest. The caption the human mind to rationalize a d convince itself it is correct truly is remarkable. That said if I were to debate a presupostional theist I would be hard pressed to follow my own advice here since the position seems so obviously flawed to me :)

[@samalthus]

So if a god created logic, doesn't that mean that before they were created, the god was by definition completely illogical as there was no logic in existence?

[@spanish_realms]

Not really. With God there can be no " before" (or indeed an "after")as according to apologists he is independent of time and space. Thus, rather than being illogical, he must have hoarded logic in his timeless, spaceless domain until he thought it appropriate to impose it on his little pet creation project we call "reality". Though as the notion of hoarding or keeping something implies the passage of time and the allocation of space it is difficult to determine exactly how he achieved this.

[@impact0r]

Damn, Smalley is really bad at it. I will have to skip that episode of "Unbelievable" to avoid being annoyed at how an apologists outperforms a representative of rationalism/atheism in a public debate.

[@Mariomario-gt4oy]

impact0r how is it "bad"? where? ad hominem sure

[@TheZooCrew]

You used the right word. "Outperform." As in, put on a show with no substance. Yes, it sucks when the theist comes off as more confident and more well-read, but that doesn't magically make their arguments not shitty.

[@impact0r]

Unfortunately, I mean "outperform" in logic, not showmanship. Turek has a worthless argument as far as proving god, but at least he gets some basics of logic right while Smalley doesn't: 43:26 and 54:00 . To take on a public debate with a professional apologist and demonstrate such lack of understanding of logic, is worse than not doing the debate at all. He might have done well in other parts of the debate, but those fragments are really bad.

[@impact0r]

Where? 43:26 and 54:00 , probably the worst parts. And ad hominem? Do you know what that means?

[@Mariomario-gt4oy]

impact0r​ just because you think he made some wrong points(which both did) doesn't make anyone "not qualified". Get your head out of your ass. You aren't the arbiter of who is and isn't "qualified".

[@PGBurgess]

I think both Smalley and Matt missed out a part of Turek's intent behind the question of moist robots. Even given there is a reality, and our experience is all the access we have.. it could still be 'false'. But there are a few reasons why we can trust it: - the evolutionary benifit of a decent representation of the world around you -the repeated testing we do by each action we take (or see take) - scientific testing and sharing our experiences Yet there are indeed reasons to think it not trustworthy either, in fact we know our experiences do not correctly relate to reality. -sensery illusions - the usuage of 'non-existent' qualia to describe things - and what looks like a fundamental incapability to understand reality at a fundamental level in quantum-mechanics (and offcourse all that was mentioned about brains in vats, etc)

[@rpettersson]

Forgive my ignorance on the subject - and maybe some's already commented on this - but regarding the discussion around 54:00, my gut reaction was to agree with David on truth rather than Frank or Matt (Although Matt said he could see both sides, so fair enough). On a correspondence theory of truth - which I think Turek espouses? - to ask ”If all minds seized to exist, would it be *true* that this particular rock still exists” makes no sense because truth on that view *is* a statement that relates (corresponds) to the fact of the rock. So the fact of the rock is not *identical* to the truth that the rock exists - that would be a deflationary theory of truth. So it’d still be a fact that the rock existed (because you just defined it that way in the question), but it wouldn’t be *true* because there’d be no minds around to make the statement that could correspond to the fact. This isn’t just nit-picky, I think it’s important to be really specific here. A lot of apologists tend to muddy the terminological water a bit in the beginning of their arguments, which makes it really complicated to analyze what’s gone wrong when they get to their conclusion. If Frank wants to say that no, the *truth* of the rock existing reduces to the *fact* of the rock (deflationary) then he abandons his correspondence theory and can’t then *also* argue that the truth of the rock existing requires a mind, i.e. the mind of God. The only reason I can see that truth would require a mind is because/if truth is a statement. I might be missing something here though, but that's just my gut reaction. I'm sure Matt, David and most people here in the comment section knows more about this than me.

[@eventhisidistaken]

Philosophical discussion always end up being about the meaning of words. What does "exist" mean - that's the next step in trying to determine if a rock would still exist with no observers.

[@alchemicalheathen]

Frank Turek used a dishonest tactic? say it isn't so. but seriously, I didn't realize he went full presup.

[@ThePharphis]

I suspect most of these professional debaters will throw any argument they think will stick.

[@alchemicalheathen]

***** You're absolutely right. And what's more is that the apologetics continue to change as their previous arguments get rebutted. Sean Carrol and Lawrence Krauss have crushed the kalam argument, and countless people have destroyed the design argument(s)... it seems like presuppositionalism is the next thing they are falling back to, because it uses (likely purposefully) obscure language to confuse non-philosophers into looking silly. It's all smoke and mirrors. Which is why, as much as I hate presupps and I do not care for watching debates that include them, I applaud Matt and others for taking the time to work through their mental gymnastics and equivocations to finally shut this apologetic down for good.

[@LukeSumIpsePatremTe]

If everything else fails, try circular reasoning.

[@alchemicalheathen]

LukeSumIpsePatremTe and if that fails, start over again :-P

[@LukeSumIpsePatremTe]

Just repeat _ad nauseam_. If you get bored, add few more fallacies to spice up the 'debate' or ask why the opponent is getting angry.

[@BerishaFatian]

David didn't answer any question in the debate. All he did was trying to define what atheism is. Seemed like he didn't know why he was there.

[@MagicTurtle643]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding Matt a little bit, but I think I may semantically disagree a bit. For one, I think thoughts/rainbows/etc are 100% physical and are not in any way a vague "label we put on a brain state" or something. I think rainbows are literally a collection of physical things in the universe doing something else. I think you could hypothetically section off those waves of light and heat and say "yes, these pieces of reality are a rainbow" and the word "rainbow" is just the basic signifier we use to let everyone know what chunk of waves we're referring to. Similarly, I agree that thoughts are just labels we put on brain states, but I think it's more physical than that. A thought, like a pattern of dominoes or binary, is an actual physical arrangement of something. It really does exist. Say what I'm thinking now, it exists purely 100% as my neurons fired in X combinations at the rate of Y at the time of Z. That IS the thought. I think thoughts DO exist unto themselves. They are the physical arrangement of matter and energy. Similarly, I'm not sure we CAN be sure that the "laws of logic" (and I know that's not a term Matt loves) exist without us, because they may just be the way we explain reality to ourselves. Maybe Matt agrees with this completely, but it seems like he agrees with Matt Slick that there is some nebulous "law" in the universe that restricts reality. But what if stuff just exists and the "laws of logic" are just things we made up that happen to coincide with that stuff. For example, say there's a cube and I say "by the laws of reality, that cube has six sides." Well, no, there's no law that says it does or that it has to. It just has six sides. Sure, according to human perception there's a rule that says a cube has six sides, but reality/nature didn't plan that. It doesn't care how things work. Things just are. And when we interpret those as rules/laws/etc it doesn't mean they're transcendent, it just means we noticed a pattern and put a name on it. So I disagree with Slick that there's something transcendent that exists without human minds. I think junk is just here and any accurate measurement or observations we make about the patterns in that junk are no different than looking at the sky and saying "hey, that's blue!" It doesn't mean it's not "true" that it's blue according to human perception or human rules, it just means that this concept of "blue" is nothing more than the way our brains have decided to consistently perceive something. But idk maybe I'm wrong.

[@garystevens5015]

'For example, say there's a cube and I say "by the laws of reality, that cube has six sides." Well, no, there's no law that says it does or that it has to. *It just has six sides*. Sure, according to human perception there's a rule that says a cube has six sides, but reality/nature didn't plan that. It doesn't care how things work. *Things just are*.' - The highlighted bits are the very affirmation of A = A. A thing is itself, it is not not itself, and cannot be neither itself or not itself, or both itself and not itself simultaneously. The cube example I think you've got too involved with the label 'cube'. The label doesn't matter, when you say a 'cube has 6 sides', what you are actually saying is 'an object that has 6 sides, does not have 6 sides'. It is irrelevant whether or not anybody is there to witness or conceive of it. If 'A' exists, then it does not not exist by definition. Matt's point is that in order to challenge the applicability of the law of identity/non-contradiction, you have to presuppose them to make any kind of argument. You cannot argue that the 'law of identity is not-true', because that statement depends upon 'A being A', and that 'A is either true or not true' in order to possess coherence at all.

[@garystevens5015]

Basically every single argument that any human has ever uttered, has utilised non-contradiction and identity. It is seemingly impossible to construct an argument without them.

[@MagicTurtle643]

Yes, saying that an object has six sides is maybe more accurate than saying a cube, but you're sort of getting at my point--and maybe in a basic sense Matt and I agree because you do need to pre-suppose them. But my point is all of this stuff doesn't matter to nature, it's all just an arrangement of matter, and every word like "cube" we use to define it or argument like the "laws of logic" we use to understand them could (for all we know) not be real, so much as just the process we use to explain chunks of matter to each other. So basically, yes, everything Matt said is true, but the only thing you really need to pre-suppose is that SOMEthing can happen, period. We don't know how something happened rather than nothing, but that's the only place we really need to start, it seems. But this is in a very basic sense. I do get why it's helpful to break things down into laws and arguments. Like I said, they do work consistently, so we may as well use them.

[@MagicTurtle643]

Maybe a better way to put it is that the laws of logic are just an extrapolation of the laws of physics. Like, we don't know why gravity pulls things instead of repels, it just is that way. Similarly, the laws of logic could be a very long and advanced interpretation of physical laws that were always here for reason we could never know. So the laws of logic are no more abstract and transcendent than the very fact that we're here at all, or that adding protons to an atom changes its properties.

[@MagicTurtle643]

"Basically every single argument that any human has ever uttered, has utilised non-contradiction and identity. It is seemingly impossible to construct an argument without them." -Sure, I agree with you. But my point is reality doesn't care. These could just be methods we've found necessary to get our brains to process them. These argumentative presuppositions could be no different than saying no human has ever been able to hear anything without ears and a brain. The ears and the brain aren't transcendent or special, they're just a thing we need to accomplish something else. That could be (for all we know) all that logic is. Just organs we've constructed to make sense of things. But who knows. Maybe they really do transcend time and the human mind, I'm just saying we can't even be sure that logic is anything except arrangements of matter and energy in our brain that are responding to arrangements of matter and energy outside of us.

[@Sam0YT]

(Leaving solipsism / not-shared-realities aside for a moment)You will both be in the same boat, either both are chemical brain fizzes talking or both receive logic from God (or some other options), but you are in the same situation! It would be nice to ask the apologist if the belief of logic coming from God makes that person infallible (Never wrong), or if the belief in the moist-robot makes the person always wrong... (both positions being super easy to prove wrong) If not, then the question is useless, the moist-robot can arrive to truths and the God-believer can be wrong about a claim, and whatever determines if they are right or wrong is *not* the answer to this question.

[@matthewtfields8566]

It's not about if God created logic, but that God is Logic and that is as Matt said the "bedrock". As far as the Bible is concerned, in the "beginning" meaning before all things were, was the Word(the Logos) Logic Himself (see John 1:1) that is the God I believe in and by Him(Logic) were all things made. That's why we have facts of reality, but He is the ultimate fact of reality.

[@Brascofarian]

I used to listen to Dogma Debate but unsubscribed after listening to one on ethics were David Smalley just hadn't done his homework, he didn't know or was misusing some basic terms and the theist who evidently had some grounding in ethics and was finding it quite amusing.

[@alexanderkorbin5953]

So out of hundreds of videos you unsubbed because of one video that you thought went poorly? Wow. That's so logical and reasonable! Good for you!

[@dignerds]

You were unprepared

[@SansDeity]

Lol

[@Azadum]

Matt, if you're going to have a debate with Turek in the future, this analysis of his arguments will help him to debate you. He'll know some of the ways you'll attack his arguments. Turek is not stupid, he has bad arguments, but he's not stupid. He did much better in his second debate with Hitchens than his first. If you're going to debate him, I recommend shelving this video until then. I trust that you can win regardless, but Turek is smart enough to make things much more difficult for you if he has the right ammo. These debates get put on the internet and basically become immortal. Why allow him to have a better performance than he deserves? Also, if he sees this, he might decide he doesn't want to debate you, which would be a shame.

[@TheSpaceInvaderer]

Azadum I actually would hope he sees this. I want to see Matt attack the strongest possible version his argument, rather than the weakest.

[@stelladavis7832]

Please Matt debate Frank.

[@moehoward01]

Turek isn't misunderstanding atheism. He's _misrepresenting_ it. And deliberately so.

[@irenenabizadeh6802]

"We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion.

[@noncredenti3021]

Haven't seen the debate yet, but I must say I'm disappointed that David would listen to a book by someone who has a chapter on presupp in it and not prepare extensively to discuss it. Even a cursory look into Turek's speeches, debates, and books since he discovered the presupp game would reveal that it's his main argument. Smalley should have known this would be Turek's line of attack even without their notice 24 hours before the "debate," and if he didn't feel like he could prepare to debunk it, he should have declined the appearance. If your goal is to promote either some sort of "atheist agenda" or even just "truth," it boarders on malpractice to appear with a used car salesman like Turek without preparing ahead of time.

[@retrorocketsnail]

Watching the debate, it seems as though he didn't understand Frank's arguments. Perhaps he'd better read the book again. There are some legitimate points that he and a lot of atheists should explore.

[@Arminius420]

I heard there was some drama between you two but its not our business.

[@SansDeity]

Then why comment on it?

[@Arminius420]

@@SansDeityYou're right sorry

[@BigIdeaSeeker]

Love these guys, but Smalley was woefully unprepared. The reason the debate focused on that one chapter was because it is the foundation to the rest of the book. David never addressed the legitimate question, how do you account for reason and logic *if* God doesn't exist. Turek even acknowledged that the argument was *not* for Yahweh-Jesus. Just a starting point for the conversation. Remember, I love these guys, can't stand Turek, but the debate was a lost opportunity for an atheist to stand up to Turek's rhetoric.

[@The_Other_Ghost]

I loved him in Dag nasty.

[@duaneenos6453]

Everyone should have evidence for what they believe. If an Atheist or a Deist say they believe something yet can't provide any evidence then you shouldn't listen to them. David Smalley can't support his views with any evidence.

[@wolfwing1]

My response to the reality question is two fold. First is to ask kinda like you did, "Well what method does he have that is more reliable to tell the truth about reality." and to bring up that the human brain if were correct has had hundreds of millions of years to evolve, is it 100% perfect? no, but it had to be perfect enough that it's reliable outside of being a brain in a vat or we wouldn't have survived. People like blake I think will often try to say "Well maybe thinking I'm invincible allows me to survive being hit by a car or something." usually crazy, of course beliefs like that arn't going to be 100% always helpful. Especially when our ancestors were monkeys or fish and such, they had less ability to think and reason so their perception of reality had to be close enough to actual reality maybe more so, as they can't logic, "Is that really a rabbit, or is that a hyena." they need their brains to work far more then we do as we can fix mistakes by thinking. Hopefully.

[@Oswlek]

*"Is the statement 'there are no human minds' true?"* I'm not particularly fond of Matt's response to this one. First off, the laws of logic are mere abstractions of how reality appears to behave and have no more independent existence than the rules of mathematics. Yes, it would appear that the stuff the laws describe would be the same with or without us, but that is no more meaningful than 1 apple and 1 apple still being 2 apples. Even theistic arguments aren't so egocentric as to presume reality itself would be fundamentally changed by the absence of humankind. Equally important in this instance is the fact that "true" isn't a noun, it is a value placed upon a proposition. Nothing in reality is true or false, only statements and thoughts _about_ reality are, so the question presumes that a mind capable of making the stated inquiry exists. Logic doesn't depend on humans, it just depends on rational thought, so it doesn't lead to the conundrum that Turek implies. It was with the latter issue that I think Matt's explanation was sloppy. To use his example, how much money in his wallet may be a fact, but only propositions about the money can be true or false, and these propositions cannot exist without a mind.

[@PGBurgess]

Matt even said only a couple of minutes earlier that "truth is the correspondence of our thought to reality". the "law of logic" may be vallid absent our minds... but as again Matt said: they are normally 'laws of thought' they are vallid because our language and thought are still supposed to make the same inferences, even absent the mind to do so... but i agree, i don't even think that this the case: they are vallid in aspect to our language and thoughts... not in relation to reality itself

[@Oswlek]

P.G. Burgess Thanks for the reminder. I meant to add that Matt clarified the point and got closer to what, IMO, is the most appropriate way to view it, but got distracted and forgot to. :)

[@PGBurgess]

Oswlek i do think matt does see them to much as a transcend ideal, as the most basic principle. They are imo to the basic of thought... Yet thought is still emerged of physical reality. I don't agree that it's 'physically' the case that 'a rock is still a rock' absent minds. A rock is a human idea... It's boundaries and properties aren't really fundamentally their (if that makes sense)

[@Oswlek]

P.G. Burgess Are you saying that the actual entity and sensory experience that the word "rock" describes would be impacted by our absence? Or that, since we are necessarily barred from objective reality, the entire concept of "rock" is just a model and therefore wouldn't exist any longer? If it is the former, then I strenuously disagree. :)

[@PGBurgess]

Oswlek definitely the latter. Decartes had his 'i think therefor i am'. Russel pointed out this assumes that there is an 'i thinking' and so it does not realy proof anything. Similarly 'a thing is what it is' already assumes that there are these 'welldefined objects'we can refer to. Something i don't think is (necessary ) true is physics.

[@Kreadus005]

I never really liked the pop-can-fizz or moist-robot argument because it feels a bit cold. "If I don't like your explanatory story of what we are and whence we came, I won't acknowledge you as a person! I'll call you a robot, a poo-poo-head and dismiss all your thoughts and feelings on all subjects!" And contrast that with... "No matter the explanatory story, the accounting, of how your body works and where your intelligence, thoughts and feelings come from... I acknowledge and respect you as a person." And I think that should be the response.

[@daroe2340]

The reason they had to focus on that one chapter is because their ability to spew out fucking bullshit is all they have left as an argument.

[@hcheyne]

i'm not convinced about this argument. The 'Law's of logic' are a human construct. These are discovered pathways that allow human minds to navigate the reality that we experience. I can't be certain that a fallacious argument is actually fallacious. I can only say that 'At the core of human minds ability to conceive are these law's of logic, and as such within this limitation, this is true'. So to me, I don't think logic, and maths are anything but a minds best model of truth.

[@MeisterKleisterHeisstEr]

It is possible (in principle) that there is a nonsensical universe in which the laws of logic do not hold. You could put 2 apples into an empty bag and pull out 3 apples -- or 3 coconuts, for that matter. And then the bag suddenly turns into a giant snail. We have discovered and described what we call 'laws of logic' in our universe. They existed before us and even if every human mind in the universe stopped existing, these laws may still hold. A rock would still be a rock, and it would not be not a rock.

[@hcheyne]

Meister Kleister You misunderstand. I am not suggesting that the results of our logic are incorrect. I am saying that our specific ability to model and navigate reality is a product of a mind, and possibly only our type of mind. If our types of minds cease to exist. A rock may well still be a rock, but the methodology that we use to comprehend it doesn't. To explain another way. logic is and interaction. The laws of logic are our minds most reductive interactions it can make with everything else. Without the mind there is no interaction. It is the same as saying there is no friction if nothing rubs against anything else.

[@ryan8878]

@hcheyne - So you are talking hypothetical nonsense. Thanks for that.

[@hcheyne]

ryan8878 Yes of cause I am. The entire 'What should be believed?' Question is hypothetical nonsense. You can't demonstrate any of it.

[@PGBurgess]

they are still vallid in our relation to the language that is used to make the statement. since there is no mind, they are not 'true' and the universe itself does not hold 'a rock' (since it is our observation and language that determins the border where the rock begins and the sand in which it lies begins)

[@Iamjamessmith1]

Religion will not connect with any other in discussion based on religious claims themselves. It is not the purpose or design of religion to relate to those who are not "assimilated" by that religion. Religion's job is to assimilate...yes, like the Borg on Star Trek TNG... not to do anything else. If you do connect with a religious person in debate, it is their guard dropping and you are winning unless it is you who are starting to believe them and connecting. But if an atheist connects by starting to believe, the connection is just a rewiring in their head, thought process, to include god. Then the relationship is with the third person not really with each other. The religious can connect with no one except through a third party...god.

[@Azadum]

I think the thing with Blake is that he, more or less, is operating with intellectual honesty. I vehemently disagree with some of his positions and analysis, but I think he's generally not being slimy in his arguments. But then there are guys like sye ten burglekutt or Turek, who don't appear to have any interest in intellectual honesty. They seem more interested in finding any reason for people to believe, regardless of how specious. I could imagine being friends with someone like Blake. The other type, I just can't... I can't respect them and I find them disgusting. I don't think Turek is as bad as sye, FYI.

[@chewmanfoo]

David Smalley seems somehow afraid to be trapped into believing theism. I would encourage him to have an open mind, to conduct himself in a debate as a person who presents an argument but who is not afraid to learn something. Remember that your opponent believes in a magical man in the sky.

[@tragnilrats]

guitar I mean.

[@HectorTheCatVarietyChannel]

I just call Him "Dank Turdwreck" lol

[@yaroslavusartem]

44:00 Here is my fundamental disagreement ( i think) with Matt Dillahunty - there's one thing to say that " truth value can be applied backward" and completely different to say "truth exist without humans (or thinking agents)" - truth is an antonym of falsity - falsity does not exist without human's conceptual thinking and language - so - what is follow is that truth does not exist without humans ( or everything is true by default - by lack of antonym). It is like asking is object visible without visual perception - truth pessuposes statement (that can be true or false) - statements presuposes thinking agent.

[@Iamjamessmith1]

The principles used in logic require language and math. Language and math (math is a language of patterns and relationships) require intelligence. Humans are the most intelligent species and only sufficiently intelligent species to use language. There is no evidence of language before humans existed and no need for language because language is used to communicate and learn in social settings. Religion will have a fundamental problem with learning since religion's claim is that all knowledge comes from the truth of their book, which comes from god. In this way, religion must "borrow or steal" knowledge from science and natural philosophy, claim it comes from their religion, and try to keep up with the secular world. Assimilation is at work, like the Borg.

[@JungleJargon]

"there was [supposedly] time and action before there was time and space" - LOL! The energy of the universe, bound up energy or otherwise, will run down, negating an infinite universe and multiple universes. Bound up energy (matter) implies an action.

[@DeconvertedMan]

Sigh, presup. Really, this is the grandstand that apologists have retreated to? Pathetic.

[@daroe2340]

Deconverted Man bullshit is all they got left.

[@ministryoftruth1451]

Yet the atheist has no argument. Its not just the theist that must support his view. the atheistic argument is simply ignorant and unsubstantiated. there can be no morality without a moral giver. That is fact.

[@krombopulosmicheal2436]

just do a dedate with frank...simple

[@Obamafan6861]

I understand, Matt, why you're reluctant to criticize Turek. But he's one of the most dishonest apologists I've ever seen

[@nicholasstalter8442]

Woah

[@ars_gravitatis5858]

Thoughts are material. They are produced in, and by, neurons in our brains. Without brains there are no thoughts.

[@monev3605]

Matt's trying to act like he's not making money lol

[@sergiop888]

I love Matt, but he is wrong about criticising Smalley. Smalley did a kick ass job!!! - GO SMALLEY

[@SansDeity]

Sergio P Ya know...when you say someone is wrong and then offer no specifics about where they were wrong, you've really said nothing substantive.

[@sergiop888]

Why contemplate the idea that logic belongs to Jesus? are Chinese, Japanese, etc. irrational, or unable to make arguments because they have no jesus in their lives? the primes is at best irrational or dishonest. So this is not a rational discussion it's a discussion about the appearance of it. And Smalley made a very good sounding argument to an irrational statement. Logic had little to do with the debate, it was the appearance of who is right! Just like politicians do it! The appearance of being right is probably more important then being right!!! Ask little hands trump!!!

[@SansDeity]

Sergio P So, essentially, you just don't understand the topic. The argument that there must be a foundation for logic and that 'god' serves as that foundation doesn't - in any way - imply that one must have Jesus in one's life in order to use logic. Your objection and dismissal simply isn't relevant to the argument being made.

[@sergiop888]

Sorry but you are dismissing me just like I dismiss them, without argument!!! I understand what the claim is!, You don't understand what my argument is! Reality and the appearance of it are different things. Smalley made a great argument! and also give the appearance of being right! why pick at it? The argument that there can't be logic without jesus is laughable! You know that and Smalley knows that, why to have a discussion about it if is not just for the appearance of it?

[@SansDeity]

Sergio P I think I'll actually continue to debate the arguments presented with accurate responses - you go ahead and dismiss them with handwaiving and rebuttals that demonstrate that you don't understand the argument and are OK with 'the appearance of being right', whether you're actually right or not and a bald assertion that the argument is 'laughable' rather than a demonstration of why it might be laughable. I actually care about BEING right. Sorry that you don't.

[@JungleJargon]

Diminishing perfection proves both that there is perfection and that you are losing it.

[@Mariomario-gt4oy]

this type o dishonestf Christian apologetics are pointless almost. the Frank idiot has had this explained to him so many times. he has to be dishonest at this point. much respect to both guys here

[@Smayor75]

The moment I heard the Justin's announcement that it t was Smalley that would engage (anyone) about "logic and reasoning" I knew it wouldn't work all that well. I also agree that he should have refused to engage, if this was the subject.

[@JungleJargon]

Reality is that you were made to exist by recombination of a preexisting written program that no physical thing can ever significantly sequence. Unrelated changes to an existing viable program will never significantly sequence programming that's not there.

[@keithevans1734]

Watched the debate with Frank Turek and David Smalley, and I must say the Frank destroyed David. However, it was a great debate and Frank smashed up David.

[@fugacity19]

I listened to the debate. David got owned!

[@dmc8092]

I think that not only aren't atheists always rational I think that even David Smalley and Matt are not always rational. I think we try but we're not always as on top of it as we think we are.

[@AbnormalWrench]

It is a good thing no one has suggested they are always perfectly rational then. Oops, did I ruin your strawman?

[@dmc8092]

***** How was what I said a strawman?

[@AbnormalWrench]

D Mc As my comment clearly said....but I guess I will slightly rephrase it for you: Who are you addressing as being "always rational"?

[@dmc8092]

***** What do you think your comment clearly said? Just because you say something's a strawman doesn't mean it was.

[@AbnormalWrench]

D Mc You are more than welcome to explain how it wasn't a strawman. If I'm just supposed to guess on this....your weird defensiveness is telling.

[@AJ21969]

David Is That Absolutely True?

[@AJ21969]

Just saying wrong Matt, you're smuggling in a standard

[@JungleJargon]

There is only one truth. Only your Maker can cover for you Himself and remake you again from the inside out by the power of His true word. No one else can. Or try waiting (billions of years) for the universe to make you again. See if that will ever supposedly happen again. See if the universe can get it right considering that everything falls apart at a much greater rate than they supposedly fall into directed working order. Much luck with that. Yes, atheists have a real problem with reason and logic.

[@eventhisidistaken]

So, because without a god we die and that's it, therefor god? It's sad that you think this is what reason and logic are all about.

[@JungleJargon]

T Oadaly You didn't tell me anything or prove anything.

[@eventhisidistaken]

+Jungle Jargon Why would you expect me to? You didn't tell me anything factual, nor prove anything either. Mine was merely commentary on your lack of reasoning on this subject. Either gods exist, or they don't, regardless of the implications of that on our mortality.

[@JungleJargon]

T Oadaly You will never hear of any other truth than what I just told you. It's too bad that you just outright rejected the only truth there is.

[@eventhisidistaken]

Here's how you know when you've been brainwashed. You go around blathering about truth, without ever actually saying anything of any substance, nor engaging ideas in any meaningful way - as if mere repetition of the word "truth" somehow makes whatever nonsense you're spewing actually true.

[@joeyclank2204]

David is so dishonest, in the debate he said he read franks book and here he says he never read it...

[@krishnamvizag]

Matt - You don't know ;)