Matt Dillahunty vs. Israel Rodriguez: What is More Rational--An Eternal God or Eternal Matter?

This dialectical discussion was conducted as a part of the 27th Annual Shenandoah Lectureship, February 14--17, 2014. This is the first night of the discussion (Friday night) on the question: "What is more Rational--An Eternal God or Eternal Matter?" Recorded by Tullstar (www.tullstar.org).

[@tuttifongul2006]

Wow, i truly felt bad for israel. Matt destroyed him at every turn. Another example of putting fingers in his ears and shouting "the bible is true because it says it is!" Beautifully done Matt. Thank you

[@avedic]

I'm watching this again....for literally the *_fifth_* time. I've seen *_all four_* debates in this series, 5 times each. Matt is *_that good_* in these. These 4 nights of debate utterly demonstrate how Matt is *_THE_* best voice for atheism we have in the world today. Hitch had top honors in his life, but I think Matt's a fine candidate for that spot with Hitch's passing. He's super eloquent, doesn't pull *_any_* punches, is a *_great_* public speaker, and (especially in *_this_* debate) comes across with wit charm and empathy. This is as good as it gets folks. I feel lucky to be connected to Matt in even a minor way; I went to college and was friends with his current wife Beth...well before she met Matt. They're a _perfect_ match. :)

[@tuttifongul2006]

avedic i agree w your assessment of matt. he is by far my choice for the voice of atheism, if there is one, but definitely for any debate against theists.

[@bystander265]

LOL DESTROYED? BRUH

[@KangaJack-ns9gd]

@@bystander265 Yeah, the other guy just provided Sermons.

[@ianyboo]

The words Mr Rodriguez uses are all English but they make no sense when he strings them together. He delivers them in a manner that drips with condescension. Mr dillahaunty on the other hand speaks clearly and in a way that is easy to understand. His points are fantastic.

[@avedic]

Ian G Indeed. Israel comes across very similar to someone like William Lane Craig in that sense. And Matt....has a lot in common with Sam Harris. Both Matt and Sam cut through the bullshit and simply level with people in an honest and direct way. I've yet to see a single theist come anywhere close to doing that. And audiences can tell the difference....

[@avedic]

+joelaw9 Yeah....that guy is awful. I've seen that debate maybe 3 times already. It's a good one. Matt's in excellent form, as usual. But Cliffe speaks to the audience(all college kids) like they're complete idiots incapable of thinking remotely rationally. He appeals entirely to their inner scared ignorant childhood self....and exploits it. :P

[@Scanini]

This Israel guy spins answers into a place I can't follow. I have no idea what the guy actually ends up talking about.

[@chazwick2472]

I'm glad I'm not the only one that had trouble following him...

[@ahouyearno]

Israel doesn't talk. He strings word together into a meaningless word salad. He had no idea how language works and how to properly use it. He stressés the wrong syllábles, pauses in the, wrong place in, sentences. He talks about language as if it is absolute but he is the proof that it is relative to the speaker and listener.

[@dorsk188]

One of the most interesting things about debate and discussion (and I'm talking about everything from this video to KZbin comments) is that you get to peek into the mind of other people and often see the little hobgoblins that plague their thinking. That's why I like to watch these sorts of things and listen to callers of the Atheist Experience. You never know what kind of cobbled-together philosophy people might have developed.

[@avedic]

Scanini Indeed. Given how carefully and deliberately he talks....you'd think he'd be an equally careful thinker. But....nope. I guess he just uses that careful deliberate demeanor to cover up for his utter absence of valid arguments.

[@AmaranthOriginal]

I found him easy to follow. he just never went anywhere near what Matt said.

[@mikescott1430]

Well done Matt

[@avedic]

To say the fucking least. I just got done watching all FOUR debates in this series. Matt's the best voice for atheism we've got....by far. He should be FAR more well-known.

[@NoExitLoveNow]

I admit I skipped over Israel's longer bits. However, toward the end I needed to listen to him to hear Matt. I thought Matt had a strong opening and did a good job overall.

[@bendrasin]

I can feel the wrinkles in my brain smoothing out when Israel talks

[@kimiscool7]

Israel Rodriguez lost the debate at 45:13 when he said his proof is the bible. And he knows its true because its the most authenticated book on the earth. He simply asserts this and does not say by what organization and how it was authenticated. William lane Craig would NEVER be that stupid in a debating an atheist.

[@irkerux333]

kimiscool7...You are entitled to your opinion about who won the debate (although technically speaking we were engaged in a dialectical discussion), but you are losing the debate for all atheists! Your disposition that comes through your comments is an ugly one. Also, I did provide proof for the Bible as the most celebrated, decorated and authenticated book of human history. Please do some research on this particular point and listen to all four discussions before making false claims. Comparing me to William Lane Craig is just silly. I don't understand why you do that. William Lane Craig is not the authority on these matters, a correct interpretation of the Bible by a sound hermeneutic and a proper exegesis is.

[@kimiscool7]

When two individuals enter into a debate they must have some foundation that they BOTH AGREE upon that they will reference when making their argument. And the only foundation that Matt and Israel agree upon is scientific data and evidence. Matt DOES NOT agree the bible is evidence all by itself so to use is as evidence is wrong. If Israel was to say a specific fact in the bible is true guess what he has to use Scientific evidence to prove it! It all boils down to scientific evidence. In a debate with a Christian about God if the opponent is atheist it would be wrong to use a bias atheist websites to prove God does not exists or if the opponent Muslim it would be wrong to use the Koran to say Muhammad is divine and Allah is true. The reason why it would be wrong to use the Koran or a bias atheist websites is because it is something the Christian and atheist or Christian and Muslim do not agree upon. And how can you say the bible is the most authenticated book in human history? What are you referencing? What is the scholarly work that supports this claim? Also if you are Israel I just want to say I am impressed by you coming on youtube and defending your ideas even if I think they are totally wrong. It takes a lot of commitment and dedication. And please know I don’t not think YOU are stupid and if I said so I really apologize I just think the concepts you propose are dumb and unfounded. Such as it is impossible of humans to imagine god if god did not implant it.

[@irkerux333]

kimiscool7 I am Israel (the guy opposing Matt in these four videos that I posted). Allow me to give you some perspective on how this four day discussion came about. I was invited by the director of the Shenandoah Lectureship (An annual event of the Shenandoah church of Christ where a relevant topic is discussed by about twenty different speakers from various parts of the country. This year the topic was: "The Evolution of Enlightenment: Can Science and Religion Coexist?") to represent the churches of Christ in a dialectical discussion that was to serve as the keynote addresses (i.e., dialectical discussions) each evening and one afternoon on four questions: 1. What is More Rational-An Eternal God or Eternal Matter? 2. Is God a Human Invention? 3. Whence Cometh our Morals? 4. Can Science and Religion Coexist? Originally, I was scheduled to engage in discussion with JT Eberhard, but due to financial constraints on the part of the Shenandoah church of Christ they were unable to bring JT from Ohio. With the lectureship still months away a replacement was sought closer to home (which was San Antonio, Texas). After several phone calls people encouraged the director of the lectureship to seek out Matt Dillahunty from Austin, TX (I had never heard of Matt, nor of the Atheist Experience Show, prior to our discussion). Our participation in this lectureship (Matt and I) was not scheduled or promoted as a "formal debate," but a "friendly discussion." This is why it was advertised as a "dialectical discussion" where our aim was to adopt a "method of discourse between two or more people holding different points of view about a subject, who wish to establish the truth of the matter guided by reasoned arguments" (Wikipedia). Dialectics and debate are different in their form and purpose. However, this should not be taken to mean that we were so friendly with each other that we came together just to agree to disagree, and not to press our convictions that one of us was clearly holding to an untenable philosophical position regarding the God debate. For this reason, and perhaps others, the videos show that Matt and I were operating from two different platforms of "evidence." Yet, in my opinion, these four nights of discussion were extremely beneficial. This is why I posted them. Truth fears no scrutiny. I am also learning much by all the comments to the videos. In the future, I do hope to formally debate Matt on the merits of the Bible, because I believe that's where the point of stasis lies. Thanks for saying what you said, "Also if you are Israel I just want to say I am impressed by you coming on youtube and defending your ideas even if I think they are totally wrong. It takes a lot of commitment and dedication. And please know I don’t not think YOU are stupid and if I said so I really apologize I just think the concepts you propose are dumb and unfounded." People everywhere ought to be willing to discuss what they believe without fear of being ridiculed or degraded, and in such a way where we can come to understand each other a little better, and make real progress toward a real solution to the most meaningful questions of life. As for now, the debate continues! You are cool after all! ;-)

[@osanic]

Hahahah wow, the bible is a joke...

[@alexdoerofthings]

This guy, Israel, is a clown. Big words strung together do not make you scientifically literate. Go straight to 103ish for some solid laughs!

[@expaddler]

Word (of God) salad.

[@AmaranthOriginal]

The whole thing alternates between hilarious and headdesk.

[@sophonax661]

rock has no RNA & DNA ---> therefore God exists! 😂 a solid laugh indeed

[@mikescott1430]

Its impossible to have a rational debate with a fundamentalist.

[@MiokeDokey]

This is just rehearsal for Sye Ten Bruggencate, and Matt is gonna dominate.

[@Balstrome1]

All you have to do is, turn up to win a debate against Cy10 Bruckerbucker

[@vibrant151]

" Matt is gonna dominate." And he did!

[@avedic]

Zane Lash It's impossible to "dominate" when debating Sye. The ONLY possible result of debating Sye is to get a *_massive_* headache and desire a stiff drink. It's simply not possible to win against Sye....in the same way it's not possible to win a chess match against a cat who walks across the chessboard, knocks pieces over, and scratches your face when you try to pet it. I applaud Matt for even _trying_.

[@avedic]

+Daniel Sloane True that. :)

[@CarsonApologetics]

No@@vibrant151

[@Flyborg]

"Scientists are biased" is _why_ we need SCIENCE. Science (the method) is trustworthy and accurate *precisely because* it recognizes that scienTISTS (people) aren't. If science (the method) trusted scientists the same way that religious folks trust the men who wrote their holybooks, then we wouldn't and couldn't be living in a world built on science. When you say that "scientists are biased but I believe the men who wrote my holybook", you're saying that you trust the untrustworthy (people) while distrusting the trustworthy (methods which _recognize_ that people are untrustworthy), and you do this *precisely because* people are untrustworthy. That's backwards.

[@PumpkinRow]

So, this guy's opening is "What is evidence?" and his answer is "things not seen". So, yet another example of a theist's entire argument being an attempt to avoid providing evidence for their claims.

[@Flyborg]

I notice that Rodriguez is using a lot of what I'd call "turtle logic": Thing X which is known to exist has property Y, which can only be explained by thing Z which I imagine to exist and also has property Y but that's okay because it's magic. For example: The Earth is a thing, which means it must stand on something, so let's say it stands on a turtle.. _which is _*_also_*_ a thing, so the turtle must stand on a Super Turtle?_ (Nope; the turtle is magic, so the same rules don't apply!) Super-long-winded examples: The universe exists, and everything which exists has a nature, and when we describe the nature of something we call these descriptions "laws", and so these "laws" must have been created by a magical person.. _who would _*_also_*_ have a nature and thus there would be "laws of God" which means God was created by Super God?_ (Nope; God is magic, so the same rules don't apply!) People exist, and it seems to be incredibly lucky that the nature of things would allow people to exist, so therefore we were made by a SUPER person called "God".. _and God would _*_also_*_ be super lucky to exist without being intentionally created, which means he was created by SUPER-God?_ (Nope; God is magic, so the same rules don't apply!) Consciousness exists, and nobody knows how it works, so it must have come from God.. _who also would be conscious and thus God was made by SUPER-God?_ (Nope; God is magic, so the same rules don't apply!) TL;DR: Basically in all of these cases you're trying to explain something with a copy of itself, but then you call the copy "magic" to hand-wave away the infinite regress, which also makes your "explanation" into a non-explanation since "magic" explains nothing.

[@beth-rg8bm]

You did good Matt... Everything about I.R. hit me like fingernails on a chalkboard! A true Sheep!

[@esling77]

We need to thank the Preacher for Exposing how Disgusting Religion is. Justifying Slavery is almost as low as a Human can get.

[@irkerux333]

Zofoblues...Just because you’re not interested in the truth, please don’t spin what I said in an attempt to confuse others. I did not justify slavery. You either need to listen to what I said again or let go of your preconceived ideas.

[@avedic]

@@irkerux333 Is what the Bible says about how to institute and legislate slavery flat out evil? Or not? I think it is evil. Do you?

[@irkerux333]

@@avedic Yes, slavery is evil! But you are wrong when you say the Bible (or God) instituted it and legislated it. Slavery was instituted by mankind. It is man’s most inhumane act against man.

[@NelemNaru]

@@irkerux333 Where's the Bible verse that says, "Thou shalt not own other people as property"? Oh wait, there's not. Instead, the Bible explicitly allows it, telling you where to buy sIaves, how you can pass them onto children for inheritance, and can beat them as long as they don't die BECAUSE "they are your property" (Leviticus 25:44-46, Exodus 21:20-21). That is indeed legislating it.

[@fowlfables]

Thank you for sharing this in it's entirety, unedited. I sincerely disagree with you, but I respect that you can be honest in your presentation.

[@avedic]

Agreed. Israel's arguments are terrible, imo. Absolutely terrible. But, he's probably a nice guy....and I respect that he's uploaded this unedited. If anything....it frustrates me that nice cool people get sucked into religions and cults(is there a difference?). It's just sad...

[@debo98433]

It doesn't matter if a scientific discovery comes from a religious person or a non-religious person. What matters is that they employed the scientific method. At that point, the religion that the person practices, or doesn't, has NOTHING TO FUCKING DO with the discovery!

[@narco73]

I would like to commend Israel on inviting Matt to speak to his congregation.

[@mattiassollerman]

thanks for uploading

[@PDS1107]

As some others have pointed out here and I see it too that Mr Rodriguez resorts to using many words to say, well, not very much! Obfuscation is the main word that comes to mind when listening to this guy. I'll give him credit though (reluctantly) for standing there and talking AT people for so long, like an old style school headmaster would talk to his students - condescendingly and arrogantly! I'm sure many of his followers love the way he talks down to his opponents. I give even more credit though to Matt for putting up with this person and not getting overly irritated when he keeps holding up THAT book like it's some kind of answer to the worlds problems today. I have nothing more to add to the other replies below, particularly Danny Sims who I think puts it all very well indeed. Keep up the good work.

[@stenthesnake98]

2:30 This reminds me of the names we use for classifications of organisms. For example, the term “family” or “order” are used to make sense of what level of organism group you are referring to

[@ToastyMcGrath]

It seems like the Church of Christ members have basically a high school-level of understanding of all things pertaining to science, and likewise reach high school-level conclusions.

[@charcharmunr]

I have a high-school level understanding of Biology and I'm pretty sure I can stand well above any creationist.

[@gnagyusa]

If there is no eternal matter/energy etc., then god is *impossible* : to exist, god has to be made of something! If there is eternal matter/energy etc., then god is *redundant* : if stuff can form something as complex as gods, on its own, then it can form simpler things, like universes or humans much more easily. So, god is either impossible or redundant. You choose...

[@RogerWazup007]

Are these the Church of God debates where he listened to talks and debated them for three days or so?

[@avedic]

+RogerWazup007 yep

[@whynottalklikeapirat]

What is more rational - an eternal god or a rational Matt?

[@ElroyMF1]

"Rationality would force us to have answers" No, Isreal, sometimes it's just questions. If you could reason past the Bible, then you might be able to see it

[@allen764]

40:57 Did Isreal do ANY research about atheism before he came to this 'debate'?

[@avedic]

Clearly not. Then again, have you _ever_ met a theist who has? I love debating and discussing religion....but I've yet to come across a theist who knows as much about atheism _OR THEIR OWN RELIGION_ as most atheists do.

[@irkerux333]

Yes I did, but Matt is not an atheist, nor is he an agnostic, nor is he a skeptic. Matt is a confused person. Listen to Matt's responses carefully, especially his answers during the rebuttal rounds and questions from the audience. Matt never explicitly said there is no God and that God is the result of human imagination and that morality is not based on God. The only thing Matt said was he didn't know and that he has yet to come across good evidence for God. Matt's arguments were carefully worded smoke screens designed to highlight the various possibilities of negation to the positive arguments for the existence of God, consciousness and truth. This does not constitute proof, it only suggests that there are different perspectives one must consider when addressing a philosophical concept.

[@allen764]

irkerux333 If you did, then you just demonstrated again that you either can not understand atheism, or you're purposely misrepresenting the position because of your own ego driven agenda. Admitting "I don't know, and I don't believe your claim" is an intellectually honest answer. ..not to be confused with.. confusion. Matt was not deploying smoke screens. He was being mindful not to make unsubstantiated positive claims, and thus avoided and exposed your Achilles heel, the classic 'argument from ignorance'. Again....the burden of proof is YOURS!!!

[@irkerux333]

Allen Smith What did I say at 40:57ff that demonstrates I did no research about atheism prior to this debate, which is what you implied by your original comment? Everything I said about atheism was accurate. Even Matt agreed with me at 52:28 to 52:33. Notwithstanding, Matt did correct me on HIS position concerning atheism (52:37 to 53:35). Apparently, Matt holds to "weak atheism" not "strong atheism," which I found surprising. Watching the Atheist Experience program one would not get that impression concerning Matt. Matt's gum ball analogy to describe "weak atheism" is clever, but it is anything than "intellectually honest." Matt's like the boxer who is always backing up, dancing around his opponent, never engaging, always bobbing and weaving, and people wanna call that strategy. Whatever! Matt came into the debate under the guise there is no God, but to protect himself from being corned his technique was "there might be a God" (bob), "but I'm not convinced" (weave). If you call that intellectual honesty you have been bamboozled. That, my friend, is a tactic not strategy! Btw, have YOU done ANY real research about atheism? Atheism's position is wholly founded upon an appeal to ignorance-God does not exist, because it has not yet been proven true! My position is not an appeal to ignorance, because I have offered a number of proofs for the existence of God, but since it's not the proof you (and others) like, then it's not proof at all. Keep in mind that the existence of God is a philosophical question not a scientific one. Pursuing the question of God scientifically only leads to the possibility of God (which atheism denies, not because the evidence is insufficient, but because it's a possibility that atheism disdains due to its implications), then one must consider the Bible as evidence for God, because its existence cannot be explained otherwise. Do research into the other books that claim to be from God or a god and you will soon discover that the Bible stands apart. I've said over and over again that the Bible has more historical evidence for its authenticity than any other historical artifact. That's a fact whether you choose to believe it or not, and it is proper evidence for God.

[@allen764]

irkerux333 I was wrong. I do agree with you from 40:57 to 41:11.

[@Guitcad1]

What is more irrational-a non sequitur or a false dichotomy?

[@irkerux333]

Guitcad1...You are for asking such a question.

[@avedic]

+irkerux333 What about his question is ridiculous? It's a perfectly good question. If you *_haven't_* considered questions like that...then you won't be aware when you make such errors. Is that not important to you? Intellectual honestly means *_being skeptical of your OWN beliefs more than others' beliefs_*. Under that definition, almost no one is intellectually honest, including yourself (at least in this debate). But those who *_are_* intellectually honest...tend to be the most aware honest informed intelligent and ethical people on the planet. If only most people held themselves to such a standard. The world would be so much more sane. Sadly, I don't think most people are mentally up to the task....

[@redirishmanxlt]

I have a QUESTION for ANYBODY (and this is not rhetorical). Is there any basis for the claim that Matt makes @ 7:21, where he basically says that because something has a non zero probability, it will occur given enough time. Is there any basis for such a claim?

[@grandmastershek]

1:35:00 We also had to re-examine gravity with regard to relativity. Does that mean we threw out the Newtonian understanding of gravity even though we had to rethink gravity on the whole? Of course not. Einstein developed "new physics". But under IR's argument, 100 years ago it would have been using an "argument of convenience".

[@Flyborg]

On "anomaly hunting": If you don't believe that other planets exist, it wouldn't matter if you could find an instance in which someone thought they found a new planet but it was just dust on the telescope. It doesn't mean that "telescopes don't work" just because they're not infallible, and it certainly wouldn't justify all the other data from all the other telescopes. Likewise, radiometric dating still works even if you search and search until you find an anomaly where someone made a mistake or didn't take something into account.

[@kylehocquard]

Whoa.. Rodriguez went full re%#@$.

[@Rio8D]

47:20 Its actually, "Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to your care. Turn away from godless chatter and the opposing ideas of what is falsely called knowledge."

[@hukigid]

I really liked this but Israel Rodriguez way of speaking was a lil annoying

[@AmaranthOriginal]

Israel and I read very different Bibles, because there's no absolute standards in mine. In fact, god seems to change his mind a lot in that book.

[@AmaranthOriginal]

Also, after his history lesson on the roundness of the earth, he doesn't get to talk about history ever again.

[@irkerux333]

Amaranth...Stop it, because you don’t read the Bible. Moreover, you don’t understand the little you think you know, that much is obvious. Changing One’s mind does not preclude an absolute standard of morality. Let’s test your claim, since Atheists are big on proofs, please read James 1.17 and tell me what it means. I’ll await your response.

[@AmaranthOriginal]

See, if you actually wanted a discussion, you wouldn't start by lying about me. But you're just here to preach, so fuck off.

[@irkerux333]

Amaranth...And there you have it folks, Atheism at its finest. All show and no go! Besides, you also obviously don’t understand what the comments section is for, this is where I’m supposed to preach/teach as I explain to you your error. Ciao!

[@AmaranthOriginal]

Ah, you're a troll. Got it.

[@jasonpalacios1363]

As science and technology advances in a faster rate,this will bring the downfall of religion by the next century. This is only the beginning.

[@gnagyusa]

It's like asking what is more rational - Bricks or brick houses? The former is a *prerequisite* for the latter. If god is made of nothing, he doesn't exist. *DUH*. If an eternal god exists, he is made of an *eternal something*, matter/energy etc. So, eternal matter-energy is not only more rational than an eternal god, it's a *prerequisite* for eternal anything, including gods to exist. *DUH*. Corollary: unless god was created by a bigger god, that eternal something had to form god *on its own*. But, if stuff can form something as complex as gods, on its own, it can much more easily form simpler stuff, like early universes, or humans. So, the whole idea of needing gods to create universes and humans, is stupid and ass-backwards. It's like saying that in order to build a pocket calculator, first you need a billion dollar supercomputer. Complexity is built up over time, from simpler components. You can't just start with the most complex thing and *pretend* that you don't have to explain where it came from, while demanding that the origin of much simpler things needs an explanation. It's the *pinnacle of hypocrisy*.

[@benzenefire]

lnpilot this is actually such a good comment (trio of comments), please get this more likes, people

[@dustinharding8941]

So many things he said were so wrong that I wish matt would've interrupted & capitalized

[@lichen420]

Man this Israel dude is bad at reasoning and listening. He opens up by saying that Matt danced around the question and didn't answer it when he answered it directly. He said in answer to the question he would have to say neither. What is unclear about that? Then he complains that Matt says he doesn't know what happened before the big bang or where the universe came from and says that rationality demands that we come up with answers to questions we don't know the answers to?????? I don't think that it does. Anyways that is where I am at in the debate I paused it to make this comment. This Israel dude is either dishonest or really knowledgeable about logic and rationality. Oh and he accuses Matt of rambling.... WHAT!! It is much harder for me to follow him than it was for me to follow Matt.

[@williamholmes9807]

Excellent explanation Mr. Rodriguez. For the reasonable thinking person his argument was just about perfect. Matt does more of an attack, than a defense of his position.

[@jasonlg3d]

Really? Israel just made bald assertions backed by logical fallacies. Did we watch the same thing?

[@williamholmes9807]

@@jasonlg3d please don't be offended, but you sound like you're just parroting Matt Dillahunty. Especially when it comes to his show the atheist experience, any time someone has a decent, respectful, genuine argument, he either hangs up on them, mutes them or argues that they're just arguing with logical fallacies. Smh. If you have an unbiased perspective you would at least say that Israel has a decent well thought out informational argument. But your favorite "go to" defense is everything is a logical fallacy, sounds like an atheists fantasy if you ask me.

[@jasonlg3d]

What specially did Israel say that you think was a good argument?

[@jasonlg3d]

Nothing... I figured

[@norcodaev]

I’m also very curious to know what you thought Israel’s good argument was. His whole schtick boils down to “the buybull is true because the buybull says the buybull is true.” Do you honestly not see the fallacy there William?

[@AbleAnderson]

Every time Israel mentions the bible, Matt wins, and that's why Matt is soo cool in this debate. He knows that Israel has absolutely nothin but semantics and the bible, and it's clear to everyone. This was a 1st round knockout for Matt dillahunty. Israel is not good at this. But Matt actually being the one who is right helps too lol.

[@M15TRR3CT4NGL]

I swear, I see the presupp getting used more and more as a framework for apologists to try to give their arguments gravitas and discount well reasoned arguments such as the one Matt layed out. As with all tactics of this type it shows the true weakness of their argument.

[@phineuslevite1744]

You actually think Matts "arguments" were well reasoned?

[@M15TRR3CT4NGL]

@@phineuslevite1744 check the date. I commented 8 YEARS AGO! But yeah, Matt is infinitely better at debating than his opponent in these debates. Rodriguez is a clown, your god concept is stupid, Jesus didn't exist and your faith is in vain. Hail Satan

[@beastemeauxde7029]

As we begin to think about these things...(insert random bullshit here), god. Works every time.

[@purami14]

At 25:22 I stopped listening when he( Mr. Rodriguez) said "For he takin the time to be with us". No need to go any further...............................

[@debo98433]

Study other religions. They have creation stories, too. Do you think they are correct? No? Why not? Ask these questions. Compare the religions to your own. Don't just observe the differences, but focus also on the similarities. There is nothing unique about your particular religion other than the plot line. It is obviously created, just as any other. Your god was created by human minds. Deal with it.

[@g0lanu]

Israel Rodriguez "I'm a finite creature, I cannot know everything". Exactly the point of agnostics, no one can. Therefore it is absurd to take shield behind a position of absolute certainty or knowledge, because we can't be sure that we get all the points correctly. The only way to know something with absolution is to know everything absolutely and that it is not in the power of "finite creature", such as humans. It's not really clear why Israel fails to understand this simple concept, but if he pretends to know and advocate the absolute truth, it amounts to him pretending to know the will, the intent and also the entire work of God, because only THEN do you truly understand absolutely everything. His religion defines that which meets all those criteria at the same time, and it's only God that does that. This is why we do science the way we do it, to self-correct our own lapses in thinking, to self-correct past mistakes. And Israel R. has made epistemological fallacies: assuming the premise is correct, inserting philosophical assertions in the middle of his reasoning chain, not proving an inductive chain with a deductive method, not proving deductive conclusions, assertions with correct inductive chains that lead to the initial assertion. In addition, he doesn't understand how science works, nor does he use it to validate his assertions (which should suffice). How can you understand the will of God when you aren't even willing to try to understand his work, when you can't even use the logic in a correct manner? Logic that you claim comes from God. This is a problem with most preachers, to be fair, not jost I.R., none of them bother to understand the laws of nature, none of them have good enough math or physics skills nor do they bother studying the subjects. These are needed to understand the word and work. These are tantamount to everything they hold dear. Such a poor argumentation. You're not showing good faith if you take those things in the Bible in "context" how I.R. is assuming he is, if the only reason you're doing it is to confirm or enforce you're already existing belief. That belief needs to withstand the trial of reasoning, of correct argumentation. No, yours does not come from the Bible, for you are a fallible person and cannot comprehend absolutes, you're only describing them.

[@lifeisgood12341]

Finally I found this debate that wasn't titled something stupid like "matt makes preacher look moronic"

[@chadhopkins1260]

That Israel guy sounds like a Christian Donald Trump they way he talks. It makes zero sense

[@kwj171068]

This Israel guy really believes the crap he is spouting

[@avedic]

+kwj171068 Of course he does. That's how religion works. Indoctrination is a very powerful tool that the cynical use against the credulous. All Israel proved was that cynicism and credulity can co-exist within the _same_ mind, IF that mind has been thoroughly domesticated by presuppositional ad-hoc religious dogma.

[@MagicActor1987]

When I listen to Israel Rodriguez speak, I both feel smarter and feel my IQ melting away from listening to his idiocies.

[@whynottalklikeapirat]

Always they creep into the relativism of all claims to knowledge, and then they pull out the bible and say: But this is really special for no particular reason.

[@nataliebell1007]

I'm a Christian and these answers from this pastor do not suffice. at all.... He has no idea how to respond to logic and reason.

[@irkerux333]

Natalie Johnson...Allow me to help you, because you seem a little confused about my role in this debate. First, I am not a pastor. While one of the offices within the church is pastor (cf. Ephesians 4.11) (this position is also referred to in Scripture as bishop, overseer, shepherd and elder), I am a "preacher" and "teacher" of the gospel. I also do the work of an "evangelist." As a Christian, I'm curious as to why you failed to make this distinction. Second, what answers did I give that did not suffice? Third, kindly explain to me how I had no idea how to respond to logic and reason. I hope to hear from you soon.

[@acerbicatheist2893]

+irkerux333 Sir-IF you believe in sky-beardie THEN you are deluded. "Evidence of the unseen" is automatically a contradiction(unless you use a microscope or particle-accelerator...). You bang on about the authenticity of YOUR holy-book over the many others without producing any evidence that this is so except "we all say so so it MUST be true"(ever read any Kipling? No,didn't think so...). Once you cease personal attacks on MD,you then portray the Big Bang theory in the most ignorant fashion by claiming that it explains where the universe comes from when it does nothing of the sort. So you say "...therefore there must be a god!". You're being intellectually dishonest. You then try to bring philosophy+metaphysics to bear as though that can resolve anything when they cannot. "Religion is consistent with science..."-oh give over. You are being intellectually disingenuous and silly,so there!

[@ndindamule3134]

Being human emotion can trump logic people tend to like and follow what makes them feel good and happy even when its clear its not true

[@gnagyusa]

If there is no eternal matter/energy/quantum vacuum, then what the heck is god made of? If god is made of nothing, then he doesn't exist! *DUH* If god is complex-enough to be intelligent, that takes a lot of matter/energy etc. Or, is god made of some special, magical pixie dust that we haven't discovered yet?

[@mardukdemigod1523]

God wasnt even "MADE" at all. Seriously the question itself is invalid. God as being described is a SPIRIT, not of matter neither energy nor quantum vaccum. And has ALWAYS EXISTED. An attempt to describe God as something in a sort of matter/energy/quantum vaccum invalidates the concept of SUPERNATURAL..

[@aegisgfx]

"I believe in science too" Ya but he doesn't understand it, and belief is not required. Its like saying I believe 2 + 2 = 4. No thats reality, you can believe 2 + 2 = 5 all you like and your believe does not alter reality in the slightest. Science = reality, belief is not required.

[@debo98433]

Every argument he makes for the bible could be made of any supposed holy scripture of any religion. Muslims make the same sorts of claims about the koran. The assertion that answers are found in the bible is truly unremarkable. It's been done before. Presupposing the bible is true does not make the bible true. And it certainly does not provide evidence of the existence of the god which is proposed in the bible. Juvenile arguments. I always expect more, but that's all I get.

[@grantlauzon5237]

Columbus knew the the Earth was spherical. He thought it was smaller.

[@mikescott1430]

"How do we know we can trust language?" What??!! Lol

[@avedic]

It's a legit question....but it also has a legit answer. ;)

[@hopfou]

Israel Rodriguez is the biggest clown I've ever seen in a debate with maximal certainty.

[@debo98433]

Oh, and stop trying to argue from a physicists point of view, because it's obvious that you do not understand the science. Just stop!

[@ElroyMF1]

I've figured out this Isreals debate strategy and why he is so frustrating to listen to. It's as follows: word salad ...reasoning from the known to the unknown... word salad... truth...word salad...rationality....word salad... the Bible...word salad..."quote inappropriate Bible verses"... More word salad. Got it. I'm now converted to Christianity

[@Nestorslanding]

Israel keeps saying that words have intrinsic meaning... since when?

[@grandmastershek]

@ 1:55:00 Isaiah as a whole points to a flat Earth. It says a "circle" of the Earth. Strong's concordance shows "chug" (the Hebrew as a circle or circuit), not as a sphere. However, we can wholly ignore that and take what follows in that it describes the Heavens as a tent for us to live in. Well, tents sit on flat surfaces. So you either have to assume the tent is merely poetic and not a literal description, but then you have explain why you do not take circle as a literal. Or if you do claim chug means sphere in this context, why you assume it's literal, when you treat the tent as not literal. And FYI- The spherical Earth was well established by the time of Columbus. The idea that he proved sphrericity is a myth created in the 19th century.

[@Hoganply]

Either a God doesn't exist, or a God _does_ exist but doesn't want me to believe that he exists. If he does exist, he would know exactly what it would take for me to be convinced without interfering with my free will. And yet, I still don't believe. So either: 1) God wishes for me to believe in him but doesn't know _how_ to manipulate the world around me to convince me (which would suggest I am able to *exclude myself from his divine plan*, or *circumvent his will*). 2) God is able to manipulate the world around me, but doesn't, because he wishes for me not to believe; therefore indicating that he doesn't 'love' me enough to save me from damnation. 3) God is neither able nor willing to save me from damnation.

[@badlatvianskepticman5101]

Israel Rodriguez: "Does mud produce mind? Do rocks create rationality?" :D :D :D

[@wdarkfenix]

From what I've read on the comment section, the person who uploaded this is a believer, which lead me to the realization he actually thinks this debate its a good example of how to defend the believe in god haha

[@benzenefire]

wdarkfenix the person who uploaded this is the preacher who debated Matt

[@kirtooahmadinejad]

Gotta love the (Atheist) and (christian) stickers when they display the names. As if that is a title.

[@chazwick2472]

1:10:00 it sounds like Israel was arguing for an eternal universe since according to him, there always has been and there has to always be something...

[@roger767]

God doesn't make his own existence aware to people. So basing your life on the teachings of such an entity is foolish. Especially when there are dozens of different religions that condemn each other. If believers of God all had the same story. No matter what place on earth they evolved from it would be a different story. Fact is that native americans didn't have the Christian God before America was discovered, so God didn't see it fit to tell those poor bastards the right path to "salvation" , only the Jews were worthy for some reason.

[@vannic6955]

why does he talk that way, trying to sound intellectual or fancy???

[@vaprex]

@43:00 Israel Rodrigueuz apparently has not paid attention to the physics of the big bang model. He is concerned that because we (scientists) "don't know what happened before the big bang", we (scientists) are conceding that matter wasn't eternal and since God is eternal, God created the Universe. Badda-Bing Badda-bang, Rodriguez WINS! Except: NO. Rodriguez = fail. There was no time before the big bang, because time itself did not exist. There was no matter, nor was there the concept of time. Which also suggests that there wasn't a "God before the big bang" because there was no time for God to exist in. One could get metaphysical and say "God exists outside of time and space", but thats problematic since there are plenty of bible verses that indicate that God participates directly in our physical world and time.... There is an excellent laymen's program (I think it was on NatGeo) with Stephen Hawking 'narrating' explaining how matter could arise from 'nothing'... It was part of a multi-part series, called "Stephen Hawkings, Universe" or something like that. Also, Rodriguez suggests that the Big Bang is just a "theory" without evidence, which is completely false. The Big Bang would have generated an immense amount of radiation which would be spread throughout not just our galaxy, but would be dispersed throughout the universe. We 'accidentally' detected the radiation signature (called cosmic background radiation) when using unique listening telescope in the 60s. Also, long ago we discovered red shift versus blue shift as we looked at stars. We know which stars and galaxies are moving away from us, and which are moving nearer, and where they are moving from. When we map ALL of these observations, we find that ALL stars and galaxies are moving outwards from a single point in the universe. My 4 year old son can hypothesize what THAT means. Thankfully he hasn't been exposed to the bible to make him think that earth was formed by a magic sky-fairy, and that women come from "spare ribs" and some snakes can talk.

[@avedic]

"The Atheist Debates Patreon Project presents....."

[@allen764]

36:25. I agree with Israel. Yes, it definitely.................... "lingers."

[@maujo2009]

The misunderstanding of how Science works that this theist shows is mind-blowing; the scientific community _didn't_ accept Lemaitre's theory of the primeval atom because it wanted to side to a particular "wrong" religion, that's the hugest stupidity I've ever heard! Science sides with whoever presents an argument and _evidence_. Lemaitre did the first and the predictions were corroborated later! It did not matter if he was a priest! Setting aside the fact that Lemaitre himself was very clear in stating that his personal catholic beliefs did not influence his work (and I applaud that he had such a humble attitude), _no scientific claim is taken on the base of the personal beliefs of the person who makes it_.

[@Afreightfulapologist]

@andrew....no God doesn't demonstrate signs of a grand creation...but God demonstrates signs of the grand Creator.

[@ameliaesparzamontes2969]

Two thumbs up, Israel Rodriguez!! :)

[@whplague]

Thumbs up for what? He is nothing but a completely incoherent fool who just preaches passages from the bible instead of actually presenting valid evidence to support the claim that his invisible man in the sky exists. He does not understand basic science. He only succeeded in embarrassing himself.

[@ameliaesparzamontes2969]

I miss you my dear brother (Israel Rodriguez).

[@irkerux333]

Amelia Montes...I miss you too. Good to hear from you. I hope all is well. God bless.

[@debo98433]

A devout muslim will tell you that the koran is unaltered. It's in its original language, and not a word has been changed since mohmed wrote the message. Do you also believe that the koran is true? Your argument for the reliability of the bible sounds very similar.

[@debo98433]

How can you allude to science being corrupting and then accept scientific theories?

[@mchance27]

Israel sounds like a crazy person.

[@ahouyearno]

The bible is the best selling and most popular book of all time. The counter-argument is that the Quran is #2. #3 is The Red Book by Chairman Mao Zedung. If the Bible is correct on grounds of its popularity, you have to concede that the Quran and the Red Book are about as true as the Bible.

[@jeffgibons1540]

where did the Neanderthal people go when they died

[@grandmastershek]

@1:16:00 IR starts with what is here and assumes that there always must be something. Sounds like he just conceded to uniformitarianism. I hope he's not a YEC.

[@MugenTJ]

Consider this: If God does exists and wants to me know that fact. Maybe he appears before my eyes out of thin air. At that point, I can only conclude that this is a person that can SOME HOW appears out of thin air, not necessarily God. He then asks me: how can I prove to you that I am God? If I tell him: OK, you can grant me a beautiful home, and enough money to live happily for the rest of myself. Sure enough, he did so. At that point, I can SUSPECT that, wow, maybe he is God after all. BUT, I CAN'T TELL FOR SURE STILL, because I'm not gullible. I now do believe in miracles, but God, he got a long way to go! The point is, if God exists, or IS, and not being able to present itself so that I can observer through my senses in convincing ways, this God is as good as non-existence. Hence no reason to care. I believe in the Sun although I cannot (and should not) touch it or hear it. I at least see it risen each day and felt its warm even from distance away.

[@donnabruce1058]

"The Bible gives certainty." And it's full of contradictions and inconsistencies but that's not relevant because it is absolute certainty. Huh. Really?! Sure you want to stick with that?

[@Afreightfulapologist]

Matt actually just gave theism justification for why we believe there is a God...because of simple comparison of what we ourselves create It has the same properties in our cells dna even in the fine tuning of the universe...on the other hand matt has no comparisons like I said in this universe alone that shows nature did it and in the precise likenesses of Design ora creator. .symphonies are not a naturalistic invention. ..but is creation which always presupposes a person that created it.

[@KamasutraButterfly]

I'd like to understand what you mean with your comment. Are you saying theism is justified because the universe "seems" to be designed or "looks" designed? Because if that's what you're saying you're so wrong it's not even funny. It "looks" like the sun goes around the earth, but we know that's not the case. What a thing looks like may not be what is actually the case.

[@SurelyYewJest]

This comment of yours is exactly why arguments like the Anthropic Principle are so flawed. You, a human, see things through a lens you are familiar with, so because you observe things with that bias, that must be how the universe came into being. Just because Dillahunty gave a relatable example for why people believe a god exists in no way validates that example, nor lends any sort of evidence to the actual existence of a god. How do you not get that? A god exists because people are religious and think it does? Talk about a recipe for all sorts of human folly.

[@thickerconstrictor9037]

Matt destroyed Israel dude. Wake up sheep

[@TwoGunToast]

israel talks like a parody of a preacher in a parody movie. it literally sounds like hes making it up as he goes.

[@redpillpusher]

pretty sure he is.

[@purami14]

"We need to look to this book 48.05, it's history, transmission, translation,.........it's truthfulness, can we verify it's veracity.....what do I find in the bible is it consistant.......and IF that is the case then it is tantamount to truth" and we know that thruth does not contradict itself. His whole case falls apart on the inconsistancy of the scriptures. He fails also in his argument on it's history, (cobbled by comittee ....Vatican counsels) errors in translation, Basically he is trying to win a debate by preaching to his flock of faithful.

[@paulcontursi5982]

In his own way, Israel is a better spokesperson for atheism than Matt is. His arguments demonstrate how religion sabotages critical thought.

[@franklinbross2602]

Matt has been put to the mat for the count . Thank God for a great presentation. Matt needs Jesus not the religion he claims he once had.

[@torstrasburg8289]

All sound and (subdued) fury, with the final outcome being that of Hamm's: "It's the Bible, stupid". How weak, limiting, and pathetic such a world-view is-hard to conceive that they even believe it. Slickly selling the Bible, like a used-car salesman. Matt wins (as always): "It's the ideas, not the words", (stupid).

[@anthonytrujillo784]

Israel wiped the floor with Matt Delahunt hands down.

[@ianyboo]

What do you think was Israel Rodriguez's best point against Matt?

[@thickerconstrictor9037]

Hahahahahahahaha dude I've seen times where matt had bad arguments and tough times. Israel was embarrassed here. He is a terrible debater and Matt destroyed him. You're brain washed as fuck dude

[@AbleAnderson]

Matt should change his debate next time and start pointing to the Koran every time a Christian points to the bible. It would actually be more effective, because its hard to argue rationally when Christians keep nuking the argument with bible says so crap.

[@austinokeeffe664]

I'm surprised Matt went so easy on him. Must be because he was invited into their church. Eg - Israel -You need a book to guide you through life. The bible was written about 600-700BC, so for thousands of years before this, God forgot to give his desert flock a manual. Not that they could read it anyway. And then part 2 of the book, He changed the rules a bit. No logic to most of Israel's points.

[@grandmastershek]

@ 33 min "We believe in a God of reason" Is it reasonable to condemn one person for the actions of another? That is what the god of the Bible does clearly and repeatedly. Basic logic teaches that guilt by association is wholly fallacious and implicitly unjust. As people of a post-Enlightenment culture we can understand this, and have the luxury of living in places where such contentions are dismissed outright in our courts. Collective guilt is clearly the work of illogical and superstitious people.

[@grandmastershek]

Bill Nada Damn, someone really needs to make a video of IR's remarks with a fallacy counter. Eg- "The Big Bang came from a religious mind, not a scientific mind" (Fallacy of Bifurcation). Lemaitre was BOTH a Belgian priest and physicist. He had a mind that held BOTH religious beliefs, and scientific knowledge & methods. "That idea came from a false religion" (Ad hominem) The condition of Lemaitre speaks nothing about the veracity of the BBT, nor the mountains of other evidence that came after. You could have a chimpanzee with brain damage that was high on meth, but if it reasoned 1+1=2, the condition of the chimp would in no invalidate the conclusion.

[@grandmastershek]

Bill Nada "Words have meaning" I would suggest Mr. Rodriguez contact ANY linguist on the planet. Words change over time. Languages change over time. I no doubt think he believes that languages came about because god teleported everyone from Babel and "confused" their language. However, we know and observe even today languages changing for a myriad of reasons. The Spanish language alone contains so many varied meanings for the same exact word based on where you are. For example , the "guagua" in the Caribbean is a bus. However, in parts of South America it's a baby. If we follow Mr. Rodriguez, that makes no sense since the word "guagua" has meaning.

[@irkerux333]

It's more than a little humorous and exceedingly deplorable-all the objections, ridicule and hostility deriving from unfounded opinions-against me. What many of you condemn in me, you commit yourself, or fail to do! Where is your reason that proves atheism as factual and true? (Oh, that's right, atheism is merely a negation and it can't be proven, because it doesn't promulgate anything. What many atheists fail to realize is atheism is tantamount to an opinion. Yet many atheist's condemn Christians when they give theirs. And please refrain from the hackneyed explanation of what side has the onus probandi, because both sides make claims, and true Christianity provides a proper response, as I did in this night of our discussion. Where is the proof that atheism is real and true?). Matt did not follow the question that was given to guide our discussion. He bypassed the question and made a poor attempt only toward the end of his opening statement. The rest of the night he engaged in circumlocutory language and circuitous reasoning. He claimed to be an atheist, but sounded more like an agnostic, and gave the standard response of a skeptic. I don't think Matt knows what he is much less what he believes. He was not invited to respond to every lecture that was presented throughout the day. He was asked to discuss the questions that were provided beforehand. Since many of you saw the video and only paid careful attention to Matt's speeches, what proof did he provide for eternal matter being the more rational position? Matt danced around every question that was presented to him (origin, consciousness, conscience, language, truth) and his staple response was I DON'T KNOW. This would be okay, if he didn't champion SCIENCE as the most accurate method of determining reality. I DON'T KNOW is the antithesis of SCIENCE. Science is knowledge and knowledge is far from I don't know. Consequently, in this night of our discussion, Matt was the embodiment of an oxymoron! An eternal God is the more rational position, because the Bible (as a record of human history) makes a long argument for God's existence. The human race is dependent upon historical data for its progress. This is why all of our current information is founded upon (at least in the western world) the ancient records of the Sumerians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Egyptians, Persians, Greeks, Romans etc. etc. Our schools are filled with the teachings of these ancient nations along with the writings of the pre-Socratics, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, etc. etc. Yet, for some reason when it comes to the Bible, which is also an ancient text of human history, all of the sudden people are clamoring about its lack of proof. Yet, the Bible has more proof for its authenticity than any other record of human history! The Bible is the only book that can boast almost 6,000 manuscripts that testify to its authenticity. The only other book of human history that enjoys this type of proof is the writings of Homer with about 600 manuscripts. We study philosophy, psychology, sociology, anthropology, zoology, botany, medicine, politics, etc. etc. that are all founded upon ancient texts with less proof than what the Bible enjoys, but no one seems to care about that. This is the proof people! If you want to get into a detailed discussion about the merits of the Bible we can, but don't say Christian's have no proof. I challenge any atheist to provide one shred of proof that demonstrates that the Holy Bible is not what it claims to be!

[@dwightalvarez7081]

The Holy Bible claims to be the word of God. Good. Great. Can I ask you a question and expect a response devoid of anti-intellectualism?

[@dwightalvarez7081]

What is science to you?

[@dwightalvarez7081]

I wish i could just debate you just so i could look smart in front of my little brothers haha

[@ASkepticalHumanOnYouTube]

"Where is your reason that proves atheism as factual and true? (Oh, that's right, atheism is merely a negation and it can't be proven....Where is the proof that atheism is real and true?" You answered your own question, and then you proceeded to ask it again. Amazing! Well, let me answer it again for you (only to, I expect, have you ask it again as if you never heard the answer in the first place.) Atheism has no burden of proof. Atheism is not the claim "A god does not exist." It is a rejection of the theistic proposition that "a god exists." Religious people claim "a god exists." An atheist is a person who doesn't accept this claim because it has not met its burden of proof. It's not up to us to prove that our position is "factual and true." Let's use an analogy: "a giant talking praying mantis operates an ice-cream stand in the supermassive black hole in the center of our galaxy." If you reject this claim because you think it's absurd or think that it hasn't met its burden of proof, then you are an "a-praying-mantis-ist." If somebody said to you "what's the proof that a-praying-mantist-ism is factual and true", they would be thinking illogically and asking a backwards, nonsensical question, as are you. It's not up to you to disprove the existence of this praying mantis; it's up to the advocates of this belief to demonstrate that it's accurate. To shift the burden of proof in the manner that you do doesn't bolster your case in any way; it simply demonstrates that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of a very basic logical concept. This isn't a rational argument against atheism; it's a laughable display of ignorance and irrationality on your behalf. "He claimed to be an atheist, but sounded more like an agnostic, and gave the standard response of a skeptic." Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive, and Matt Dillahunty is both of these things. -Theism addresses whether or not one believes: A theist believes a god exists, and an atheist does not believe a god exists. -Gnosticism addresses whether or not one claims to know: A gnostic claims to know a god exists, and an agnostic claims to not know a god exists. Thus, an agnostic atheist is one who does not believe a god exists yet doesn't claim to be certain that this is the case.

[@fowlfables]

"Where is the proof that atheism is real and true?" Why should atheism have proof for the non-existence of anything? You have as much proof for the non-existence of every other god that every other religion follows. An atheist simply rejects your god as well. Once you understand that, you will understand why your question is ludicrous. Matt addressed the question by focusing on the disagreement with the rational position of an eternal god. He did not have to prove the rationality of eternal matter, as this is a false dichotomy. We have no evidence of the permanence of matter prior to the big bang, and thus to assume that there must either be a god or eternal matter is a fallacy. There are thousands of texts, from authors that are atheists, Muslims, Jews, and other religions, that address the validity of the bible. Your inablilty to research these things is not proof that you are right. Simply reviewing the Wikipedia articles on biblical manuscripts and the criticism thereof can help you understand why most of the planet believes Christianity is incorrect. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_manuscript If all else fails, try google. Seriously. lmgtfy.com/?q=proof+bible+is+false lmgtfy.com/?q=atheist+books lmgtfy.com/?q=bible+contradictions

[@MegaTattoo69]

I think its a bit demented the way he holds that book he calls holy, and if you read it you would find its so far from holy its not even funny..

[@MegaTattoo69]

He says miracles were to confirm the word or Jesus and you need to go speak to a real Jewish rabbi, He will tell you that miracles are not a sign for the messiah... So much for that statement!!!

[@amedeopagliuso]

I can't figure out why Matt went so easy on this guy in all these debates, considering all of Israel's unfounded and incorrect assertions. The bible is authenticated? That's utterly contrary to the consensus of historians. Maybe his light touch was out of consideration for the people in the audience, but it seems like a bad strategy.

[@Animuldok]

In the venue in which the debate occurred, had Matt been less diplomatic, the audience would have just put up their "faith blinders, gone into siege mode ,and not attempted to understand his (very good) reasoning. His approach was very tactical, more a flanking maneuver than a direct assault. The interesting thing about religious beliefs is they are a house of cards, if you can get someone to see the irrationality of one tiny bit they start to question the rest. And the erosion of a faith based belief system commences.

[@aegisgfx]

deer horreee bibeerrrr!

[@frankkush8143]

Because we don't understand how the universe came into being doesn't prove that their is a god. Your reasoning is faulty.