Does God Exist / Blake Giunta & Matt Dillahunty

[@dasuberkaiser6]

Opening argument: "I don't want to talk about Christianity, I'm just trying to prove a generic general concept of God." Closing: "JESUS JESUS unsupported assertions JESUS unsupported assertions JESUS JESUS JESUS"

[@jensandersen7011]

GOP Je$u$???

[@treytopdogellis5023]

Matt wins on jacket alone. I know that's argument from ad jacketulum.

[@Frostx-t7m]

Can you explain to me how matt won.

[@Robot_Overlord]

this was one of the most civil debates ive seen. bravo

[@cartmanrlsusall]

I agree civil discourse is more intellectually stimulating than a mudslinging shouted argument.

[@EeRocKK]

The intellectual honesty from both sides made this enjoyable for me

[@the-outsider8458]

@@EeRocKK this was incredibly intellectuality dishonest. I'd prefer honesty over civility any day.

[@jrskp3677]

@@EeRocKK I seen Mr Dillahunty purposefully be intellectually honest and intentionally so. Because he considers theistic believer's worthy of being talked to like people who deserve the truth. Being a former believer gives him good reason. The longer the conversation goes, the more likely that the individual and possible audience members will take the time to really get things together internally. To wrap their mind around the idea that their beliefs weren't based on good reasons is the goal. "You can't make a horse drink water, if you give them some salt however, they will."

[@rexpositor6741]

A gold medal should be awarded for the amazing christian gymnastics.

[@Frostx-t7m]

How did he practiced gymnastics

[@Ninterd2]

@@Frostx-t7m Mental gymnastics

[@dogelife7901]

Now do atheist and morality.

[@jrskp3677]

Those usually go to Ray, Ken and Kent. But, not always.

[@jrskp3677]

@@dogelife7901 You mean where we develop some mutual understanding of what to do or not in a relationship where humans live in mass societal structure? Where empathy and such are a good thing for a collective to have? Oh yes, they come from an agent that cannot be shown to be real/exist. 🤓 🧠 ✅

[@andrecampbell691]

Thanks, Matt. Your final comments were spot on. Blake was swimming in the deep end and having a hard time keeping up.

[@MinhPham0407]

1:04:25 Blake was completed destroyed and he didn't even realize it!

[@__Andrew]

You cant make an argument for god using math when you get to just make up all the numbers as you go.

[@dogelife7901]

That's exactly what evolutionists do when they try to connect the dots, trust the science, add a few billion years.

[@__Andrew]

@@dogelife7901 sure bud, sure... maybe try talking to an actual biologist at a university some time.

[@ThePixel1983]

@@dogelife7901 You just showed you don't understand evolution. Would you mind explaining how it works?

[@Nocturnalux]

If you plug the numbers at random but in just the same way I do, you get GOD! Only Allah is God and- no wait, wrong religion.

[@2ndPigeon]

@@dogelife7901 You mean million years. Earth only has like 4. Please be accurate.

[@chrisa2351]

"I didn't understand the question" That's an easy question. the guy was asking basically even if the chance of life was small in our universe, considering the universe is so massive, then it doesn't matter that the chance of life happening on its own is small, it's most likely going to happen. Like playing the lotto. Even though your odds of winning are insanely low, someone WILL win

[@HJR98]

Chris A yea I can't believe that question went over everybody's heads, really surprised me

[@thatoneguyinthecomments2633]

Law of really big numbers says that if enough stuff happens, weird things will happen.

[@irshviralvideo]

Well it's even more likely than that. It could be infact highly likely, that life is always being tried tk be created

[@alekm4185]

The point is not that someone won the lotto, you're correct that someone is bound to win the lotto, the point is that one person won the lotto like a gazillion times over and over again. That ought to rise some suspission

[@jrskp3677]

At least the cameras got the views of the crowds reactions to these things. Matt speaks and the audience is looking around the room, can't tell if it's for recognition of others who didn't get it or if it's trying to find someone who did(possible 3rd, eye rolling & head movement indicative of disbelief because they did understand). All 3 could be true at the same time. Which is more than can be said about the theistic position, especially it's "evidences". LoL

[@Piterixos]

THat's funny how Blake says that it's ad hoc to say the Universe can be necessary. He just made up a being, defined it as necessary, and it's ok, but if someone says that well, maybe universe is necesary, then it's ad hoc. That's insane.

[@idrunkid.705]

@J w fortunately no serious human being is claiming that the universe came from nothing (although claiming that it didnt - or even couldn't - come from nothing is completely unfounded). And it very much depends on your definition of objective

[@j2mfp78]

So before you herd Blake speak you had never herd of God?

[@strategic1710]

All apologetics are ad hoc. People don't become Christians by apologetics. They believe first, and then form ad hoc justifications to avoid cognitive dissonance.

[@j2mfp78]

@@strategic1710 Is this how you came to your beliefs?

[@j2mfp78]

@@idrunkid.705 Claiming the universe couldn't come from nothing is unfounded?

[@fatdoi003]

if god is that obvious to his creations then why need all these word salad to prove his existence?

[@jtheist32]

Most excellent point.

[@jaydon1232]

Agree!

[@oldtimer5111]

Word salads are a necessity, therefore god needs them to be necessary for his necessity. I thought we had all learned that from this debate.

[@TerryUniGeezerPeterson]

Mmmm, Salad.....

[@dogelife7901]

The simplest answer is likely the most true, that he doesn't need it.

[@cartmanrlsusall]

Blake is so outclassed here it's almost comical, and thats not an insult to blake.he was not prepared to argue off his script. he wasn't prepared for someone saying I don't know when they didn't know something, even the audience questions were answered in that clear no philosophy way that people are just taken aback by how much this makes sense

[@LogosTheos]

He wasn't outclassed. Of course you already agree with Matt so anything Blake says will go right over your head.

[@kuhfusskatsadventures]

@@LogosTheos Actually he was. Thats absent of bias, as Matt is clearly more well versed, more studious, and has by definition the more logical and reasonably justifiable position

[@wkworld6741]

@@LogosTheos clearly you are biased towards blake. Whilst blake was in no way the worst opponent Matt has faced he still didn't do well here.

[@ceceroxy2227]

@@LogosTheos ya, obviously backwards. matt doesnt even understand the simplest things, blake is way smarter

[@jrskp3677]

@@ceceroxy2227 Seems like you got the names mixed up.

[@pragmaticbent5606]

Morality is an evolutionary imperative in social animals and can be observed in all social animals. This makes evolution the source for objective morality. Subjective morality is a uniquely human concept, but has it's roots in objective morality, hence in evolution, as well. Easy peasy.

[@thatoneguyinthecomments2633]

Morality is really just a bunch of heuristics with the goal of propagating a species.

[@darcyharsch5773]

First time I've ever been able to listen to Matt and hear what he was saying. This format really brought out his intelligent and thoughtful arguments. This actually allowed him to say things which gave me a lot to think about. Thanks BBC for setting this up.

[@mikerodgers7620]

If you just listen to him, you're a fool. Matt is an idiot heathen.

[@tobyadog]

Awesome debate! I really like the format of the Q&A, where its more of a conversation then anything. But I really think you should sacrifice some of the cross-examination time for a rebuttal period, as both sides made great points that I would like to hear responses to.

[@tommytwotacos8106]

That little girl is freaking adorable! The scowl she wore on her face when everyone else was laughing is utterly precious. Bonus points for the hibscus in her hair.

[@revalation92]

I really struggled to get through Blake's opening, particularly when he started getting into the probabilities on the "if atheism is true" side of things. Mostly because he seems to just pull his percentages out of thin air - "I'm just going to go ahead and say this has a 1% chance of occurring...because....." It came across as an incredibly disingenuous strategy that reeked of confirmation bias.

[@jss302]

cjdeist yep.

[@the-outsider8458]

He came across as really proud with himself about how he knows big words and understands difficult concepts, unfortunately they don't give even a modicum of evidence for his argument. He appears to be a pretty decent guy, and fairly intelligent. It's difficult to understand how those like him draw different conclusions when we're appearing to look at the same evidence. I only just got to his Pr (Atheism) which appears to have been, as you said, entirely pulled right outta his arse. Rather dishonest for someone who carries himself as a decent standup guy.

[@jrskp3677]

Who wants to hear these guys interpretation? I pretty much just skip ahead, unless I want to see this person show how magnanimously and stupendously moronic the can be. .then I play the "how far down his throat can a shoe go, game" it hasn't come out the other end yet...yet.

[@YY4Me133]

"...if something is possibly necessary, then it's actually necessary." I laughed so hard when Blake said that, that I had to pause the video. Do apologists ever *think* about the things they say, or are they in such a thrall to their religion that anything that seems to support their beliefs, no matter how preposterous, is simply accepted, without question? Is he joking? A god is a "necessary being" only in the minds of people who already believe it exists, and is necessary. At 1:11:25, or so, Blake deserves the Bell & Howell award. If there's a god, and it has no interest in making itself known, then no one can be blamed for not knowing it exists. That's all on the god thingy. Trees don't need people like Blake to convince others they exist. Our sun doesn't need apologists. If there is a god or gods, and it/they care about whether humans believe it/they exist(s), it/they is/are doing an awful job of it. By the way, the sound _quality_ is good, but, because the volume on Matt's mic was higher than the others, I had to keep adjusting the volume.

[@aleatoriac7356]

+YY4Me133 Agreed. I've yet to encounter an argument for the existence of a god that doesn't presuppose one exists.

[@YY4Me133]

CODE-STATION Thank you. I've been saying that for a while now...that *all* apologetics are presuppositional, not just the ones where they admit it.

[@flatebo1]

"...if something is possibly necessary, then it is actually necessary." What they try to argue is that if there exists a universe whose ruleset/governing laws/whatever make the existence of Being X necessary, then Being X exists. And if Being X is "maximally great", then Being X necessarily exists, as existence is a "great" property. (Why? Because we would prefer it? Seems....dubious.) So now we have a "maximally great" Being X which necessarily exists under the laws governing it's home universe. So what? Can Being X breach the boundaries between realities? If we live in a universe which precludes the existence of a "maximally great" being, can Being X exist in our reality? Does Being X take the natural laws which render its existence necessary with it wherever it goes? Or does it cease to exist when it interacts with a reality which precludes its existence? And more fundamentally, if Being X requires for its existence a universe which makes its existence as a necessary being possible, then Being X is necessarily contingent - specifically contingent on the universe which makes its existence necessary.

[@YY4Me133]

@C L The argument is not that something _is_ necessary, but "...if something is possibly necessary, then it's actually necessary." "Possibly" being the operative word here.

[@HoneyBadgerKait]

I think there is an important difference in how we use the term "possible" in colloquial language and how it is used in S5 Modal logic and mathematics. When we normaly say something is possible, we just mean we have no specific reasons or evidence to show that it is impossible. At the same time we also may not have any reasons or evidence to show that it is, in fact, possible. The other way to use the term "possible", is in the sense that you know what numbers can possibly result if you roll a 6 sided dice. It is possible to get any number from 1 to 6. Therefore, it is also possible to roll the number 3, 50 times in a row. It is probabilistically unlikely to roll that number 50 times in a row, but because we know that the number 3 is one of the possible numbers on the dice, it is technically a possible result. However, it is not possible to roll a number 7. So we know that no matter how many times the dice is rolled, it will never result in a 7, on a 6 sided dice. When we say that a God is "possibly necessary" in every day colloquial language, we generally just mean that we don't have specific evidence to show that it is not possible. We do not mean we do in fact have evidence or proof that it is possible. Even if you think it seems likely, and intuitively it makes sense, that the first cause of everything is a contingently necessary being, it's a different thing altogether to prove it is possible in the way a 3 is possible on a 6 sided dice. So I think there is a problem or conflation in some sense here and with Plantinga’s Ontological Argument. Just because I cannot, at the moment, come up with any compelling reasons why it is logically impossible for God to exist, does not at all mean it is actually possible for God to exist. Otherwise we could also say that it is possible a God does not exist (or that no Gods exist), and run the argument that way and end up with both being actually true.

[@1140Cecile]

Excellent production, BBC. Thanks.

[@skeptreusa3152]

1140Cecile I agree and echo the gratitude.

[@jenniferearles4399]

This stuff is so clearly man made that there must be some really strong psychological needs that people have that make them ignore this.

[@gskowal]

It boggles my mind how a Christian can think that he has a superior moral code over a humanist while simultaneously claim that it is moral for a creator of life to murder, torture and impose suffering on his creation. This is when you can tell that religion has poisoned their moral compass and ability to reason on their own.

[@GoodAvatar]

***** One of the biggest reasons they can do this is because.... *They haven't read the Bible, themselves.* You'd think that a *PRIEST* of some sort would have read it, though. But he doesn't seem to know that Deuteronomy, Leviticus or Exodus even exists.... And in those books, God acts like such an asshole that it shreds any notion of a loving god.

[@gskowal]

I wouldn't say that they haven't read it or that they don't know it as for many Catholic priests are required take theology courses(although I agree that plenty of priests and pastors seem to completely dismiss the Old Testament as it is contradictory to their own moral compass). Problem is that they fail to see through the pink glasses. They fail to recognize the evil actions of God, justifying it as "well God can do anything to you since he gave you life he can take it away". Terrible logic as just because someone has the power to create life it does not mean that it would be moral for that being to torture his living creation.

[@KiSs0fd3aTh]

+Greg Kowal Actually the second someone says that he takes his morals from god then he AUTOMATICALLY makes the statement that he isn't a moral being, he just follows commands. Morals have to NECESSARILY come from one's self, following commands that someone else told you are moral ones is exactly like a dog that doesn't sit on the couch because you taught him not to. He doesn't even know why, he is just doing what he was told

[@gskowal]

Fus Ro Dah Fully agree with you.

[@KiSs0fd3aTh]

***** And I spotted a typo, I said god instead of dog :P

[@vlad-pm2zr]

@1:02:50 "conceivability is evidence of possibility" lol. So if I conceive of a unicorn, it's possible now that it exists? damn dude.. that is some dense logic

[@rychei5393]

I keep coming back to that one... Where's my magic purple chocolate egg farting bunny?

[@UTU49]

Many Christians are terrible at trying to see other people's perspectives. They rarely even try. I WANT to hear a good argument for the existence of God. I have NEVER heard one. Never. I. WANT. TO. HEAR. ONE. I'm an athiest and I could do a better job of arguing for the existence of God. Most religious people seem to have lost considerable ability to think logically.

[@MMDelta9]

So I may have lost something seeing as I am also playing Pillars of Eternity, but Giunta hasn't really explained why his god is necessary in anyway. He just kind of rehashed Craig's argument which boils down to 'I cannot conceive of a universe without god, ergo my god must exist.'

[@rychei5393]

Yep, pretty much.

[@thechurchofsillybeggars8912]

Be careful theists. Deviating from a faith based on pretending to know things you know are not true, could lead to an even greatly accelerated demise for your religion based on a God that does not exist.

[@dogelife7901]

That would only matter is said religion is true. Otherwise they are just warm food.

[@vinny142]

@16:00 That's one *huge* argument from personal incredulity. He keeps stacking up unlikely events and concludes that some intelligence must have been involved. That by itself is nonsense, but it's at least human. The next step: "therefor my god is real" is completely unrelated. But, if you are arguing against science, your best bet is to pretend that you are also using science, so...

[@TimothyBukowskiApologist]

In no case is Blake arguing "against science". Further, with all due respect, you show no understanding of Bayes' Theorem

[@kosgoth]

I think the failure of the argument is at about 9:40 X is uncaused and necessary, everything after can become dependently necessary if that thing doesn't have a choice, we have no way to tell if the thing does or doesn't have a choice. It could be that thing necessarily doesn't have a choice to create the universe, it's inevitable. refer to a universe from nothing which makes this case clear.

[@vinny142]

I didn't say he argued against science at all, I like Blake because he tries to approach things scinetifically. And while it's true that I don''t know much about Bayes theorem, I do know that it's pointless to apply it to a set of probabilities that you have just made up. This is where Blake makes the typical theist mistake of trying to apply science while making an exception to allow for god.

[@madcityobserver6294]

At 1:21:05 into the video the audience questioner needs to eat his words because gravity waves have indeed now finally been detected. How silly of him to phrase his statement saying "scientists cannot ...". Evidently his going to Vanderbilt didn't inform him that science tends to progress.

[@Thundawich]

With the courtroom thing, it is the exact same whether it be a crime or god's existence. We make the judgement on whether or not the person is guilty based on the evidence presented, and in the case that the burden of proof is not met we ACT as if the opposite is true. Likewise with god, if god's existence has yet to meet the burden of proof we should ACT as if the opposite is true until sufficient evidence is presented. The same thing occurs in both cases, in court we presume innocence so that we do not convict innocent people, and to presume guilt would make everybody guilty of every crime ever, which is sort of dumb. Likewise with claims about gods, we presume they are false until they have proven themselves true so that we don't base our lives on mistruth, because to accept every claim until it is proven false is dumb and leads to contradictions immediately. I personally think the courtroom analogy is near perfect in showing how we should assess any claim, because that is exactly what the courts are set up to do, and they do it fucking well.

[@tasmiraziz5260]

The main issue is the conflation of two concepts i.e belief in God being rational and whether God exists. Conflating both is a huge logical error on Blake's part. You can make all the arguements in the world but you will always end up at best with VALID arguements but not sound ones. Soundness is what is required because it requires the premises to be proven true. I don't think anyone took Blake's calculation seriously but even if it was correct that doesn't prove God and to say it does is being fallacious and misleading. Consider picking a card from a shuffled deck for example. The probability may be low but that doesn't prove any intent to choose that particular card. We also don't know what a universe would look like if it weren't like this. Sure, maybe we wouldn't exist but why is our existence the only thing to consider here. At best what you can demonstrate is that this particular universe had a very low chance of existing but you don't prove that any other possibility wasn't equally impropable. I think everyone has already mentioned including Matt that judging the probability of something for which you have no definitions and parameters and which isn't falsifyable is innately fallacious. Beyond this, Blake is a smart guy but makes many of the same errors almost all Theists do. He also commented on a KZbin video 10 arguements for God in which atleast 6 had been outright debunked.

[@crabking6884]

You’re right but you don’t need to even think of it like that. Perhaps this is the only way a universe can come about. Perhaps the universal constants being like this is the only way the universe can exist. This is another way to at least sort of refute the fine tuning problem

[@Springheel01]

Why did Matt not comment on Blake's claims about what a God would "plausibly do". In other places, Blake claims that we can't understand why God might do particular things, like staying hidden, so how can he establish what the percentage chance is that a God might want to create something? His entire argument seems depending on assigning plausibility to things that he can't possibly know.

[@KommandantKavu]

No counter arguments could be made.

[@Brainbuster]

Matt was a bit drunk toward the end.

[@cartmanrlsusall]

at 2hrs46min the special pleading man is so smug with his moses nonsense, first provide some evidence that moses was a historical person. the histories of the Egyptian empire shows Pharaohs, and architects, even foremen on the pyramid work crews, but no mention at all of moses or the millions of Israeli slaves. so why give any credence to writings attributed to him?

[@jacobm.7352]

1:33 that's me. I feel like Blake dropped the ball when he said I'm not sure how we can know. 😁. That just confirms all other claims once made about God in the bible could be false. Enjoyed the debate. You were a good sport Blake.

[@MikeTall88]

you can be justified to believe even if you can't be justified to claim that you know. that's why we have labels like agnostic/gnostic theist and atheist.

[@tasmiraziz5260]

@@MikeTall88 only if you appeal to faith. You can't be justified to believe and also justify that belief using things such as probability, decalarative statements, and claims about reality without demonstration.

[@bltorioles]

Even if prayer worked ( and it doesn't ) why would you have to plead with your "benevolent" god to convince him to help people?

[@MarkusAvrelius]

because the world already got everything necessary to live life in abundance and still can't do it.

[@defiante1]

If prayer worked, the world wouldn't be as it is. If the Christian faith is true, and god has a plan, prayer is immoral by asking a supreme intelligence to change its plan. Which leads too two possible conclusions, either prayer doesn't work and the world is the way it is because of people, or that God made it this way and he likes it this way, and God is an asshole. In both conclusions, he shouldn't be worshiped.

[@MarkusAvrelius]

+defiante1 the prayer is not meant to change God's will but our perspective so that we understand our situation we are in. So it's all about us to grow in understanding God's plan.

[@MarkusAvrelius]

God existence can't be perceived without the prayer. That is the difference.

[@defiante1]

Then how do you explain Christian's who lose their faith and become atheists and talk openly about how they never perceived god. Or is this the no true Scotsman argument and they just weren't proper Christians?

[@drangus3468]

It's such a shame to see an intelligent mind wasted on apologetics. I have no doubt Blake is capable of finding the flaws in his own arguments, but he's been brainwashed into this mode of thinking where your only goal is to confirm an existing belief. I know what it's like because I was conditioned in exactly this way growing up in the church.

[@darkseid6412]

YOU AND I HAVE TWO VERY DIFFERENT DEFINITIONS OF INTELLIGENCE!!! THE GUY BELIEVES THAT THEIR IS AN IMAGINARY MAN THAT COULD TELL HIM TO KILL ANYBODY AND DO IT WITHOUT QUESTION AND THAT DROWNING BABIES IS OK FOR THE IMAGINARY MAN!!!!TRY DERANGED TWISTED ROTTEN MIND , THAT WORKS MUCH BETTER!!!

[@adrenochrome_slurper]

@J w what if the earth is flat, which it most likely is?

[@myles5158]

@@adrenochrome_slurper it’s not.

[@marKism69]

Blake - nice try kiddo, better than most, but you have been served by the master.

[@defiante1]

I found him quite insufferable to be honest, not as bad as Sye obviously, but the amount of times he interrupts Matt and tries to dominate the conversation got annoying.Also his refusal to accept simple counter arguments.

[@SNORKYMEDIA]

even though fine tuning is bullshit

[@T.E.A.TimeMusic]

Ralath Aka Defiant NO ONE is as bad as Sye. Except maybe the Hovinds.

[@ramommeke]

John TheAtheist / The guy isn’t bad, but seriously, his arguments weren’t good at all. He misinterpreted common logics at multiple occasions when he interrupted Matt.

[@dias8726]

@J w The only reason his fans click on his videos are to: 1: Say daddy hunty has won again. 2: Have a circle in the comments.

[@bleach219]

"My Squid Joe is the greatest possible Squid. If Squid Joe is not the greatest possible Squid then he is not my Squid Joe." This is an incredibly nonsensical argument yet Theists insist on using it when they talk about their supposed God. He talks on how his God has all these supposed attributes if he exists. Maximal power, knowledge, goodness and is a personal being yet there is absolutely no reason to believe such attributes are necessary or true. An all powerful being could create a universe like this one and turn out to be incredibly evil, it would certainly provide an explanation for all the suffering. Why would such a being have to be all powerful? A nuke has incredible power yet it can't clean my laundry, why couldn't the being just have the power to create universes with no ability to intervene in them once created. Maximal knowledge, yet again I'd ask why that is necessary given that such a being would only need to know how to create universes in order to satisfy their claim of a creator being existing.

[@pragmaticbent5606]

Catastrophic flaw in any causal theory is proposing God exists outside time. Causality can only be expressed temporally, even a first cause. Philosophy sans practicality is useless.

[@dogelife7901]

This seems like limiting God, who could both exist outside of time yet have started time, or atleast our perception of it as time wouldn't exist without a cause and we wouldn't understand it unless given a rational ability to do so in this particular section of time.

[@rychei5393]

@@dogelife7901 Precisely. In theists attempts to have a limitless god, they render god useless and meaningless. God is 'maximally' xyz which is then recognized as zero and equals a minimal.

[@chidy9699]

I'm surprised at how many people seem to misunderstand Matt's position in regards to epistemology. He's not saying that methodological naturalism / science are the only type of evidence he'll accept. He saying that to determine truth value of, or to believe a proposition you need a methodology. With this in mind the scientific method works, but does not seem to be able to answer supernatural questions. Therefore in order to accept a supernatural proposition, you need a methodology that is shown to be reliable, and until you have that methodology, or a way to answer supernatural questions scientifically, you should not believe them. Imo if you understand that's he's not arguing a kind of scientism, and is instead asking for a method to answer supernatural questions reliably, like the way that science currently answers questions about the natural world, it becomes clear what he's saying. So many times I've seen people think he's arguing for scientism and completely miss the point. If you can understand this, his positions and arguments make much more sense.

[@Radi0actvChickn]

17:23 - 28:20 Blake Giunta gives us a list of shit he doesn't understand and explains how little he understands them

[@EvieBoleynLyon]

That guy asking about gravity waves has been proven wrong, gravity waves have been detected since this video was uploaded.

[@galactus170X]

"Prove that the NewYork Yankees exist" A) Well, first you have to ask yourself if the Yankees are necessary... OR B) You can buy a ticket and go watch them play. Is it just me or B seems like the way to go?

[@Kyssifrot]

The first part of Giunta is extremely misleading. How can you put any probability on an event that you don't know the mechanism of occurrence? That's not how math works, sorry. All of his work with probabilities is wrong because the probability of all of those scientific mysteries are not small, they are just totally unknown.

[@UTU49]

There are multiple catastrophic problems with his reasoning. His main claim is that God exists. Along the way he makes half a dozen OTHER unsupported claims.

[@deanlowdon8381]

+Kyssifrot He just pulls a bunch of figures out of his arse and pretends he has some sort of clever mathematical formula.

[@MBarberfan4life]

It also doesn't make sense because he was trying to conditionalize the probability of a necessary truth (i.e. ontological argument)

[@MugenTJ]

The guy who stuttered asking a very clear question still: Even if there is some Creator, how do we know anything about him, such as good or not? The question was dodged.

[@thegreycouncil4917]

Magnus Eriksson there isn't one for atheism. It's just a position on a single question, does god exist. the atheist would say, "there isn't any evidence to indicate a god, therefore, I don't know based on the lack of evidence presented". If a study was done and be repeatable to show or try and indicate souls or god, then the athiest would change their views based on the research and evidence provided. That's it.

[@billvigus3719]

It would require a revelation from that being to know anything about them. This is the purpose of the old and new testament since without G-d telling us about himself there'd be no way for us to know since we're bound to this universe.

[@gusgrizzel8397]

Since the world is God's creation, he is evil. Animals live horrible lives, having to strive to make it to adulthood to procreate, they have to hunt and kill each other to eat, or be eaten. Man fares as bad, unless you are born into money, you work like a slave to get by. Anyone who disagrees knows they have an easy life.

[@tannermclaughlin2653]

He dodged every question

[@gusgrizzel8397]

@@billvigus3719 The bible is no different than any other religious or mystical book. Written by men, no proof or evidence of any god. The god never shows himself or interacts with us.

[@KenHoodJr]

So, did he just admit that The Flying Spaghetti Monster is a more complex idea than the Christian God? Is that what I heard in his opening statement? "God is even simpler than an electron" OK, just let me know when this super-simple-god somehow evolved a conscience requiring it to be appeased by the blood sacrifice of a perfect being (Himself of course) to Himself, in a finite amount of time, but satisfying the demand for the guilt of all sin that has ever been or ever will be committed.

[@vinny142]

1:14:39 "fundamental particles cannot have deeper mechanisms" Why not? And why is it a problem for Matt, given that your next step is to claim that your god doesn't have a deeper mechanism either?

[@jarrod752]

That sticker on Blake's laptop that says _dribbble_ is ironically accurate for his presentation.

[@rnss22]

Blake, you can use anything or word in your “Theory/Hypothesis” and can make it work. Try and use leprechauns or fairies, you can come to the same conclusions.

[@2ndPigeon]

I love that Blake is just doing general theism while Matt contrasts that with what god does in the bible. It's clashes.

[@ChilledfishStick]

In 2:28:30, the guy claims that the Hebrew word "yom", can mean any amount of time. Unless I'm somehow wrong, which is doubtful since Hebrew is my native language, and I've even checked if Jewish apologists have a different definition, "yom" is a day. In modern Hebrew, it's definitely just a day. If you'll tell someone that you're going to call him in three "yamim" (the plural form), and call him in three months instead, he'll think that you've gone insane.

[@memesredacted]

Chilledfish modern hebrew is quite different from the ancient hebrew that the bible was written in.

[@SNORKYMEDIA]

if you need "modal logic" to prove god you have already lost the argument

[@aniekanumoren6088]

1:21:20 LOL scientists can't measure gravitational waves eh? Well in about two months form the publishing of this video he would have been proven wrong.

[@tasmiraziz5260]

@RUSSIAN ROBOT confirmation of the nature of the universe as Einstein predicted over a hundred years ago? Useless?

[@tasmiraziz5260]

@RUSSIAN ROBOT we didn't understand the nature of the universe thousands of years ago. The use is it brings us closer to answering the burning cosmological questions.

[@tasmiraziz5260]

@RUSSIAN ROBOT ahh this is the metaphysical jargon. Yes I'm referring to the demonstrable realist understanding of the universe in its intricacies. I get your point tho Guru Jee.

[@tasmiraziz5260]

@RUSSIAN ROBOT I'm only interested in what is demonstrable. I understand what you are saying I just don't know how it's even slightly relevant.

[@GarretsShadow]

I like that Blake actually values logic and reason above all else, which is more than can be said for most apologists. He still makes lots of unwarranted assumptions in his arguments though

[@myles5158]

If he did he wouldn’t be debating for a god 😂

[@MJ1341]

The old guy with the black shirt seemed to think the debate was between him and Matt. It was like he was trying to prove how smart he was but he was not very convincing. The Moderator should have just said Do you have a question? Instead of letting him grandstand.

[@miischaqi2676]

Science has provided us with many conclusions that we now refer to as “knowledge” ...... but has also provided us with the knowledge and understanding that we know very little and have so much to learn.

[@dogelife7901]

Bingo. God's foolishness is wiser than man's greatest wisdom.

[@TorAndreKongelf]

I wont comment on all the obvious things. But I really like that there seems to be alot of young people in the audience.

[@ryanwallace6335]

Great quality video and I can tell this debate was really calm and casual clearly not what we saw with Sye

[@indviduation]

Is Adam and Eve historical, no. Since Jesus is the new Adam, but since Adam and Eve are not historical, Then Jesus is not historical either.

[@chrisfer10]

indviduation, Jesus is historical, which means we know that Adam and Eve were as well.

[@indviduation]

Chriscar 48 Adam Eve are myths the same as The biblical Jesus is a myth as well, wishful thinking is not historical.

[@dogelife7901]

What year is it again.

[@atheistsfightclub6684]

A brain doesn't need a soul to avoid pain, nor does it need consciousness, all it needs is pain receptors triggered when the organism does something harmful to itself to trigger an automatic response.

[@maciekmichalski7696]

God without people is nobody.

[@dogelife7901]

In the beginning was the word.

[@rychei5393]

Perceptive.

[@Zephoxi]

That closing statement from Matt gave me chills tbh

[@behrensf84]

It is the god of the gaps..... it’s always I don’t know, therefore god....

[@rychei5393]

Ya, but then he said it specifically wasn't god of the gaps. /s

[@behrensf84]

@@rychei5393 yeah, he said that, and then went on and made a god of the gaps argument.

[@mrfox2521]

While the causal chain argument initially seems sound there is one distinct issue: Time. It is popularly theorized that time began with the big bang, meaning that time does not exist until event one. This means that while we can say event one was 'caused', under the assumption that there is no effect without cause, we can't assume there is an event zero. This is why we can reason that the universe may have created itself, but can't reason it was a Divine being. The knee-jerk counter argument to that theory is that even if the universe does repeatedly create itself, there must have been a point when the first Universe was made. This however mixes systems of logic. If we assume that the Universe creates itself we must also realize that event zero exists outside of our perception of reality and therefore does not necessarily need a start point. It is entirely reasonable to theorize that the universe just 'is'. This may all seem convoluted and as it is theory, not disproof of the initial causal chain claim. It does however show that by using similar logic we can conclude that a god causing event one is not the only solution to the question. In short, humans do not have an understanding of time and space outside of our perception of it, so stating that everything must have been created by something, time included, is a self-defeating claim, as a cause-effect relationship is only maximally certain, not absolutely.

[@mrfox2521]

I am aware that he speaks to this; saying that a god would necessitate an existance seperate from time and matter as we know it (or entirely), my intent is simply to show that an event zero does not require a god figure as event 1 necessitating an ultimate cause is only reasonable under our perception of time, which is not absolute.

[@rychei5393]

@@mrfox2521 Fun how he can willy nilly define this god with no bounds no rules. If the god exists outside of time, then it does not exist in time. Out side of reality, then it is not inside of reality, outside the bounds of existence then it is not inside the bounds or limits of existence. This theist is literally defining god to a place with no time, no reality and not existence, as such he is wrong to then claim that his god is the opposite: engages with time, is real, or exists. Reality has limits, with out limits there is no reality. Theists can't grasp this and just want it all.

[@FranklinsLighthouse]

2:23:15 Blake finally realizes the strength of the courtroom analogy. Matt lets him off the hook as a gesture of respect and mercy.

[@koppite9600]

59:35 Blake actually finds Matt lying about S5. He teaches him politely showcasing his Christian morals

[@dallaskinard3143]

@@koppite9600 Good catch. Matt did lie to not appear stupid.

[@ImperialGoldfish]

Atheist myself - I really love the idea of the BBC, think you guys are doing fantastic work

[@TheBibleandBeerConsortium]

Thank you!

[@ThePixel1983]

Oooh, now I get it, I was wondering what the British Broadcasting Corporation had to do with this.

[@plaguebringer420]

Matt said the Blake equation instead of the Drake Equation. No one seemed to have noticed.

[@topofsm]

Plague Bringer Lol, I noticed it too when I was listening. It was really funny.

[@plaguebringer420]

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought so. :D

[@Brainbuster]

I noticed it. In fact I think he lost his sharpness after that margarita.

[@daniellepearsall4978]

@@Brainbuster I think he was trying to give Blake a handicap...he should have had several (dozens) more to make it even

[@ronburgandy5006]

Matt's closing comments were simply brilliant...just pure honesty.

[@versioncity1]

I've listened to the first 5 minutes and have a feeling this is going to be one big mountain of word salad. Not sure I can face nearly 3 hours of it. And the sun is out.

[@ThePixel1983]

Oh, it's been a while since I heard the argument "my thing is the greatest thing and it exists because it wouldn't be the greatest if it didn't exist". Let's not go there, it is a silly place.

[@yourassasin8844]

I've about had enough of the probability calculations for the conditions of our universe. answer this theists: what's the probability of the conditions being anything other than what they are? to be fair I'll give you some states to work with, so the first statistics are what exists, the other set of statistics are............................................................................................... let's compare notes, after calculating I got an answer of roughly "something that didn't happen has no probability of being something that happened"

[@yourassasin8844]

I spoke to soon, Matt says the same thing I said lol

[@todbeard8118]

+Chad Hinterman Good intuition.

[@powningatheists7987]

+Chad Hinterman It is valid to ask, "Why?" even about the constants and initial conditions of the universe; even if atheists find the answer to be inconvenient. But you seem to completely miss the argument. The probability calculations in the fine-tuning arguments are not calculating the probability that the universe would be in its current state given it is in its current state (that would be rather unproductive), but instead deal with the likelihood that the constants in the physical laws and the initial conditions would have their values as opposed to some other values. The constants in the physical laws are well-known constant numerical values such as the strong and weak nuclear forces, among many others. These constants are not themselves determined by the physical laws, but are simply unchanging numerical values in the equations. The probability calculation, with regard to the constants, determines the probability that the constant would be the value that it is by chance. The initial conditions are certain values that physicists have determined had to be present at the beginning of the universe in order for the universe to be in its current state; things like a certain amount of entropy, etc. The probability calculations, with regards to the initial conditions, determines the probability that the initial conditions would be the values that they were only by chance. Remember that on atheism the values of the constants and initial conditions would have to either be determined by physical necessity or by chance (since design is ruled out apriori). Physical necessity is ruled out since the values of the constants and initial conditions are not dependent on or determined by physical laws. And the probability calculations show that the alternative of chance is completely untenable. Therefore, it is a strong argument against atheism.

[@yourassasin8844]

Powning Atheists well for me the problem is when you assume it must be the way it is, because otherwise we wouldn't be here. If we could start the universe over with the same conditions there's no reason to think life as we know it would come into existence. We are a product of the conditions, we can say now the conditions could have gone in another direction, and I agree. But that other direction would be seemingly fine tuned as well. Matt gives an example in other debates, everyone in an arena has a deck of cards and randomly draws a card, any result is equally probable, and any result is equally unique. The result doesn't become fine tuned until lifeforms in the result declare it to be fine tuned. When science talk about the fine tuning and how conditions for our existence was on a razors edge, there not saying the conditions were intelligently guided it simply means that's what happened, our existence is irrelevant to what happened. We weren't and never have been a twinkle in the universe's eye. At least I see no reason to think so, so fine tuning "argument" isn't a problem for me.

[@todbeard8118]

Chad Hinterman Good point.

[@Knightfall8]

lol Blake tapdances around the idea that god knowingly deceives by saying "well some philosophers say there's a difference between lying and deception"

[@ianyboo]

"I believe in the god of the Bible, but I'm going to show up to a debate and just argue for a general sort of god and cry foul anytime my specific god is mentioned" This has to be one of the most annoying apologetic smokescreens of them all... remember if you are agreeing to a topic of debate watch the wording very closely or this is what you get.

[@MikeTall88]

the topic was about a god, he is under no obligation to defend the Christian god. Matt is a anti-theist/strong atheist, but he argues atheism and that's fine.

[@ianyboo]

MikeTall88 I said it was annoying, I'm just giving my personal opinion here. In no way am I trying to say that he was "obligated" to do something.

[@KiSs0fd3aTh]

+MikeTall88 According to his belief, there is only one god, the christian one. Sure, the debate talks about whether a god exists. But according to HIM, god isn't a being sitting on Olympus throwing lighting bolts, so Zeus isn't a god. God isn't a dude on the sky throwing lighiting bolts, so Thor isn't a god either. For him god is the supernatural being that created everything, listens to prayers, cares where you put your penis into and sent his son down to earth as a sacrifice. So obviously THAT'S what he has to defend cause that's what he defines as god.

[@krismyles5007]

This format is awesome.

[@bltorioles]

Question to Christians....how do you tell the difference between a god out of space and time or one that doesn't exist? Remember the invisible and the non existent look pretty much alike

[@ianalan4367]

The existence of one for me would be the observation of life itself and the fact that I find it more reasonable that we are some type of creation than not. I'm guessing you mean a specific or personal God however which primarily is confirmed by experience I think. Peace!

[@bltorioles]

Your response ignores what science has only observed thus far, but thank you your input

[@ianalan4367]

bltorioles Neither ignored nor limited by it. Your welcome and TY.

[@ianalan4367]

TheZooCrew If we are merely defining God as the creator of life as we know it, you are correct that science teaches us that life can create itself. Well, not conclusively but most probably to the extent we consider it a fact. The odds are astronomical but it is apparently possible to all laws of physics as we know them. The problem is (I think) we have no way of calculating the odds of there being a 'creator'. We know the odds of life coming from a mere coincidence of events is astronomical. Without knowing the odds of there being a creator it really becomes what each of us thinks is more reasonable. I think it is more probable than the odds of life creating itself which as mentioned we believe is astronomical. Of course, even if we believe that against all odds life did create itself by some random course of accidental events one still has to ask where did the conditions come from that enabled life to create itself against all odds, right?

[@ianalan4367]

TheZooCrew - O.K. Zoo Crew would you first please let me know what definition of God you would prefer to use? Hard to go further without knowing what your more useful definition is. Respectfully!

[@rtarbinar]

2:05:51 - a whole 0.01% for his god? how generous! and how exactly did he arrive at that figure? and how do you tell the difference between the 0.01% and the 99.99%? so many questions...

[@ACE777R6]

Blake Giunta - Future Athiest.

[@stevebeck312]

Future Muslim

[@davidsommen1324]

@J w People who are actually smart can only reach the conclusion that god is a childish concept.

[@davidsommen1324]

@J w Nice try for a moron, a fail nonetheless.

[@sethpatrick]

He’d make a good atheist. Nice guy just brainwashed.

[@rijden-nu]

@1:50:49 "I promise I'll make it quick." Never a good sign for a question in the question phase of these kinds of debates.

[@alphadawg81]

SadBunny So true!😁

[@Paxsali]

"BBC Debate:: Does God Exist"... *PLEASE DON'T POST NO SPOILERS IN THE COMMENT SECTION* I'm planning on watching this...

[@Brainbuster]

The butler did it in the library with the candlestick.

[@scottrichter341]

+Pasxali K "Don't post no spoiler".... So post spoilers???

[@alphadawg81]

Paxsali Double negatives are a big "No No"!

[@richardgamrat1944]

Bude Spencer is God

[@wowamonn]

The Blake guy was cordial but Matt chewed him up and spat him out!

[@the_stoned_investor]

The little girl was adorable

[@3dge--runner]

+oneznzeroz agreed. i hope she breaks out of the bubble sooner than later.

[@enigmaticaljedi6808]

+oneznzeroz THe little girl was horrendously emotionally abused in her brainwashing. I feel eternally sorry for her in having her brain dominated and controlled at such a young age, and having the ability to reason and rationalize the world on her own stunted for an unknown length of time by having the paranoid and delusional unsubstantiated beliefs of her parents FORCED into her as if it is something she can reach out and touch. It is one thing to teach a child not to put their hand in a fire because it will hurt them... it is another to teach a child she will go to hell to burn forever in a lake of fire if she doesn't "worship no other god before me"

[@DeusEmDebate]

Enigmatical Jedi Teaching Religion to kids doesn't turn them into intellectually incapable and defenseless people. Many great thinkers and achievers were and are religious. Religion did nothing to stop their contributions to mankind. Please take into account that there is no neutral way to teach a worldview to kids. I can teach them how to think in a naturalistic way, or teach them to be open to supernatural hypothesis. I don't think there's a reason to believe the supernatural is impossible, so I'll choose the later worldview. If you choose to teach your children atheist or scientism, I'll respect you and acknowledge that you will not teach something you don't believe. There is no need to call it abuse, we can all respect other people's households and take care of our business without disrespecting or interfering in other families.

[@enigmaticaljedi6808]

Deus Em Debate Who EVER said anything about religion making them intellectually incapable???? You seem to be adding your own things and then trying to tear them down (that is what they call a straw man). Think on this though. Francis Collins, who was the head of the Human Genome project, who could be argued is a champion of science, advisor to the president... saw a waterfall in 3 streams and INSTANTLY believed in the christian god! You can argue all you want about the separation between his science and his religion, or how "capable" he is despite his religion. But at the end of the day, a man who bases his entire career around the promotion, adherence and STRICT belief in the scientific method as being the ONLY legitimate means of reaching the truth... has hand picked one special area of his life where he throws all of that out the window and just "goddidit". To me that is a level of mental dissonance that it makes him a concern, it makes him dangerous and untrustworthy. Where one SHOULD be able to expect the scientific method to hold up, where something could be discussed or challenged with him through science, he just waves his hands when he chooses to, says "goddidit" and magically EVERY SINGLE LAST PIECE of his entire career is put on the shelf and he throws all sense and reason out the window and just blindly follows the antithesis of his life's work. How can you trust a person with such conflicting and opposite faculties contained within the same brain? It is a lack of integrity (from the greek meaning of the word), a lack of consistency, a lack of trustworthiness that frankly to me should get him instantly fired due to incompetence. But thats me, I just think that if you have a principle you stick to it, something is right no matter the circumstance, something works no matter who or what it is applied to. You dont get to make special pleading and separate out ONE topic and say "Everything BUT this topic adheres to the scientific method... but my special little topic is beyond that COS I SAID SO". Its incredulous!

[@DeusEmDebate]

Enigmatical Jedi You did. I'm not Francis Collins' advocate nor do I presume to know what makes him tick. You don't have to trust anyone, and WHO EVER said you should do that? That is beside my point, which was: if you don't want to teach religion, don't. Just don't think you are better than anyone who does.

[@DemstarAus]

The problem with looking at a brain on its own is that we don't see that. Brains are connected to bodies that have sensory input through that body. The brain would not have conscious experience without those inputs.

[@dogelife7901]

Thank God for that

[@Shirohige33]

Don't read the comments. It will lower your IQ into nothing.

[@Brainbuster]

Matt really lost his mojo after drinking the margarita. It was like he zoned out, starting slurring a bit, etc.

[@chrisa2351]

Gravity waves have been measured now I thought.

[@davidmarzolino7159]

Chris A God is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance.

[@dalanology]

+Chris A, I must've missed when this was brought up; do you recall the time of discussion?

[@UTU49]

Yo dalanology. A few minutes ago, I time stamped that very section, so I'll paste it here. 1:21:13 Trying to draw an analogy between detecting God and detecting gravity is poor reasoning, even by junior high school standards. I'm sorry -- I'm going to be mean here -- this guy's questions are so fucking idiotic. He says that he studied Physics. I would not want to have had him for a lab partner. Cuz... yikes.

[@squimped]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/e5LCoWibhqpgn68 for the analogy in the Q&A. You'd think someone who studied physics at Vanderbilt would know to temper his words and pronouncements about what scientists CAN do.

[@youngidealist]

So, if I understand right, Slick believes that Atheists cannot come to the table on ANY knowledge claim because we don't claim absolute knowledge. Is that right? How does that compare to Slick coming to a conversation on morals after he spent so much of his life as a good Christian father only to abuse his children both physically and psychologically? I'm not making a wild claim, his daughter came out and wrote of his abuse, albeit she didn't think too much about it and didn't expand in detail. She did mention that he punished her for not knowing HIS answers to big philosophical questions and that his punishment of choice was hitting her with a piece of leather. Even if you don't consider that bad enough to judge him, can you see that it's bad? Can you see that he was instructed by the God of the Bible to do it? Does he regret his behavior? If no, he's a monster. If yes, he should be convinced by now that the Bible isn't a good source for moral instruction because it told him to hit his kids. When was the last time that the Bible was used to determine a moral claim and it helped us to conclude that the solution to the moral problem was anything other than abuse?

[@kimsland999]

If god is not real then why on Earth would Jesus comes down to die for all our sins? That would be nonsense. Checkmate Atheists :)

[@AlanLow]

Yep, complete nonsense. You get it.

[@kimsland999]

I think you picked up on my my sarcastic tongue in cheek, Christian nonsense reply. Well done :)

[@AlanLow]

Firstly, how is this nonsense an equation? Although I don't know you, I will agree that you are most likely human. Again, you may or may not be ill. Sin is a nebulous term encompassing many things, in most cases won't kill you. See above, Nothing to cure. Again, nothing to cure, so you can't cure anything.. Where do you get these silly ideas?

[@kimsland999]

Sin is only a Christian term. People who aren't christians don't believe in sin Therefore the answer is not to be christian :)

[@AlanLow]

Let's wind this back a bit. Firstly you haven't shown even the tiniest shred of evidence for this mythical god of yours. You sound like you have a slave like personality where you need something to be in authority for you and absolve you of having to think for yourself. Your god is just a tool, invented thousands of years ago to control stupid people, it still seems to be working too.

[@markw480]

I would love to hang out with Matt.. and a pitcher of margaritas !!! Lol

[@glutinousmaximus]

Hmm .. Blake never seemed to get out of the starting gate. BTW, I don't think he realizes how disgusting it is to think that some god could tell him that It's okay to kill a child.

[@chrisfer10]

Adam Mangler, God doesn’t tell us nothing, we have Free Will, and it is man who cause death and suffering in this world, God has chosen to suppress his power, for us to be able to have free will.

[@glutinousmaximus]

A pleasant illusion my friend.

[@Maksie0]

If you came across an innocent person being attacked, and you could save them effortlessly, would you do it? Or would you suppress your power so the attacker can have free will?

[@glutinousmaximus]

Easy - If you asked me, I would stop and save them. See - I didn't even have to think about that. God might let YOU kill a child and punish you later. _I_ would try and stop it.

[@Rico-Suave_]

Watched all of this debate in another upload, this upload seems its by the coordinators and better quality

[@BrendanWhelan]

The fact that we are still debating the existence of a god is enough for me to realize that a god probably doesn’t exist, and I’m certainly not going to believe a god exists because a collection of books written thousands of years ago say so.

[@erichernandez744]

WOW what song is that at the end of the video?? I love it and can't find it anywhere :(

[@EzraBoggs]

+Eric Hernandez The song is by Grady Spencer & The Work

[@Brainbuster]

Sandstorm, by Darude.

[@lukasanthony2752]

So often I almost find myself swayed by the arguments of theists in these debates, only to have Matt smack me all the way back to actual rationality. Thank you Matt, the convoluted stupidity of theism is dangerous.

[@ceceroxy2227]

which part, i find matts arguments terrible

[@tonybanks1035]

the straightforward stupidity of atheism seems to work better on you

[@Piterixos]

Disembodied, timeless mind, with free will, pwoer and knowledge... You know you fail your apologetic if that's how you start.

[@chefkochjay]

Unnecessecary Intro, dude X_X

[@SamonMarquis]

this question should be asked for any non-theist who watches: after watching, are you now a theist? How about vice versa? How many theists coming in are now questioning their beliefs?

[@TimothyBukowskiApologist]

As someone who is well versed in these subjects, I enjoyed Blake giving a modern Bayesian argument for God, and also it helped me understand Matts overall position better with regards to skepticism

[@dogelife7901]

It's always good to look at different perspectives and arguments but faith is always a necessity regardless of how much evidence is offered. Not finding either particularly convincing I'll continue to watch both atheist and theist discussions to hopefully further my knowledge.

[@rychei5393]

@@dogelife7901 Why is faith always a necessity regardless. Sounds to me like an unfalsifiable proposition you just set up. If faith were ever to bring harm, but you simply assert that is impossible, you might become harmed by the very thing you put unfalsifiable trust in. You should be brave and test you Faith hypothesis to see if it has failure points. It is clear you have found confirmation points, so that bit of work sets up your theory, now to you need to test it to see if it fails.

[@eld460]

Word salad, Blake, lol.

[@aronhegedus]

please correct me if im wrong but I think that the original speaker in favour of god exististing hasnt put up the right equaiton for bayes theorem. It is P(H|E)=P(H)*P(E|H)/P(E), and he forgot to divide his by anything. Please inform me if I jsut messed this up and didnt see his term anywhere

[@kingsleyzissou1120]

The amount of hoops that Giunta has to jump through to get to his conclusion is actually laughable. Don't even need Dillahunty to open his mouth, Giunta defeats himself.

[@jss302]

Kingsley Zissou I felt the exact same wading thru his opening statement.

[@matszz]

Anyone got the name of the song at the end?

[@NN-wc7dl]

Christianity and especially its "morality" just STINKS...

[@dogelife7901]

Love your neighbor as you would be loved. Absolutely wrong 💯

[@rychei5393]

@@dogelife7901 Pretty sure most of MY neighbors would NOT want to be shown love in the same way that I like it.

[@rychei5393]

I thought this exact thing, it's awful, it is no moral pinnacle of anything.

[@robertwhite1810]

There are NO "theories" of "hell"...A theory is a demonstrable explanation of a natural phenomenon supported by FACTS