Debate Teacher Reacts: Mike Licona vs Matt Dillahunty

On the latest Debate Teacher Reacts, I look at Mike Licona vs. Matt Dillahunty on the topic of whether Jesus was raised from the dead. Did Dillahunty outperform Licona, or was it the other way around? Find out in this video! :)
Link to the full debate: • DEBATE: Matt Dillahunt...
Get your Wise Disciple merch here: wisedisciple.s...
Want a BETTER way to communicate your Christian faith? Check out my website: www.wisedisciple.org
OR Book me as a speaker at your next event: wisedisciple.o...
Want some pro-tips on effectively sharing your faith? Check it out: • First Date Evangelism
Got a question in the area of theology, apologetics, or engaging the culture for Christ? Send them to me and I will answer on an upcoming podcast: wisedisciple.o...

[@vincentparrella272]

Ladies and gentlemen............... .We have experienced once again.............The Dillahunty Dodge.

[@pleaseenteraname1103]

Dillahunty is living proof that Rhetoric and sounding convincing is all that matters, he can go into these debates not being informed or knowledgeable on the topic whatsoever or the history about it, but he can persuade a lot of people and he can end up coming on top, because he sounds very confident unlike his opponents in many of his debates, and he can get away with saying ridiculous nonsense and things that are just totally false.

[@highroller-jq3ix]

We have experienced once again . . . (only three dots in an ellipsis, doofus) the magic and miracles fantasy ride.

[@jeremiah5319]

A fool is never satisfied by evidence he doesn't want to acknowledge.

[@highroller-jq3ix]

A goofy, gullible fundie is never convinced that he lacks the evidence to justify his magical god fantasy.

[@Nameless-pt6oj]

I’ve seen a lot of people criticize Mike Licona in this debate. I haven’t watched it fully. I’ll be honest, I’m in a phase of doubt and the last thing I need is watching a PhD NT scholar losing to an atheist activist like Matt Dillahunty. I don’t want to lose my faith. Christianity is a beautiful faith and I don’t want to go to Hell and I want to be with Jesus.

[@mentalwarfare2038]

Don’t be fearful. There are always sources available to you. When I had doubts (as does everyone), I picked up a book by Francis Collins and have ever since dedicated my life to the study of Religion and Philosophy. I don’t know how old you are, but perhaps you should seek this form of study as well. Even if you don’t want to study Religion/Philosophy, I recommend turning away from KZbin if you were to form a grounded opinion. KZbin is often unreliable and tends to be toxic. Reading is much more fulfilling.

[@Nameless-pt6oj]

I agree. Keep praying for me.

[@mentalwarfare2038]

@@Nameless-pt6oj just a question, how old are you? I know it seems like an odd question, but trust me, it matters in situations like this. I’ve been in the same boat as you. (Seriously tho. If you stop watching KZbin to get answers on stuff like this, you will keep your sanity).

[@Nameless-pt6oj]

Just turned 19. I don’t really act my age

[@mentalwarfare2038]

@@Nameless-pt6oj that puts things in perspective. If these atheistic objections are fairly new to you, you will initially treat them like an end to the world. Keep in mind that the Patron Saints and Christian thinkers alike have dealt with these questions for literally thousands of years (starting with Justin Martyr in 100 CE). You were never alone. The number one thing I wish I knew years ago was that most of the objections against Christianity are not new. Any particular problems you might have? I can give sources if you want em

[@moose9906]

How or why ANYONE gives Dullahunty the time of day is beyond me. The guy has never said anything thought provoking in his life and when his nonsense is called out, he just "turtles" with something like "I am not convinced". It is not his place to be convinced or not, he is not the audience, if he wants to say that, sit in the audience and don't debate. If he wants to debate, then present counter arguments.

[@highroller-jq3ix]

The standard debate format is not about "counter-arguments." There is an affirmative position and its contrary. The reason many people find Dillahunty refreshing is that he so effectively challenges apologetics and reveals their emptiness, just as he did here.

[@matthewaustin9790]

@@highroller-jq3ix "Dear God, I know I am a sinner. I want to turn from my sins, and I ask for Your forgiveness. I believe that Jesus Christ is Your Son. I believe He died for my sins and that You raised Him to life. I want Him to come into my heart and to take control of my life. I want to trust Jesus as my Savior and follow Him as my Lord from this day forward. In Jesus' Name, amen." Did you pray this prayer?

[@highroller-jq3ix]

@@matthewaustin9790 "Dear Reality, I know I am a vacuous, gullible, god-addled simpleton. I want to turn from my irrational stupidity, and I ask you to supersede my indoctrination and magical thinking. I don't believe in zombies because that would make me irrational. I don't believe that fantasy zombie beings can enter a muscular organ that pumps blood because that would be stupid. I want to trust reason, the scientific method, logic, and critical thinking. Hail, Science." Did you chant this mantra/manifesto and abide by it?

[@highroller-jq3ix]

@@matthewaustin9790 "Dear Reality, I know I am a vacuous, gullible, god-addled simpleton. I want to turn from my irrational stupidity, and I ask you to supersede my indoctrination and magical thinking. I don't believe in zombies because that would make me irrational. I don't believe that fantasy zombie beings can enter a muscular organ that pumps blood because that would be stupid. I want to trust reason, the scientific method, logic, and critical thinking. Hail, Science." Did you chant this mantra/manifesto and abide by it?

[@highroller-jq3ix]

@@matthewaustin9790 "Dear Reality, I know I am a vacuous, gullible, god-addled simpleton. I want to turn from my irrational stupidity, and I ask you to supersede my indoctrination and magical thinking. I don't believe in zombies because that would make me irrational. I don't believe that fantasy zombie beings can enter a muscular organ that pumps blood because that would be stupid. I want to trust reason, the scientific method, logic, and critical thinking. Hail, Science." Did you chant this mantra/manifesto and abide by it?

[@halleylujah247]

Were you honestly surprised by Mr. Dilahunty in the beginning? This is classic Dilahunty this is his argument. He claims you cannot prove X. When provided with scholarly claims to prove X. I don't agree with your sources or how they gather data and they cannot prove their claims based off of my shifting scale. He does it in many debates. Yay Livestream!

[@WiseDisciple]

I guess I should be! Lol. When I was teaching debate, I lived and breathed it for so long that I wasn't keeping up with apologetics debates. So I'm coming to these debates totally fresh! On the other hand, I DID SAY, nobody should debate Dillahunty and I stand by my comment (because this is why) :)

[@ztrinx1]

"Scholarly claims to prove X" Are you being serious? That is not evidence. You people are so delutional, it's almost impossible to fathom. It's just so ridiculous.

[@ztrinx1]

@@WiseDisciple Yeah, I agree, theists shouldn't debate him, if they don't even understand something this basic. He completely exposes your nonsense with so little effort, and the way you try to frame religious debates to get out of the burden of proof is just pathetic.

[@zephyr-117sdropzone8]

@@ztrinx1 He loses every debate he's in. He got ANNIHILATED by Braxton Hunter and Inspiring Philosophy but continually deflects and dodges the arguments. He's a shit debater and scared to lose his channel's viewers.

[@pleaseenteraname1103]

@@ztrinx1 no it’s because he completely takes advantage of the format of a debate to inflate his ego and to get publicity, and basically just framed the entire thing into a discussion, and just says I’m not convinced the entire time, he just starts throwing out claims with no justification. And then he’s pathetic sock puppet manchild demographics like you to leave trollish comments and destroys the algorithm and floods the live chat and the comments. I mean Buddy he literally said in his opening statement that he didn’t come to debate the topic. Come on!

[@tommykiger1871]

New Christians online seem to have forgotten 1Peter 3:14-16 '14) But even if you should suffer for what is right, you are blessed. “Do not fear their threats; do not be frightened.” 15) But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, 16) keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.

[@j-joe-jeans]

New and old alike.

[@introvertedchristian5219]

I don't know how it is done in professional sport debating, but I used to be part of an on line debate page, and it was customary there to stipulate who had what burden of proof from the beginning so the voters knew how to judge the debate. A debate on the resurrection could be carried out in one of two ways. The affirmative always has the burden of demonstrating that the resurrection happened, but whether the negative has a burden of proof depends on what is stipulated. It could be stipulated that only the Pro has the burden of proof, in which case all Con has to do is undermine Pro's arguments. Con doesn't have to show that the opposite claim is true. But they could agree that Con shares the burden of proof in which case Con would have to demonstrate that the negation of Pro's view is true. So it would be a difference in whether Con had merely to show that Pro's arguments fail to demonstrate that the resurrection happened, or whether Con had to also demonstrate that the resurrection did not happen. I was always annoyed with people who didn't stipulate the burden of proof at the beginning of the debate because it always lead to feuds over whether the voters were judging the debate properly. So I'm curious if, in the kind of debating you're used to, like high school competitive debating, or whatever it was, whether in a debate like this one Matt Dilllahunty would've had the burden of showing that the resurrection didn't happen or if he only had the burden of undermining Mike Licona's arguments. In all of Matt's debates that I've seen, he never carries any burden of proof. He goes out of his way to avoid it. His posture is basically to say, "Nuh uh," after everything somebody says. He's barely even a participant in the debates. He just takes a posture of, "I'm not convinced," or, "That evidence is not good enough." He rarely even bothers to show a flaw in the other person's argument. He just says it's not good enough. I just find it lazy and uninteresting. I don't see any point in anybody watching a Dillahunty debate. I mean if that were an appropriate way to be the Con in a debate, it should be trivially easy to win any debate. Just say, "Nuh uh," to all of your opponent's premises, forcing them to have to give additional arguments for their premises. Then say, "Nuh uh," to the new premises, and keep doing this until you run out the clock. I had a debate with somebody who tried that one time, and I called him on it in the debate. It seems to me that if you're going to dispute a premise in somebody's argument, you've got to give some reason for why you don't think the premise is true. Just saying, "Nuh uh," or, "You haven't proved that premise," is lazy and doesn't contribute anything to the conversation. I don't know, though. I'm not a professional debater. I'm just a hobbiest.

[@WiseDisciple]

So this is a really good question but it kinda smooshes together a couple of distinct concepts. You're right to point out that these kinds of debates don't parallel 100% to high school/college debate. But they do in a couple of key areas, and those are the ones that I focus on in these kinds of videos. Generally speaking, any debate opponent must refute their interlocuter. As you said, it requires more than asking over and over again, "Yeah, but how do you REALLY KNOW??" BUT when refuting an argument, the opponent still needs to show why his argument is better than the other guy's. Even if all he wants to do is argue, "Your argument is flawed," or, "Your evidence does not justify your contention," these are all claims that, in and of themselves, require good evidence to back it up. But that's what I'm talking about here: Both opponents need to bear the burden to support their own argumentation (even if the debate opponent stands in negation). That's what makes debates (when opponents do this well) SO beneficial for the audience! Both sides are slugging it out, so to speak, by giving it all they got! But this is what is missing in a lot of these debates, and that's what's so frustrating.

[@introvertedchristian5219]

​@@WiseDisciple Let me make sure I'm understanding you right. In a debate like this, Matt doesn't necessarily have the burden of proving that the resurrection didn't happen. But he DOES have the burden of explaining what's wrong with Mike's arguments. In demonstrating the flaw in Mike's case, it isn't enough for Matt to say, "I'm not convinced." He has to grapple with the arguments by making arguments of his own to show what's wrong with them. Is that right?

[@WiseDisciple]

Yes to what you said BUT… Lol. To me, it’s slightly more complicated because it really comes down to the way the topic is worded. Look at the last debate between Flowers and White. The topic was: Which Soteriological View Is Taught in Romans 9? I would argue that because it’s worded as a question in this way then both opponents should shoulder their own burden because they should provide their own alternatives to the topic. And they did! With this debate, the topic is worded in a similar fashion: Was Jesus Raised from the Dead? I would prefer that both opponents provide their own alternative (and thus both shoulder burdens) because of the way the topic is worded. However I understand that people disagree with me here and say only Licona should shoulder the burden of proving it did happen. I think it makes more sense for Licona alone to shoulder the burden if the topic was more like: Jesus Christ Was Raised from the Dead. That’s more in line with the types of resolutions we see in a PF or LD debate. But like I said it looks like a lot of people contest that requirement - and that’s just sunk in for me the more I’ve made these videos. So I don’t really push for competing alternatives as much anymore. Hope that helps!

[@SimpleCivil]

Mike is making the claim. He has the burden of proof Matt just has to sit there and say nope I reject that claim. It’s like if I claimed I saw a leprechaun in my backyard. It’s on the burden of proof on me to prove that claim. Nobody has to prove that I didn’t see the leprechaun. They can just reject my claim

[@j-joe-jeans]

@@WiseDisciple "Generally speaking, any debate opponent must refute their interlocuter" - Not if the claimant is unable to demonstrate their claim reconciles to reality. Even if the proposition is unchallenged they DO NOT "win" by default. They hold the burden of proof. - Perhaps under the "High school rules", not in adult circles. "it requires more than asking over and over again, "Yeah, but how do you REALLY KNOW??"" - No it does not. Knowledge is universally accessible (all things being equal) and if one cannot demonstrate they "know" something, they cannot claim to hold that knowledge of the claims efficacy. At that point it is a vapid assertion as they do not know it ergo the claim stands flat. "That's what makes debates (when opponents do this well) SO beneficial for the audience! Both sides are slugging it out, so to speak, by giving it all they got! But this is what is missing in a lot of these debates, and that's what's so frustrating." - That is spectacle and your opinion of it. That is in no manner a mechanism to derive actual truth. Stage show apologetics and high school debates are not actually solving for anything but to bolster the "team colours".

[@joshyouwuhh]

It looks like Dilahunty is totally dependent on the allocation of burden of proof. He does good work standing behind pure scepticism and noting that his opponent doesn't have an airtight empirical case, but he has no choice but to keep refusing to make his own positive case. Which might be reasonable because there is a difference between a supernatural claim and a natural claim, but I don't think he developed anything...at all. He JUST crouched behind skeptical copes.

[@paulrichards6894]

burden of proof is quite important.........mike has the imaginary friend

[@larryjake7783]

​@@paulrichards6894I'm not convinced I'm pretty skeptical that you're telling the truth

[@paulrichards6894]

@@larryjake7783 me too

[@Sean-fo8kg]

A proposition is either (A) demonstrably true, (B) demonstrably false, or (C) lacks sufficient evidence to warrant belief that it is true. The person making the claim has the burden of proof. If you demand people only argue for A or B, then any schmuck can make any ridiculous unfalsifiable claim unopposed and with no debate. This whole video is just crying about having the burden of proof for something you can’t substantiate.

[@j-joe-jeans]

I repeated your senitment above without reading this first. Nicely done.

[@ManForToday]

Shoddy epistemology. Evidence is not the direct counter to demonstrable statements, since we can have sufficient evidence for things which are not demonstrable but yet are still true i.e. that Shakespeare really wrote his works despite theories to the contrary or that I loved my first girlfriend. No one denies that Christians have a burden of proof, but when argument and evidence is given, the denier can't just say 'I'm not convinced' and need not say anything, he has to give a sufficient truth-defeater. This whole idea that only positive statements are the ones with a burden of proof is pop philosophy nonsense. Any affirmation of a belief is a claim to knowledge, whether positive or negative. If a positive case is put forward, it's not enough for you to just deny it.

[@j-joe-jeans]

@@ManForToday FALSE. "Evidence is not the direct counter to demonstrable statements" - Objective evidence IS the counter to demonstrable statements as statements are not demonstrable per sê. Statements are statements. Objective reality always trumps concepts (statements). "No one denies that Christians have a burden of proof..." - This undermines your assertion as being contrary. "but when argument and evidence is given, the denier can't just say 'I'm not convinced' and need not say anything, he has to give a sufficient truth-defeater." - This would be to accept all "evidence" and "argumentation" for all claims as worthy of warranting an addressing. In an argumentum absurdum example this is to expect you to address my claim that I am superman based on the evidence of my "S" t-shirt and argument that I am superman because I say so. Even with the evidence being insufficient and the argument lame, you would now have to shoulder a burden of proof... Great logic. The rational position is to simply reject (not believe) the claim and owe no rebuttal. In reality, an assertion can be rejected off hand as simply unconvincing or insufficient. This is not a position needing defending. This is the basis of our court system. An claim (accusation) can be made but without the bare minimums of evidence can be "dismiss for insufficient evidence". The latter being the reason alone, no burden carried. The null hypothesis is the very concept of considered unproven until proven. Try again.

[@Sean-fo8kg]

Oh really? Okay: MY CLAIM: There is an alternate dimension to reality that contains fire breathing dragons. Are you justified in dismissing my claim, or must you first prove my claim is false?

[@j-joe-jeans]

@@Sean-fo8kg I am justified for laughing at it and the rejection of it yes. Sean Plunkett needs to now prove it wrong or address it according to his "logic". (this is assuming you are being sarcastic)

[@KingFillip]

The beginning scene, your forehead resting on the mic, that image spoke a thousand words 😂👍🍻

[@highroller-jq3ix]

Yes, but not any intelligent, thoughtful, cogent words.

[@Samuel-qc7kg]

​@@highroller-jq3ixThey are called emotions

[@highroller-jq3ix]

@@Samuel-qc7kg Words are called emotions? Only by morons. Are you a moron?

[@highroller-jq3ix]

@@Samuel-qc7kg Words are called emotions? Only by morons. Are you a moron?

[@highroller-jq3ix]

@@Samuel-qc7kg Words are called emotions? Only by morons. Are you a moron?

[@LoveYourNeighbour.]

I've been SO looking forward to you doing a "debate teacher reacts" video on this one! I was so disappointed by Matt's tactics, when I had originally watched this :-(

[@WiseDisciple]

Thanks so much for the support!

[@j-joe-jeans]

How was Matt worse when compared to Mike or at all? (In your own words please)

[@49perfectss]

@@WiseDisciple shame your review was biased and useless as far as intellectual honesty goes. At least you admitted you were being biased but that does not mean that it gets excused. Just that you are doing it on purpose which means your integrity is not to be trusted in this field of debate. It's not surprising when a theist can't be honest about their deeply held belief (as a former Christian believe me when I say I have been the person unable to set my bias aside more than once) but when you are trying to pass it of as good epistemology you lose all credibility with me and anyone watching that knows the first thing about logic or debate. You instead just become another person lying for the Jesus you can't prove actually exists. How unimpressive.

[@49perfectss]

@@j-joe-jeans I guess they don't care to back their claim. Which makes sense if they think Mike won that debate lol

[@j-joe-jeans]

@@49perfectss Absolutely agree.

[@tylerf5914]

You should debate dillahunty. It would be extremely telling and funny. Either Dillahunty is going to flip or just look foolish many times over.

[@dahveed72]

Um, there are other possible outcomes sport.

[@j-joe-jeans]

@Sir Isaac Newton To whom are your referring to?

[@redpillfreedom6692]

Please. Dillahunty would mop the floor with this guy

[@pleaseenteraname1103]

@@redpillfreedom6692 Maybe with his rhetoric, but we would have to see.

[@patrickmcardle952]

@@redpillfreedom6692 He’d pull all of his usual tricks and he’d most likely get called out for his rhetorical tricks

[@beausutton6639]

Would love to see you review Sye Ten Bruggencate and Dillahunty.

[@pleaseenteraname1103]

He said he’s not doing any more Dillahunty debates sadly.

[@highroller-jq3ix]

Yes, this fraud would surely try to redeem Bruggencate's moronic stance and empty position.

[@davex444]

Wow. How dare Matt bring honesty to a debate! Not being able to prove people don't come back from the dead is his problem, how?

[@49perfectss]

I know right?!? This breakdown seems.... uneducated. Which is weird coming form an educator. I took this to my own old debate teacher and she said it was totally fine and Matt took the honest position every time.

[@j-joe-jeans]

Agreed.

[@SmashedTater]

@@j-joe-jeans maybe it's like this bible college degrees that front as real philosophy degrees

[@j-joe-jeans]

@@SmashedTater You are talking about the likes of Kent Hovind. I agree.

[@49perfectss]

@Only Observing The sides were put out as yes and unknown (which is actually a normal side to take in debate). Matt argued exactly that. You should check your information.

[@philippaul6039]

When you skip into the video and the first thing you hear is "I'm beheaded and you've already seen my beheaded corpse" Wtf? Did I click the right video? lol

[@WiseDisciple]

LOL

[@davidlopez-flores1147]

Tim Mcgrew is really good at responding to the question at 10:58

[@vejeke]

Paulogia too. He has a very instructive playlist on his channel.

[@robinrobyn1714]

The Dillahunty Dodge

[@pleaseenteraname1103]

Indeed.

[@akremer94]

Definitely looking forward to more James White debates!

[@WiseDisciple]

A lot of people were suggesting James White vs. Joe Ventilacion and then also White vs. Trent Horn. What do you think?

[@introvertedchristian5219]

@@WiseDisciple I think whoever suggested the James White v. Trent Horn debate is a genius.

[@shilohmeni]

@@WiseDisciple James white vs Trent horn

[@nevilshaji8705]

James White vs Silverman 😁

[@akremer94]

@@WiseDisciple Both would be great! The Joe Ventilacion one would be wildly entertaining

[@pleaseenteraname1103]

It’s amazing to me that Dillahunty is literally like you know if you guys actually came here to watch me debate the topic, well I’m sorry because you’re gonna be disappointed because that’s not what I’m gonna do 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣. Could you imagine if this was a debate between a Christian and an evolutionarily biologist, and the evolutionary biologist came prepared with his robust case for evolution and provided the data and reasons as to why he accepts evolution and why you should, and who has written extensively about the topic, and the Christian in his opening statement just said you know guys if you came here to see my negative case against evolution you’re not gonna get that, instead here’s my reasons why I’m a Christian, it’s amazing to me how delusional Dillahunty is audiences.

[@carnivalwholesale9809]

Well coming from a guy that supports biblical slavery your comment is Moot

[@pleaseenteraname1103]

@@carnivalwholesale9809 I don’t support biblical slavery I have no idea where you’re getting that from, I said that I would be OK with some type of involuntary servanttude, nothing even close to modern slavery.And this is literally a non sequitur you support a biblical slavery therefore your point about Dillahunty’s epistemology is invalid?

[@ryansteel4986]

Do you really expect Matt to prove a supernatural phenomena didn't happen? That would be pretty pointless. I mean, do you want him to prove nobody was ever abducted by aliens as well?

[@miconis123]

According to Greek mythology, Athena didn't have a mom and came out of Zeus' head as a fully grown adult. In an alternate origin story, Zeus swallowed Athena's mom while she was pregnant, and then Athena came out of his head as a fully grown adult. Both certainly sound supernatural and I can't prove either didn't happen. I also can't disprove that they existed and had those abilities. You're exactly right that it's like disproving alien abduction. It's typical for a Christian or a Christian group to try and shift the burden of proof.

[@adenjones1802]

No, he just has to tackle the evidence presented and demonstrate that the current evidence doesn't meet the threshold. The problem is that Matt doesn't know what his own threshold is. So how are we supposed to know if the Christian has met the burden of proof if matt doesn't know what the burden of proof is.

[@gianpopo2007]

Yes, that was the point of having a debate...

[@DPM917]

What no apologist ever admits (or realizes) is that the quality of the “evidence” proposed as supporting the existence of a particular miracle or supernatural proposition, is exactly the same quality of evidence that an apologist for a completely different and contradictory religion uses to support their miracles and super natural claims. And neither apologist believes the evidence for the other apologist’s proposition is at all convincing. Hmmm.

[@49perfectss]

Your comments about Matt not taking the contrary is curious. Would you debate me about the number of beans in a jar when I take the odd numbers so you must take the even? Or would you say you don't know if there were an even or odd number and point out that I don't know it's odd? The topic was about if there was evidence for the resurrection. The options would be yes, no, or unknown. Matt took the unknown and asked for reasons to get to the yes answer. Is debate usually so dichotomous?

[@j-joe-jeans]

Well said.

[@49perfectss]

@@j-joe-jeans thank you I rather liked your more detailed post haha

[@j-joe-jeans]

@@49perfectss Cheers mate.

[@lawrence1318]

The evidence for the resurrection is spiritual. Only the Holy Spirit can convince you of the resurrection.

[@49perfectss]

@@lawrence1318 so not justifiable in any meaningful way. Thanks that's one of the reasons I'm an atheist so your support by admitting you have nothing but feelings reenforces my atheism.

[@jotne7649]

17:25 That is precicely why religious people fall into gullability. Are you saying that you can rule out _every_ naturalistic explanation. And then reasonably conclude a supernatural one? To me that just sounds like a lack of imagination. "it wasnt the wind", "it wasnt someone pushing it" "it wasnt an earthquake". BOOM, must be the supernatural... That is surely fallacious.

[@Draezeth]

The supernatural is a part of this narrative though, so attributing it to the supernatural isn't baseless. The question is "did the Bible tell the truth or not", and for it to have told the truth, the supernatural is *necessary*

[@SimpleCivil]

@@Draezeth well then I guess it didn’t tell the truth

[@jotne7649]

​@@Draezeth People who believe the bible tells the truth must necessarily assume the supernatural - I agree. Not every christian will agree with you, thou, but thats another debate. ...But do you concede that that is fallacious reasoning? You cannot begin assuming the supernatural simply because it needs to be true for the bible to be true.

[@Draezeth]

@@jotne7649 I agree, but that isn't the point I was making. What I'm saying is that Jesus Himself made claims of supernatural power. This means that preferring the supernatural over another untested assertion is not unfounded. Maybe it was aliens, maybe it was a medical anomaly, maybe it was some energy source we haven't discovered yet, and maybe it was God. God is the explanation invoked by the narrative, so we have a basis for favoring that explanation over others.

[@jotne7649]

​@@Draezeth Then it is not unfounded to assert ANY explanation for ANY phenomenon as long as I claim that the thing I believe in, also made such claims. Untested assertions are just that; untested. Thats why you test it _before_ you jump to the supernatural. Funny enough, all those things you mentioned are things we already could make an argument for, because they are rooted on something we already accept - EXEPT the God-explanation. God _can_ be used as a basis for anything, but explains absolutely _nothing_.

[@enoch3874]

Someone debating Matt Dillahunty in the future has to bring up the term "methodological naturalism" because methodology is going to come up again since he doesn't answer questions and brings up whatever topics he wants. Someone should speak to him about the nature of presupposition and ask him to justify a purely naturalistic secular worldview with respect to the fact, that a thing exists called "the principle of induction"... which means by definition science cannot be purely objective... which means that any scientific model has to stand on the shoulders of assumption.

[@pleaseenteraname1103]

That’s the Dillahunty Dodge for you.

[@nickmorris2250]

~9:50 - I agree that his methodology is slippery but this isn't a great example of it because there's many potential non supernatural explanations for this such as aliens with advanced technology, it was a dream, we're living in the matrix etc. Maybe it was covered elsewhere but the problem here is that 'supernatural' is not defined. You can't answer the question without having a clear definition of supernatural. Also, why would Matt accept a supernatural cause when a much less ambitious explanation will do... such as one of those I mentioned above or even just a 'sufficiently powerful' cause.

[@j-joe-jeans]

"Was Jesus raised from the dead?" Condemning Matt for his honest position of agnosticism and saying he has lost at that point is irrational/dishonest. While the topic is set up at a knee jerk to be a dichotomy the actual proposition is not as we can have "Yes", "No" and "I do not know". The latter being more of the "No" camp as a rejection of the proposition aka the null hypothesis. Expecting Matt or anyone to argue against an unfalsifiable claim is also fallacious. I see you raised and rejected the N.H a bit later on. How do you determine something to be real (the supernatural) with no precedent/prior metric to know what you are considering? Matt is not making a claim to knowledge and shoulders no responsibility to prove anything, hence the agnosticism. What is a demonstration of the supernatural and how is it to be differentiated from natural known and natural unknowns? Heads being cut off then being put back on is not out the realm of future technology, time travel, magic or other mechanisms not attributable to your god. No differentiation ruler is made as we have only the natural "the above zero thermometer". Pull out the below zero thermometer to prove the liquid is below zero. Until we have a below zero reference we are only justified in above zero temperature knowledge. "It cannot even address the supernatural in the first place" ... WHAT supernatural? Demonstrate the supernatural can be addresses by anything. This requires a less than circular approach. "if our current understanding of nature says is it is impossible .... we would be right to infer it is supernatural action." . Glad you agree that is flawed. Love is a mental concept not a person, place or thing and is ergo a false equivalence (fallacy) to a god incarnate dying and resurrecting. Apples to oranges. Any action based on a concept does not in and of itself prove the concept is objectively true or not but rather the action was carried out or not. You are advocating for sawing a woman in half to be proof of magic because the magician said it was magic and carried through with the action that demonstrates it is. I cannot go on as your bias (you called it) is overly ripe. I give you credit for admitting you would be called on it. Why can you not simply be intellectually honest and let the cards fall as they do?

[@49perfectss]

And now he will ignore your post as he has ignored every post that is not sucking up to his transparent bias lol. This guy is a bad joke poorly delivered.

[@j-joe-jeans]

@@49perfectss Seem to be the case. I wonder if he would debate me live? I 'd love that.

[@49perfectss]

@@j-joe-jeans I would watch that yeah. Be interesting if you could demonstrate how many fallacies he uses for this VS how many he would use for a different issue

[@j-joe-jeans]

@@49perfectss I imagine he is ok at debating on script but not live. I prefer a very broad debate topic, like "God/real or not".

[@miconis123]

Because he's running (at least in part) a Christian organization so he has to defend the faith even in a debate.

[@gianpopo2007]

I think the appeal to the supernatural comes not with the head being reattached to the person, but with the person being alive in the same manner as he was before his head was cut off and his subsequent death. A head being reattached can be explained through natural causes, the person being alive in the same manner as he was before he died cannot.

[@ChrisTheKing172]

You can't defeat Matt in a debate, you just can't

[@Draezeth]

He's too stubborn, and his audience thinks he's infallible. So yeah.

[@Haxmaxxen]

Matt is flawed like the rest of us. We all have blind spots. On religion, especially Christianity he is a hard nut to crack. On other topics like politics ex. "transgenderism", i find his reasoning more flawed.

[@Draezeth]

@@Haxmaxxen His reasoning is the same throughout. You just happen to agree with him when it comes to Christianity is all.

[@j-joe-jeans]

@@Draezeth Agreed

[@ceceroxy2227]

@@Haxmaxxen his reasoning on God is awful

[@trialbyicecream]

How do you only have 2k ish subscribers? I know this isn’t the main focus of your ministry but these videos are so helpful!

[@WiseDisciple]

Thank you, Blaise! Appreciate it :)

[@49perfectss]

Clear bias in his reviews I'm going to say

[@trialbyicecream]

Oh I didn’t realize that. What makes you say that? Any particular timestamp that highlights this?

[@andrewworsop2775]

Sadly Nate made a few bad decisions which undermined his gaining viewers. He should stick to Atheist v Christian debates but he choose to "React" to a inhouse debate between Christians which was already a very contentious debate with both side disagreeing on what the purpose of the date was. Nate weighed right into the middle and to many appeared to miss represent one side. Although I do feel this was foolish and in my opinion did misrepresent one side, I still think it is sad as he does have a good format and says some smart things. I have also heard people say that he is all talk, you see him judging other but never debating himself. With this one I have not yet given up on one day seeing him debate as if his judging is to go by it will be an outstanding debate.

[@trialbyicecream]

Where does he misrepresent? He is going off of what the debate is called. Additionally, he enters his own thoughts about what he would say if this was his own debate. I agree that it’d be cool to see a Nate Debate, but this at least gives us a flavor of what he does.

[@northernguard3640]

The scary thing here is that you are a teacher. I am not religious or American but I would say "God please bless America ".

[@JustifiedNonetheless]

Regarding the supernatural, one of Matt's go-to methods is to commit a definist's fallacy regarding the term, which he then uses to preclude its investigation, and then layer an escape to the future fallacy and an unfalsifiable claim on top of that in which, "science may/will figure it out 'some day'." He's not the only one to use this methodology. It's standard fare.

[@jcol317]

The problem here is defining the term supernatural. We attribute supernatural to a magic like action. It's not unreasonable to think that the power of God could be better understood and defined instead of just described. For instance we cant really define gravity in its essence we can only describe and label it. Its no more magic than Gods grace or its just as magic

[@petery6432]

Mike Licona just doesn't seem to know how to debate. He really just couldn't get his case off of the ground, even though he had the history to back it up.

[@redpillfreedom6692]

The Bible is not history. It's mythology.

[@pleaseenteraname1103]

I disagree I think he made some compelling points.

[@CelticSpiritsCoven]

@@redpillfreedom6692 Is this a true statement?...... "Mockers delight in mockery, and fools hate knowledge".

[@mathewlanier8352]

I have never liked Matt. Watched a lot of his debates and he is just smug and unsophisticated. This channel is really helping me understand the deeper reasons why I dislike him. I knew he wasn’t answering the question but could hash out how. Thank you for you channel :) New Sub!

[@mattcupp8506]

This is an extremely dishonest review. There are at least three sides to every claim, yes, no, and I do not know. Matt chose to defend I do not know, and therefore did not concede the debate. You are just mad that he did not argue the no position (which is an impossible position to defend). How can you call yourself a debate teacher and not even understand that there are more than two positions to take.

[@garyboulton2302]

My friend that makes absolutely no sense. In a debate there are supposed to be two opposing sides that battle it out to see which one is right. For example, If there is a debate titled: Does God exist? One side must take yes and the other must take no. Otherwise there is no debate. To say it is valid for one side to say i don't know makes no sense in a debate. We are trying to find an answer to a question, we are not concerned about your agnosticism. We are not trying to find out whether you know or do not know.

[@mattcupp8506]

@@garyboulton2302 Saying that Jesus did not resurrect is a position that cannot possibly be defended. Proving a negative is possible, but only under very specific circumstances, which this does not even come close to. The best counter evidence that could possibly be applied is that we know that billions of people have died, but we do not have a single instance of someone coming back from this kind of gruesome death (Lazarus Syndrome is typically seen in OD patient or heart failure, not traumatic injury). Other than that, what can you possibly say? I would be quite curious how anyone would be expected to be able to defend this point. Defending I don't know allows you to address the quality of the evidence for, a position which is actually reasonable.

[@garyboulton2302]

@@mattcupp8506 I don't know is not a position its a lack of a position. Debate is an argument between two positions. The audience are the judges, the ones who judge the quality of the arguments/evidences of both sides, not one of the debaters. Of course you can give evidence that Jesus didn't resurrect. For example, you can present documents from the first century strongly believed to be from an apostle saying that they all made it up. Or a document from the first century saying that the apostles are liars and that Jesus' body is still in the tomb with the location of the tomb and then we could go to the tomb and see if there is a body of a middle aged man who was crucified around the first half of the first century. You can get documents from Paul, outside of his letters saying he was not sure whether Christ rose from the dead. Etc Etc. This would all be good evidences favouring the position that Jesus did not rise from the dead. The audience would then have to decide who's evidences and arguments are stronger out of the two positions.

[@mattcupp8506]

@@garyboulton2302 Right, the argument is between two positions, Jesus did resurrect, and I am not convinced that he resurrected, and here is why you shouldn't be either. I mean finding the body of a crucified man would hardly be evidence that that crucified man was Jesus. The Romans crucified nearly 2000 Jews in the first century CE, so that would hardly be convincing. I do not think that there are many people who would argue that Paul did not believe in the resurrection, but I do not understand what this is trying to prove. Paul never claimed to have see the risen Jesus in the same way that the 12 were, and someone having doubts does nothing to change the facts of the situation. You are expecting someone to disprove the resurrection with evidence that DOES NOT EXIST. You say we could have these documents, but the fact is that we do not. It is possible to prove a negative, only when you have complete access to the information. It is incredibly easy to prove that there is a cockroach in a house, a single image of one will do, but in order to prove that there are no cockroaches in a house, you would have to tear the building completely apart.

[@garyboulton2302]

@@mattcupp8506 I am not convinced is the position of the audience, this is why they are at the debate. To be convinced by an actual position. I don't know what this conversation is about? If you do not hold a positive or negative position, you should not be debating. You should be in the audience. My point is these things could all be used in a cumulative case against the resurrection of Christ and they would be able to discredit the resurrection but as you rightly say these things do not exist. Therefore, you admit you have no case against the resurrection beyond your incredulity. Which is not evidence against the resurrection.

[@Ray-xs1st]

Its not that Matt isnt addressing the topic of the debate - he is. He is pointing out that the evidence presented was insufficient to warrant belief in the question of whether or not Jesus rose from the dead. Licona believes X, and Matt does not believe X. However, Matt is not saying that X is false. He is open to believing X as soon as sufficient evidence is presented

[@HoldToChrist]

Right, except the debate is not at all about what either one believes. It’s about the two contentions: x is true, or x is not true. If he wanted to have a different debate he should have talked with the organizers before to phrase the prompt differently.

[@Ray-xs1st]

@HoldToChrist Licona is saying that X is true, and Matt is saying "Woah, hold on a second, the evidence that you presented isn't enough to reach the conclusion that X is true." Its not just about beliefs, it's about the epistemology that leads to one's beliefs. If you tell me that you were visited by a 3-headed demon last night, I'm all open ears to see if you have any evidence or not. But there's no reason for me to adopt a burden of proof by saying "No, a demon didn't visit you last night", especially when I don't know what the answer is and I lack information. Matt's position, ultimately, is that sufficient evidence has not been presented to warrant belief in the resurrection of Jesus. He hasn't ruled out the fact that it may have happened, but as it stands, he doesn't accept the claim.

[@Gericho49]

Asking a staunch atheist to debate the Resurrection is like asking a rightwing conservative to discuss the merits of communism, woke, cancel culture, socialism.

[@m0nk2k5]

I don’t know why everyone has a hard time to figure out Matt dillahuntys definition of what he would consider a supernatural event… it’s simple ask him if it would take an event he cannot doubt.

[@magnenoalex2]

But you can doubt anything if you try hard enough.

[@m0nk2k5]

@@magnenoalex2 that’s the point Matt Dillihuty will have to agree to the statement “if he cannot doubt the supernatural experience then he would accept the supernatural ” to be true then ultimately nothing will convince him… so his “I didn’t say nothing will convince me I just don’t know what will convince me” statement would be exposed

[@Hieiman]

@@m0nk2k5 Matt Dillahunty has said before and he's right... that the God of whatever religion would know what would convince him or anyone and could present themselves and that evidence... They could demonstrate to him the truth in such a way he couldn't deny... Whether he would choose to worship that God is another question.

[@m0nk2k5]

@@Hieiman that would infringe on free will

[@49perfectss]

@@m0nk2k5 How?

[@brettperry218]

This is as dishonest a debate review as I've ever seen. I've seen this full debate several times, and Dillahunty crushes Licona.

[@r.5789]

😂😂😂😂

[@49perfectss]

I know right?!? This breakdown seems.... uneducated. Which is weird coming form an educator. I took this to my own old debate teacher and she said it was totally fine and Matt took the honest position every time.

[@j-joe-jeans]

Agreed. One can be an educator and not be great at applying the theory to their field. Debating is not just about confidence and speed but rather demonstration of a valid and sound argument.

[@ceceroxy2227]

youre probably not an atheist

[@brettperry218]

@@ceceroxy2227 What would lead you to that conclusion ?

[@heathenthatheretic5960]

Question for the scene @6:25. If I told you that there was a monster eating my socks in the washing machine. Would you accept my claim that there was a monster or would you want me to provide good evidence for such a thing?

[@sly8926]

Wow, you’re on the lowest rung of amateur atheism.

[@adenjones1802]

If I were to ask for evidence of such things I would at least provide a threshold of what counts as evidence which Matt refuses to do.

[@CelticSpiritsCoven]

You should _try_ to provide at least some evidence for your claim of a monster in your washing machine. Such as explaining what it looks like, what it sounds like, etc - which Matt didn't even attempt to provide evidence. None at all. Zip, nada, zero. His lame excuse "I'm just not convinced" isn't elite. It's the classic Dillahunty-dodge which he employs in every debate he's in. It's not elite, it's actually childish, annoying, and quite low-IQ.

[@jonathanhauhnar8434]

I recommended James White vs David Silverman debate😉

[@WiseDisciple]

Got it on the list, thanks! :)

[@michaelhall6614]

@@WiseDisciple your biases ooze throughout this critique. Licona took this train down the supernatural track. His entire approach was to attempt listeners to accept supernatural events are the best option when we don’t understand something therefore the resurrection must have occurred. Matt is not a great debater, however he was debating in a room of 400-500 believers and his opening was an attempt to appeal to the audience in the venue and at least be semi open minded to what he would be saying.

[@hmgrraarrpffrzz9763]

Yeah Liconas arguments were really bad and often made no sense, and supported in my view atheism. I mean the mere argument of "if it seems impossible to me, I assume it's supernatural", that is just absolute bogus. How would you differentiate between something which seems impossible to have a natural cause based on your current understanding, and something that seems impossible to have a natural cause because it has a supernatural cause? Dillahunty is right: the honest answer would be "I don't know how this happened", instead of saying "well, I just assume it's supernatural because that feels better than saying "I don't know"".

[@Nameless-pt6oj]

The thing is that Jesus claimed to be the Son of God and His followers proclaimed this after His crucifixion, claiming that He’d been resurrected. With that in mind (not presupposing), you look at all the naturalistic explanations and none line up, only the resurrection can perfectly explain it. Completely leaving out miracles (leaving out the claim of His resurrection) and saying that you don’t know what happened is biased.

[@hmgrraarrpffrzz9763]

@@Nameless-pt6oj The resurrection would explain it well if you presuppose that the deity that Christians worship exists. If you do not already believe that said deity exists, any other explanation is better.

[@arielarthursagaoinit8340]

I've seen several Dilllahaunty debates here and I noticed the topics are always about the resurrection and his lousy strategy is always the same. Why is it that he keeps getting invited to these debates on the said topic?

[@omnikevlar2338]

How so? I think he makes great points on how one should setup their epistemology.

[@MarkMetternichPhotographyLLC]

Matt is the worst I have ever heard. He dodges the questions he dodges the data and he loves to go into big rhetorical things that have nothing to do with the debate.

[@axemel]

The very idea of 'immaterial substance' isn't something I can wrap my head around, and I don't think anyone else actually understand this, because those are two words that refer to opposite concepts. If something is a 'substance' then it's not 'immaterial', and vice versa. Those two things cannot be logically reconciled. It's like having a 'married bachelor'.

[@axemel]

By the way, I appreciate that you say the "trashcan analogy" was bad, because even weeding out naturalistic explanation doesn't allow you to arrive at a supernatural explanation. That exercise just lets you conclude that the event is unexplained by naturalistic means. You don't then get to insert whatever explanation most appeals to you. You actually have to substantiate that your 'supernatural' claim really explains it. Just because no current explanation is valid, doesn't make your make-believe explanation valid. This is the essence of the 'God of the gaps'.

[@sly8926]

@@axemel On the contrary, it’s you who is making a “science of the gaps” argument. If the explanation of the universe beginning out of nothing cannot be explained by naturalistic means, the ONLY other alternative is SUPERNATURAL explanations. The explanation is either within the natural universe or it is not. Since we know it is not, the conclusion follows; the beginning of the universe is a supernatural event.

[@axemel]

@@sly8926we don't actually know that though, and "supernatural" has NEVER been the answer to any question. The balance of probability is clear, and "don't know" is always the better answer.

[@CelticSpiritsCoven]

@@axemel You are intellectually dishonest. Supernatural actually has lots of evidence. Such as when psychics tell the police where a dead body is at (and the psychic had no knowledge of the people), and the dead body is where the psychic said it was. This is very well documented and has happened many times. You got a "natural" explanation for that? "I don't know to everything" is the lazy way out. It's an avoidance tactic from an emotionally compromised person who wishes to reject and deny reality. Skepticism, by it's very definition, requires the skeptic to be skeptical of skepticism. The further you progress from skepticism, the more sure you become. So you are doing it all wrong.

[@wintersresurrection9841]

If I had gone to the debate, at the moment he said "I am not here to debate this topic" (paraphrasing), I would have immediately gotten up and walked out. And if I were challenged, would have responded "I came here to see a debate, not one person trying in vain to justify the fact that they want to be their own god." Then, I probably would have headed for a pizza joint, lol... "the evening isn't going to be a total waste"

[@jibbobdion5072]

If Science cannot conform the Supernatural, and History cannot confirm the supernatural guess what that implies? There is no supernatural, Matt's an Agnostic-Atheist I think, so it makes sense for him not to outright claim there is no supernatural Matt's consistently stated that you can't be 100% certain of something only mostly sure at best. As an Anti-theist I take Matt's statement as a We can be pretty sure there is no supernatural, based on the lack of any good evidence, historical or otherwise.

[@blindfaith1239]

@jessiewhite Actually, it implies that you can’t confirm the supernatural. But, then again, neither can they confirm love or compassion. Does that mean that there is no such thing? Of course not.

[@brickster_22]

@@blindfaith1239 We can absolutely confirm love and compassion.

[@blindfaith1239]

@@brickster_22 but not, strictly speaking, through hard science. Sure, there are signals that fire off at a given stimulus, but nothing that we can call love. There is a transcendenceabout love that is beyond the pale of science. My point is that just because you can’t positively confirm something through science doesn’t automatically mean that it doesn’t exist

[@a.39886]

I think the problem with your exposition is that some hypothesis are unfalsifiable furthermore any conclusion you get form and premise that can`t not be falsifiable aren`t really conclusions as the premise can`t never be demonstrative to be wrong in principle, let say you claim that that, in this way you have to show that the premise can`t in principle not be true.

[@jibbobdion5072]

@@a.39886 You can falsify any diety, by finding inconsistencies in said God. Example, God's from India, people aren't blue skined, and people dont grow 4 to 6 arms next! Zeus, you can't hold and throw lightning, there's no sign of people on the clouds, Christianity, there was no sign of a world flood, Adam and Eve are an impossibility, minds dont exist outside of a brain thus there's no all powerful, all knowing and all good God, hell you can't be all knowing and all good, otherwise there would be no wars, no hate, no darkness in the world. These superstitious fairytales are for the ignorant masses.

[@user-ye2em3fn4o]

for Matt... It's ALWAYS about Matt.

[@drewdrake9130]

Apparently it would be better to attack Matt's methodology, than it would to demonstrate that the supernatural actually does exist.

[@Hieiman]

Bingo... Because Licona can't demonstrate that... He knows it... And this disingenuous debate reviewer knows it... His focus on Matt's opening was incorrect as Matt didn't concede... He approached the debate with reasons and arguments why not just he isn't convinced, but why one shouldn't be convinced of the proposition.

[@a.39886]

@@Hieiman that is is just perfect sum of the argument I think the problem with your exposition is that some hypothesis are unfalsifiable furthermore any conclusion you get form and premise that can`t not be falsifiable aren`t really conclusions as the premise can`t never be demonstrative to be wrong in principle, let say you claim that that, in this way you have to show that the premise can`t in principle not be true.

[@ttff-bd2yf]

@@Hieiman how do I explain a tea pot with no tangible qualities?

[@richietorresmma]

Yes you should attack Matt’s methodology because it’s problematic. His epistemology is built in a way that doesn’t allow for any of liconas arguments to penetrate. He’s just gonna do the Ol, “I’m not convinced” dance.

[@cosmicnomad8575]

@@richietorresmmaYes, and also because this is a Debate Teacher. Of course he would focus on debate methodologies when discussing this.

[@Aguijon1982]

This is like having a debate about Osiris being supernatural. And his life and existence is also recorded everywhere in the pyramids. And yet , Sorry kids, all these supernatural stories from thousands of years ago are BS, including christianity. Get over it.

[@michaeltamajong2988]

I'm not going to be surprised if I see atheists in the comments doing the same thing you just described.

[@blindfaith1239]

Nate, I want to hear you debate sometime

[@j-joe-jeans]

I'd love to be the one to engage him.

[@donniemorton162]

The problem is that you have several different accounts in the bible the bible is written from people who never met or knew Jesus

[@arjaramillo86]

Would like to see william lane craig vs sean carroll

[@WiseDisciple]

ME TOO! Lol. I've got it on the list!

[@arjaramillo86]

@@WiseDisciple @CapturingChristianity did a review on his channel, which I really enjoyed, but I would like to see what you do on the cross examination side. Love what you do, btw. Thank you for your channel! God bless!

[@49perfectss]

Oh man that was the debate that made me start doubting. WLC knows literally nothing about cosmology and Dr. Caroll exposes that his arguments from physics are not just wrong but nonsensical. It was one of the most obvious beatings I have seen in a debate haha

[@UpTheSaints-bs8bb]

@@49perfectss which is why the debate won't show up on this channel. It was the first time Craig debated an actual physicist and was shown to be the Muppet he is

[@gianpopo2007]

You got a new subscriber!!!

[@childofgod7501]

I want to see you debate! Anything at all. Debate calvanism, debate the existance of God, debate the superiority of pink over yellow grapefruit. I just need to see it!

[@poolmaster18]

Debate Matt, see how it goes.

[@j-joe-jeans]

I'd pay money.

[@tiberiusfellblade2567]

I am glad I am not the only person who can't stand Matt's style of debate. His entire plan is to use logical fallacy arguments to dismantle the other person's position rather than positing his own position. He adds nothing helpful to the conversation almost ever and sits there as a judge of his opponent's arguments rather than combatting them with his own. Its an incredibly lame cop out.

[@jeffburman7832]

Dillahunty requires his opponent to move first, as in a chess match, in order to find the safe haven of not claiming a stance at all. His is the stance of a critic. When a true debate is not between two people but the most important third element being an absolute truth in question. Requiring each debater to make a case. Matt never makes a case. If science is the study and understanding of the natural world than the term supernatural merely equates to beyond our understanding. Which is a perfect alternative for those who are not comfortable in not knowing. If the debate is over the biblical claim, than the claim should be afforded in the debate. The Bible says one would need to depart from one’s own understanding. Our own understanding is limited to the natural world and Matt is looking for evidence of the supernatural in the natural world… and not finding it…

[@kveldulfpride]

If someone assumes their own identity, as though it is enough for you to believe, they are also assuming an element of divinity.

[@eurech]

''Biased 'Debate teacher thinks the burden on proof is on the one who does not believe.'' Corrected your title.

[@carnivalwholesale9809]

No, the burden of proof is on THE THEIST TO SHOW THAT THEIR GOD EXIST, and it has happened 0 times

[@carnivalwholesale9809]

@@MagnusMarcellus they never do

[@carnivalwholesale9809]

@@MagnusMarcellus they also bend over backwards to defend clearly immoral passages

[@fekinel]

Could someone ask god what would convince atheists that he is real?...post his answer in the comments...cheers..

[@dahveed72]

Well the truth is that God clearly enjoys fucking with people. And he has his own schedule. So no

[@Kalebb5]

Another great video! Keep up the good content

[@WiseDisciple]

Thank you Kalebb5! Appreciate you :)

[@johnfleming1828]

Don't Know THEREFORE God Done it!!!!!! Q.E.D Now where's my Nobel Prize?

[@Nameless-pt6oj]

The thing is that Jesus claimed to be the Son of God and His followers proclaimed this after His crucifixion, claiming that He’d been resurrected. With that in mind (not presupposing), you look at all the naturalistic explanations and none line up, only the resurrection can perfectly explain it. Completely leaving out miracles (leaving out the claim of His resurrection) and saying that you don’t know what happened is biased.

[@johnfleming1828]

@@Nameless-pt6oj you have unverified stories in an old book - not ONE of the authors of the Gospels claims to be a witness and Paul admits he never met Jesus ( claims of visions aren't worth 2 cents). Claiming as EVIDENCE ( too funny) the time line of Jesus' claims of being the son of a god and claims of his resurrection are MEANINGLESS since Both claims were written simultaneously DECADES after his supposed resurrection

[@Carpaintry_of_God]

Saying I don't know, being an agnostic and in a debate. You can't win a debate that way. Even if you are an agnostic and you "don't know" then you cannot be correct or you cannot win in a debate setup. All you can do is show your reasons, and throw out any number of what ifs and present hypotheticals creating possible doubt, but you cannot win the debate if you're not playing anything forward. As for the positive side if they have good reason and evidence to show that it's credible they are more likely to win the debate. Even if you talk about history that is known some random person can say well this could have happened and cast doubt or possibilities on what could have happened even though they did not happen. If all you're doing is being a skeptic and casting doubt and not providing any answers then you cannot win your argument, because you don't have an argument. I don't know is not an argument if the debate is about a specific question.

[@j-joe-jeans]

"Saying I don't know, being an agnostic and in a debate. You can't win a debate that way." - You have no idea what propositional logic or what a proper debate is. - If a claim is unproven/undemonstrated, unjustifiable, unfalsifiable etc it is rejectable off-hand.

[@Carpaintry_of_God]

@@j-joe-jeans yeah you should have continued to read what I said. You took me out of context. If you're in a debate but you're not going to put forth an argument and just say I don't know then you cannot win a debate. Because you're putting nothing forward And you're welcome to make those claims about me and what you think about me but that not real, just your fantasy. Unless you can prove it, justify it, show that your statement is unfalsifiable. And I think you should say Matt doesn't understand propositional logic, or understand what a proper debate is. Considering what he said in the video is evidence to that. Going based on what Matt said he is just another person in the audience. He is not part of a debate and if you're not part of a debate you cannot win a debate.

[@j-joe-jeans]

@@Carpaintry_of_God 1) If a premise is invalid or not sound then it can be rejected off hand. Thus is the entirety of theological assertion since time in memorial. 2) You are appealing to whatifism (Whataboutism). 3) Cite where a sound and valid point was dismissed with no justification. I am fairly sure you did not look to the actual debate as apposed of this cherry picked snippet. Identify where in the full debate Matt did this. Try again?

[@j-joe-jeans]

@@Carpaintry_of_God Do you feel like debating with me live tomorrow on Zoom? You can educate me on the proper Socratic methods and logical syllogistic debate modus. So are you in?

[@Carpaintry_of_God]

@@j-joe-jeans no I have a full-time business to run. I'm fine with having a real debate unlike what Matt did. I would not do it live though I don't need people hating on me just because they disagree with me. I'm pretty sure we both know what common sense is in a debate. Putting forth an argument. Now to respond to your other comment, Matt mentioned it in his opening statement. Yes just in this video clip part of the real video clip. That is the evidence I was referring to Matt said it himself. Matt is acting as a member of the audience not a debater. Therefore if you're not part of a debate you cannot win a debate. It's common sense. Your point number one if a premise is invalid or not sound it can be rejected off hand. Yes it can be by the audience. But if the other person on the debate the negative he needs to provide an argument for why it's not true not just that it might not be true or there's not enough evidence. So Matt is kind of doing the opposite of your number two point, "whatifnotism" To respond to your number two point I am not referring to or appealing to "whatifism", I don't know what I said to make you think I am. Your number three point, "cite where a sound and valid point was dismissed with those justification." I have no reason to are you changing the topic?

[@AlexanderFound]

*Tv is thrown across the room by an unknown force "Based on the lack of naturalistic criteria according to this event, I can infer that this in fact is not natural" ...because that is how you react to such an event, lol.

[@randyvaughn5738]

Could you please review, “The Warren Flew Debate”? It was held in the 70’s and I don’t think many even know of it transpiring.

[@petery6432]

Can you do Gary Habermas vs Antony Flew? I want to see you review a discussion where the Atheist actually debates the resurrection.

[@WiseDisciple]

Ooooh, ok. Got it on the list! Yeah, I'd like to see that too! :)

[@speculativebubble5713]

You forgot that Matt is (or maybe just used to be) a magician. He tricked people professionally (as much as one can be a professional trickster).

[@Derek_Baumgartner]

Keep up the great work! Your quick breakdown of determining how something supernatural happens is a great way to think of the matter. What happens at that point: Matt Dillahunty says "Well, we'll find a naturalistic explanation eventually", in reference to things like that apparition appearing in someone's room at night in correlation to a person's death at around that same time. However, a key thing to note about ruling out naturalistic explanations is that certain events don't just seem to just not 'fit' in our current understanding of natural philosophy, but rather they defy it. For example: dead people - especially those thoroughly crucified, then buried for three days - don't get back up. For events such as Jesus's resurrection, Matt Dillahunty's position seems to cleverly shift from "Well if it happened, we'll find a naturalistic explanation for that eventually like we did with lightning", but rather "That's beyond naturalistic explanation, so it didn't happen". He presents an epistemology that seems open to the evidence with a lean towards naturalism, but his view also excludes any truly supernatural event from being even considered as possible to evaluate. --- Which, then, is a shame, considering the Contingency and Kalam Cosmological arguments coinciding with the scientific fact that the universe began (Einstein - time and matter are co-relative, etc.). If material physical reality - nature - began, then it has a cause, and nothing can cause itself. And if nothing can cause itself, then nature is also excluded: meaning the cause of nature is 'above-nature,' or the literal definition of 'super-natural.' When it comes down to it, logically speaking, there are only two options: either material reality was created by something, or it was created by nothing. And scientifically speaking, 'nothing' has no causal powers, potentialities, or possibilities. In other words, we already have an example of something which has no naturalistic explanation: nature itself. This is more than enough precedent for other things beyond the scope of nature to be, at least, possible. ;)

[@WiseDisciple]

Great observation, Derek! Thank you, sir :)

[@j-joe-jeans]

"Your quick breakdown of determining how something supernatural happens is a great way to think of the matter." - Where did this happen and when did this assertion become world changing factual news?

[@miconis123]

The problem here is we're talking about an event 2k years later with no outside sources to reference. With the actions of Anthony and Cleopatra which Lincona references, we have lots of sources that they existed and did the things they did. They come from both friendly and antagonistic sources which is important. I brought up Hitler in the other Dilligunty video and it's comparable. If we only had knowledge of Hitler's existence and actions from Mein Kampf and Nazi propaganda, would you believe he was real and did everything claimed? I wouldn't, so it's good that we have reports from his enemies and neutral parties that corroborate them. With Jesus' resurrection, and in fact his whole existence from birth forward, all we have is the Bible. He had a real occupation and interacted with others who had real occupations, but so does Spider Man in the comics, cartoons, and movies.

[@a.39886]

I think the problem with your exposition is that some hypothesis are unfalsifiable furthermore any conclusion you get form and premise that can`t not be falsifiable aren`t really conclusions as the premise can`t never be demonstrative to be wrong in principle, let say you claim that that, in this way you have to show that the premise can`t in principle not be true.

[@CelticSpiritsCoven]

@@miconis123 There are over 1300 non-Christians sources in antiquity who wrote about Jesus. There is archeological evidence that backs the bible up. What you do mean "we only have the bible". No we don't, there's a crap ton of evidence. I find it immensely amazing that Atheists who come on and try to debunk Christianity on videos like this, those Atheists (just like you) are subscribed to multiple Atheist channels. It's like a cult! It is a cult! Atheism is one big dumb cult religion that denies reality. Like the Amish.... completely close-minded and brainwashed. Maybe some day you will wake up to the cult you are in and leave it.

[@JanderStrahd]

Absolutely *monumental* ignorance. You're _mad_ because you listened to one part of the debate and it wasn't "Z0MG EBIC CHRISTIAN OWNS ATHIEST!!!1" Debate topics are ambiguous or bare guidelines: you don't dictate how one interlocutor argues, or how they're meant to interpret the spirit of the question, _for the benefit of intellectual honesty and the audience._ 8:00 Please tell me why you want him to make difficult and unnecessary arguments. "He can't! Therefor God!" 9:44 This is not a contradiction. Try again. 14:12 Literally the Billy-Lane sprint to the podium, "MY OPPONENT NEVER EVEN SHOWED-I WIN!" 15:13 You explicitly stated you don't watch other parts of the debate. What are we supposed to believe, if you didn't prove you ever even heard it? 16:25 *S T R A W M A N .* I know you type _bristle_ at that word, but you just love doing it in place of breath. 17:25 You _shamelessly_ assert it *cannot* be a natural event because it fits your conclusion. You insert the criterion that we have somehow already ruled out *every known* possibility in this hypothetical. Even doing so would not get you there. 19:42 Neither interlocutor has any onus to address *every. single.* flight of fancy the other wants to throw. If that were true, even in scored debate, everyone would just scream their fastest Gish gallop and win the video game. It would completely destroy the very spirit of debate. If one can refute a single point, and that is sufficient to invalidate the argument, that's all it takes. _Please note how Christians aren't aware of this._ 21:36 This is a mantra, not a point. 22:16 I'll break this one down for you, since I understood it. He asked his interlocutor to demonstrate a way to prove their argument, they did not successfully do that, and he glossed over the tedious and irrelevant non-example he gave. But you'll take this as denial, because as you say, you're a biased Christian. 22:37 He's demonstrating a variety of perspective, which is demonstrably beneficial to both interlocutors, _and_ the audience. You can _visibly_ see him thinking of a way to frame a point or question in a way that everyone can both understand and work with. This is how we *debate.* It doesn't do anyone any good when the two guys on stage shout a bunch of words at each other that no one understands. Being able to both understand and contextualize ad-lib in real time is an _incredibly_ difficult skill, and he does it quite well. (But of course you don't have to do any of that when you have God on your side.) 23:00 A defense attorney doesn't need to "prove" their client didn't commit a crime, only expose enough doubt. Again, the null hypothesis holds. And here's the kicker: it's okay to just disbelieve your interlocutor. No part of, "I'm not convinced by that" invalidates your arguments, unless they can properly prove contradiction, and have it stand upon scrutiny. I know-it's basically cheating! 23:20 You've said this thrice now, and it seems edited in. If in my argument about the moon being an alien spy satellite I use questionable terminology for "aliens," it's significantly easier and more constructive to challenge me on that, rather than somehow be mandated to only challenge the boldest claims. If I can't formulate a coherent concept as "aliens" then everything else is invalid/unsound.

[@49perfectss]

Great breakdown. Too bad that this guy is not intellectually honest enough to read it much less respond. When all you want to do is believe a sky wizard is real you can't listen to reason

[@whigmin5436]

Yo! Start your own channel! I'd subscribe. This breakdown was cathartic as gravy on already succulent turkey.

[@Mwilson8581]

You're with christian non profit, honesty is not your wheelhouse. Now that I have been privy to your biases. I'm pretty confident in saying; You do not have any documentation to show that you are accredited in any form that would qualify you to teach.

[@Xenotypic]

maybe check out a white vs shabir ally debate? or muhammad hijab vs david wood for one where the sparks flew.

[@WiseDisciple]

Thanks! I've got 'em on the list! I don't think we've done David Wood debate yet...

[@SomeoneYouMayKnow]

@@WiseDisciple you should! the David Wood and Mohammed Hijab debate was hilarious!

[@halleylujah247]

@@WiseDisciple Just fair warning you open a can of angry worms when you dive into Muslim/ Christian debates....

[@jonathanhauhnar8434]

@@WiseDisciple I agree with Halley, its not wise to jump into Muslims debate. Trust me there much more worst than the Athiest are.

[@WiseDisciple]

@@halleylujah247 Ok thanks for the warning!

[@paulyates3865]

Dillahunty isn't fun to watch. In critique or review. It's just watching a verbose bully. He's manipulating his crowd and shirking proper debate. Watching debaters debate an interviewer is cringe.

[@jamesferguson4408]

No, someone doesn’t lose a debate by what they say in the beginning. Their initial statements do not nullify the rest of the debate. It shows great bias on your part to say he lost before it began. The beheading example represented a missed opportunity on Matt’s part to provide clarity on his position. The important point is that if something happened that seemed naturally impossible based on our understanding prior to that event, that event would tell us that we had an incomplete understanding of what was possible in the natural world. We acknowledge that we just learned of a new possibility but we don’t get to jump to the supernatural. Also, human head transplants are theoretically possible and head transplants have been done multiple times on animals including on a primate. When I say human head transplant, I mean a head completely severed from the body and reattached and life continues with the reattached head. A better description of a miraculous appearing event would be if I was standing directly over the person when they were beheaded to confirm it was a live person and the physical act was actually occurring. Then, having the head reattach with no intervention by other humans. This would essentially look like the head levitating back in place, and then an invisible force physically reattaching it and sealing/healing the wounds. That would convince me that an unknown phenomenon that challenged what I knew about reality was at play? I still wouldn’t know what that phenomenon was though.

[@TomBombadil89]

When you open up saying "I'm not here to participate in the debate" ya, you lost at the outset lol Or maybe you don't lose, you're a representative of a specific portion of the audience. Regardless, Di-lol-ahunty conceded.

[@jamesferguson4408]

@@TomBombadil89 false

[@TomBombadil89]

@@jamesferguson4408 lol okay Matt

[@MyKiller890]

I think a problem here is that matt is arguing in terms of whether it actually happened, and Mike is arguing in terms of whether it could have happened when it came to the supernatural portion of the discussion. I disagree that the debate was conceeded as you put in the opening but I do think it was a foolish move to say such a thing.

[@mentalwarfare2038]

Hello fellow lovely. Both Mike and Matt showed up to dispute the resurrection of Jesus. If Matt Dillahunty is going to take a different stance and say things like “My position is not ‘I can confirm that Jesus did not rise from the dead’, it’s that I am in fact unconvinced”, or “i am here to provide an understanding as to how a Southern Baptist for 25 years became an unbeliever”, the debate was over before it started. This is not what the debate is about. Eventually the debate went off the rails and the topic became “what qualifies as proof of the supernatural”.

[@MyKiller890]

@@mentalwarfare2038 I agree his opening was foolish. I believe he went to attacking the supernatural because Licona used the supernatural as the method to prove a resurrection possibility, and If you can poke holes on that argument then one of Liconas arguments is shot. I don't think it was that far off from the topic because of how important the idea of a supernatural realm is for Liconas argument to make a body reanimated or resurrecting seem plausible. Though it wasn't his only argument.

[@DefenderoftheCross]

Dillahunty's tactic is "I refuse to be convinced or to make any reasonable inferences, therefore I win the debate." It is intellectually dishonest.

[@MyKiller890]

@@DefenderoftheCross I would disagree. If one is not convinced either way then the answer is I don't know. Also if you watch Matt's videos, more specifically his debate review and whatnot he says multiple times that he does not view these debates as win/loss.

[@mentalwarfare2038]

@@MyKiller890 If you go to the actual debate, Licona used historical evidence to rule out naturalistic explanations, increasing the likelihood of an actual resurrection. Instead of producing historical counter evidence, Dillahunty moved the debate from the historical to the philosophical, changing the topic to "what might count as evidence for the supernatural". Dillahunty even went so far as to say that witnessing the resurrection of a decapitated body would not be evidence for the supernatural. His position seems unfalsifiable,

[@edmcfall3519]

Debating Matt Is like trying to nail down Jello 🤦‍♂️

[@kuriboh0]

Yes it is. Everyone sucks at both of those things.

[@jibbobdion5072]

You can't claim a debates over within the first statement, I feel this level of frustration at the first comment is an over-exudation, as someone who debates as a hobby since I was a Freshmen Highschool this comes off as an immediate appeal to emotion. You shouldn't look at Matt's statement and arrogantly claim it's false without using sympathy and deductive reasoning to understand WHY Matt's explanation is the way it is, so yeah don't just the gun before anythings been said that's green-horn debater stuff.

[@j-joe-jeans]

Agreed but I more think it talks to a false dichotomy fallacy on "Wise disciple" 's end.

[@a.39886]

I think the problem with your exposition is that some hypothesis are unfalsifiable furthermore any conclusion you get form and premise that can`t not be falsifiable aren`t really conclusions as the premise can`t never be demonstrative to be wrong in principle, let say you claim that that, in this way you have to show that the premise can`t in principle not be true.

[@5crownsoutreach]

9:21 admits his openly confessed naturalistic commitment. Irrespective of evidence, or eye witness testimony, or historiography, or any other category. So there is no debate here. I would define the supernatural as simply an intelligent process: those processes that supervene effects without reliance upon natural processes. This circumvents the objection that magic tricks only look like miracles, when under my definition they are intelligently designed by the magician, and therefore they do demonstrate supernatural origin. Molecules do not produce intelligence.

[@UpTheSaints-bs8bb]

No no. At 17.40 you inferred that if something doesn't have a naturalistic explanation you can then infer it must therefore be supernatural. You don't get to make things up just because you don't know the answer

[@sly8926]

we do know the answer. The explanation cannot be naturalistic, by definition. That leaves one alternative; a supernatural explanation.

[@alyssascott5154]

I know you're against this but I would love to see you debate Matt dillahunty

[@BrianLambert]

I came to this video expecting a debate review, but instead it starts with a sermon at the very beginning...

[@CelticSpiritsCoven]

There was no sermon at the start of this. He was explaining what his channel name means. Do you get triggered when the bible is brought up?

[@BrianLambert]

@@CelticSpiritsCoven Sounds like you were triggered at my comment 🤣

[@CelticSpiritsCoven]

@@BrianLambert Just calling out liars and deceivers like you. Seriously though, why don't you answer the question? Does mentioning the bible trigger you?

[@BrianLambert]

​@@CelticSpiritsCovenHe started to preach about Matthew 10:16. I'm here for a debate review, not a sermon. So I stopped watching. I'm not upset of any mention of the Bible. I felt mislead from the title of the video. So I peaced out. Why you gotta get so confrontational and offended?

[@BrianLambert]

​@@CelticSpiritsCovenAlso, my comment was from 8 months ago lol... Chill, relax. This is my last reply here anyways. Not gonna have a convo with anyone who wants to call me a 'deceiver' instead of having a normal discussion. Peace ✌🏼

[@diegotobaski9801]

2:50 Introducing you to the Dilahaunty dodge.

[@WiseDisciple]

👀Lol

[@halleylujah247]

You beat me to it. Yeah it is a common tactic with Mr. Dilahunty still.

[@petery6432]

Jon McCray aka WDYM completely roasted Dilahaunty about that tactic

[@IWasOnceAFetus]

Are you open to reviewing and reacting to debates on ethical issues? If you are, maybe you can react to Klusendorf vs Nadine Strossen or Trent Horn vs David Boonin. Just a suggestion.

[@WiseDisciple]

Thanks for the suggestion! I'll take a look at those :)

[@aaronvogeler3388]

Great video!

[@thisguy2985]

So basically the debate started with Matt walking up to the stage and going "I quit! Now let's continue"

[@RafaelGarcia-jb3me]

Matt has to be the worst atheist to follow into hell.

[@airforcex9412]

I like this channel and I see your point about being “unconvinced” and how it would play out with a crowd. The problem is that this is the most honest position anyone can have. No one can say, with 100% certainty, the god Thor is not real. Not even a Christian; the Bible itself alludes to “other gods.” We can say, “based on the evidence (or lack thereof) I’m unconvinced/don’t believe it, etc.” If he were to say “I know God/gods do not exist” he would have to prove a negative for whatever possible gods are out there. Thousands if not millions. It is Licona who must provide the evidence. And if the evidence is not convincing…he fails. This happens every day in court. People are not proven innocent; they’re proven “not guilty,” aka, unconvinced by the evidence. Because you can’t really prove someone didn’t do something in most scenarios. The only way apologists can win debates on content is by pushing atheist to adopt positive claims. That’s why Turek no longer debates to prove God exists. He has stated he wants atheists to defend materialism, thus shifting the burden of proof. But, atheism is not materialism.

[@GSP-76]

Hearing your idiotic take on the supernatural is where I stopped watching this biased video. I'd love to see you speculators go debate Dillahunty.

[@j.gstudios4576]

Everyone's biased he's trying his best not to be. You know the Christian loses sometimes to right?

[@Joshcaldwell24]

I would love to chat with him. But what would we talk about exactly? Proof of God?

[@robinrobyn1714]

I'd love to debate Dillahunty.

[@heathenthatheretic5960]

Wait a minute here. Knowing how Matt debates and his tactics I'm pretty sure he kept on point with the subject about the debate. Cherry picking a certain dialog that he said doesn't mean he lost at all. Plus I'm sure you're taking this one line completely out of context @3:20 Oh you did cherry pick this one scene because he was explaining what the other guy did and simply reframed it as if it was him whom had said it! Lmao yeah buddy stop lying.

[@m7m746]

After reading what you wrote I can tell you would be a horrible debater. Much much much worse than Dillabunked.

[@heathenthatheretic5960]

@@m7m746 yeah no one asked you nor do I give a flying fuk about what you think I'm good at. If yiu have a point than make it and stop with the lame azz insults as if you're saying something of substance

[@timothyvenable3336]

Dude… what are you talking about? I gave you the benefit of the doubt and looked at the whole debate. And dilihunty literally got up, and thanked everyone for inviting him, then said exactly what this video shows! EXACTLY IN CONTEXT! So yes, given that a debate is two people talking about 1 specific topic and taking a stand on each side of the topic, Matt 100% lost because he conceded as soon as he had a chance to speak. Please pay attention to what you’re saying before you start posting things based on preference

[@heathenthatheretic5960]

@@timothyvenable3336 dude, you expect me to respond to a post I made 5 months ago as if I'm going to remember any of this. Get a life and have a great weekend

[@timothyvenable3336]

@@heathenthatheretic5960 well, you responded so I don’t see the big deal. Just wanted you to know that you can’t just say whatever you want because your side or your view wasn’t represented well. No trying to start a conversation. Thanks for replying though! Jesus loves you have a great day!

[@donnadeau7619]

Hey wise teacher, do you ever think that an atheist has better answers to reality, if you have any spiritual balls, why don't you debate Dillahunty and see how your light will shine?

[@49perfectss]

Ah. Just got to the supernatural part. So you can't set aside your bias huh? KK I won't bother watching you anymore thanks. That was.... just incredibly ridiculous.

[@Hieiman]

Yeah his epistemology is massively flawed... The part about asserting something is supernatural when you don't know what the cause could be is fallacious and Matt demonstrated that... This type of thinking has been shown to be flawed throughout history.

[@49perfectss]

@@Hieiman just another demonstration that this is not an intellectual issue for many of them. It's about protecting beliefs that are not worthy of belief.

[@miconis123]

At 17:27 I wanted to shake you in frustration. "I don't know, therefore supernatural" is a horrible position, and explaining how something happened is not in any way comparable to judging if one person loved another. It's a lazy attitude and only keeps humans from getting better.

[@josephthomasmusic]

Actually no. You're projecting YOUR "I don't know" position in regards to the events onto the theist. Projection is a psychological phenomenon in which you accuse another person of the very same thing that you are doing, but hold them more accountable than you. When you represent the theist's argument as "I don't know, therefore supernatural" you're actually arguing "I (atheist) don't know therefore you (theist) don't know either". THAT is a lazy argument. It's saying that we should simply embrace uncertainty and not even attempt to try to explain the event, but if we do explain the event then the most plausible way is through naturalistic means. How is THAT less lazy than actually representing the theist's argument COREECTLY? This argument that Nate is making is based on deduction. If naturalistic explanations are less plausible, then the supernatural is the more likely candidate. Therefore if the resurrection actually happened, then Jesus is who he claimed to be. Therefore his motivation for the resurrection was love. No offense but this is logic 101, buddy. Let's refrain from attacking strawmen here.

[@josephthomasmusic]

@@MagnusMarcellus "if there are no naturalistic answers then it's safe to conclude that the things in described in the story didn't happen" - Logic 101. You don't get to assume the very thing that's up for debate. What's the definition of begging the question. Your assumption is that naturalism is the default rational position. On what grounds?

[@josephthomasmusic]

@@MagnusMarcellus very first mistake in your argument is using the word "proven" in describing scientific understandings of the universe. As a science graduate, I'm going to have to correct you on this. Nothing in science is proven. The scientific method itself doesn't deal with proof. It deals with the best possible explanation in terms of process. It cannot give explanations in terms of agency. Agency and process are not the same type of explanation. The actual laws of nature that you assume do not allow for violations are actually the very things that allow for any type of agency to affect the process. For example, cell theory says that cells can only come from other cells and not from non-living material. Yet ironically many naturalists will assume abiogenesis, which is a violation of cell theory. So even you as a naturalist will believe in violations in the laws of nature if they conveniently rule out a different agent from the one that you're assuming, namely naturalistic ones. The point is that God no more conflicts with science as an explanation for the universe then Henry Ford conflicts with the law of internal combustion as an explanation for the invention of the motor car engine. There are different levels of explanation. There's agency and there's process. Science only gives the explanations in terms of process, it can never give explanations in terms of agency. And you're making the mistake of confusing the process as the agency when they're not the same thing at all. So you're actually proving my point.

[@josephthomasmusic]

@@MagnusMarcellus did I even claim that a God exists? 😏 Don't assume the thing that's up for question. Assuming naturalism does not exclude you from the burden of proof any more than it does for the theist.

[@josephthomasmusic]

@@MagnusMarcellus and your claim is that naturalism is the default, reasonable position to hold. That is your claim as well. So by definition you have a burden of proof as well. Never once did I say that the burden of proof is never on the theist. So don't intentionally misrepresent my words. My point was that the burden of proof is on whoever makes the claim, atheist OR theist. The theist claims supernaturalism. You as an atheist claim naturalism. Both of you have the burden of proof, not one over the other because that's begging the question. You never get to assume the very thing that's up for debate.

[@omnikevlar2338]

Matt says you have to be able to prove the LINK between a miracle and God than he would be convinced. That’s what he doesn’t know. Now if I asked what evidence you would need to believe a new religion had just came out. I guarantee you would say idk too.

[@cerealbowl7038]

Could you please react to InspiringPhilosophy vs. Kent Hovind?

[@WiseDisciple]

Thanks for the suggestion! Got it on the list 👊🏼

[@chipan9191]

You know I agree Christians often don’t have a good answer to the interaction problem. Even WLC when asked basically said he didn’t know the answer but figures there must be one because materialism as an alternative has even worse problem than the interaction problem. But I have heard a satisfactory answer, but you may not like it. The answer is that dualism is fundamentally flawed so there is no reconciling this problem on dualism, so instead we should adopt monistic idealism which subverts this problem because then there are no two fundamentally different substances to begin with. It also is not materialism so it doesn’t have those problems either.

[@alexalexander9434]

Matt easily won watching the full thing

[@a.39886]

I think the problem with your exposition is that some hypothesis are unfalsifiable furthermore any conclusion you get form and premise that can`t not be falsifiable aren`t really conclusions as the premise can`t never be demonstrative to be wrong in principle, let say you claim that that, in this way you have to show that the premise can`t in principle not be true.

[@a.39886]

if you want to know more check Atheist Debates - I wish, I wish, I wish

[@VaughanMcCue]

The standard for assessing the contribution of Licona and Dillahunty on this channel is measured by the jacket MD wore. As I would not like to resort to double standards, The Debate Preacher ~AKA Average Disciple's poorly developed facial hair means his comments should be ignored. M Dilli's take - Part 1 kzbin.info/www/bejne/rIiQlYJrapaLgpY Under the power of The Dopest Magic Jacket, we get response Part 2. kzbin.info/www/bejne/m5yVmXxuiLGcqrs

[@Benzo2flyyy]

I’ve become a fan of your videos. You should review a few Aron Ra debates as well.