Atheist Debates - A Novel argument for god, destroyed

[@usaverageguy]

1) Marriage is an institution 2) Marriage is love 3) Love is blind 4) Therefore marriage is an institution for the blind.

[@ceb591]

😂

[@ladyselenafelicitywhite1596]

Hilarious 😂😂😂😂 I'm stealing that joke!

[@aralornwolf3140]

Sums marriage up quite well. :D

[@StopWhining491]

I think you may be onto something.

[@wiwaxiasilver827]

Yep, maybe that is actually true lol 😂

[@KXSocialChannel]

1) Write a letter to Matt using logic and arguments. 2) Receive a reply from Matt about why your logic and arguments are wrong. 3) Write another letter telling Matt that logic and arguments are manmade and so are useless.

[@Antis14CZ]

See Aron Ra's video "Why do religious people hate reality so much?"

[@dannyspitzer1267]

Haha, yup

[@wiwaxiasilver827]

*”Po-werrr!!! Un-limi-ted Powahhhhh!!!”*

[@bogdanvojnovic989]

Those seem like three easy steps, nothing unclear about it, nice and neat

[@medexamtoolscom]

But don't they believe that god created logic and the rules of logic?

[@silverharloe]

The argument has many hidden assumptions other than "God = the creator of the universe." It assumes the creator performed the creation knowingly. It assumes the creator performed the creation intentionally. It assumes the creator knows not just that they created the universe, but thoroughly understands every detail of how they did it. It assumes the creator can speak. It assumes the creator can speak intelligently. It assumes the creator acted alone. etc. etc. etc. It strikes me as an argument designed by someone who can't or won't imagine any possibility other than the one they started with.

[@bradmarchant7822]

Glad you pointed these out, thanks!

[@Mouse_Librarian]

Exactly this. I was going to point this out, but you beat me to it. There's just an ever-expanding cascade of assumptions of what exactly god is on their part that they are using a preconceived notion of what they consider god to be instead of providing a concrete definition. "God = the creator of the universe" doesn't even come remotely close to being a sufficient description for their argument.

[@indiegun]

Ignorantly arrogant and goal-oriented presupposition plus a realization that there are things mankind does not yet and may never definitively know does NOT equal 'therefore god'. Our universe might well have been created by the advanced technology of mortal beings from a different universe altogether. The author of the email has had his imagination necessarily castrated by a religion which commands his body and dulls his mind. His 'theory' adds proof to my contention that the human concept of 'god' is so ridiculously finite and painfully anthropomorphic as to be downright embarrassing.

[@DaveCarterAL]

@silver Harloe re: "the creation" < that is an ASSUMPTION I have heard of no evidence to prove it was created. The big bang caused a change in state that hid all prior states. But a creation event has not been shown.

[@silverharloe]

@@DaveCarterAL Yeah, sorry, I've said "don't call the cosmos 'creation' because it smuggles in the assumption that the cosmos even was created and thus is a perfect example of begging the question" so many times in the past that I forgot to repeat it. You're right.

[@donsample1002]

The first step in being able to speak intelligently about a subject is knowing that you don't know everything. As soon as someone starts claiming to know everything about a non-trivial subject, they've stopped speaking intelligently about it.

[@marylamb128]

I wouldn’t say God is not trivial

[@jayrose8638]

@@marylamb128 god myths are very trivial. Fun to dissect and examine, but no more useful than examining any other fictional character.

[@marylamb128]

@@jayrose8638 If you don’t chose to see factual evidence then what your saying is just hogwash,there’s evidence but atheists won’t look there afraid there world will be forever changed and you just may have to answer to a higher power who will judge either to damnation or heaven.

[@jayrose8638]

@@marylamb128 I spent 20 years worshipping. I believed with every fiber of my being. I thought it sent me signs and helped me in tough times. Then I started reading more of the bible. I started reading parts that were just silly. Parts that were contradictions. Parts that were just plain disgusting behaviors being praised. I started asking questions and would be brushed aside or even directly insulted for asking questions. I started to see all the similarities to other god myths. I started reading these other myths and realized they are all the same. I slowly stopped going to church and praying. I started to feel relief. I wasn’t clenching my jaw all day anymore. I started finding myself more patient with folks I would normally had never given a second look. Before I realized it my depression was gone. I wasn’t walking around feeling like a victim anymore. After I quit praying I realized I could accomplish more by just working towards my goal. I put about 20 years into religion and about 15 years without and I have to say it has improved my life substantially. So if any of the gods are real, (and that’s a big IF) then it showed me that they don’t care at best and are actively malevolent at worst. But at this point I doubt any gods exist. No good reason to believe anymore.

[@marylamb128]

@@jayrose8638 I’m really sorry that happened to you and the only thing I can tell you is a lot of things in the Bible are not supposed to be taken at face value kind of like the stories Jesus told He said to his disciples for you and the saved it was meant to understand but to those who sorry to say basically are not saved will not understand.The Holy Spirit is the revealer of things our minds alone cannot comprehend at least that’s what I believe.I understand where your coming from I am going thru what is called a dark night now always edgy trying to be the good and do right ,trying to pray when all I feel is nothing.But after I have read all the greatest Saints stories not one of them had an easy life.The road to Heaven is HARD filled with crosses it’s not easy and Jesus said that sell all that you have and follow Him and the apostles said that’s impossible where Jesus says what’s impossible for humans is not impossible for the Holy Spirit living inside us and the only thing we need is Faith not intellect Faith things that are not seen that’s faith.My life has been a hell whole I lost 4 children there dead a dad a mom and 2 brothers all dead.But you know what my faith is stronger than ever because thru all the crying,screaming,kicking I chose to believe and chose to believe that an eternity in heaven is better than this hell we live in.With all sincerity I wish you love .❤️🙏🏻and prayers. Just remember God sent His son so we can go to heaven how can u say He doesn’t care?We are the ones screwing everything up He gave us free will we are the ones making everything a shithole not Him why blame Him?Should He have made us robotic with no choice to chose between good and evil?Thats the force your fighting against my brother your fighting the devil and blaming God ,open your eyes please and try to see the devil is in this world and trying to take as many souls with him because the end is real close.The signs of the times and predictions in the Bible are coming together all predicted.

[@TymeTaylor]

I wish we could get to a point where ppl would pause and admit defeat the moment they reached for JBP as a source.

[@christopherbiomass7155]

@Account NumberEight They certainly are for me. I pay him no mind.

[@georgeparkins777]

@Account NumberEight No, he manages to stay relevant by being more and more of a sad sack every year. He just resigned from professorial and clinical practice because Canada is banning conversion therapy and he claims that will be used to attack legitimate therapists such as himself. Before that it was him checking into a "rapid detox" center in Russia where he was literally put in a coma so he could drop his benzo prescription cold turkey without having to be awake for withdrawal symptoms, leading to him waking up paralyzed and with memory loss. He manages to outdo himself every time.

[@cliffgaither]

@Account NumberEight ::: Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha 😁

[@cliffgaither]

@@georgeparkins777 :: That's an excellent comparison about him being more & more of a "sad-sack". When I see him in recent videos, he looks depressed.

[@georgeparkins777]

@Account NumberEight No, all literally true.

[@lewisfitzsimmons1271]

I love the secret assumption that an agent universally understand that which they create. I’ve created plenty of things accidentally in the chemistry lab that I didn’t understand.

[@donnyh3497]

I just can't believe that anyone actually thought that this was a good argument

[@thedragonofechigo7878]

Great to see you Matt and recovering well, it's good to hear from you in all honesty.

[@cujokila]

I had no idea you were going through these health issues. I'm so happy to hear you speak again and I wish you the best in your recovery! Much love from this longtime fan

[@Funnysterste]

P - If there is a god, then at least one person knows how the universe began. C - There is no god.

[@Funnysterste]

@@19annabanana90 No, it doesn't.

[@kevincrady2831]

This is somewhat less silly than the argument given, and more parsimonious, but it still contains some of the smuggled assumptions: 1) Why limit inquiry to "a" god, when there could be multiple gods? 2) There is no direct connection between "gods" and the beginning of the Universe. It is possible for gods and goddesses who are not creators to exist, at least in mythology and worship. It is possible that, if there was "a" creator or set of creators of the universe, that they are not the ultimate deity (as in Gnostic belief). 3) Depending on the specifics of the "creation" process (granting that there was such a thing), it is not necessarily so that the "god" or "gods" responsible would know (exactly) how the Universe began. For example, we can use an app on a phone to accomplish some task (say, activate a 3D printer and tell it to create some particular object) without knowing anything about how the app works, how the phone works, or how the digital design gets translated into the motions of the 3D printer. In short: the argument given by the letter writer for "a god" is so fractally wrong that even your more parsimonious formulation is still full of errors. I can't disagree with your conclusion though. 😂

[@doctorshell7118]

I’m glad you’re doing well. I have no idea how you have the patience for this. When I have a discussion with a theist and they start the dishonest slippery crap, my tolerance goes out the window.

[@hifijohn]

Thats why I never argue with them, theres an old saying-- when you are arguing with an idiot make sure hes not doing the same thing.

[@notstayinsdowns]

I am sure you think slippery crap is logic that messes up your argument. When you start saying things like "slippery crap," it just means you can't take the truth.

[@jamesrose6751]

@@notstayinsdowns sounds like slippery crap to me

[@notstayinsdowns]

@@jamesrose6751 , Proving my point for me, thanks.

[@jamesrose6751]

@@notstayinsdowns you had a point? Sounded like slippery crap, "truth" part gave the game away. sorry champ

[@p.t.anderson1593]

I really should watch all of your videos. It would show my support for you and all of the people who, like me, woke up and saw religion for how ridiculous it really was. My awakening happened gradually but started almost 40 years ago and I've heard so many of these "novel" or "airtight" arguments breathlessly presented as not just evidence but proof. Please forgive me, I have grown weary. Not of you, but of the apologetics who are so in love with their fantastic story that they defend it with every breath and thought. Sometimes they will even kill for it with a guilt free mind just knowing that they were only doing the right thing. If you are awake like me or you are still on the fence, you are not alone and someone somewhere cares about you.

[@bodan1196]

While I can't rule out an _instigator_ to this universe, I find the concept of a _creator_ to be lacking. A creator creates for a purpose. Either external, such as watchmaker, or internal, such as a painter. This universe seem to be without purpose for us, despite the religious insistance that God has one for all. And past that insistance, they can't tell me what it is, or even what it might be. But also; God having a purpose for me, means that I am a tool. That I am a means to an end for God. Until this end is explained and proven valid (according to me), why would I give a brass farthing for it? Why would I allow God to use me for a purpose not explained?

[@victoriagolmehdi8506]

I am glad to see you back looking well and able to host this discussion. I hope your recovery continues.

[@toneg3768]

Religious folk, I swear, they rather argue God into existence instead of demonstrating his existence. We can argue a point to death,, but the demonstration shuts all that nonsense down. Happy to see you're recovering well Matt👍🏼✌🏼

[@marylamb128]

@Tone G kzbin.info/www/bejne/nX6nq2BsesuHnMk Also Look up The miracle in Fatima 100’000 saw it also look up former Atheist Hugh Ross on the scientific existence of God.

[@ThEjOkErIsWiLd00]

@@marylamb128 If Hugh Ross or anyone else had actual scientific evidence of a god, we would expect them to win a Nobel prize as well as headlines around the world proclaiming it. Get back to us when that actually happens.

[@marylamb128]

@@ThEjOkErIsWiLd00 Don’t speak go look it up it’s new stuff the scientists are just finding he was a former atheist go see why but of course you won’t because if you find out there is a God than your life would be different and you know at the end there’s judgement .Go also research Fatima.If you don’t research both then we cannot discuss intelligently.I think Matt never responds because the truth is I really believe he believes and he makes a lot of money from this show so when I’ve sent him numerous videos that there’s no way in hell no pun he never bothers to look at them.

[@ThEjOkErIsWiLd00]

@@marylamb128 When someone starts telling me they know what's inside my head better than I do, I stop bothering to listen to them. Good day.

[@joepabilona642]

@@marylamb128 I've seen the video and there's nothing new. I can't believe I wasted 5 minutes of my time. You guys keep saying this is something new and it always ends up being a desperate move. I'm not sure if you're gullible enough to believe in what you saw or just plain dishonest.

[@biedl86]

"Logic explains God, but logic isn't valid." On rationality rules' channel they voted for a name for a fallacious argument. The fallacy is, that you make an argument to prove a point, but instead of proving a point, you're actually debunking yourself. The term "trojan source" won the vote, if nothing strange happened since I last checked. I like the name and I'm glad to find a real life example just one day later.

[@JonS]

That was a poll for the Matt Powell type of argument where he'll cite a source that actually contradicts the point he's making. Hence people voting for "Trojan Source".

[@biedl86]

@@superarabica5450 ye, I actually did a poor job in explaining the fallacy. The guy above you nailed it though. Edit: I don't know if you are familiar with the movie "God is not dead". There are examples of that fallacy too. The antagonist (a philosophy professor) quotes Nietzsche (God is dead) and the Christian protagonist (his student) gets into some kind of debate with him over the course of the film, to prove the opposite. He then "wins" the debate by quoting Steven Hawkins, who said "Philosophy is dead", therefore God is alive. What Steven Hawkins is actually saying in the very next sentence is, that we don't need philosophy to explain the origin of the universe at some day (if I remember correctly). And ofc he is not referring to a god.

[@LukeSumIpsePatremTe]

@@JonS I voted for footshot fallacy partly because the self-refutation does not need to happen on the source-level.

[@starfishsystems]

"Own goal" also works, as in when you score a kick into your own net.

[@Gobackto4chan]

I vote snake tail fallacy.

[@jwmmitch]

This makes me want to come up with a bunch of meaningless logical arguments 1) if ignorance exists then God wanted it that way 2) if God wanted it that way then its ego is more fragile than a teenage boy trying to be an alpha of his tribe but can't get a date to the bronze aged high school dance 3) ignorance exists 4) God didn't go to the dance

[@josecala4164]

I'm happy to see you are recovering Matt. I'm Cuban and I try to influence my community with your content. Gracias

[@Leith_Crowther]

If no one knows how the universe began, one can’t claim to have a good reason to believe that God created the universe. That would involve one claiming to know how the universe began.

[@michellebrown4903]

@@ianalan4367 actually there are " claims" to how he did bit's of it. He made Adam from a handful of mud , and Eve from one of his ribs . And don't even get me started on " why do they have bellybuttons ."??

[@wesdex04]

@@michellebrown4903 well how are they going to pass on reproductive necessities if they don't possess them themselves? Pretty simple as to why they would have a belly button. Anything else you are stuck on?

[@michellebrown4903]

@@wesdex04 wes..... you don't really believe that man was created by 2 handfuls of mud do you?

[@piesho]

@@ianalan4367 Yes, there is. They call it Genesis.

[@alanmurray5963]

Why did he create man with nipples, occasionally infants are born with vestigial tails and wisdom teeth are considered vestigial and so is the appendix

[@kipstanswjego6678]

Glad to hear you're feeling better, Matt. This is my first time to watch one of these "debates". I'd expected a live interlocutor. At least this way you don't get interrupted and can explain each point calmly. Whether the other person can learn anything from this is not knowable, perhaps, right now. But as you've explained elsewhere (AXP, I believe), you are teaching others how such arguments are formulated and what their shortcomings are. And that's a good purpose. If even one person gets it, then that's a big step, not only for them, but for the well being of society. Thanks, Matt!

[@sexyliam]

I wound up looking at hosea 2:4, I couldn't help myself. "I will not have mercy on her children, for they are children of harlotry" What a lovely message 🤣

[@Antis14CZ]

I don't know about you, heathen, but I feel inspired =)

[@IllustriousCrocoduck]

Yeesh, like I want the context for that but it doesn't really matter, does it? They said "no mercy" 🤷

[@sexyliam]

@@IllustriousCrocoduck it's god calling Isreal a harlot.he'd often get cranky with them and say mean shit like that.🤷‍♂️

[@christinehoward2207]

Wow matt your work will live forever you're doing a great thing you really helped me so much love for you and your family...

[@renancolli3700]

Damn, that argument's so bad that even I, who have no remarkable training whatsoever in logical fallacies could spot the non sequitur smuggled inside that first premise.

[@HustleWorldEnt1]

Matt I had no idea you had heart surgery, glad you're still with us and looking great! Stay strong, the fight continues 😎👍💪🏼❤

[@damianpatterson9363]

Glad to see you're doing well Matt.

[@huggysh]

Hi Mat, As a person who helpped me make sense of the way i was feel when I first lost my faith and so happy you are ok and well. I too have a heart condition but am scared of surgery. You continue to inspire me even for other reasons rather than activism. Thank you.

[@cnault3244]

" A Novel argument for god, destroyed" It's always arguments for god, never evidence for god. And these arguments are always for some generic universe creating deity that somehow proves Christianity....

[@northshoregirl8173]

After watching so many Atheist Exp and your debate videos, I am much better prepared to refute arguments like these. Thanks so much for all you and the whole crew do, Matt! Glad you're doing well.

[@stevewithaq]

This argument highlights one of my biggest pet peeves - the misunderstanding of the primordial singularity. It is not considered the "beginning of the universe" but simply the point where our current models break down and can no longer be considered reliable. The mass/energy present at/around the singularity == the mass energy present now. So it could not be considered the beginning of the universe, it's simply the limit of previous states we can predict. (Irrelevant to this specific argument, but it's especially not what many call "coming out of nothing.")

[@heavenbound7-7-7-7]

My biggest pet peeve is when people who try to explain what was before big bang invoke magic aka quantum physics.

[@hayuseen6683]

@@heavenbound7-7-7-7 What is magical about quantum physics? There are no spirits, no rituals of invocation, no anthropomorphized forces, no manipulation of reality via will, and no alternate realm of existence. It’s a model of little pieces doing things with other little pieces. Which results in working technology and tests, as opposed to magic’s lack of making anything working. Also aren’t you a believer in a god, in other words a belief in magic, forces beyond the mundane world?

[@qwadratix]

@@heavenbound7-7-7-7 There is no 'magic' in QM. It's simply the way the world IS. But to be clear, no-one has invoked QM to explain 'before the big bang'. That would be impossible because the actual point of creation of the universe is the point where quantum mechanical calculations CEASE to work. That, in fact is the problem.

[@heavenbound7-7-7-7]

@@qwadratix So you actually have to invoke magic because naturalistic explanation cannot explain where everything came from?

[@stevewithaq]

@@heavenbound7-7-7-7 No, we say (rightly) that we don't know where "everything came from" - or indeed even if that characterization make sense. It cannot even be shown that the universe had a beginning, let alone that it occurred via any particular process.

[@alvinharrigan8147]

Hello Matt I'm so glad you are okay I wish you another 50 years on this Earth educating people thank you so much

[@streamofclassconsciousness3173]

The reason science was dominated by the clergy for centuries is because most people toiled for their subsistence and didn’t have the time to dedicate to science. The clergy (by virtue of their status in society) didn’t have to work because they lived off the social surplus created by the underclass and controlled by the ruling class. Therefore, they had the free time to dedicate to science. The reason they were interested in science (ie, trying to learn about the natural world in reverence to “God’s creation”) doesn’t fully explain how they were able to dedicate the necessary time to study free from the burden of working for their subsistence.

[@Mouse_Librarian]

The beliefs of people isn't even relevant to what they discover in the first place. You would've been killed for being an atheist once upon a time, so even people that flat out said they were religious may not have been.

[@mickmccrory8534]

That, & if you didn't agree with the clergy, they would burn you at the stake

[@grahamleigh8398]

Have been off your channel for a while but would like you to know my thoughts and thanks for all you have done on The Atheist Experience.All power to you from a far distant land .South Africa.

[@ogieogie]

We don't even know whether the universe had a beginning or not.

[@Akira-jd2zr]

Right, some of the best physicists around the world say they think it didn't...

[@qwadratix]

@@Akira-jd2zr Or if it did, it 'budded off' somehow from another. I think that the majority are inclined to the view that something tangible must have preceded the BB. Magic is probably the least favoured theory. 🤣

[@adrianmillard6598]

3:15 That font looks like OG slab serif back from the typewriter days. :)

[@gdevelek]

This is a childish argument. Shows how desperate this person is, with his lack of real arguments.

[@elmercoblentz9432]

How should someone respond to a child claiming you don’t love Jesus, and you’re dumb? Especially, when you know the person teaching such is someone who is confident in their lives, because they love Jesus only for their redemption from hell, therefore living for the day when this earth will no longer be livable. I call it absolute disregard for all life and lives, including the small child’s.

[@mccsnackin]

I was already thinking towards the beginning of the argument that it reminds me of some if the airheads I went to church with that are also into some new agey type stuff. And the way they formed their argument, I’m not surprised they linked to a Jordan Peterson video…

[@oggyoggy1299]

Hang on, the guy tried to use logic to argue for a God. Then says logic cant be used to rebut that because without humans logic wouldn’t exist. So i guess we can ignore his argument.

[@DoctorZisIN]

I will reply to this comment as soon as I get rid of an ant which apparently crawled inside my monitor and died.

[@KL-lt8rc]

@@ianalan4367 "The very brain waves we call thought would be nothing more than random waves that accidentally brings us to conclusion." Existence being happenstance (not accidental, which implies an intention for something to not happen, but still did) doesn't mean that our brain waves, thoughts, or conclusions are random.

[@kevincrady2831]

@@ianalan4367 Your first premise is false. Logic is ontologically prior to any postulated creator or creators. In order to assert that there is a creator, and this creator is a particular sort of entity--such as a god, Yahweh--logic must already be applicable. Otherwise, the "creator" could be simultaneously Yahweh and Inanna and Ba'al and Sakhmet and Quetzalcoatl and a rutabaga and a bowling ball that hatches a litter of purple flying elephants all at the same time and in the same respect. Such a "thing" (if you could call it a thing) would not be able to have specified attributes that could make it a "creator." In other words, before you can postulate a specific creator or set of creators, the Law of Identity (a thing is itself, A=A) must already apply to him/her/them/it/whatever.

[@KL-lt8rc]

@@ianalan4367 "If existence itself is by happenstance then how could anything within such a random existence be anything but?" Existence being happenstance doesn't equate to it being "random" in the typical definition of the word (having no order). There are multiple physical forces that act on matter as constants, and would cause relative normalcy and order. With regard to human thought, that has been shaped by countless generations of natural selection. Random mutations selected via a non-random process.

[@kevincrady2831]

​@@ianalan4367 "A creator" doesn't solve your "happenstance" problem. Why _that_ creator, and not some other, or set of others? Happenstance. And how would the creator be able to use logic if its own existence is happenstance? Unless "the creator" has a creator or creators...but then the next level up has the same problem, and so on. In short, you're trying to set up a principle, "Without a creator [insert problem here] would result, so we need to believe in a creator." As with other problems "a creator" is supposed to solve (e.g. infinite regress, morality, etc.), "a creator" can't solve the problem, because it is also subject to it. Apologists usually just try to Calvinball their way out of the problem. "Well, once we get to 'the creator'--by which we really mean the very specific deity our pastor talks about at church--the problem we just set up doesn't apply any more because we say so." So we get stuff like "A bacterium is too irreducibly complex to exist without a creator, but the infinitely complex supermind of the God of Evangelical Protestantism doesn't need a creator, He's just there." Or "An infinite regress of causes is impossible, but an infinite regress of thoughts in the mind of God is OK." And so on. So I'm going to predict that you will find some way to say an equivalent of "The universe just existing by happenstance is a problem, but the happenstance existence of the creator I happen to believe in (instead of some other, such as Atum, Brahman, etc. or set of others such as the Sumerian pantheon) isn't." If you had been born in India, you would very likely be arguing for Brahman, or if you were born in Iran, Allah (Shiite version) would be the self-evident ground of being. If you'd been born in ancient Egypt, the narrative of Atum self-emerging from the primordial waters of Nun would be obvious to you. The strongest predictor of what religion a person believes in is: the place and time of their birth and upbringing. Which means, you believing in the particular creator you believe in is.... Happenstance.

[@lizzard13666]

Thanks Matt! I really appreciated this response, as a Christian.

[@qwadratix]

Putting philosophy aside, no scientist claims to know how the universe began. Period. In fact it's one of the hottest areas of theoretical speculation among leading theoretical physicists. BUT we have a lot of information about it. We know in considerable detail how this current universe works and what it's current state of existence is. Further, because it woks on a principle of 'cause leading to effect' we can work backwards from the current state to previous states and in effect, wind back the universe mathematically to the earliest moment. At that point we reach the 'quantum limit', where the laws of cause and effect cease to hold, space and time end (or rather, start). At no point before that is it necessary to invoke the existence of a 'God' so it seems rather arbitrary to introduce one just for that single event.

[@cliffgaither]

Verruca :: That was a very sound argument. I've read that if we go back as far as you suggested, an arbitrary 'God' can exist as the First Uncaused-Cause ! which makes No Sense !

[@mattt9187]

Matt, as another Matt I want to wish you well and appreciate your intellectual debate and context. As a former Southern Baptist I appreciate your journey. Mine has been similar to yours. I am happier and healthy without belief. Show me 👍 but I still love Halloween 🎃

[@yvo4497]

The first premise is just nonsense. "If there is no water, no one knows how life began" .

[@Eudaimonist]

I'm used to apologists moving the goal posts. This is the first time I have heard of one burning them down. When logic fails, then bash logic? This is the episteomological equivalent of the ends justifying the means.

[@MaxtheFinger]

I would venture that the entire concept of God is a construct of the human mind.

[@gumbygreeneye3655]

A few videos from Matt together - epic!

[@stuboyd1194]

If a god did indeed create the universe, perhaps it would like to show up on KZbin and tell us all about how it did that, rather than letting someone like George come up with poor arguments.

[@kelduck8851]

It did show up on YT a couple of years ago, but it got trolled badly. It rage quit, as it is timeless we (and it) have no clue how long before it will return!

[@brettjohnson6374]

I'm pretty sure God exists on Twitter. Though last I checked, still unverified.

[@Nerobyrne]

Gotta stay subscribed for when Matt hits you with that quad upload ^.^

[@Stalicone]

I thought this going to be a “Novel” argument. There was nothing new (novel) about it. It certainly wasn’t clever on any level. It didn’t make me pause and consider, it didn’t make me say “Wow!” to myself. In fact, it evoked a sigh of pity. Please don’t indulge this sort of kindergarten sophistry. It was valueless, except perhaps for use as an example of a bad syllogism.

[@bobbun9630]

This argument reminds me a little of the Ontological Argument in that it is completely detached from anything real. Even if the logic is sound, which isn't the case with this argument, I find it hard to accept that a completely abstract argument actually demonstrates something meaningful.

[@adropofgoldensun27]

The religious create their own personal delusions and then expect others to accept them without evidence 😁

[@eddieking2976]

I'm just now hearing about your surgery. As a long time listener just let me say how happy I am that you're doing well Matt. 🤗🤗🤗

[@philpaine3068]

Logic, as we know it, was first formulated by Aristotle. Aristotle believed in a final cause of all motion in Nature. He thought this might be some sort of contemplative being, but he did NOT attribute mercy, love, sympathy and providence to this creative cause. He did not believe in anything even remotely like the Christian concept of God. So if this guy thinks that logic is derived from Christian belief he is dead wrong. Another, equally ancient formulation of logic, Hetu-vidya, arose in the Buddhist world. It is just as formal and technical. It does not depend in any way on the existence of a creator God.

[@awesomethealmighty]

Keep up the great work, Matt. Here's hoping for a fast and complete recovery for you!

[@swedensy]

With how much animal and dairy fat he consums there is no recovery. I give him 5 years tops.

[@jayrose8638]

@@swedensy you mean he won’t live forever?

[@acspicer]

Once he cited Jordan Peterson he lost all credibility.

[@martinmckee5333]

I feel you covered the argument well. I have nothing to add. But, glad you are recovering well!

[@flowingafterglow629]

I don't understand the claim that you need a god to know how the universe began. Is the claim that only the creator has direct knowledge, and therefore is the only one who "knows"? But that is obviously false. Only a murderer has direct knowledge of the murder, but it is completely possible to know who did it even if you weren't there.

[@cy-one]

Yep. Dude's argumentation would lead to a _witness_ standing 1m away and looking at the victim _as it is being stabbed to death_ not "knowing about the murder."

[@connerfarr8072]

People seem to be hung up on the notion that there has to be a beginning and end to everything. Its understandable because our lives begin and will end but in reality our state of being simply changes. We came about through chemistry and then will continue to change till we no longer resemble our past selves. The universe could be the same thing and I belive that is most likely the case. We have no evidence that points to an absolute beginning and we have no evidence that it will ever end. The big bang is a buzz word that describes a point in time that we can create modules and use math to peer back in time to the earliest point, not the very beginning. Keep fighting Matt, love your show. You do fantastic work.

[@MrOttopants]

lol, so anyone who has the greatest grasp on any concept is god of that subject and created it? That quote is hilarious "If there is at least one person who knows how the universe began, then there is a god." Logic, apparently. Or something.

[@hayuseen6683]

It’s saying we know about the start of the universe only from god because no human was around to see it... basically, I think?

[@scottplumer3668]

This argument seems like a variation on an argument some pastor or another made in a YT video I saw. He said something like "if you don't possess all knowledge inherent in the universe, you don't know if god exists or not." So, more or less just the argument from ignorance rebranded. The arguer doesn't seem to realize that one needn't know how the universe originated to not be convinced by arguments for gods. Glad to see you're doing well, Matt!

[@pierrec1590]

I once explained to my mother that if God created everything, Everything with a big "E", he must have created intelligence as well. She agreed to that. So I said He would be insulted to see me using my intelligence to believe in things that cannot be proven, wouldn't He?

[@heavenbound7-7-7-7]

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse." Romans 1:18-20

[@pierrec1590]

@@heavenbound7-7-7-7 I could not express it more clearly: He would be really really really really really angry to see me indulge in believing in silly things like that. Which proves he does not exist.

[@hayuseen6683]

@@heavenbound7-7-7-7 This is great propaganda. You see how it’s a problem though, when anyone can use this? “Those who believe in a god even though it’s obvious that there isn’t one are trying to suppress the truth so they can continue hiding behind a falsehood and excuse their bad behaviors. The natural, non-magic world is all around showing them their belief in magic is false, since the start of humanity. They are without excuse.” See, it can be applied by any human to any topic. I’m sure plenty of Islamic people could point to that passage as proof for Islam, too. Even among christians god’s nature is certainly not plain... or there wouldn’t be so much difference between the groups. But everything to know about god is plain to everyone? Please.

[@Andrew-it7fb]

@Anonymous Won such as?

[@Andrew-it7fb]

@Anonymous Won I wasn't ruling out the possibility of a creator, just asking what evidence there is for one. I haven't seen anything to suggest that one exists though. Things in nature evolved to be the way they are over billions of years. The universe was not complex at all after the big bang.

[@dougharper3095]

I'm glad you are recovering in good shape.

[@nitehawk86]

I am actually impressed at how wrong he is.

[@fangugel3812]

Good to see you are doning well.

[@rogerbee697]

Jordan (Jesus stopped my pill addiction) Peterson?!....😂 He’s an irrelevant, word salad machine. C’mon dude, be serious.

[@timefliesasyougetolder6815]

Such disdain in your words.

[@rogerbee697]

@@timefliesasyougetolder6815 Disdain?! Ya think? Jordan Peterson is a fraud!

[@timefliesasyougetolder6815]

@@rogerbee697 calling him a fraud… not only disdain but I’d say hate.

[@leeshackelford7517]

@@timefliesasyougetolder6815 facts don't care about your feelings. It isn't hate to say that word salad is word salad....and that quackery is quackery

[@Grim_Beard]

An additional error in this argument is the assumption that if there is a creator of the universe then that creator knows everything about the creation of the universe. That also doesn't follow - in fact, it's entirely possible to create something without knowing _anything_ about it. For example, your body is constantly creating new cells without you having to know that it's happening or how it's happening.

[@TheFoxholeLife]

I am sick of theists making such bs arguments, often coated with philosophical jargon, which even they wouldn't believe.

[@paulvonblerk9365]

Good to see you up and about Matt. Take good care!

[@stryker1195]

I'm wondering if it would be necessary to distinguish between the *Rules of Logic* and the *Laws of Logic* as in human nature? i.e. 1.) The *Laws of Logic* are governed by our natural minds, NOT by a set of rules. 2.) The *Rules of Logic* contain no content, no data, and no information. 3.) The *Rules of Logic* limit free expression of thought by confining language within a narrow construct of prescriptive logical fallacies. 4.) There is no controlling authority that compels anyone to follow their *Rules of Logic.* For these reasons the *Rules of Logic* may not be sufficient to argue FOR or AGAINST the existence of God. Would be interested to know what atheists think of such a concept. (not trying to trick anyone or convert anyone, just having a discussion.)

[@T2revell]

Just glad to see you getting ahead with recovery well!!!

[@bobon123]

I really don't understand why someone would _think_ that P1 is sound, why the creator should know everything about the universe and why (most importantly for the soundness) no one else could. I can imagine God-middle school, where a middle schooler God in "universe creation 101" built an universe without a full understanding of it, and the teacher God goes there at his desk to explain to him why, because of his mistake, that universe will reach heath death in just ~10^100 years. Someone that is not the creator could well have a vaster knowledge of the creation with respect to the creator. I could even imagine a universe that does _not_ have a creator, but still have an omniscient being that knows everything about its own creation. The two points, creation and knowledge of creation, just look logically unrelated.

[@SlipperyTeeth]

Even granting their convenient definition of knowledge - even ignoring the subjectivity of "speak intelligently" - even pretending that all those statements follow as their construction intends - after all that, it seems the absurdity it points to is that there is no one that can "speak intelligently" about the origins. And that pretty much just follows directly from the subjectivity of the phrase and the overly rigid definition of knowledge

[@pascalsimioli6777]

I'm sorry I don't understand: 1+1 doesn't equal 2 if there is no human observer? Logic is just the precursor to math, abstracts or not they refer to the physical world, does everything go to shit if we disappear? My apologies, English isn't my first language

[@cameroncimmerius1203]

This like walking into a sealed room with one dead person inside it and saying no one can know how this person died therefore no one can speak intelligently about how this person died. Or we could investigate and possibly determine how they died based on the clues in the room.

[@happyhippo2767]

I am not an atheist. But the intolerance exhibited by my fellow Christians is unbearable. I'm a Roman Catholic and a chemical engineer. So I am essentially a scientist. But, for me, belief in God is based on faith, so it really can't be proven one way or the other. I also don't think the Bible should be taken as a history or science textbook. Nor do I think the Bible should be taken literally, especially Genesis.

[@kleopardo]

Following the AXP, Talk Heathen etc. shows for about 2 years now. I heard about your diabetes, now about this surgery. My best wishes to continue your "mission" for a long time.

[@party4keeps28]

I once asked a Christian how Adam lived to be over 900 years old. He told me that back then, the atmosphere was very thick and was actually nutritious. Not only did it provide people with long life but it allowed the dinosaurs to get as big as they were. The guy told me he learned that from someone in jail. Great story.

[@ImpoForrest]

This is what they told us at Bible college in my “creationism science” class. Unreal.

[@party4keeps28]

@@ImpoForrest Oh wow, that's really interesting! I didn't realize other creationists believed the weird atmosphere theory. I figured it was just the guy I talked to and his friend from jail. So I guess it isn't uncommon.

[@valveman12]

*Descartes* "I think... therefore I am" "I am able to think... therefore I exist" That says it all.

[@paulSmith-te8gq]

I'm glad your feeling better Matt

[@jamesyoung1022]

• Quality reasoning demands that we have and apply a methodology for making an objective distinction between what is imaginative thinking versus what is an objective reality. Unsubstantiated claims should not be taken to be inerrant truth and acted upon as such. • Pretending to know the unknowable does not serve the interests of human enlightenment or progress. • Encouraging others to pretend to know the unknowable is a “dumbing down” initiative. • The ability to make a distinction between what is imaginary and what is real is only possible when we make a conscious decision to reject untestable claims. • Investing confidence in untestable claims is the path to self-delusion. Skepticism of untestable claims is the path to enlightenment.

[@mickmccrory8534]

2 Atheists knocked on my door. They didn't want anything.

[@leeshackelford7517]

Congrats on the successful operation. Decades ago, my 65 year old foster father had triple bypass.... From a couple months post surgery, till his death at 73...he enjoyed his golf weekly

[@TukikoTroy]

You've got some healthy colour going on their Matt. Keep on keeping on.

[@Barbreck1]

Also: P1- Who says the universe 'began'? It may have always been! P2- What is the universe? It is a manifestation of matter. So the correct question should be: What manifested matter? We already know how matter is constructed and it isn't through mystical forces but through well-understood processes, processes that those who control information refuse to share with the masses, choosing instead to peddle contradictory and confusing mysticism in order that they can posture an air of wisdom and authority over the rest of us. This may have been a valid social construct in centuries past when we thought parochially of little nations defending against murderous marauders but it is time for us to grow up and get on with surviving as a species in this violent universe, instead of dreaming of the benevolence of mystic beings. P3- NO-ONE is qualified to speak intelligently about how the universe began because NO-ONE was there to witness it and, anyone who does assert such intelligence has scant evidence in favour of the hypothesis! To assert intelligence over a subject requires the assertion of good evidence and yet there is significantly more evidence that contradicts the "universe beginning" assertion than supports it. Furthermore, being a "scientist" does not uniquely qualify anyone to postulate a hypothesis about the universe's mechanisms. Any old Patent Clerk can do that! P4- Therefore, the argument is moot. You need to stop allowing others to decide what information you can accept and start using your own rational faculties to discern between that which you are told and that which you can reason for yourself.

[@CasaVipera]

Matt you look super! Good to see you healthy again!

[@josiplozic962]

Glad you're recovering Matt

[@jillum89]

I remember when you did the dice analogy with Tracy with the glass with real dice and the glass with transcendent immaterial dice. Where she asked you if you knew how many real dice there were. And you didn’t but you guessed around 30. She said “I’m gonna guess 150.000!” Demonstrating that we can obviously have intelligent conversations about areas even where we don’t know the actual final answer.

[@mrpaupie]

You're looking good, Matt. I hope you're feeling good too.

[@Bill_Garthright]

I'm glad you're doing well, Matt.

[@frankquinn4069]

Good to hear your surgery went well. Looking healthy Matt.

[@Champruby]

Would you do a conversation with Tjump? I think it would be an interesting back & forth.

[@seraphonica]

It's so interesting how theists seem to believe that all knowledge comes from their deities. If this were true, as time passes, barring further contact, we would know less about the world. Do they feel every scientific breakthrough was sent by a deity? If so, why do they seem to be sent without regard to worship? In other words, why would their Christan deity bestow gifts of knowledge upon Islamic researchers, and vice versa?

[@bearlemley]

One of the flags is the use of the word “therefore”. I always look for a possible irrational leap after this word.

[@JAMESLEVEE]

Matt, his stuff isn't even novel, it's TAG warmed over.

[@landsgevaer]

1. If there is no stork, then no one knows how babies come about. Whoops.. Utterly incomprehensible how easy it is to find an analogy that shows the flaw in the argument. Somehow, theist have trouble being their own devil's advocate.

[@tapiocaweasel]

Yo that fourth premise though. wat.

[@tapiocaweasel]

or rather the conclusion. this is carl baugh levels of confusing

[@tedferkin]

The gentleman in question seems to forget that we human's are not professing to know everything. We are not professing that our model of physics is correct, in fact we know that at best it's incomplete, and most likely wrong. However, that doesn't stop us from knowing certain things, like the fact the universe is older than 6500 years. The second point refers to part of my first, we are creating models, not physics themselves. And just because they are human constructs, does not automatically make it not true, an in fact that point is moot. They are representations of the real world, and in that they can be correct, take the works by Pythagoras, universe doesn't do maths, but our model gives the predictable results that show the workings of the universe. So we have our person who can speak intelligently about the universe, they can show truths, and they are not (a) god Lastly, even if that was all true, it still doesn't point to any particular god.

[@findlesplurb]

Forty-two years on this planet and counting, and I have yet to hear one intelligent defense of the idea that God exists. It's one of the only things that will make otherwise intelligent people say really dumb things.

[@JMUDoc]

My reply would have consisted of "P2 is undemonstrated. Thank you for your (attempted) argument."

[@robynfindley7623]

Glad you are feeling better you are my favorite atheist and I hope your wife is great with taking care of you i don't want anything to happen to you one day I became a atheist experience fan right away and will be for the rest of my life.

[@IllustriousCrocoduck]

Not an impressive argument, but for some reason today, I want to give the guy credit for sounding decent enough, and at least trying out an argument. That's a step in the process. Maybe he'll watch this and read the email and accept the flaws and keep on thinking about this.

[@JohnnieHougaardNielsen]

An implied, but not demonstrated, premise is that the universe began. While we can look back in time to the big bang, that does not mean that this was a beginning from no existence of anything. In practice, the universe (maybe in another state) exiting is a brute fact.