Atheist Debates - Is there Good Evidence for God? Matt Dillahunty, Tyler Vela

[@ModernDayDebate]

Honored to have gotten to host you again, Matt!

[@kr00m]

Perhaps I have misunderstood the format of your show but it seems to me you should have moderated upon Tyler's opening statement when he refused to discuss the topic of the debate.

[@luca.652]

Thanks for the wonderful unbiased hosting! This is my first time seeing your show and the premise seems wonderful. I’ll be sure to tune in!

[@bobbyrooftopgg1288]

kr00m So true, after this I will not be watching on that channel anymore. Otherwise what is the point to topics and keeping on them? I feel like I know the answer, clicks = money. I’ll just wait until the debater posts it on their channel.

[@kr00m]

@@bobbyrooftopgg1288 I am just as likely to click on ‘conversation’ just as ‘debate’ but with different expectations. But the YT algorithm doesn’t work around me so I dunno.

[@Zac200812]

@@bobbyrooftopgg1288 I would like to offer a counter hypothesis to the channel being greedy. It has been stated by Janes Kuntz (creator of the Modern Day Debate channel) before that he pays speaking fees. For example everytime you see Matt appear it's because he was paid his speaking fee. Usually the video can cover the speaking fee, but sometimes he ends up in the negative. Other times he will kickstart to pay speaking fees for bigger speakers. Instead of greed I propose this, he's a really nice guy that runs a youtube channel with a very split community. He tries so hard to be liked by two groups of people that generally don't like each other that he ends up coming short of being an effective moderator at times. He also is collecting questions, so he may not be the most attentive at times. Ultimately I feel he's just trying too hard to make sure no group feels alienated whether they be atheist, theist, flat earther, jedi, sith, etc.

[@q.e.d.9748]

Tyler: “I totally understand everything you’re saying. You’re still not answering the question.” Matt: “I answered that already.” Tyler: “I understand, but you still haven’t answered my question yet.” Dude! Weak!

[@sailingsolar]

He's trying to prove Zeus exist. What do you expect from him? A logical argument, evidence ? Not going to happen. The foolish man started talking and Matt thought "Oh fuck, another wasted night." Sorry Matt I ain't got time for this.

[@jfreeman4275]

where was the moderator when Tyler's brain broke? If he just chimed in and help explain Matt's answer, they could have chipped off 20 minutes of stupidity.

[@q.e.d.9748]

@@jfreeman4275 yep! the moderator never said a thing outside of "Time!"

[@Scarletpooky]

I'm tired of hearing christians say "that's not what the bible says" when someone quotes the EXACT words that's in the bible.

[@bagamer13]

Scarletpooky Exactly. Then they proceed to give THEIR interpretation of the quote; The question then is: what methodology are they using to determine their interpretation is correct? I have yet to be given a satisfactory answer.

[@johnathanfuller1423]

@Never-ending party Hey, there. If you care whether or not what you believe is true we can get a copy of the Bible out and look at it real quick. I'll even let you pick your favorite translation.

[@catalyst3713]

@Never-ending party Is it ok to own other people as property? Yes or no?

[@Scarletpooky]

Exodus 21:20-21 20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property. Let me repeat the relevant line "but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property." There you have it, the bible is literally saying it's ok to BEAT YOUR SLAVE as long as they don't die. How else could you possibly interpret 'no punishment for beating slave' as anything other than 'it's ok to beat them'. Also note the bit at the end "the slave is their property" which show the lie of claiming that slavery was somehow different and didn't really mean slave, atc.

[@catalyst3713]

@Never-ending party Wrong answer. I'll ask again: Is it ok to own other people as property? Yes or no?

[@wildz0634]

"Do you have a dog?" Tyler "No, I don't have any dogs." -Matt "That is not what I am asking." - Tyler "That IS what you asked!!" - Matt "I don't accept your answer..." Tyler Very manipulative.

[@kragratt]

I must say, Mr. Vela presented the best case for irrational thinking I have ever heard.

[@growtocycle6992]

Your baseless statement that attacks the person rather than the argument is a rather good example of illogical reasoning. I have been listening to Tyler for the first 20 minutes, and all I've heard is well reasoned cosmological philosophy... Aka rationality

[@AkosSam]

3:35 Watch word salad 17:35 Skip word salad 18:01 Matt's statement 32:40 Conversation (honestly start here, much more productive than 2 people talking past each other) 1:33:34 QnA

[@ThePayanazo]

MVP

[@AkosSam]

@@ThePayanazo *appreciative hat tip*

[@sirdryden42]

Seems like they were talking past each other the whole time.

[@scottsalzman7176]

Thanks for the timestamps.

[@teamatfort444]

Literally same formula for Matt vs Jordan Peterson

[@zubileegluckgluck]

Tyler has it all: Ironic condescension, a boatload of straw men, and a great big word salad with croutons made of lies.

[@lisapriola7927]

God is real

[@mrcurly1147]

@@lisapriola7927 Real bullshit.

[@zubileegluckgluck]

@@lisapriola7927 What a brilliant response. I totally believe, now. How did you come up with such a solid, smart way of convincing people that there's an invisible man influencing their lives, if they talk to their eyelids enough? It's a miracle!

[@NA-vz9ko]

Lisa Priola this is a lengthy debate video. People come here to listen to arguments. If you make a bold assertion, “God is real” and don’t present any arguments to back up your claim, you can’t expect not to be mocked in the comments.

[@parametalhead]

Lisa Priola cool. Demonstrate it

[@creampuffme]

Multiple times Matt has repeated Vela's words back to him verbatim, and Vela literally says, "That's not what I said." This guy is a so dishonest. Then the "Provisionally......" because he knows he doesn't actually have good reason. It also makes me doubt the quality ond veracity of his academic career.

[@tothetuneofwaffles]

Big Eif Yeah. He wants to say stuff that doesn’t make sense because he’s more interested in playing word games than actually having an honest conversation.

[@bmrchef8425]

@Big Eif Sounds like the Bible. You can read it word for word to a theist and they’ll still tell you, that’s not what it said. Lmao....

[@gregorsamsa1364]

@Never-ending party Your argument: "it's just so complex and I can't think of anything better than 'magic dude made it', therefore magic dude made it." How original and brilliant

[@moodyrick8503]

@Never-ending party If your immensely complex creator does not require a creator, then neither does DNA and life! The big science book of HOW the natural world works is vast, the big book of how GOD does what he does (explanation of how the natural world works) is empty!

[@dynamicloveministries334]

@@tothetuneofwaffles not true \

[@blccdcrange]

tyler was so confident for no reason lmao

[@kidd32888]

That is why he is a con-man

[@mikerodgers7620]

He has God on his side.

[@princegobi5992]

@@mikerodgers7620you realize that’s an indictment of your god right?

[@mikerodgers7620]

An imperfect sinful heathen bringing indictments to God is a total joke.@@princegobi5992

[@meaper960]

Tyler: Blaming Matt for not accapting his good evidence. Also Tyler: Not presenting any evidence.

[@RDaneelOliwav]

The Christian is straight up just reading out his script which is filled with fancy sounding words

[@mischarowe]

@ Says the theist.

[@RDaneelOliwav]

@ what's judgemental about my comment? His 20min opening statement is positiv just reading out. It's so clogged up with fancy words, it's loosing meaningfulness. I'm not a native speaker, but I read other comments stating the same. If you are truly intelligent you should be able to break down complex things into more digestible ways. If you try hard to sound clever with barely anyone understanding it's bad communication

[@asdfffs]

@ Fuck off dude, it's not that we don't understand the fucking words, when someone tries to sound unnecessarily verbose all the time you know they're full of shit, just trying to sound smart to gain some credibility. He's literally reading a speech he wrote word by word

[@ThermaL-ty7bw]

like always , those people can't have a conversation , how could you have one about 0 zero nada , nothing

[@tawdryhepburn4686]

MrStripeyDog I test in the top fraction of 1% in verbal skills on IQ tests; nearly aced the verbal and written portions of both the SAT and GRE; today I make my living with words in a very competitive field. None of that makes me ‘smart,’ but it does imply that I have a pretty good grasp on English as well as an expansive vocabulary. I was never confused by the Christian speaker’s word choice. I _understood_ every word. He was also clearly using hyper verbose phrasing in a - failed - attempt to sound both more intelligent and more authoritative. There is no reason to speak the way he spoke. Virtually all of his ideas could be communicated more clearly via basic, everyday English.

[@jmjw00]

"Either everything is X, or not X." "Provisionally." Either he's dishonest, or knows vastly less than he thinks he knows.

[@nathanphillips1409]

I burst out laughing at that point. Like, dude, how can you be so arrogant and not understand that x and not-x are mutually exclusive?!?!?

[@damyr]

@NukeMoose420 That's because they are saying/reading words from someone's scenario, not from their own head.

[@coolkusti]

@@nathanphillips1409 Oh ffs. How the good googly fuck is it *more* arrogant to add rules of inference to your system? It's literally asserting more without justification (granted, you couldn't really hope to justify it anyway). Look up intuitionistic logic. Law of the excluded middle is not a settled affair, and there's good reasons to be skeptical of it. I'm hopeful that there's always a functional classical description for what we experience, but I have *no means* of justifying this in general. Do you?

[@johnathanfuller1423]

@@coolkusti What reasons would those be?

[@coolkusti]

@@johnathanfuller1423 Right, I probably shouldn't have said that. In a broad sense, a "reason" to be skeptical of it is merely the fact that you can't actually justify it by less objectionable rules of inference, though that depends heavily on what "less objectionable" means to the listener. This is basically true of many other rules of inference, so LEM need not be singled out. To put it bluntly, logic in general has no foundation, and cannot really have one to begin with: if it could, then you could write down a derivation of your rules of inference from your foundations, but any derivation requires rules of inference to begin with, so your proof would be circular. Consequently, I don't see why accepting logic "provisionally" should be seen as an issue: it seems like a relatively obvious conservative response to this predicament. What _is_ true in particular is that there are some practical reasons to abandon LEM in certain contexts, such as when you want an easier means of distinguishing constructive proofs (for programming purposes maybe). If you object to my line of thought on the basis that it's treading too close to logical realism and would rebut with the claim that logic is really just a language, then my issue is really with the claim that reality is amenable to description at all.

[@SamuelAko]

God! this is painful to watch! The theist should just turn of his wifi and move on with life.

[@judyives1832]

So painful to listen to this theist spewing crap. It’s so dishonest! If you can’t give actual evidence then just stop!

[@judyives1832]

Bob Rabbins I love that comment

[@JavPar]

Thank you Matt for exposing Tyler's dishonesty.

[@mikerodgers7620]

Atheism is dishonesty.

[@JavPar]

@@mikerodgers7620 How? I could say the same thing about christianism.

[@mikerodgers7620]

@@JavPar Jesus is the truth. Jesus Christ is Lord. 😇

[@JavPar]

@@mikerodgers7620 There is no truth when you avoid answering questions. More like dishonest.

[@mikerodgers7620]

@@JavPar I don't question the truth when it's the truth. Jesus is the truth. You're being dishonest by not listening.

[@Lik3UhBOSS]

Watching Tyler struggle to explain his garbage tennis ball analogy is gold because he seemed so confident with it only to realize he has never actually thought it all the way through.

[@MovieMakingMan]

Set 1: Matt won 6-0 Set 2: Matt won 6-0 Set 3: Matt won 6-0

[@thoughtsengineer]

@@MovieMakingMan Matt won the match

[@Iverath]

Tyler Vela is no longer a Christian.

[@Lik3UhBOSS]

@@Iverath He was at the time of my comment but that’s nice to hear. Good for him for making his way out.

[@Blazingbiskit]

@@Iverath And you saw this where?

[@aricliljegren890]

To the theist - thank you for demonstrating yet again that no amount of smugness or use of big words can save a bad argument.

[@aricliljegren890]

@Never-ending party You cannot debunk a disbelief. You are the one with the burden of proof. If you think that the only alternative to a god claim is that we came out of a mud puddle, you lack imagination.

[@michelleholtman1096]

Expert response Aric.

[@communistpropagandist4608]

Like it or not we came from a mud puddle. Same argument except mine is supported by the facts and evidence.

[@odoggow8157]

@Never-ending partyTHE ONLY PLACE THAT SAYS U WERE CREATED FROM A MUD PUDDLE IS YOUR BIBLE/UR GOD. WHAT FUKING PLANET ARE U ON!!?? YOU ARE A FUKING TROLL ATTEMPTING TO ACT AS A CHRISTIAN OR YOU HAVE SEVERE BRAIN-DAMAGE YOU OPEN UR TRASH MOUTH AND YOU DEBUNK YOUR OWN WORDS

[@odoggow8157]

@Never-ending party HERES AN ATHEIST IDEA FOR U TO DEBUNK IF U EVEN KNOW WHAT DEBUNK EVEN MEANS AS I DOUBT U ACTUALLY DO, THE SUN IS AT THE CENTRE OF OUR SOLAR SYSTEM CANNOT WAIT FOR U TO ATTEMPT THIS, AS I HAVE NOTHING BETTER TO DO IN LOCKDOWN, SO GO IM WAITING TO HERE IT, HAVE MY POPCORN READY TO GO

[@rikidepear]

I’m still hung up on the ‘provisionally, yes’ comment. How dishonest do you have to be in trying to make your point when faced with a direct logical negation. This is the type of behaviour which gives theists a bad name.

[@colaboytje]

That was the point where I realised: Tyler is dishonest.

[@lebrigand4115]

At this point, I would have hang up on him, as this was proof he's either too dumb or too dishonest (or both) to argue with. And I bet if this was on the AXP, Matt would have hung up too at this exact same moment.

[@Her_Viscera]

You can't converse if you don't agree that things have to be one way or another 🙄🙄

[@Sam0YT]

Don't attribute to malice (dishonesty) what can be attributed to incompetence.

[@curtbressler3127]

he knew that he couldn't answer NO cuz he would look like an idiot...but also knew that by answering YES he was conceding the massive logical fallacy in his thought process. Perfectly laid trap by Matt.....and Tyler tried to dunce around it.

[@ScottM1973]

I love how this theist basically opened with "I'm not going to argue facts because that doesn't get where I want to go and then I'm going to argue against atheist strawmen" He's a walking presupposition meme! I filled my theist bingo card within the first 4 minutes of his opening. My (non-existent) God the gish gallop!

[@49perfectss]

He literally conceded the argument right away saying he didn't have good evidence! So weak

[@ProfezorSnayp]

Theist bingo card sounds like a lot of fun!

[@adrianjanssens7116]

This reminds me of the scammer bingo card used by KZbinrs who frustrate Indian scammers who steal from vulnerable folks here in North America. You deserve the 42 likes so far. Well said.

[@adrianjanssens7116]

@@ProfezorSnayp It is. Check out `scammer bingo card`on KZbin.

[@anthonybuck9140]

That’s the entire point he was trying to make with his statement though: the main issue between atheists and theists is epistemology, or how we *know* and even define ‘to know’. It’s a difference of categories of truth, and if you insist on using ‘evidences’ that your opponent openly admits *can’t* exist: how can you have a debate. No serious theist believes there is some some sort of corporeal substance of God that we would be able to “scoop up” in a detector at some point. If you insist that spiritual realms must be tangible, you have a definition outside of what is used by theologians historically. This stance isn’t a modern contrivance cooked up to dodge new tough questions; this conversation is recorded back in 200 and 400 AD. As Christians, we’ve basically always understood that we can’t ever look under some rock and ‘find’ God. So the modern atheist demands something that all believes have accepted as not existing. There is even a coherent argument that the more knowable and undeniable God becomes, the less truly free will we would have. Imagine if God came down every Sunday, spit fire from his eyeballs, and reshaped the cosmos as a clear demonstration of His reality and power. Do you really have a choice in believing in God at that point? Would you be trusting in faith, or simply doing as commanded to avoid being liquidated (like Gary was last week right after sneaking a peek at a porno(the production of which would also probably earn an immediate smiting as is))? With full knowledge of God, the only true expression of freedom would be rebellion All this to say that we need to look to the metaphorical to define the metaphysical; and deciding you will only be convinced by one type of thing only limits yourself, not that which you oppose

[@kyleferguson1729]

Update: Tyler Vela is no longer a Christian.

[@mikerodgers7620]

You heard wrong.

[@kyleferguson1729]

@@mikerodgers7620 No I listened to his video. Go watch his video and educate yourself.

[@desnock]

@@mikerodgers7620 He announced his deconversion. His argument was almost always for deism, not Christianity, he conflated the two, and likely finally figured it out. For the record, we are all agnostics as a practical reality. God Bless ;)

[@mikerodgers7620]

@@desnock and..?

[@desnock]

@@mikerodgers7620 And so the person arguing for God (in the form of a Christian deity) ultimately succumbs to Matt's critiques. So "and..." in reference to your "you heard wrong" is that indeed if you inform yourself, YOU are wrong. As a moral agent (and ostensibly "Christian"), you should be able to be able to admit you're wrong. Here is the evidence served up to you, so you can't deny that you can't find it. LITERALLY from the horse's mouth: kzbin.info/www/bejne/p4S1kGx5eLWLrNk Be humble and realize you offered an emotionally irrational response because you ignored evidence. Your behavior is an object lesson as to why folks find the cult you follow completely without merit.

[@thepowerbill1]

I just don’t understand how anyone could be a Christian. Blood sacrifice, substitutionary atonement and the belief that all humans deserve to be tortured for eternity for the the horrible crime of simply being born is just so bizarre to me.

[@Scarletpooky]

FFS seriously... The guy hasn't even been speaking for 3 minutes and he's already insulting Matt without Matt saying a single word. Nice to see we have a fair and honest debater.

[@aegisgfx]

rule of thumb, if you see the theists mouth moving.. hit right arrow

[@carolmosher7745]

@Computer User There is "incontrovertible" scientific evidence for the existence of God. No Atheist has ever falsified the evidence using the scientific method.

[@larjkok1184]

Carol Mosher Praise Allah, or perish!

[@reggin867]

@Computer User because he is a dick. literally. pick any religious book you want and read it, god is always a dick in it

[@reggin867]

@Never-ending party most of what you said can be explained by evolution. and the rest with physics or we don't yet have explanation for it and you can NOT explain it with god or the supernatural since we don't have an explanation

[@Scarletpooky]

Tyler's opening statement "I'm going to argue against what I claim atheists say, not what the atheist here is actually going to say." So immediately he's telling us that his arguments will be attacking strawmen. Is it even worth watching any more than that?

[@letsomethingshine]

Yes, if you are going to backbite the "real Atheists", then you should at least bring reputable sources that can back up your supposed "more accurate description" of a whole group.

[@cjaiezza]

I'm 1:33:00 in. Tyler isn't listening or doesn't want to listen to Matt at all. This is the worst debate I've ever seen. I feel so sorry for Matt. He must have been considering turning off his computer and punching a boxing bag throughout most of this.

[@Kruppes_Mule]

No. It's not. Although, you should listen to the 20 or so seconds at 13:15 for word salad gold. The always fun challenge of defining god into existence.

[@kr00m]

The real title of the debate: Does Matt have good evidence to falsify claims that I will not present?

[@DangerKennyB]

This

[@odoggow8157]

@@steveddad4385 INDEED

[@odoggow8157]

@@steveddad4385 IF I WAS A CHRISTIAN HE IS EXACTLY WHAT ID EXPECT THE DEVIL TO BE LIKE

[@Doppe1ganger]

Hahahahahaha

[@enigmaconjecture9548]

The sub title: the futility of logical positivism and arm chair philosophy.....

[@abdeton1899]

Matt is an incredible logician. Love him!

[@swordblaster2596]

If tyler were 1% as smart as he thinks he is, he'd still be struggling.

[@johnbull1986]

The answer is no in case anyone was wondering.

[@ThermaL-ty7bw]

at least ONE constant in their ''worldview''

[@andybeans5790]

Spoilers!!! lol

[@seanjones2456]

Lets hear it for the hide and seek champion of the world!!!!!!

[@privatepile762]

Apologists have consistently reaffirmed my doubt about their claims. They reliably offer poor arguments, but the condescending tone of Tyler is impressive.

[@talanock]

@Never-ending party you are a fucking drooling fucking idiot aren't you? It's better to admit you don't have answer then make them up you fucking piece of human fucking garbage.

[@JoshuaBates01]

@Never-ending party wait, come back and respond to comments, we want to chat with you some more because you are intriguing :D you realize that Atheism is just a lack of a belief in god, right? That's totally unrelated to belief in abiogenesis, evolution, or anything else like that. Atheism is literally just: 'a lack of belief in a god'. And you are committing a logical fallacy by assuming that the god explanation is correct, just because another explanation hasn't been presented. That is like me saying "all bugs grow on trees. You haven't presented a better idea of where bugs come from, therefore they all come from trees"

[@YouTubeperson1337]

@Never-ending party I notice you desperately trying to reply to everyone. Yet not willing to engage. You sound insanely and pathetically desperate to have your never ending party. I feel the utmost pity for you and your cognitive dissonance battle. I know what it can do to one's mind.

[@barberfiv]

The first 15 minutes is just a guy reading an essay that he worked really hard on but ultimately is lackluster.

[@tothetuneofwaffles]

Frank B His cadence is inherently condescending and repetitive, as well. It’s frustrating to have to listen in order for Matt’s rebuttals to make sense. I wish I could just read a transcript.

[@mrhed0nist]

To be fair he's attempting to defend an undefensible position. At best he can only hope for a lacklustre debater as an opponent, which Matt isn't.

[@deguello68]

Most theist are like this, they’ll yap about nothing all day long.

[@glutinousmaximus]

... "Ultimately it's wrong! en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning :0)

[@toforgetisagem8797]

@@steveddad4385 😂

[@DarthAlphaTheGreat]

James is too good for this world, the mental strength and patience to sit through this many times and to organize and moderate, he deserve quite a bit of credits as well.

[@TheFounderUtopia]

Your use of the word moderate is extremely generous.

[@ChainsawChristmas]

He literally sits there and does nothing. His title should be "host" at best

[@Majenga]

I think James just sets a timer and listens to something more interesting while they "debate" ^^

[@Menemen98]

@@ChainsawChristmashe isnt the debater, he reads the comments and other things. What did you expect hhim to do ?

[@limitless1430]

Matt is "Mr Untouchable" when it comes to this form of intellectual symposiums. Love the way he dismantles these psuedo remythologizers.

[@veganskeletons4131]

He loses all debates

[@veganskeletons4131]

@JLsaves nice coping mechanism

[@pistolnowood2044]

@@veganskeletons4131 I've never seen him lose a debate... which ones has he lost?

[@veganskeletons4131]

@@pistolnowood2044 all of them

[@mischarowe]

17:35 If you want to skip Tyler Vela's predictable word salad. [edit: opening statement, I mean] You're welcome. *cringe-worthy presumptuous rambling*

[@spandrel53]

Thank you

[@mattvmalone]

party lol, you're funny.

[@mischarowe]

@Never-ending party Should I feel *repulsed* or *flattered* that you're trolling *my* comment? Hm.

[@mattvmalone]

@Never-ending party It's funny that you think you're this magical hero of a savior. LOL

[@mattvmalone]

party loooooooool

[@jeffersonian000]

Debating a presumptionalist is like playing chess versus a pigeon. They will knock over all the pieces, shit on the board, and strut off like they won.

[@CarnevalOne]

Vela made arguments. You are the one who threw a fit all the while grandstanding. Your lack of self-awareness here is troubling and pathetic.

[@jeffersonian000]

@@CarnevalOne Given you are commenting on a year old post to which I paraphrased Christopher Hitchens, I’m not sure what mean. Did you tag the wrong post?

[@MrDrManPerson]

@@jeffersonian000 Tjump is my favorite against Presupps because he gives a naturalistic presupp that just cuts them off at the start unlike a lot of other atheist debaters. Watch Tjump vs Darth Dawkins, he turns DD into a broken robot who can't move on with his script, hilarious.

[@evolutionaryadvantage]

@@MrDrManPerson fucking what???

[@MrDrManPerson]

@@evolutionaryadvantage What do you mean what?

[@jakesmidt7016]

Tyler's argument at 1:14:00 is essentially, "Your epistemology makes it impossible for you to believe this claim." That's like looking at a jury and saying, "Your standards of evidence make it impossible for you to believe that a ghost murdered the victim." Yes! That's how it works. Good standards of evidence and sound epistemology reject unverifiable and unsound conclusions. Asking someone to loosen their standards of evidence in order to include that which is unverifiable and unfalsifiable leads to the acceptance of false and dangerous claims and it could get us further from the truth.

[@korbendallas5318]

WL Craig was the first apologist I heard doubting that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. 1. I have a sofa in my living room. 2. I have a piano in my living room. 3. I have a living horse in my living room. 4. I have a living unicorn in my living room. 5. I have a school of dolphins in my living room. 6. I have the planet Neptune in my living room. This list starts at the almost-tautological, andd I might have more problems to convince you that I did not have a sofa in my living room. Case 2 is rare, but a simple photograph on my phone would probably convince most people that it's true. Case 3 is rare and weird, but I'm sure a short video and a witness would be convincing. Cases 4 and 5 are different, but equally extraordinary: Case 4 would entail a mythical creature that almost certainly does not exist (plus all the difficulties of case 3) - a paper in Nature might be a first step, but I suspect that more would be needed; case 5 would be mundane, but would be hard to even imagine, and would stretch semantics to the breaking point. Case 6 finally would be so crazy that I can't even imagine evidence that you be sufficient to support the claim. So if someone would accept a simple photograph to believe case 6, or can't even imagine evidence to support case 1, he is either dishonest or would barely be functional, in any society.

[@Trackformers]

The dishonesty is disgusting...

[@junkmail2505]

Matt, you truly have the patience of a saint. After the millionth time of hearing the same argument in the same debate I woulda snapped

[@The1stMrJohn]

@Never-ending party 👎bollox

[@litamactal3807]

many people have sharp minds, Albert Einstein has a very sharp mind. And the interesting part is that he also believe in God. kzbin.info/www/bejne/i3WaiqWpfJ2XjMk I’m not forcing you to believe the Bible, but I will warn you, in the last days, people will deny God’s existence. It is very obvious that the creation proves the creator!

[@sumo1203]

@@litamactal3807 yup, very obvious!

[@TheFirstAtom]

@@litamactal3807 Creation does indeed prove there is a creator!! However, there is no way to demonstrate that the Earth is a creation. Secondly, these “last days” have been ongoing since the Bible’s creation. Same claims, thousands of years later, and still no answers.

[@litamactal3807]

@@TheFirstAtom You know the story of Noah and the flood? People don’t know that there will be a great flood and likewise, people don’t know that there will be a wrath to come.

[@BUGHUNTER6]

"My god is unfalsifiable, therefore lower your standards"

[@carolmosher7745]

What's unfalsifiable is the Atheist belief there is no God.

[@carolmosher7745]

@Frances Snowflake What's irrational is the Atheist belief in no belief.

[@ryanlahart534]

Atheists don't claim there is no god. They disbelieve the assertion that there is a god based on lack of evidence.

[@ryanlahart534]

@Frances Snowflake then go talk to them.

[@larjkok1184]

Carol Mosher You fuckstick.

[@JerryPenna]

This comes across like many the other Calvinists: take an aggressive offensive position, in this case attack skepticism, to more or less shift the burden of proof to Matt and run out the clock hoping for a draw.

[@utubepunk]

Bingo!

[@The1stMrJohn]

@Never-ending party Prove that god is necessary, you can't.

[@BusyHusbandGaming]

Jesus christ, the smug look on Vela's face as all he proposes are logical fallacies while dancing around real, direct questions is absolutely maddening. Just like all theists it an air of "I know something you don't know" and I'm here to tell you sir that that shit just does not hold water. Everything, every single thing that truly exists has been shown to have more evidence than personal revelation and unverified personal gnossis.

[@bosco008]

54:45. Insanely frustrating. 1:27:52. yeah, because "sufficient" isn't subjective at all. Matt just crushes this debate. One of his best.

[@AbleAnderson]

These arguments with presups are getting more dishonest and frustrating each time. The last guy accused Matt of committing a fallacy for saying he didn't have an account for the laws of logic. This guy likewise continues to argue against Matt as though Matt is saying logic is just a brute fact. Matt isn't saying this, he's wondering how you ruled out brute fact, and it's on you to demonstrate this. Then this guy does the most arrogant move of all, he basically calls Matt or anyone else stubborn and unreasonable if they don't accept his argument. This is truly laughable.

[@Redhunteur2]

I've never heard of this guy but he started out frantically building an atheist strawman and then tore into it like a drunken frat boy. The problem with these guys is that they have a false script and cannot understand when their interlocuter goes off of it because it's simply not true. Then they do not listen, they merely wait for their turn to talk so they can right back to the script.

[@JerryPenna]

Its these calvinist strategy to shut up the nonbeliever: shipt the burden of proof by claiming hyper skeptical or cant account for logic so they never ever get to their "evidence". If they had good evidence they'd just run with it.

[@JerryPenna]

JDO HUST a silly assertion any religion could make. My dad is the bestest dad childish argument.

[@JerryPenna]

JDO so the Bible isn’t your basis for being a Christian? Why is god the hide and seek champion but wants a relationship with us? Why the hell does god even need an apologist or philosophical arguments or Augustine or you? He’s awful at making himself known.

[@Redhunteur2]

@JDO The problem is not evidence but your presuppositions. Yes, Leprechaunists are the only ones who have knowledge and truth because the Theory of Truth (Brian, the King of the Leprechauns is Lord God) is the only true theory of truth. Brianity is the only worldview that can account for knowledge because of the axiom of revelation (The movie Darby O'Gill and the Little People alone is the Word of Brian). The point is not to convince anyone because everyone is already convinced that Brianity is the truth (Darby O'Gill and the Little People).

[@zachcouch8654]

I an not convinced that a god exists. Matt wins

[@adrianjanssens7116]

@Computer User I wouldn't. She's been playing the longest game of hide and go seek in the history of mankind. I stopped playing this game years ago, and I am better off in every aspect of my life. I have removed a huge layer of BS from my existence.

[@Yeiyn343]

@Computer User Whether "God" is real, whether that be Allah, Yahweh, Shiva, Isis, Athena, Anubis, Thor, or any other deity from the world's 4,500 religions--is real, he/she/it sat in the sky and watched millions of rapes, murders, genocides, wars, and much more, after knowing it would happen in the first place. If I died and saw a deity, I would go up to the magical holy throne and kick him in dead in the teeth!

[@jcjc4314]

Never-ending party wrong. There is a story in a book claiming that a god exists and is saying what you say it says. I too have a book about some weird creatures saying stuff. Strangely enough you wouldn’t accept this as facts as you do with your book.

[@garygood6804]

@Never-ending party prove " infinite cause " is god. so far you are turning one thing into something else.

[@The1stMrJohn]

@Never-ending party you obviously don't understand science let alone the facts of evolution or the research into how life started approximately 3.5 billion years ago on earth. When I was about 4 years old I worked out using logic that there is no life after death, nor is it reasonable to assume that there is anything supernatural such as god. It's ok to be an "agnostic-atheist" if you're uncomfortable admitting that there's no need for god. The null hypothesis rules. Be excellant to everyone. Peace and biscuits 💚🐕🎵🎸

[@brianharris7243]

Anyone else notice that Tyler's circular reasoning begins with the assumption that god exists and then he uses it to prove god exists? ;-)

[@roberteriksen6434]

@Never-ending partyBravo mister, i actually can't tell if you're a troll or not. Your comment strikes a perfect balance of complete lack of understanding of basic logic we now teach kids combined with weaponized ignorance and with a tone of condescension that could only make mr. Kruger proud. Everything combined and it's the perfect christian to take adventage of. You have beaten me and im honored to have witnessed this.

[@roberteriksen6434]

​@Never-ending party I gotta poke at this some more, just because im curious if you're real or a master troll. Atheist admit ignorance about the origins of life and our universe. In your mind, would ANY explanation for these be better than none at all, even if we couldn't test to see if it's true?

[@dematar]

@Never-ending party I'm not sure you're actually aware of what atheism is. Most commonly it is simply a label for people who have a lack of belief in a god or gods. So of course it provides no answers, to claim otherwise would be idiotic. Theism, or christianity to be more precise, does offer answers, but fails to provide good evidence for those answers, ie the entire point of this debate. From the very get go Tyler provided a valid, but unsound, logical argument. To paraphrase, without god you can't have X, X exists, therefore god exists. This argument is no different than all dogs die, George Washington is dead, therefore he was a dog. Both are valid logical arguments, but both are unsound. In the case of Tyler's, he first premise makes a claim, without god you can't have X, ok, what evidence is there to support that claim. Throughout this debate, I heard Matt reference it many times, while Tyler dodged it. As for the origin of life, there is no clear answer for that, regardless of what christianity claims. Abiogenesis is the leading scientific hypothesis at the moment, with several proof of concept experiments to back it up. Evolution is a scientific fact, but it is still separate from abiogenesis, as it it deals the diversity of life on the planet. You may be good at knocking over strawmen, but its doubtful you could hold a candle to someone like Matt

[@descartergosum]

That is called an axiom..

[@freddiesimmons1394]

@Never-ending party you're quite the jokester

[@halinahalina7904]

It seems Tyler left Christianity.

[@jtheist32]

It's amazing that Tyler cannot understand Matt's point and just keeps repeating himself.

[@andresvillarreal9271]

I am appalled at Vela's comment that he had to frantically make notes from Dillahunty's initial speech. Vela pushed through an hour's worth of talking in ten minutes, so fast that I could get almost nothing. In the end, I can only speculate that the summary of his position is... this mountain is so big that I cannot imagine that climbing it is possible.

[@johnathanfuller1423]

I felt really frustrated for Matt watching this. Tyler was incredibly intellectually dishonest during this.

[@trishayamada807]

Johnathan you have to be dishonest to be an apologist. Whether you’re aware you’re being dishonest or not. Indoctrination to them makes their false beliefs true.

[@johnathanfuller1423]

@@trishayamada807 I want to agree with that statement, but I'm cautious about making that generalization. I will say that I can't imagine a way to be an honest apologist

[@trishayamada807]

Johnathan I don’t think they actually are aware they are being dishonest. So I’m not calling them liars as if they are acting from a place of malice. My mother will defend the Bible with every excuse she’s been told by her priest. She doesn’t remotely think she’s lying or causing harm. She is and has to me, but she can’t see it that way.

[@johnathanfuller1423]

@@trishayamada807 I'm sorry you've been hurt, and you make a good point

[@ghostwood9174]

Trisha Yamada I respectfully disagree with one of your points: Dishonesty is inherently tied to intent. Intent is inherently tied to consciousness/awareness. I do not think that being an apologists inherently means you’re dishonest. I’ve debated many apologists who fervently believe what they’re saying and that they are legitimately trying to enlighten me to “reality”. That’s delusion, it’s unfounded, but not dishonest.

[@lazersly]

I heard no actual arguments from Tyler. It's really hard to listen to him.

[@mohammedfarrukh3902]

He just kept attacking Matt... unsuccessfully

[@Sammie551]

@@mohammedfarrukh3902 If stars wrote I'm God, what would you call that?

[@mohammedfarrukh3902]

@@Sammie551 don't know, let me know wen that actually happens, not interested in hypotheticals when trying to show proof of god

[@Sammie551]

@@mohammedfarrukh3902 I'm actually Atheist you're right, I just didn't agree with Matt's answer because the question first of all is hypothetical! Maybe Science will have a natural answer for that or technology by then. It's about examining the claim after it has been presented after all.

[@mohammedfarrukh3902]

@@Sammie551 I'm an ex-muslim atheist, and I agree. Lot of "what if" scenarios but no actual scenarios that would allow science to examine them

[@KXSocialChannel]

32:40 Here's your first funny moment - When Tyler states that he had trouble writing everything down because there were a lot of "scattered thoughts" coming from Matt.

[@lordfrieza3792]

I hate it when people say you can't empirically test whether things that are empirical work or not because yes you can and the way you test them is the fact that you can use it to consistently produce reliable results.

[@joethompson132]

Wow I refuse to argue with facts and evidence therefore “god” huh

[@davidh5020]

On a debate about whether or not there is good evidence. It is like he conceded. Matt should have acknowledged Vera's defeat and surrender after Vera's introduction, thanked him for not wasting everybody's time, and left the stream.

[@kr00m]

@@davidh5020 So true but instead we got Matt having to defend what evidence is.

[@SortaPredictable]

Never-ending party That’s a good thing that atheism has no answers to supposed transcendental “truths” because those “truths” were written in book’s and mutated hundreds of times by humans... If the alternative to providing no answers is making up answers willy nilly that don’t cohere to reality, any reasonable person would prefer the former state... Obviously.

[@Zeresrail]

@Never-ending party "Non stamp collecting has no answer to the number of shoelaces in my left shoe".

[@SortaPredictable]

Never-ending party LOL I’ve been trolled... I’m ashamed of myself for taking the bait. Hold me senpai.

[@Ladleladleladle]

I spent the majority of this debate giggling “Finish Him!” Excellent showing, Matt!!!

[@The1stMrJohn]

@Never-ending party 👎

[@katyungodly]

Never-ending party atheists have nothing to debunk and we have no facts to present. Our position is simply “I don’t believe your (theist) claims, please provide good reasons for belief.” And then when people inevitably don’t provide good reasons for belief, we move along.

[@ksan1648]

lol, and did you opt for a fatality, babality, brutality, etc...?

[@ksan1648]

IMHO, babality just might be the most apropos :P

[@missk1697]

Oh, good to see I weren't the only one doing that ;p

[@cbearslife4950]

Oof it’s hard to listen to Tyler (his opening statement atleast) it sounds like he’s reading a highschool/college weekly essay who’s author found, and went a little too hard on using a thesaurus. A nightly news anchor has as much emotion and trust in what they’re reading. Something with a little substance though, It’s difficult to hear people strawman atheists left and right. Especially when talking to someone like Matt, he loves calling people out on that shit.

[@mountaintop0925]

Matt, thank you for all you do. It has enlighten me tremendously!

[@AJ-xl6pj]

Well done, Matt. Thanks for what you do.

[@mikerodgers7620]

Decieves people

[@thecatattheend2250]

@@mikerodgers7620 Liar.

[@mikerodgers7620]

@@thecatattheend2250 Lying is a sin. 😥

[@hildy208]

I’m so embarrassed for the Christian guy. So cringey.

[@MadsFeierskov]

Ouch. Napoleon Dynamite calling someone cringy, then it has to be really fucking bad. And it was. Such an arrogant attitude, it was so annoying to watch.

[@aegisgfx]

and remember this is the best the world of theism has to offer.. how terribly sad for them

[@B4D_5USHI]

This asshat started out by saying “I’m not playing by their epistemological rules” which is basically saying “I don’t care about what’s true, I’m gonna make up my own rules and justify my belief no matter what” what a fucking tool

[@odoggow8157]

ITS A SHAME HE CANT FEEL EMBARRASSED HIMSELF, HE MIGHT TRY TO BE HONEST IF HE COULD

[@odoggow8157]

@Never-ending party IF ONLY YOU COULD SEE AND HEAR YOURSELF, YOU ARE ACTUALLY CLINICALLY INSANE AND U CANNOT MAKE ANY COHERENT SENSE WITH ANY STRING OF WORDS U ATTEMPT TO STITCH TOGETHER. HERE AN ANALOGY OF UR STATEMENT CREATING A BLUE PRINT FOR A NEW BUILDING WITH A WATER BALLON FILLED WITH PAINT THROWN AT A WALL LETS SEE HOW LONG ITS FOUNDATIONS WUD LAST IF U TRIED BUILDING IT UR WORDS ARE SO SO RIDICULOUS IM FINDING IT HARD TO BELIEVE YOU ANYTHING MORE THAN AN ATHEIST JUST TROLLING FOR ATTENTION SHITS N GIGGLES IN MY SOCIETY IF PPL SHOW THEY ARE AS IRRATIONAL AS YOU THEY GET COMMITTED TO A MENTAL HOSPITAL

[@BabudroSun]

36:41 Matt - "You said God can create these [transcendental] laws" 11:46 Tyler - "We do understand what a law of logic is, conceptually, as a principle of true thought within a mind. Further, God, as a person with intentionality and authority, can create, impose and enforce on his creation these concepts such that we have a logical world." The biggest problem, in my opinion, is that everything Tyler says feels really long-winded. But also, I'm pretty sure it's not a stretch to say that he did say God creates transcendental facts. That seems to be exactly what he said, without being uncharitable to his wording in the slightest.

[@mhamer1020]

Y'all are focused on the topic but I'm over here fixated on that plushie unicorn playin chess in the back.

[@PlayNiceFolks]

You are doing the Lord's work sir.

[@peteredout4329]

lol

[@olivia_maxwell]

Awww! How cute c:

[@The1stMrJohn]

I wondered what that was! Unicorns are far more likely than any god🦄

[@cg3251]

@@The1stMrJohn Ummm... HELLO! CLEARLY unicorns are real. Matt has one and we ALL saw it! He probably gets logic and rational thought from it, if it shows up the same room as he is in when he is debating someone.

[@DarkMatterVisible]

Tyler: “this thing you didn’t say was strange!” Also Tyler: “I dOn’T hAvE eNoUgH faItH tO bElIeVe In FaCt” When someone says they “don’t believe” in fact, they admit they don’t accept reality. Tyler Vela has admitted that he completely rejects reality. Why is he even debating?

[@neilmcginley6551]

My favorite thing so far is watching Matt use his eyebrows to keep from rolling his eyes at "I don't have enough faith.."

[@RaptureReady2025]

Fantastic guys. I LOVED how you guys continued to hammer that issue about subjective experience trying to understand each other’s meaning ...and how each was fully committed to their arguments.

[@moodyrick8503]

Two and a quarter hours and Tyler never got around to offering any EVIDENCE. His brain is plugged with emotions void of fact.

[@The1stMrJohn]

@Never-ending party incorrect 👎 have you read any books?

[@moodyrick8503]

@Never-ending party Life is too complicated therefore God, really? Let me guess, complexity requires a creator, but your immensely complex "sky daddy" gets a magical pass. Science gives us reliable answers of "HOW" things work. Give me just "one" explanation of HOW god does anything!!!

[@moodyrick8503]

@Never-ending party Still waiting for a single example of "HOW" God does anything. And just saying that God is responsible is not explaining anything!!!!! If you have such little faith in science, the next time you or someone you love gets horribly sick, don't call 911, go to your bible and rely ENTIRELY on it. You and I both know if it came down to choosing ONLY one, you would run to the phone. LOL .

[@moodyrick8503]

@Never-ending party Atheism is a single position on a single topic. Theists believe in a God or Gods and atheists do not. You can be an atheist and believe in an afterlife, or in a heaven, or reincarnation, and yes there are some atheists who DO NOT accept evolution!!! It would be no different if I told you what the "world religious view" was, as if they were all the same !

[@katyungodly]

Never-ending party oh I get it, you’re a troll 😂 Poe’s law at its finest

[@jeremymacklem2510]

I love when theists talk about "facts" yet can't bring a single one to light from their holy book...or the supposed words of their god...he brings nothing new to the discussion...

[@seanjones2456]

I believe they are now called, "alternative facts." I am convinced Tyler "created" some more atheists today. Well done Tyler.

[@shriggs55]

When all is said and done,for Christians,it all comes down to trusting the words of some ancient writings of some ancient men.Bottom line.

[@pumpuppthevolume]

"my book of myths about a space ghost tells me so"...... every religion ever.... facts

[@catalyst3713]

@Never-ending party kzbin.info/aero/PLKVxpCCBOtfu4FHEWXmEfIAhh-H9eXvGJ

[@soupp8649]

@@seanjones2456 Ha! Tyler the Creator. Lol sorry

[@Redhunteur2]

So already in his opening statement, the Christian announces what he THINKS an atheist thinks and begins dismantling that strawman right off the bat. Dude, Matt is RIGHT THERE, why not ask HIM what he thinks before bloviating about your imagined reality?

[@mischarowe]

@ Since when do you know what *anyone* is thinking?

[@mischarowe]

@Austin Mark They make up lies about what we think but then bitch about us pointing out the things - in the bible, mind - that *they* support. It's hypocritical.

[@richrichy3015]

@🤦‍♂️

[@seanjones2456]

Its one of the reasons theists continue to blow it. There are multiple callers on The Atheist Experience that tell the atheists what they believe, it happens all the time.

[@seanjones2456]

@Archangel Uriel Your comment proves you are a moron.

[@universalman5861]

At EXACTLY ONE HOUR into this debate Tyler asks Matt what would theoretically constitute good evidence for god. Matt admits that he does not know. So how could he know if Tyler hasn't already presented good evidence if he himself does not have a gaood standard to judge it. Brilliant from Tyler!

[@SansDeity]

You misunderstand reasoning. You may not know what evidence would be sufficient to warrant belief... but that doesn't mean you don't know what would not be. Logical fallacies, unsupported claims, testimonies.... Tyler wasn't brilliant; you just aren't any sharper than he was.

[@universalman5861]

@@SansDeity In essence, your standard for good evidence in god is the same as atheist biblical scholar Bart Erhman - divine intervention. However, you go one step further than Bart in that divine intervention to you would constitute good evidence but not confirmation. Even though Bart Erhman acknowledges that the bible is among the best attested writings of antiquity he still strives to incite doubt about its transmission. In your case not having a good standard to weigh the evidence for god you propose /rehash cliché sayings "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". Newsflash Matt extraordinary claims require SUFFICIENT evidence.

[@julianmanjarres1998]

Every one in the comments complaining about the Christians dishonesty without actually addressing any particular instance of that. Good work guys

[@ScottM1973]

"If you could rewrite the bible what would you change" I'd write at the beginning: This is a work of Fiction, People, Places, and Events are either the products of the author's imagination or used in a fictitious manner. Any resemblance to actual persons, living or dead, or actual events is purely coincidental

[@trishayamada807]

ScottM1973 I really needed a laugh today! Thanks. ⭐️

[@trishayamada807]

Never-ending party and Muslims say the same about the Koran. How popular a book is has nothing to do about how truthful it is. How a nook impacts a persons life is also not proof. One of the books that helped me most was Buddhist. The Bible’s so called prophecies are not prophecies unless you massage the text to fit after the fact much the same as Nostradamus. The Bible’s is coherent. The Bible has many huge contradictions. Try again. Your spotting the same elementary grade apologists claptrap that’s been thoroughly refuted for generations.

[@trishayamada807]

Never-ending party those aren’t facts. They are assertions without evidence.

[@trishayamada807]

Never-ending party I already showed you they are wrong. Books that are popular and make people feel good does not make them true. Lord of the Rings makes me feel good, it’s not true. Nostradamus made the same type of prophecies and just like the Bible, they are vague and self fulfilled. Is the menu prophetic when I order spaghetti and I’m brought spaghetti? Nope.

[@ericmishima]

How about "a bright red lable Warning Larks Vomit"

[@slightlyprofessional]

14 minutes in and Vela is just constantly trying to set the foundation for the argument, telling Matt what he can and can’t do, what he will and won’t say. Present your argument!

[@dericstevens3614]

The most frustrating thing i have ever listened to. Matt concisely conveys his arguments and ideas, and Tyler understands none of it. I can't tell if he just really doesn't understand or is being purposely obtuse.

[@TheMonk72]

As a presupper he can't actually understand half of what Matt is saying. To him anything that might indicate the nonexistence of God is literally gibberish.

[@kokotvole2565]

Tylers world view is "God created all that exist, something exists, therefore God". And he refuced to even consider a scenario where God didnt create all. Basically all these apologists have is god of the gaps. Its molded into a different shape and painted in a different color but allways the same principle: "if you cant explain X, it must mean my god created it". And on top of all, Tyler either doesnt know his buybull or he is an outright liar which became obvious at the slavery discussion.

[@JerryPenna]

At the end he admits to be a calvinist. They have a known strategy of running out the clock by keeping the nonbeliever on defense. In this case, he attacks skepticism so he has no burden of proof.

[@joethompson132]

@archangel huh? I implore you to look up the definition of scientific theory

[@truckfump620]

Archangel Uriel just another god of the gaps argument.

[@ginaguilarte656]

I think you're great, Matt! I admire you and appreciate your work 😊

[@The1stMrJohn]

I challenge anyone to watch this twice! Matt is a great educater 🌟

[@17ephp]

As the Christian starts talking the around about tap dance begins. He talks, he talks and there's nothing of substance. There's how every dabte should go: A: - Is there a God? B: - yes man, absolutely. A: How do you know it? Demonstrate it for everybody, at any time, this evidence has to be empirical and reproducible. END OF THE DEBATE.

[@SchiwiM]

B: "Just look at the trees! Also (my twisted) logic!"

[@mischarowe]

Yep.

[@truckfump620]

Archangel Uriel too bad nobody has proven it, huh?

[@mischarowe]

@Archangel Uriel If it's so simple, go off and show the proof to the scientific community. Get your nobel prize. If you're just going to make claims on a YT video, then you obviously don't actually *have* any proof.

[@mischarowe]

@Archangel Uriel "Nobel prizes favor atheism" There's no such thing as a nobel prize for atheism. You lunatic. You're making excuses to feel sorry for yourself when we *BOTH* know that if you had proof of god you'd be set with the NP. "You should study some KZbin videos about it or something." KZbin is not a source for verifiable facts. You should read science, peer reviewed papers. And *actually research what it takes to win a nobel prize.* Stop making excuses to cover for the fact that you have no proof.

[@darkendkefka]

I'm patiently looking forward to your review of this conversation. I find Tyler to be an incredibly frustrating individual. I had never heard of him before I watched his conversation with Eric a few weeks ago, and I felt like in that chat he just simply refused to listen. When I watched you talking to him, I think he was listening but failing to understand much of what you said.

[@darkendkefka]

@Never-ending party heh, okay. Well I already see why your not out there debating people

[@The1stMrJohn]

@Never-ending party 👎read up on the facts of evolution and the research into abiogenesis, you sound very silly and brainwashed.

[@donbacker9883]

"A mud puddle cannot create/design a human being." Who said it did? Wow. Disingenuous at best.

[@JMUDoc]

"I don't have enough faith to hold brute facts like that." Yes you do, Tyler...

[@moodyrick8503]

So when does Tyler ever get to his GOOD evidence? Matt talks logic, Tyler talks in circles!

[@DoubleTrouble-li5wi]

Listening to Tyler than listening to Matt is like listening to a whine in your ear then it suddenly clearing into a beautiful jazz song.

[@krg021865]

Exactly

[@Smidge204]

"How could you have caveats to "X and Not X" while you're sitting here talking about the laws of logic?" "Because it makes me look like a fool who uses terms I don't really understand!"

[@clintonjennings1732]

5 minutes in and i can tell this dude doesn't have any evidence

[@The1stMrJohn]

@Never-ending party👎 you have no evidence for your assertions

[@clintonjennings1732]

@Never-ending party prove it

[@jckensway2956]

Imagine you had a serious illness that needed diagnosis. Which of these two dudes would you rather have standing by your bedside?

[@anthonyl9126]

@Never-ending party You've lost your mind if you think our frail physiologies can be explained by something as a brilliant designer. You mean the one that connected our respiratory system and digestive system to operate through the same hole? Someone call mensa, they're clearly missing one of their members here!

[@lisapriola7927]

God is real

[@donlarsenjr2332]

Watched it live. Great Job Matt!

[@AlGhoul]

1:56:40 And he finally shows a conflation between the "bruteness" of a fact and a "brute fact". A brute fact is a face without explanation, and now he's saying that he can simply assert something is a brute fact, which contradicts what a brute fact is. An assertion is not a fact; claiming something is a fact doesn't make it a face, regardless of the capability of explanation of that fact (both current capacity and a general possibility of explanation). Asserting a god, which is not a fact, is a brute fact, is not analogous to the fact that anything can be justified by faith (even the irrational), as faith doesn't require a factual nature, whereas "fact", by definition, does require it to be concordant with reality.

[@katyungodly]

Couldn’t sit through this, the theist’s smugness and refusal to understand anything fills me with rage 😤

[@kevinshort3943]

So the guy who ate a dictionaries argument is: "there is no good evidence for God, therefore I am going to redefine evidence" ?

[@kr00m]

...and force you to define what evidence you need to believe.

[@kr00m]

@Never-ending party I do not require evidence for the nonexistence of Santa Claus. We're only required to dispute the evidence presented for the existence of Santa Claus. Unlike the black swan theory, we have no proven existence of supernatural beings (white swans) that mirrors the potential power of Santa Claus. It’s like demanding for evidence that I am NOT living in a simulation.

[@larjkok1184]

Never-ending party Beg for Allah’s forgiveness. Only he can offer you salvation.

[@kevinshort3943]

@Never-ending party "There's no evidence for atheism" That just shows you don't understand logic and the burden of proof - shock :( Atheism is the "null position", were you born believing in God? No you were not, you were taught it!! As such any position other than Atheism requires proof. "Matt admits atheism has no answers" How would Atheism be able to have answers? It's just one view on one subject, no more no less - the existence of God/s. Atheism is not a religion, world view, cult, political party, branch of science etc, again it's one view on one subject........ How can you be so dishonest as to say something is wrong, when you don't even understand what it is? "The sane would be a part of the cause that DOES HAVE ANSWERS." No, the sane would only belive those that can demonstrate (with real evidence) that they have answers.

[@kevinshort3943]

@Never-ending party "Default position? Wrong. Why would a baby think that the universe was the result of an non intelligent occurrence." Again !!! Atheism is just a lack of belief in God or Gods, how the universe began is irrelevant to this. I will repeat, were you born believing in the Christian God? NO, you were born believing in no God(s) and were taught the Bible. Atheism IS the "nul proposition", you are just showing your complete lack of understanding again. If you don't understand something look it up rather than make it up. "A person grows up and make's the weak stupid decision to be an atheist, based on their total lack of wisdom and character. One grows up and becomes a Christian, because the person saw the tenets of Christianity as factual, the spirit drew him and he was blessed with the wisdom to admit he is a sinner that needs a savior and became a Christian via "The Sinner's Prayer." " So why is there Islam, Judaism, Shintoism, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc, etc ? In Fact there are over 4000 religions being practiced and over 40000 Christian denominations!! " After debating and defeating all atheists for almost 50 years" No you haven't, you are just a pigeon on a chess board :( "I'm the expert here" On what? It's not Atheism, Logic, Evoloution or thermodynamics, as you have shown you understand zero about those in this post. "That said, basically all debating atheists hold to the proven lies of atheism (big bang, abiogenesis, non-intelligent design, mistakes (mutations) improving life, star formation, evolution, gains in complexity violating the 2nd law) as their defense, of which I easily debunk in detail." *I REPEAT:* Atheism is one view on one subject - nothing more nothing less !!! What you are doing here is, constructing what's known as a "Straw man", a dishonest logical fallacy. "Atheism is, in the broadest sense, an absence of belief in the existence of deities." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism "A logical fallacy is an error in reasoning that renders an argument invalid." www.thoughtco.com/what-is-logical-fallacy-1691259 "Strawman You misrepresented someone's argument to make it easier to attack. By exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating someone's argument, it's much easier to present your own position as being reasonable, but this kind of dishonesty serves to undermine honest rational debate." yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman I will stop there, as correcting everything you got wrong would make this post gigantic. We will continue when you understand what Atheism and Logical fallacies are. I have linked some info for you, but I expect you won't even bother :(

[@rexburgemeister1766]

Well this was painful to watch! However there were two losers being Tyler and his God who didn't give him the evidence for his existence.

[@nutflush5]

Great job Matt you are quickly becoming my favorite debater to watch!

[@truckfump620]

mp3 converter I agree

[@nutflush5]

@Never-ending party Sure thing I appreciate the response. So to prove a mud puddle can create or design anything is a challenging proposition for anyone, and to say that is what athiests say is pretty untrue. To have a belief that something isn't true, such as god, is not the same as saying it is true that humans were designed/created by mud puddles. Your question presupposes a strawman argument and doesn't really address what athiests believe. Athiests believe that there isn't sufficient evidence to demonstrate that a god exists. Hope that clears things up for you.

[@nutflush5]

@Never-ending party So if your issue with atheists is that they don't provide enough evidence, then why are you okay with theism which doesn't and never has provided any material evidence for god? If neither provide any evidence, then why waste your time rooting for one side when its guilty of the same charge you bring against the other side? Seems a little hypocritcal to sit there and type up a storm about how atheists don't provide evidence when the best evidence for good is 'because a 2000 year old book said it'

[@nutflush5]

@Never-ending party im sorry but you haven't provided material evidence for any of this, everything you've just said has no scientific or demonstrable evidence to back it, you've cited no sources other than parts of the bible which isn't evidence

[@nutflush5]

@Never-ending party The only thing I'm fretting about is your ability to reason. Citations needed other than the bible unfortunately for you... ya blew it

[@Ben-Rogue]

"I don't have enough FAITH to assert the laws of Identity, Non-Contradiction and Excluded Middle are "brute facts", but I'll happily violate Occam's razor not once, but twice and assert an explanation that has no GOOD EVIDENCE, one that would also allow for the laws to be broken or altered anyway"

[@adrianjanssens7116]

The moderator in this video deserves a cudo for being so neutral and supportive to both sides. Nice guy.

[@doug196]

These apologists and their arguments are simply piss poor. Yes, this is an ad hom... Too bad.

[@thomascarroll9556]

Doug not sure you are committing an ad hominem as you are disparaging their arguments.

[@doug196]

@@thomascarroll9556 well, I'm calling them as people piss poor, too. They're just so smug and disingenuous that I feel comfortable in the ad hom attack.

[@noamaster3898]

I love that apologists are a great ally for exposing these junk arguments.

[@Zeresrail]

An ad hom isn't when you insult your opponent, but when you claim their arguments are invalid because of (insert some insult here). I don't think what you said was an ad hom. I do agree with it though.

[@The1stMrJohn]

@Never-ending party please read some books or watch some science lectures

[@mrhed0nist]

I can't get past the 5 minute mark with this guy. As soon as he states that proof is not needed you might as well be arguing about the existence of Puff the Magic Dragon.

[@edluckenbill8363]

Matt put this dishonest person in his place.

[@andybeans5790]

I watched the opening statements on MDD, will watch the discussion/Q&A here. Not sure why Vela even turned up, since his whole argument is to distract from actually answering the question whilst trying to poison the well before Matt pins him.

[@2ndPigeon]

That tennisball stuff was hilarious

[@darkdragonite1419]

The “you have no empircial evidence for logical positivism being the only good way to have good evidence for something”.. Is a non-sequitur. What we are talking about when we say ‘good evidence’.. we are saying something that 1) manifests in reality, 2) has predictability, and 3) has falsifiability. There might be other criteria, but if you don’t at least have those, then you have mere imagination and guesswork, which isn’t good evidence for anything, and probably works at the same rate as chance, or probably worse than chance. The ‘good’ evidence’ is about adding to the model of knowledge that we do have. If you’re saying your abductive framework is AS good as empirical evidence, you need to DEMONSTRATE IT, not just ASSERT it.

[@Idkwhatnametouseyt]

Why do I torture myself watching atheist-theist debates? 🤦‍♀️🤷‍♀️

[@hingeslevers]

Haha, same.

[@Idkwhatnametouseyt]

Never-ending party atheism answers only one question. The believe question. An atheist simply is not convinced that a deity exist. That’s it. Everything else depends from person to person. Before you start assuming what someone believes, ask them first before writing them off and dismiss them.

[@Idkwhatnametouseyt]

Never-ending party i know what the bible says. A god is something that so far cannot been proven or disprove. I simply haven’t found any evidence that warrants a believe. If you have an evidence for a god I would love to know. Without appealing to the bible.

[@Idkwhatnametouseyt]

Never-ending party dude none of your arguments is evidence for a god. You need to demonstrate first that an infinite being is at least possible exist or even if what the bible is true. The story of Jesus that we have are no even eye witness. It’s just hearsays.

[@Idkwhatnametouseyt]

Never-ending party whoever says that before the big bang was nothing are ignorant. Scientists do not say that. It was the beginning of the universe as we know it. Just by what you said let’s me know you don’t understand the big bang theory.

[@ampecsu]

55:37 matt's face after his response lol

[@1yellowbutterfly679]

Haha I was just about to comment about it when I saw your comment. Priceless face!!

[@SamuelAko]

I already know how this is gonna go, but I'm watching anyway 😏

[@SamuelAko]

​@Never-ending party All of religion is just a bunch of people making grand vacuous statements that don't mean anything. I could play that game too. The Great Prophet Zarquon created the multiverse and all the Gods (why? you thought something as complex and well designed as a God came from nothing?) The second coming of Zarquon will happen just before the universe ends, and he will judge all Gods and mortals alike. And I must say, it doesn't look too good for you and your God, repent and have faith that Zarquon will save you. This doesn't make sense if you think about it without faith in Zarquon, so just belief, lest Zarquon smites you. You can put Zarquon to the test, just pray for anything in his name and you will receive, try it tonight and be amazed at his power. If you don't get an answer rejoice anyway, He's either still working on it or He's determined it's bad for ya! Convinced? What bar height of evidence do I have to meet?

[@parametalhead]

Never-ending party assertion. Demonstrate it

[@BlaQBetty2018]

The Christian guy is the talking-head embodiment of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

[@1987darktemplar]

Can't wait for Matt's comments on this debate

[@Unsensitive]

Rather than make a sound argument, Tyler spends most of his intro trying to tacitly debunk other invalid or unsound arguments.

[@youweechube]

yeah he basically gets to his best case scenario which is to get to an argument from ignorance.

[@tothetuneofwaffles]

Oh, look! It’s an ocean of straw men! 😂

[@youweechube]

@@tothetuneofwaffles which part is the strawman?

[@tothetuneofwaffles]

youweechube Not here. Vela. Setting up straw men to knock down. Sorry for the confusion.

[@youweechube]

@@tothetuneofwaffles ahh ok ! Makes sense !

[@Hatemtommy131313]

UPDATE: I'M STILL WATCHING THIS AND CRINGING AT TYLER'S JUSTIFICATION WITHOUT PROOF WHATSOEVER. THIS GUY IS REALLY ARROGANT! 😜Tyler tries hard to sound eloquent, but if you pay close attention, he's reading from a document on his computer lol His logic is flawed and predicated on false premises use strawman and asking the wrong questions to illicit the desired response as an outcome. This is common amongst people with a weak stance and non-supporting evidence. Excellent job as always, Matt! May the Gods bless your heart!

[@toddcrosby2783]

It’s almost cute that Tyler thinks he is making sense in his opening. 30 seconds in my 2nd grade student laughed and said “he’s starting out saying I believe something so we should accept it as fact, that’s not how it works!” Out of the mouths of babes.

[@michelleholtman1096]

Love this, Todd!!

[@tannermclaughlin2653]

One of my favorite things that happens not just in this debate buying all these debates is when an atheist quotes word for for word and the Christian goes " that's not what the Bible says"

[@chilltheheckoutwithava1454]

Why is he addressing Matt’s position when Matt hasn’t even stated his position yet?