Atheist Debates - Debate Review vs Matt Slick (Pt 2)

[@lilrobbie2k]

Any debate that Matt Slick has *ever* done ALWAYS comes back to a repackaged TAG argument. No matter the topic, his arguments ultimately are the equivalent of a broken record.

[@MethodSkeptic]

muzakgeek when all you have is a hammer, every debate topic is a nail.

[@jaanrett]

Beyond Faith you know it's an Internet rule that when someone posts in all caps, that someone else has to point it out to them. just saying...

[@whome4427]

MR BEYOND, since you do not have a base for your morals, YOUR COMMENT IS INVALID.

[@steggyweggy]

Lu G. Transcendental argument for god

[@aharonheitsche4993]

it really frustrated me when I was watching the debate that he kept saying "your brain made you say that". That was very childish.

[@AbleAnderson]

It’s also intellectually dishonest, which I can’t stand. I love debates where both participants are intellectually honest, charitable, and genuinely engaged with each other. I’m not convinced Matt slick is capable of that

[@w8m4n]

Yeah that was a wanker move

[@kuromyou7969]

@@AbleAnderson wouldn't that imply that people don't have free will? And doesn't christianity claim "God" gave humans have free will?

[@genesis204]

Was he wrong tho?

[@bjhriemersma]

@@genesis204 it's the same as saying That the existence of God hasn't been proven and Slick saying "yeah, but you used breathed air to say that, and God created air. Your position doesn't make sense" and after making it clear that it's a fallacy, he continues stating that you use breath to say things.

[@cloudoftime]

"Your brain made you say that". Well, if you're a dualist then your soul made YOU say that THROUGH YOUR brain! Either way you can't account for it, no matter how strongly you "trust" or believe to be absolutely certain.

[@alexdoerofthings]

Isn't it true that whether or not God created logic, secular humanism is still superior to Christianity?

[@JoePrau96]

Patrick Crawford But soviet Russia wasn’t secular humanist, just secular.

[@assbutter7627]

Im pretty sure stalin was not doing things in the name of secularism...unlike the crusades which was called for by the church. Any thoughts

[@dariusnoname12]

@Patrick Crawford From what I know that at least Stalin strove towards country where he would be viewed as god. So it can't be secular humanism

[@jessetoler8171]

Maybe God created logic so that we'd be humanists and crucufied himself as a sacrifice to himself so that we'd be disgusted by the entire idea of atonement by human sacrifice?

[@mariusmihai918]

How many times secular humanist definition has changed in the last 100 years? Does someone know?

[@Sines314]

A simple disproof of the idea that a self-refuting strategy cannot be a good one follows. "Alright guys, we're going to lose no matter how well we play, so lets go out gloriously. Here's the plan..." The coach then lays out the plan for the team. However, in spite of what he thinks, the plan accidentally wins the game. Since the plan was based on "Losing gloriously", but they won, then it was self-refuting. However, it was actually very successful, turning an almost certain defeat into a victory, even if only by accident. Indeed, the scientific method itself is partially based on this. It doesn't matter if a theory describes some fundamental truth, but rather whether it has predictive utility. Newton was wrong in many aspects, but his formula are still very useful. And due to their simplicity, would have been far more useful in a pre-computer era than our modern, closer to the truth, hyper-complex formula. Ironically, Newtons 'less true' theories would be more useful than Stephen Hawkins 'more true' theories, because of the limits of the time. So not only can something be successful despite being untrue, it can actually be more successful than the truth, given that (to paraphrase) we might not always know what to do with the turth.

[@G14N14RI12]

There is a real example of this in science. The assumptions Bohr made for his model of the atom straight up contradicted each other, and yet that model of the atom was more successful at predicting atomic spectra than the consistent classical models.

[@_LifeOfReilly]

Watching Matt Slick’s side of this debate was like dealing with a 7 year old who just keeps saying: “I know you are, but what am I?”

[@renevelation6586]

Basically Slick pulled a SyeTenB in this debate!

[@yadabub]

The whole debate was apparently a wash. Matt D. was just fizzing. Matt S. was just spitting out words as a result of God having pulled the string in his back.

[@ApostateltsopA]

Not just this one. Slick defaults to presup crap in every debate I've seen him engage in.

[@PatBrownfield-TheRainmaker]

How do you know that? How do you know that? How do you know that?

[@angelamaryquitecontrary4609]

And wasn't he tedious.

[@Phi1618033]

Sorry, Matt, but it looks like you were duped. It appears that Slick was hellbent on debating "naturalism" regardless of what the agreed upon topic was. I get the sense that if Matt agreed to the topic of whether the sky is blue or light blue, that Slick would use that as a springboard to debate "naturalism".

[@sandreid87]

So he essentially just proved what we already knew: He's a dishonest douchebag. Well, I can just add him to the list of all the others: Ray Comfort, WLC, Sye....

[@unconcernedcitizen4092]

Razid Let’s be real: Take it from someone who is in academia-philosophy, specifically-WLC is genuinely formidable. Read the book he co-authored with his good friend and atheist Quentin Smith and/or watch their debates. You’ll be astonished at how many steps beyond the average apologist WLC can be when given the proper topic. In fact, if you’re not familiar with philosophical jargon, you might not really “get” it. He’s a legitimate scholar, and while I’m an atheist and ultimately deem him incorrect, he is genuinely a heavy hitter who would absolutely demolish the vast majority of atheists who lack a firm grasp of high-level philosophy. His tactics are dishonest sometimes, but he’s not just a “throw away” apologist along the lines of Sye or Slick. I, for one, have a great respect for him as a philosopher, if not his conclusions.

[@brodericksiz625]

Unconcerned Citizen agreed. I studied philosophy but didn't get into the academic world; however, I still love the subject. Some of the arguments made by WLC are terrible, but that's not because he's unintelligent, rather because he set out to defend the indefensible. His understanding of several branches of philosophy show a brilliance and finesse that ultimately makes me think his staggering talent is utterly wasted as an apologist. I watched his debate against Christopher Hitchens and I have to say, as much as I love Hitchens, he was out of his depth on that one: as eloquent and cultured as he was, he clearly wasn't prepared to debate a philosopher on philosophy, so that debate ultimately was two very well educated people talking past each other. If one wants to see a good debate against WLC, I strongly advise the one with Sean Carroll: he's a professional cosmologist and shows at least a good understanding of the philosophical arguments presented by Dr Craig.

[@ixamraxi]

I use bleach to clean or sanitize things. I find it useful, and there are all manner of things for which we can use bleach. We found these different uses through various methodologies. We don't need to know *why* bleach does what it does in order to use it effectively, nor do we need to know why bleach works in order to decide whether certain ways of using bleach are superior to other methods. I feel like Matt S. is basically saying that there are a bunch of microscopic ninja's in bleach, and when you pour bleach on something those microscopic ninjas start attacking whatever its on, and in saying this he's "accounted" for the reason bleach works, and then declared that because his position accounts for why bleach works, its automatically superior to any other methodologies that use bleach, no matter how effective or useful those methods are.

[@stevie-c1471]

I think that Slick and Sye's method of arguing shows that a lot of theists are at a point where they cannot really defend theism anymore, particularly the actual methods and results theisms promote to affect change on humanity. How can you argue that in order to promote human flourishing it's better to follow an ambiguous (and heavily open to interpretation) methodology proposed in an antiquated book of dubious heritage over a methodology that has been set up (and allows for continuous improvement) specifically with the goal of promoting human flourishing? The answer is clearly to disregard any actual discussion and simply claim 'I'm certain my book is correct therefore my book is correct and you're not arrogant tenough to claim certainty therefore you're wrong'. Whilst it may be a difficult position to argue against, I believe that the more theists have to resort to this childish and disingenuous debate tactic the more normal people will recognise this desperation and reject theism. People are much less likely to believe you about something when you're not willing to actually discuss the thing you're trying to convince them of in an open and honest manner.

[@joshuabradley5541]

You think??? Lol.

[@spacedoohicky]

The question is did Slick's brain make him say anything?

[@whynottalklikeapirat]

Doesn't sound like a brain product to me

[@spacedoohicky]

whynottalklikeapirat It's product of some kind. Squeezed out into a coil of pure Slick product.

[@whynottalklikeapirat]

spacedoohicky That's pretty fucking slick.

[@spacedoohicky]

whynottalklikeapirat All he eats for breakfast, lunch, and dinner are jalapeno's, cottage cheese, and cabbage! His steamers will make your eye's water.

[@whynottalklikeapirat]

spacedoohicky Sounds like a recipe for natures own mosquito coil. One that would service a full village.

[@ApostateltsopA]

These reviews take away some of the pain that I felt listening to the debate in the first place.

[@JMUDoc]

"You can't win at chess unless you know who wrote the rules." - Matt Slick.

[@MsMsmak]

This dissection is brilliant.

[@Cole444Train]

Patrick Crawford Slick didn’t even address the debate topic... the fact that you think Matt D lost is... telling. To put it nicely.

[@GandalfThePlaid]

I love how these reviews dive into aspects of the arguments I didn't fully consider. I can remember watching the debate and noting how MS was making a ridiculous and flawed dodge. But I didn't at the time even consider the point that even MS had been right about the self refuting business it does nothing for actual topic/question of the debate.

[@adako25]

Thanks Matt and the apologists I've heard thus far for helping me finalize my long struggle to deconvert. I wander if these apologists realize that they're actually hurting - not benefiting their own cause. Thanks!! 🙂

[@samuraijack9956]

apart from the knowledge i gain from the atheist side, one reason i watch these debates is to hear out the other side's arguments so i can justify to myself that i don't live in an eco chamber and replies to their arguments help me understand the topic of discussion from a reasonable viewpoint but i see only repetition and reiteration of the same assertions be it Slick, Bruggencrate, Ham, Hovind or Craig (in varying levels of course) etc.!! As i can't put myself in a theist's position at this point, it just becomes frustrating and inaccurate (cuz by then I'm mad at them) in my arguments!!😫😫😫

[@nicosmind3]

In response to "a chemical reaction cant produce reason" i argue it clearly can. Easily seen when you say "a light switch cant demonstrate logic". But it can. Yes or no, on and off. And a computer uses millions of switches to make calculations. And from there we can build programs which work and dont work, and start to demonstrate and build logic and reason from there. But the debate wasnt on logic, it was on what can you meassure to be better. But Slick's position can be used against himself

[@TheZooCrew]

Alan Turing produced what was basically a hunk of metal that made decisions. Like you said, computers are lumps of mostly silicon that make decisions. I'm baffled as to what Slick thinks reason _is_.

[@nicosmind3]

TheZooCrew I think he was trying his best to make biochemistry absurd. He probably has a belief that its a soul which does thinking and brains are either irrelevant or a conduit for a soul to connect to a human. But we can demonstrate its brain cells which do the thinking. Language, visual, auditory et al sections of the brain. Those which hold mathematicals skills of extremely high caliburs will use many parts of their brain to do math. More cells equals more processing power. They store memories, are responsible for our personalities as proved via brain injuries, and different sections need to be activated to carry out different activities. So the end result is a brains like a computer. Lots of different biochemical switches which activate to carry out tasks. His attempt to make chemisty seem absurd is a complete failure to anyone who can think.

[@TheZooCrew]

nicosmind3 That's right, which is why Slick and most other apologists aggressively dismiss the entire field of neuroscience and play dumb when it comes to computer science.

[@nicosmind3]

TheZooCrew Ok at 24:00 he tries to make the brain sound like a basic switch "how can one chemical state in the brain, which changes to another chemical state lead to logic". But thats like calling a lamp a computer. "I dont understand how my lamp can similate a rocket". He does go on to say that its full of complex wiring but then goes back to basic chemical states. Hes either an idiot or hoping to mislead idiots. Neither is good

[@TheZooCrew]

nicosmind3 LOL changing states given certain conditions is _what logic is_, in a way. Boy, Slick is just fractally wrong here.

[@jeremymac9017]

Hey Matt, really appreciate these videos. They help me learn about a debating process and what type of evidence is solid.

[@AM0mentOfScience]

I'd say you've reached a significant standard of debating ability and a good name for yourself and your abilities of debate when people (Sye & now Rachael's father) will do anything to get to be on a stage with you only to refuse to participate in the activity for which they've agreed in order to get to be on stage with you. Congratulations, Matt.

[@laurencecutner8035]

Just a bunch of word salad from Slick - such an apt name.

[@mrcombustiblelemon2902]

"your brain made you say that" Many of you say that he's guilty of the same, but I have to grant this point to Slick: it does appear that his own decisions do not obey anything that could come from a brain, his own or another's.

[@anertia]

The real question should be: "Which system produces better results?" Slick instead approached it as if the question was: "Which system has a more solid foundation?", while failing to show that his supposedly solid foundation even exists.

[@charlx8979]

because slick is a one trick pony, the presuppositionalist argument IS ALL HE HAS

[@zgs12212012]

They Have A Cavetroll Love the name. I’ve been a Tolkien fan since 1974. And Slick is trying to put into question the foundations of secular humanism so no one will pay attention to its utility. Because he is a BS artist, IMHO.

[@cadecampbell5059]

Chapter 3 (Going Nuclear) of Stephen Law’s book Believing Bullshit brought to mind Matt Slick and Sye Ten Bruggencate’s kind of apologetics, especially the bits about skepticism concerning reason and the external world. 👌🏼

[@youtubeisawebsite7484]

one of the most difficult parts of the debate for me was trying to tell if slick was just yanking your chain the whole time or if he actually thought he was offering a strong argument

[@differous01]

39:13 "If someone says 'please evaluate my physics homework' and your response is 'your physics homework isn't relevant because you can't account for why the laws of physics are as they are', is it reasonable to expect them to care about your opinion on the topic in the future?" That's pre-suppositionalism in a box (ie. not quite in a nutshell but memorable)

[@differous01]

pre-suppositionalism is such a big word, and "pre-sup" isn't common vocabulary either. Can't we just call it 'gossip'?

[@rjlp128]

I think Slick's brain logic is caused by vinegar and baking soda...

[@matthewdavid3370]

@24:40 when Matt Slick is talking about “the laws of logic are not the same thing as the laws of physics, they are not derived from the laws of physics”. I disagree. The laws of logic and the laws of physics are both simply descriptions of reality and both can be broken down and described mathematically.

[@darksoul479]

Oh good I'm glad I found this. I watched part one of this yesterday.

[@jeffersonian000]

One self-refuting proposition that is always good is to treat all firearms as being loaded. Whether or not a round is chambered, it is always safer to assume so, due to the off chance it actually is you are still handling the firearm safely.

[@Hemi2050]

Sharp logic. Really enjoying these. Good work.

[@BFizzi719]

If I'm understanding his argument, Matt Slick is claiming that it is his worldview that allows him to trust his brain. My question would be how does one come to a worldview prior to trusting their brain? Matt would have to acknowledge that it is possible to come to a correct worldview prior to trusting your brain, or that it's possible to trust your brain without a theological worldview.

[@adamg8974]

XoPURExLUCKoX he addressed a similar issue the night before (I think) while debating David Smalley; his response was God revealed it to him. There is no meaningful difference between Slick and Sye.

[@TheZooCrew]

Yup. "Revelation." There's no difference between that and "I pulled it out of my ass."

[@Tesserex]

Exactly, how can you trust the methods and thoughts that led you to the worldview that then allows you to trust your conclusions? You can never trust your senses or conclusions completely.

[@BFizzi719]

Tesserex Circular reasoning at its best. I can trust my brain because of my worldview, and my worldview is correct because I can trust my brain.

[@scottwills8539]

Can a Muslim or Hindu trust his brain? I'm sure Slick would say no, only a Christian can.

[@natedennis2063]

Thanks for turning up the volume on this video! Part 1 was really quiet.

[@webius502]

Im 4 yrs late, but have only recently discovered the genius that is Matt Dillahunty. Matt's ability to break down in layman terms these VERY complex philosophical arguments is unparalleled, & I am thankful for it. Thanks Matt, please keep it up...the world NEEDS you. And idc if my brain made me say that.

[@JoelBrownMD]

@Matt_Dillahunty I loved this and learned alot....my constructive critique was that I noticed a bit of repetition of certain points that unnecessarily prolonged the video. great stuff!

[@crystalheart9]

I really enjoyed this review! it helps me understand debate a bit better.

[@snuffywuffykiss1522]

"It's just a chemical reaction therefore you can't trust it." Never mind all those chemical reactions that we trust everyday to live in the modern world. You know the chemical reactions that purify our water, cook our food, make our cars run etc etc etc.....

[@silverharloe]

I wonder how Mr Slick would respond to a computer making a logical inference (which IS something they can do) - even on Chrisitianity, computers are perfectly naturalistic and mechanical. Yet because of the software/hardware divide, they can do things that are difficult to demonstrate starting from the laws of physics and moving upwards (difficult but not necessarily impossible if you can demonstrate how transistors work using the laws of physics, and then demonstrate how integrated circuits work by composing many transistors)

[@SteveFrenchWoodNStuff]

Another well thought out analysis. The volume level was better too.

[@gnagyusa]

Matt, your opening at the debate was awesome! I was impressed how you covered all the angles and clarified the frame of the debate. You not only made the opening move, and looked 10 steps ahead in the game, but you literally explained the rules of chess. Of course, Slick just decided to knock over the pieces and crap all over the board. But, that's what religious apologists do. I was not really expecting anything else. Were you, honestly? I've been debating with theists for a few years, in part thanks to the skills I picked up from your awesome show, and I'm *still* waiting for the one valid, or at least valid-sounding argument from a theist, that would take more than 2 brain cells to debunk... But, all I get is the retarded pigeons, with an occasional "Mmm, you're right. Religion makes no sense". Of course, the latter makes it all worth it...

[@jordanvincenzo464]

I'm extremely interested in knowing how Matt Slick makes it through the day without knowing, absolutely, HOW everything works. He's not a "logician", he's a "magician" with all the philosophical smoke 'n mirrors and slight of hand he employs.

[@davidclifford7408]

The engine design my opponent proposes is useless, because it doesn't explain how combustion works! Use my pixie powered engine instead.

[@geshtu1760]

I may have made this comment on the actual debate video as well, but saying "you can't account for how chemicals produce logic, therefore they don't" is simply the argument from incredulity. Consider a simpler analogy: If he had said, "you can't account for how vinegar and baking soda makes a fizz, therefore there's no fizz" - we'd easily be able to spot the error. Of course there's a fizz. Our lack of understanding of what caused it is irrelevant. So we go back to Matt Slick's argument about the brain not producing logic, and we realise that "how the brain does it" is irrelevant to the question of "whether the brain actually does it". Then we go further and ask if Matt Slick has demonstrated that reason cannot be the product of chemical reactions in the brain, and of course he hasn't. It's just a blind assertion. For those interested, it's very similar to the argument from intelligent design advocates, that you can't get complexity without design by an intelligent agent. Once again this is the argument from personal incredulity. Properly phrased, it goes like this: "I don't know how complexity can arise without intelligence, therefore it must be impossible". Or, back to the debate: "I don't know how naturalism can produce brains that can reason, therefore it must be impossible". The fallacy should be clear by now. Simply imagine a hypothetical genius who DOES know how it works, and we realise that our own lack of understanding or knowledge of how something works is irrelevant to he question of whether it actually does work. It's one thing to show up to the wrong debate. It's another to produce bad arguments for the wrong debate...

[@bobbyboywonder12]

Geshtu I don't think MS was arguing that brains do not produce fizz. MS is arguing that no one would know which produced fizz is trustworthy and which fizz is not. Big difference. Even though the argument is fallacious on its own merit, I think you misunderstood or made an incorrect analysis of what MS was saying

[@geshtu1760]

Stevie Wee ok, so does that make it a genetic fallacy instead? One can determine whether the fizz is reliable independently, without needing to know where it came from.

[@bobbyboywonder12]

Geshtu I agree 100% with Matt Dillahunty. I think Matt Slick is a hopeless theist clinging to whatever he can. Nevertheless, I think you maybe misinterpreted what he said. Maybe you meant to say it a different way but if you reread what you said it went like this....you put emphasis on whether or not chemicals can or will produce fizz whereas Matt Slick argues that chemicals do produce fizz but that we don't know how that fizz can be reliable or trustworthy because they are just chemicals doing what they do. Hope that helps clear that up. It's a dishonest argument on slick's side don't get me wrong.

[@geshtu1760]

Stevie Wee I agree with you that I probably misinterpreted what Matt Slick meant. Your assessment does make sense. And my second comment (above) probably aligns with what Matt Dillahunty was arguing. I think we're in agreement now :-)

[@aharonheitsche4993]

he believes that his argument is that if his worldview is based on the creator of the universe, then he wins by default.

[@nicosmind3]

A wise man points to the moon, the fool looks at the finger! "Who cares about your argument Matt look at how youre delivering it!!!" - Matt Slick

[@fdk7014]

Is Matt Slick denying brain activity? If so, what does he think the purpose of the brain is?

[@ThePharphis]

it's the "receptor" of the soul, probably.

[@thewalldemonofkentucky1465]

They better be consistent and think everything with a brain has a soul.

[@EvilToaster77]

I watched the debate yesterday. My god what a mess, Slick didn't even address the topic, and seemed to be channeling Sye with all the fallacious word salad and philosophical word games he was spewing out. I applaud you for your performance, Matt, you addressed the topic very well and then went guns blazing with the cross-examination, which is the part I most look forward to in any debate. I loved you bringing up slavery during the cross and watching Slick tap-dance and try to spin it.

[@jimmorgan21]

"Your brain made you say that!" - Matt Slick. 🤦‍♂️

[@paulmitchum8658]

The main mistake Slick is making with the brain fizz riff is that the definition of secular humanism he's reading from accounts for the problem he brings up. It says, "knowledge gained [..] without impartial review by multiple observers is unreliable." In this definition, secular humanism basically asserts that knowledge is assumed to be brain fizz without systematic review by multiple observers. This is the kind of mistake you make when you don't really care about the topic and want to get straight to the axe-grinding part.

[@oO_ox_O]

Waybackmachine does show you the current state for PHP generated pages as well, it would only not show you the state back then if the content was generated using Javascript and dynamically fetched. You could check for that in most modern browsers using the F12 key and there going to the networking tab.

[@enigmaticaljedi6808]

Here is the litmus test. If Matt Slick did indeed misunderstand your position, and made a mistake then it would be simple for him to just acknowledge this... if Matt Slick did NOT misunderstand your position and knowingly was deceptive and dishonest, then he will just remain quiet and fail to clarify or try to correct in any way, and if Matt Slick believed that he had a correct understanding, and that it was Matt Dillahunty who made a mistake, then again he could easily correct this mistake by pointing out where the error is. All I hear are crickets! On a side note, Secular Humanism DOES account for the logical absolutes. They are just properties of the universe we live in, thus they are natural, and thus in both philosophical and methodological naturalism they are accounted for. We only have the logical absolute of something being what it is and not what is not BECAUSE our universe is stable and matter remains in its form util acted upon by something else. If a cup were to randomly transform into a plate or something else, then we would not have this logical absolute. Same applies for the rest, they are ALL simply observations of our universe

[@Paul-D-Hoff]

When they use the word "JUST", it is the word they use as a put down. It is not used by someone that has any understanding on how things in this universe work.

[@BulldozerBilly]

In the debate the subject of Galileo and the Catholic church was brought up between an audience member and Dillahunty. As far as I've been taught Galileo was persecuted by the Catholic Church for his scientific ideas and this is what Dillahunty used as an example for that audience member. But the audience member seemingly corrected him saying Galileo was actually persecuted for being protestant and an extremist for writing in a particular language? I'm definitely gonna have to do some looking into on this topic, trying to weed out religious bias and get the real scoop. Any leads on this?

[@acerbicatheist2893]

Yes...try looking for the declassified documents of his (Galileo) trial... this was really a process, and Galileo was under house arrest and at the mercy of the church. Have you seen the episode of the original version of "Cosmos", by and with Dr.Carl Sagan? Great stuff, accessible and an excellent place to start from.

[@einsame_Maria]

I'm not sure if that has already been pointed out, but at the beginning of his opening (12:52) Slick reads the definition as it is on the webpage and clearly as day says "it holds" and only when he starts speaking about it further does he change it to " In hope". It cannot be that the page has been editted after the debate. He himself read it out loud.

[@armadyl1212]

Why can't one just repeat to Slick over ans over "Your soul made you say that?"

[@JeremyDonoghue]

Hey Matt, a lot of your long form audio content would be really well suited to a podcast format so that people can more easily listen while working/driving etc, where a youtube video is inconvenient. Personally I would find that really valuable. Thanks.

[@narco73]

We can generally trust our thoughts. Firstly, we do get things wrong sometimes. But we know we have brains that are generally right. The reason we have them is that we are evolved beings, and brains that make correct logical inferences tend to survive better than those that don't.

[@coolkusti]

I disagree with the point against self-refutation excluding a worldview. I see it as being the application of the 'principle of explosion' to worldviews in general. If your worldview is internally inconsistent, you can derive any statement about the world and what you should do in it from that worldview.

[@fdk7014]

25:05 This is like denying the existence of computer memory because the software the computer is running had a bug.

[@capoman1]

18:00 "If the position *is not true,* then it is self refuting and can't be the best at anything." But *how can you call A STRATEGY true?* Like Matt's chess analogy, Matt's strategy for winning is just a set of "do's and don'ts." "Don't reveal your King, don't move the 3 pawns in front of the King or Queen," etc. If I had a fighting strategy, say Jujitsu. *How the hell can you ask, IS JUJITSU TRUE?!?!* If you are taking the strategy of "being patient," how can we ask "is being patient true?" ---- All we can ask about a strategy is "does it work? How well does it work? Do other strategies achieve goal x more efficiently? Is this strategy fair in regards to x?" etc.

[@459luker]

You say we can't be absolutely certain about anything, but we can be absolutely certain that something exists. Beyond that i would agree.

[@SansDeity]

That knowledge is contingent on the reliable of reason. You can't ever be more confident in X than in the foundations of X. So we can be maximally certain, but not absolutely certain.

[@ars_gravitatis5858]

Note that Slick at 20:35 makes the statement that something that is self-refuting cannot be superior to something that is NOT self-refuting. He is thus NOT repeating that fallacy that Dillahunty correctly points out before this part, i.e. that something that is self-refuting cannot be superior to anything else. Slick thus seems to mix up two types of arguments, which slipped past Dillahunty at this point.

[@capoman1]

First. Slick's point on "if you can't account for x, then your position is self refuting" is ridiculous. Physics can't account for why gravity pulls instead of pushes for example; but does that mean that arguments made from physicists are "self refuting?" Should we be using Christianity to develop the next cpu processor? Second. Using Slick's own position: "Without concluding that god exists, you can't trust your conclusions to be valid." So how then can *anyone conclude that a god exists?* We are not born with knowledge, we can only reason to conclusions. So the how does anyone that is presented with theistic arguments conclude (and be able to trust this conclusion) that god exists? Aren't they in the same position? Unable to trust their reason? ---- Sadly, Slick's argument here (that is irrelevant to the debate topic!) can essentially be boiled down to: *If you turn off your brain (stop reasoning) and just ASSUME that god exists, NOW AND ONLY NOW can you begin to trust your reason.*

[@blixx8931]

capoman1 i believe general relativity says that gravity pushes. Not pulls..maybe in wrong

[@reto4]

Aside from everything else, I would suggest not to use a ridiculing voice when quoting your opponent.

[@andrewbalderree338]

I think the debate topic should have been more specific. Superior in what way? By what metric? Is secular humanism superior to Christianity for human flourishing? Or for discovering facts about reality? Or for personal psychological health? I think there would have been less talking past each other if you guys were arguing supremacy by a common standard. That said, you had an amazing open Matt. Bravo

[@MrWaterlionmonkey]

Hey Matt I have a view of what reason/logic is and I would like to know your opinion. In my opinion reason is a collection of various mental faculties in the same way as morality is which is why they are hard to explain and why we feel they are reducible. Reason comes from the realisation that contradictions cannot exist in the natural world, this is self evident through our experience, we cannot encounter contradictions and we cannot perceive a contradiction and we cannot imagine a contradiction. This is because any concept by being a certain way implies it cannot be another way. For example if I use the phrase "A table is in front of me" this statement means a table is in front of me and it also means there is no absence of a table in front of me. This is true by definition. No absence of a table means the same thing as table. An object that is a table/not-a -table cannot be imagined because if it is a table it cannot be not a table and if its not a table it cannot be table. Reason is dependent on imagination but it is also dependent on memory. Suppose I have a belief that there exists a table at my house and suppose I have another belief that no table's exist I can only hold the second belief if I forget about my first belief. So in my mind I am not imagining a contradiction. In my mind I could think i'm reasonable when i'm not. Emotion greatly affects the memory and our imagination so we can become very unreasonable/illogical in defending irrational beliefs. The human mind is not often reasonable due precisely to our faulty memory. which is why I think we can make machines that already surpass us in reasoning. They have a perfect memory. This happens with theists who believe that God is all powerful, but the devil or you or I are responsible for the evil in the world. hey hold a belief that God is all powerful, and they hold a belief that God is not responsible for evil but they do not hold both beliefs at the same time. Their world view switches back and forth and they forget some of their beliefs. If your memory is good you can see with your minds eye that both beliefs cannot both be true as the world cannot be imagined. A powerful God means the same thing as not a weak God, a weak God means not a strong God so that object cannot be both. It cannot be imagined. Reason also means to use the simplest solution to a problem. If i'm thirsty and I have a tap in my house its more reasonable to drink from it rather than go miles away to find a drink. The laws we have formed for logic come from experience and the realisation that some arguments can be used to prove anything, these arguments themselves are also formed from a limited experience or because of forgetfulness when we forget that they would not apply in any other circumstances, but when we realise that these arguments could prove contradictions we throw them out. p.s. I think asking if reason is reasonable is like asking if blue is a colour.

[@genXstream]

I gotta say, this is the first time I've ever seen someone use reason (incorrectly) to discount reason.

[@wilfojac9643]

This video just reminds me why I don't like to deal with presupps, good on you matt from keeping your cool with slick

[@robertw2930]

(C2H4O2) + NaHCO3 = fizz

[@ncooty]

+Matt Dillahunty I always appreciate hearing how you've thought through particular issues, and I respect your good will when considering others' views and possible motives. That said, I'm a bit surprised that you seem to have expected Slick to debate in good faith. Unfortunately, you also seem to have over-estimated the consensus on the meaning of "superior" (i.e., more conducive to human flourishing). I kept asking myself why on Earth you set such a vague criterion for the debate. That oversight(?) appears to have left the door open for all manner of BS... which is what you evidently endured.

[@Rogstin]

Fizzing baking soda is producing logic. It's very fuzzy logic, but because it only reacts with certain other chemicals, this provides a truth table of reacts or doesn't react, and reacts in this or that way. He's a step away from calling my profession fake if physics _(of which chemistry is governed by)_ can't produce logic, since that's how I make computers do my bidding.

[@ChryosSkathe]

The interaction of logic gates in a computer is simply a set of electrical reactions, leading to logical outputs. There's no reason to assume electro-chemical reactions can't do the same.

[@SierraSierraFoxtrot]

An example of how something would be superior despite being untrue: if the criteria is how amusing a movie is, a movie with glaring plot holes could be superior to one which is perfectly consistent but badly acted or just boring.

[@fedos]

"Your brain made you say that." What does Matt Slick think brains do if it's not produce actions and thoughts from weighing current inputs against past experiences?

[@bryand7667]

I mean... You could argue that zero divided by zero doesn't make sense and therefore is self refuting.. does that mean division can't be true? Or that math can't be true? Some models/explanations make sense in certain domains and break down in others. The question is whether or not you are using the model in the right domain. Which is what you are saying here matt... It's about the criteria used to evaluate the model.

[@DudeWhoSaysDeez]

Two things can be untrue and one can still be better than the other. For example: Here are two things which are untrue. My cat just got hit by a car I am eating ice-cream Both are false, yet one option is better than the other option. the truthfulness of a statement does not need to be accounted for when comparing the consequences of a statement (for the sake of comparison.)

[@michaelcamp4990]

Ugh, Slick's argument that a position that isn't true cannot be superior in any respect is such a mess. Presumably Slick would agree that neither fundamentalist Islam nor moderate Islam possesses intrinsic truth. But if we compare the two, is one superior when it comes to promoting women's rights?

[@TlalocW]

Slick in a nutshell. Opening statement where he gives a left-handed compliment to the opponent or otherwise acts condescending towards him or her. Next: "I'm gonna show them how smart I am because I know all these fancy definitions from some college textbooks I got." Proceeds to inappropriately apply logic because he's twisted it around to suit his God needs. Next: Rising frustration when opponent who actually understands logic disagrees with him and puts forth good arguments. Next: Q&A where frustration continues to build when audience members call him out on stuff. Acts condescending to these people. Post debate: Whining to sympathetic Christians about opponent's tactics and proclamations that he'll pray in hopes opponent will stop letting the Devil use him or her as a tool.

[@mosh_hockey]

The singular of criteria is criterion.

[@Kyssifrot]

19:35 I'm quite surprised by what Matt is saying here. Usually, he says something like "I want to believe as many true things as possible, and less false things as possible", but what he is saying here seems to be quite the contrary? I'm confused.

[@BrendaCreates]

You should include links to the original debate.

[@AbleAnderson]

Matt Slick = Cheesecake Factory Matt Dillahunty = Five Guys Burgers and Fries Debate: Which is superior? Matt Dillahunty: In order to compare the 2, we must be talking about common categories where the 2 overlap. Here at Five Guys, we only care about making burgers, period. We strive to make the best burgers on the planet, and we focus on nothing else. Therefore for this debate to make any sense, we must be comparing the 2 on which establishment makes the better burger since that's all Five Guys does and cares about. Matt Slick: Matt, I agree, we must have common categories, very good. But Five Guys doesn't make Cheesecake and therefore cannot be superior to a chain that does. We do all sorts of desserts and other entree's here at the Cheesecake factory, and they only do burgers, therefore they cannot be superior

[@VitalemRecords]

The more animated Matt Slick Gets - the less True his statements are. Always doubt a person when they are the most confident in their words. They are usually trying to get one over on you - using emotion - or slamming the table - or whatever.

[@BUGHUNTER6]

You nailed it. At the start of the debate, you both agree that you should not bother with the problem of hard solipsism... but then for the rest of the debate, he decides to rely on something that is essentially the same problem and thus equally irrelevant. Man, this guy is annoying.

[@kennkong61]

The three axioms (or "laws") of logic provide for nothing more than a self-consistent system of reasoning. The axioms simply specify that a set of mutually exclusive opposites (MEOs) exist. There is no mention of the concept of truth. The system is self-consistent for any set of MEOs, be they on/off, yes/no, or anything else that meets the axioms' requirements. That true/false is in a limited sense such a set of MEOs means we can rely on this system of reasoning for analyzing statements about truth values. Not only is logic independent of truth, it is independent of the human mind. A cell phone has no human mind, but it can use the MEO of "electron present/absent in a junction" to reliably produce predictable results. That a human mind can conceive of such a system in no way means the mind is necessary for its existence. The evidence of the validity of the laws of logic is abundant in nature, no mind required. Matt Slick's argument would be much stronger if he asserted that the perfect system of logic, independent of the mind, is evidence of another, non-physical, perfect mind. It still wouldn't convince me, but it would be stronger than denying the usefulness of reason.

[@SierraSierraFoxtrot]

last comment: you could have a superior chess strategy that doesn't take the rules into account directly. For example an genetically evolved algorithm that doesn't contain the rules within itself.

[@YouTubeperson1337]

Imagine being Matt slick 3 years ago. It's the night before the debate. He wakes up in a cold sweat and realized "I literally haven't prepared for the debate topic that I agreed to with Matt." and then falls back to sleep as easily as a baby.

[@veganatheistandmore]

Slick's "arguments" and behaviour were very childish, imo.

[@codeincomplete]

Matt Dillahunty is completely wrong... About the way php scripts work. The internet way back machine has absolutely zero access to the PHP scripts as they NEVER leave the server, only the output of the scripts can be recorded. PHP scripts is not JavaScript scripts which is something that is downloaded and runs the the browser and can dynamically modify the page after the output has left the server. If you go to the developer tools network tab and look for the page name (ends with .php), you can see that content that was statically recorded (not dynamic).

[@TheSmithDorian]

Matt D. where you went wrong was not defining the respect or way or context in which SH is supposed to be superior to Christianity. You needed to have established, before the debate, the goal or target or end purpose that SH and Christianity are trying to get to. So for example; if the debate subject was is SH superior to Christianity in producing the maximum number of people that believe in Jesus - obviously he would win. If the debate subject was is SH superior to Christianity in enabling its adherents to independently and impartially study historical events or periods when these events or periods are covered in the Bible - obviously you would win. You tried to add in this target of 'enabling humans to flourish' during the debate but unfortunately 1) it was too late ..it needed to be before the debate began and 2) flourishing is such a vague undefined term that it might as well not have been used. You did all the hard work of squashing those silly debate topics that Matt S. proposed but you faltered at the very end. You correctly identified the ambiguous nature of the topics that were put forward but then you ended up agreeing to debate a premise that was equally as vague as the others that you rejected.

[@The27thS]

Matt Slick is coming from a world view that entails an absolute standard of value. This means that concepts like "superior" are objective facts with respect to that absolute standard. Truth is absolutely superior to falsehood on this view. As such it is easy to dismiss the idea that two purely relative false ideas could be judged according to an arbitrary standard. This is why he dismissed arbitrary standards in the beginning. This entire debate required him to adopt a relativistic view to even participate and he clearly refused to do so. He doesn't understand why anyone would rely on relative arbitrary standards when absolutes are all that can matter.

[@CZbanhof]

About the "hope" vs "hold" thing: as a programmer I can say no, it doesn't matter if it's a PHP generated website. Wayback machine actually captures the content and not the script that generated the page. Matt Slick most likely did it deliberately to misquote them to make humanism seem ridiculous. Kinda sad.

[@pandasg67]

Every time Slick says "you're brain made you say that" in response to a question, why isn't he called on that? By saying that he is not holding to his own worldview that the brain is more than just chemicals interacting but he is affirming the very worldview he claims cannot be true! Since he believes that the brain is capable of producing logic and proper inference, he is not in a position to use the "brain fizz" argument as a response since he doesn't believe that to be true. If anyone, his opponents should/could be using it. Stick Slick to his own worldview and don't let him get away with it!

[@thomasmills3934]

Why does nobody ever poll the audience in these debates before and after to see who actually won. This is like playing a basketball game without keeping score...

[@stevowado]

Bit late to the party I know.... My thoughts were that M. Slick solely wanted to an argument from logic, regardless of your own arguments; which is evident in the different topic suggestions. Perhaps he thought an argument from logic would "humiliate" you and your position, again, regardless of what your argument was or topic was. Sye Ten would be proud (though perhaps not, both he and Slick appear rather smug and condescending)

[@DocumentaryGuyTheYellowPost]

Comments after the video? They’re just there to justify yourself

[@VitalemRecords]

Matt Slick was clearing his throat throughout the debate. But he didn't NEED to clear his throat. He was only making noises - in order to subconsciously obfuscate Matt Dillahunty's words. Seriously - watch it again - and count how often Matt Slick clears his throat while Matt D talks - and while Matt Slick talks - he magically has a clear throat. Mind you - when someone else is talking - you don't have to clear your throat. Cuz you're not talking. You wait until it is your turn - THEN you clear your throat and start to talk. This is Matt Slick being a Snake Oil Salesman without even being aware of it.

[@DudeWhoSaysDeez]

Also, throughout the entire debate, Slick tried to throw mud at the fence and see what stuck. He missed the entire time and didn't make valid arguments throughout the debate. They weren't even having the same debate.

[@ton6348]

Does inkt and paper produce absolute morality?

[@Debiiru]

When they reduce it with a question liek he does, and you answere, then he reduces it again and so on, is that a named fallacy, or just a disshonest tactic? becouse i come across this alot in daily life.