Watching these "philosophers" dance around the science questions is hysterical. They ramble on and on, yet somehow say nothing. I love debating christians, or at least I used to enjoy it, but I haven't a heard a new argument in like 20 years. As far as I'm concerned the debate is over. Until I see physical proof of a deity, I just can't waste any more time listening to theologians dance around questions to which they have NO proof.
S L Baltimore Everything you see with the eyes you are seeing is physical evidence What more proof do you need? Do you really believe this all came about from 'nothing'. You cannot see nothing' because it is impossible for something to emerge from 'nothing' God's unsearchable wisdom far transcends human comprehension. Atheists claim the 96% God gap will one day be revealed by 'science' Time can never reveal what man can never know.God is slow to anger!
Terry Renehan There are so many problems with your post I don't even know where to begin. First of all your "96%" claim is ridiculous, you can't simply assert an exact number like that with nothing to back it up! Come on! All this talk about what "nothing" is, is your inability to objectively look at another idea that doesn't involve your god. You make all these assumptions that your god created everything yet all you have to back this up is a couple lines of scripture from an ancient book that has no scientific merit, is riddled with historical inaccuracies, fictional people places and events, and most importantly zero explanatory power. By positing an infinitely more complex answer such as god, you have opened the door to a myriad of other issues that must be explained such as where did this god come from, why did he do this, and how? Christianity has moved the goal posts so many times that you have actually invented categories for your god to exist in, and categories that can't be tested, proved, falsified or demonstrated in any way. This is not a victory, this is intellectual dishonesty, and an omission of ignorance. And one last thing, your claim that everything we see with our eyes is physical evidence. Forgetting that there is a great deal we can't see, in fact we have to use various forms of technology to enhance our vision as we are blind to different types of colour such as infrared or ultra violet, and that we are pattern seeking creatures, leaving people like you to believe that looking at the night sky or into a forest is actually in some way evidence for your god, when the opposite is true.Is The best part of all that, is the one thing that you think is the most important, god, can't be seen with our eyes at all. He won't reveal himself, which is to say he is unable to or unwilling to show himself, and needs people like you to defend his existence. This is a weak and feeble being that is not worthy of praise let alone belief in, and has actually convinced you to set aside all logical and rational thought in favour of a magical, invisible, cosmic overlord who is more concerned with dictating peoples sex lives than helping people in desperate need of things like clean water and medicine.
Terry Renehan If you don't believe that the Universe came from nothing, then please explain how did God created our Universe? If you postulate a God as an explanation, then you must also explain how God did something, otherwise God is equal to magic. And I do not believe that Harry Potter is in any way real.
S L Baltimore Christianity has invented no new goal posts. The Bible has remained constant because it is founded in impregnable truth. It has stood the test of time. Your claims are absurd and untrue.There are no historical errors.. There were claims of this in previous times but upon further discoveries were proved absolutely accurate in history.and every other challenges over thousands of years.Times, dates ancestry ages, and names are outlined in detail for all but the stiff necked disbelievers.There are no ideas that can stand which do not involve Almighty God.Can you explain life, death, decay the intrinsic precision of the Cosmos to sustain all the elements we enjoy just to exist? Can you explain the possibility of any beginning without a prior cause and before that and that etc? It is impossible to explain God's eternal existence or eternity itself. All logic points to there cannot possibly be a beginning.The Bible reveals how time as we know it began in Genesis 1:3 God's wisdom far transcends his creatures capacity of comprehension. God does not dictate any part of our lives. We are entrusted freedom of will. People who rebel and deviate from decency and indulge evil condemn themselves. God has given guidance to life in abundance and fulfillment. Man is without excuse. Fear of God is the beginning of wisdom. There is no escaping His justice. H e loves all of His children and wills no one should perish
Terry Renehan "The Bible has remained constant because it is founded in impregnable truth." Yes, the bible is 100% correct that the earth is 6,000 years old and is a stationary flat circle orbited by the sun and that man and dinosaurs lived together and a 600 year old Noah put millions of species on his wooden boat along with the requisite food and fresh water. (sarcasm)
When I’m at the doctor office and she gets me to fill a form out, when it asks questions about your health and you answer yes you have to explain why and what but when you answer no it requires no explanation
The universe is not fine tuned for life. Life is fine tuned TO the universe... It bogles my mind why the ''fine tuning'' argument is still taken seriously even by intellectuals...
Marc Soucie "The universe and the laws of physics seem to have been specifically designed for us. If any one of about 40 physical qualities had more than slightly different values, life as we know it could not exist. Either atoms would not be stable or they wouldn't combine into molecules, or the stars would not form the heavier elements, or the universe would collapse before life could develop. (Stephen Hawking, scientist, evolutionist, 'Austin American statesman' Oct.9 1997) "Slight variations in physical laws such as gravity or electromagnetism would make life impossible. The necessity to produce life lies at the center of the universe's whole machinery and design" (John Wheeler Princeton Uni professor of physics, 'Reader's Digest' Sept 1986) "We are finding that humans have very shallow genetic roots which go back very recently to one ancestor. That indicates there was an origin in a specific location on the globe and then it spread out from there" (US News and world report Dec 4 1995) The universe is specifically designed for life. The precision and outcome of energy sustains and maintains the essentials of all life and it is impossible to assme that all this miraculous design emerged from 'NOTHING" unless you are in a vacuum of absurd denial
Terry Renehan Any universe will seem ''fine tuned'' to create whatever is in it. If you could observe a universe filled with square shaped objects, you would say that universe was ''fine tuned'' to create square shaped objects. If you could produce billions of different universes at random, they would all seem ''fine tuned'' to create whatever is within them. Whatever is in a universe will always be coherent with the particular properties of that particular universe so you will always have the impression that that particular universe was ''created'' with a purpose to create whatever is in it. If the laws of our universe changed by only a fraction, the universe would then seem ''fine tuned'' to create whatever was in that new universe. If a change in one of the laws of our universe created NO universe, then those new laws of physics would seem ''fine tuned'' to create nothingness. Our universe also seems ''fine tuned'' to create black holes, asteroids and a whole lot of cold space and non living things. Does that mean our universe was ''fine tuned'' to create non-life ? The fact that we live in a universe that is based on physical properties that are coherent with the emergence of life means that there is a naturalistic explanation to life. If life existed in a universe with laws of physics that are NOT coherent with the emergence of life, then THAT would be a miracle and would seem to indicate the presence of an omnipotent creator with fantastic magical powers, but that is not the case...Imagine a puddle of water that thinks: wow ! the hole in the ground in which I am, is exactly the same shape as me...that must mean it was designed just for me...''
v KD Kanon Scientists do think that things are fine tuned to there environment: in the case of biological entities, it's called natural selection. My comment said only this: Any universe would contain things that are coherent with it,s basic laws. Life is coherent with the laws of physics and is coherent with the particular conditions of earth (that's why you don't see life on the moon !!!)...So there is no need to evoke the interference of a supernatural entity...
16:20 I immediately thought of at least 2,000 other examples which at one point in time were not trivial. Instead of Santa or the Tooth Fairy, how about Zeus, Poseiodon, Azura, or any of the other 2,000 dead gods who at one point were believed in by everybody? Do we still have the burden of proof to disprove their existence? Absolutely not, and neither do we have the burden to disprove any god today
@@o0o-jd-o0o95 Correct!Glad I found a clear thinker. We are certainly lucky the Bible God doesn’t exist or any other vicious mythical creature. And hi to me from 10 years ago.
@matttim5095 No, no I'm a good person who takes responsibility for his actions. No the reason I would be scared if that God existed, is because in the Bible he condoned and ordered rate, genocide and slavery. It's because he holds up human sacrifice as the highest ideal, in the form of Jesus the lamb. I'm scared because he's decided that eternal punishment is Justice for finite evils.
@matttim5095 No, no I'm a good person who takes responsibility for his actions. No the reason I would be scared if that God existed, is because in the Bible he condoned and ordered rate, genocide and slavery. It's because he holds up human sacrifice as the highest ideal, in the form of Jesus the lamb. I'm scared because he's decided that eternal punishment is Justice for finite evils.
@matttim5095I'll have to answer to a god who used fear upon his children to gain obedience?? A god who condoned slavery?? A god who killed the firstborn of a whole civilization just to show off his powers and glory?? A god who ordered genocide and infanticide? A god who told his children to be the first ones to kill their own family if they tried to convince them to worship another god?? A god who told his children that they could keep a woman for themselves after killing and wiping out her family?? A god who called hypocrites to the ones who didn't kill their own children as Moses's law said?? A god who tells you to shut up because he is god and can do whatever he wants?? A god who created a torture chamber for the people he already knew that would end up there before he created them?? Yeah sure, I'm excited to worship such a monster🤢🤮
Even if the Christian God is real, perfect, and correct in his moral teachings, how can his morality be objective if it comes from the perspective of a being? It is subjective by definition.
rpboulan "an unlimited being can be perfectly objective" how come? If you mean to say its actions and intentions have no limits, and therefore its idea of a perfect world would be fully realised, why do events occur which directly oppose what it would want? (perhaps you would argue that everything in fact does occur according to its will, but this seems to run counter to many of the conceptions of God found in major religions. Besides, if people are resistant to the moral dictates of such a God, wouldn't this be evidence that God's moral Law is not objectively good, since it is impossible for every living thing to be compelled by God's divine reason, which if God had unlimited power, would surely be all encompassing and compelling?) You would still need to explain why God's Law was objectively good. Why would allowing suffering in the world be objectively good? If you can explain why and convince me that it is in fact moral to allow suffering, then you would compel me toward your position. I would be convinced by your argument. Why, if God has no limits, can he/she not do this with his/her subjects?
I originally watched this for Matt Dillahunty, because the way Matt argues and speaks is really the best from any atheist I've seen, but I must say DiCarlo held his own. I found his explanations pretty compelling in their own right.
12:10 "You can't simply assume atheism. Why? Because it is a claim to know something. It is a claim to know God does not exist." **beats head against table** Why do theists try to definite atheism into irrationality? Do they really lack that much confidence in their own position that they think this is an excusable tactic? Is there ANY OTHER CLAIM on this planet that is such that we would consider it irrational to reject it if there was no evidence for it? WHY DO APOLOGISTS WITH DEGREES AND ACTUAL ACCOMPLISHMENTS WHO ARE FULLY GROWN ADULTS USE THESE ARGUMENTS?
It beats me by surprise. For ppl with their levels of education, you would expect them to understand that a negation of a claim of belief cannot be a claim of knowledge. But they fail all the times.
Matt did hold back during this debate. Originally the debate was to have just Christopher DiCarlo on the No side, and Matt was added (I don't know why he was brought in, maybe because the Yes team became a duo?) Matt said he held back during this debate, on purpose.
It's really hard not to face-palm as the first theist states his "argument," in fact, I think it's generous to even call it that. If I could quantify the amount of faulty reasoning and misrepresentations, it'd take me a while. This is the type of logic you get when you debate believers.
maxwell catlett entrusting ur self to GOD is the only remedy for ur evil. Without a remedy for ur evil , you will be tormented by that evil forever. GOD did all HE could do to set you free including warn you of the danger yet you wouldn't listen. You are an utter fool!
strengthinweakness1 He didn't warn the isolated tribes in the Amazon rainforest, or the jungles of Africa, who have never had contact with outside humanity and who have never even _heard_ of 'Jesus' or Christianity. According to your religion those people will burn forever along with all us willing atheists. No exceptions, no reprieve, no appeal - hell forever, for the crime of not knowing about the existence of Christian doctrine. Your god is not all loving. Furthermore, he does not give people the 'remedy' for evil, he does not 'save' people from the fire. Here's what your 'god' does; he blindfolds people, sends them walking in a straight line towards a fire, and says it's their own fault for ending up in the fire for not trusting him to save them.
The Abrahamic god gave the green light to the crusades, sharia law, the inquisition, and transcontinental genocide so your sould could be saved, why can't you love that guy*!? Note: probably he doesn't look like a caucasian European but let's assume so.
Impressive arguments are what the theist position is all about. Because there's nothing to substantiate them so, they have to be as cleverly worded and devised as possible to attempt to subvert the actual truth. "Truth is what the facts are" Without real facts, what is left is evidently not the truth.
@@ceceroxy2227 If that's actually the truth, what facts would you like to make citations of where your statement can be shown to be conclusively correct?
Every time I hear the fine tuned argument, I'm surprised at how they haven't been able to answer it themselves. As Victor Stenger says, "The Universe is not fine-tuned to life; life is fine-tuned to the Universe".
I'm becoming a big fan of Matt. He needs to write a book and get all famous and such. He'd be a nice figure in the burgeoning atheist scene. I mean...he already is, but he's one of the better ones. I'm certainly rooting for him.
Young Sinatra ALL the atheists think Matt and the other guy won and all the Christians think Chamberlin and his partener won...it just depends on your belief coming into this debate.like they said NOONE changed anyone's mind that we KNOW OF...presupposed notions guide us all in this debate tonight...We all knew who we were going to believe no matter what they other side pointed out. We were prewired to a conclusion going in....and came out the same way.....staus quo
ydnar0591 No, actually i don't just think the Atheist side won. They actually provided great information that helped substantiate their arguments. The Theist side only asserted their position and provided no justification for their arguments.
That's what I just said...you would see it one way and I would see it another..we are preloaded to agree with our own beliefs...remember? We already knew who was gonna win..you knew one thing and I knew another.
ydnar0591 No, it's not a matter of opinion. The reason why the Atheist won is because they can disprove religion by investigating each doctrine, and by using reason and logic. On the other hand, Theist don't bother to investigate a thing. They just keep asserting things without demonstrating the truth of their claims. Theist's have the burden of proof, not Atheist.
If the atheist is the first to make an assertion...then the atheist has the "burden of proof"...whoever makes an assertion is responsible to prove that assertion....that old stuff about "Christians only having the burden of prove" breaks this law of debating....It's the "initiator of the assertion" (whatever that assertion IS) who is the one who carries the "burden of proof". Furthermore the "statement" it'seslf that "THERE IS NO GOD" is what is known as an "ABSOLUTE STATEMENT"...and in order to even MAKE an "ABSOLUTE STATEMENT", the one who makes it MUST BE "OMNISCIENT"..OR.."KNOWS ALL THINGS" ! What % of "all there is to know" do YOU KNOW? Only 100% will make you "OMNISCIENT". SO it has to be.....a matter of opinion.?..it can be no other.!..since none of us even know 1/1,000,000th of "ALL THERE IS TO KNOW"...in existence. ! To ME the Atheists were wrong....but...to YOU they were right....!...that is how it was "before and after" the debate on this video...!
You are so so so right! my christian mom blames me for not believing because i have not sought god with all my heart. But this creates a cognitive bias in which you find what you want. Humans are great at finding patterns in things that are random. Its the nature of human brain!
When a debate STARTS with a strawman, you can only hope it will be better later... But the theists continue with arguments from ignorance, special pleading and assertions about "absolute" morality ! And i hoped to hear something interesting...
As soon as i heard the first speaker say there are three positions i immediately knew he was going to spend the entire time trying to shift the burden of proof, and i wasn't wrong. I don't like it when theists pretend they're using logic or science, because invariably that goes out the window the moment they reach something unexplainable and say god did it. Then again, if theists used real logic they wouldn't be theists.
13:15 You CAN prove a negative. From Atheism Explained: "If I prove that 'all the marbles in this box are white', I automatically also prove that 'none of the marbles in this box are blue', 'none of the marbles in this box are transparent', and so on.'" - David Ramsey Steele
Atheism is not necessarily a positive truth claim. There are many atheist who assert that there is NO GOD and will give you their reasons for it. There also agnostic atheist who take the position that they don’t know for a fact that there is no god but they are unconvinced that there is for xyz reasons. You wouldn’t expect someone who doesn’t believe in vampires to prove that there is NO vampires. You do expect the person claiming that vampires exist to present hard evidence & be open to critical examination of said evidence
The moment the one thiest came up and presented that "the universe had a cause" and started name dropping I said to myself "Thank you Mr. Craig, but this gentleman is at the stage right now would you let him speak?"
MysteriousAya i always get angry at the part 'therefore a timeless, spaceless, immaterial, personal, good...' this is exactly what occam's razor prevents one from doing. he goes from a cause of the universe to a being cause of the universe without giving any justification
askingalexandriaaa Ya I always ask for the justification that the supposed timeless, spaceless, immaterial cause has to have been a mind, the best I ever get is that 'only a mind could have made the decision to step out of a frozen state of eternity' with no demonstration or further reasoning ever provided. I remember where WLC once dishonestly used two different meanings of the word 'being' in quick succession and went on to pretend he'd just demonstrated a mind: "Some cause must have existed to bring the universe into being. This being must have been timeless, since time didn't yet exist, spaceless, since...." - WLC
askingalexandriaaa Where do you get the ides God is a male? 'He' is referred to as 'He' for convenience. God is 'I Am') Gender is for procreation purposes. God CREATES. We will move on from this life of mortality into eternity to either eternal bliss or to despair beyond all hope forever in hell It is our choice. God has shown the WAY to LIFE. He has warned us in word and in deed of His wrath. He is slow to anger. Wake up before it is too late for you. No one can do this for you. You make the choice and you will have no one or nothing else whatever to blame for your futile denial.
Eh what is ironic is that you can take any arguement from the God squad up there and insert "aliens" in the place of "God" and the arguements work out almost identical
a godless universe wouldnt be orderly, it wouldnt have physical laws, it wouldnt have moral laws, it wouldnt have human beings, it wouldnt be fined tuned, it wouldnt even exist actually
@@AsFewFalseThingsAsPossible For the simple reason that things do not create themselves. There must be a First Cause. Something cannot come from nothing.
@@richardbutler9692 How do you know there was ever nothing ? Use logic. There was at t=0 the potential for at least 1 universe. What form that took, we do not know. This "god" then also had a cause, what was that ? And then you have the infinite regression. So again I ask why can nature not create things ? In particular biology and biological diversity ?
After seeing the Morality Question ( Where Do You Get Your Morals From) come up again and again. I read Machael Schermer's book. We Do get our morals from Evolution. If you can't pass on your genes you're selected out. Mirror Neurons enable Empathy. We've evolved to work together. It's amazing how the Morality question still trips up Skeptics when the science is done.
Precisely because the Universe is SO complex, couldn't be created by a self appointed apocalyptic "prophet" that couldn't even get figs from a fig three, that didn't knew that the a universal flood never took place, or that Sodom and Gomorrah were (as archeology have confirmed), that didn't came to bring peace but a sword, that even according with Mark, Mathew and Luke, he never claimed be god (the famous "do not call me good, only god is good", and other specific passages that according with the only book that acknowledge his existence, he pronounced), that prophesied that he will return before the generation he addressed passes away, just to mention few of many reasons why, if a complex universe happen to exist, is not evidence of the Christian god, or any god.
I hate to break it to you Einstein, but precisely an “accident brought about the infrastructure of the universe”. In fact the mere fact that you exist, it was because a countless random events took place so you could be typing away all your purposely made complex and nonsense arguments for ignorance fallacies. There is a very good reason why more than 85% of the scientist of the National Academy of Science; people that even the most dumb of them have more knowledge than me and you and 5 more like us together, yet, they have conclude that more likely, there is not a “creator” somewhere hidden on the observable Universe, or in other mysterious dimension, or that at the very least, nature and our Universe could came to be without the need of one. I think it is time for you and brainwashed morons like you to unplug your ears and listen. Or ells, submit a scientific hypothesis to be piers reviewed, so it can become a theory, and when you accomplish that, then you can come here and tell us all about it, and I promise you that I, alone with the 99% of the Atheist I personally know, we will be listening to you, and not trying to pierce holes on your overwhelming accepted theory. Therefore until that happen, you are the one that needs to be listening and learning and leaving bronze-age mythologies where they belong: that is… way back on the distant pass.
how come no one ever points this out in a debate: very often I will hear theists ask about the moral nihilist argument and they always repurpose the question to something like "If you don't have objective morality would killing someone be objectively moral?" It's a self defeating question but debaters always try to answer it.
DiCarlo is one of the best professors I had in university. I remember more from his course and use it on a regular basis more than other courses. It is bullshit he was denied tenure after being a professor for 15 years because of "religious insensitivity." I had to sit through learning about the good side of Islam in a Criminology course, but atheism and secular morality, along with critically/rationally think about religion in a philosophy course is wrong? Um!!
One of the important requirements for morality is that it has a reliable update system - if there are some lacks or flaws in it they should be fixed immediately. Waiting for an update from heaven is unreliable, so such morality has to be rejected and replaced with one with a reliable update system - which means updates are made by us, humans.
I don't know if the first speaker is desonest or an idiot. Atheism and theism aren't claims that something exist or do not exist it just says if you believe in a god or gods or not. If you claim that to be true or probabily true, is another issue.
1:21:19 wow, that theist guys doesn't seem to get the point Matt's trying to make, thus kept coming back with "where is your evidence to prove there is no god?" again and again!
26:26 did he say "torturing toddlers for sport?" Like just torturing toddlers isnt bad? Lol. Phrasing good sir.ahh now I see. If I was torturing toddlers to save the world I could excuse it? Lol. It's just a way to say we need god to find things moral. But if god told you to torture a toddler you would have to do it or disobey god. And if you cant understand god then you cant know why he wants you to so you have to do it. Is that ok?
Think of the concept of ETERNAL joy, and happiness, and love, with NO pain, no heartache, no suffering... It will be dull, uncomplicated, easy, uncolourful. Impossible you say? Ok, try this, take anything that you find joyful, and repeatedly expose yourself to it to excess. A favourite food, a favourite song, a favourite movie, a favourite way of kissing your girlfriend, a favourite blend of coffee, wearing a favourite shirt... NEVER STOP doing it... whatever it is it wears thin doesn't it.
Right out of the gate we have a fundamental misunderstanding of both atheism and logical argumentation. Atheism is not a claim that there is no god, it's a lack of belief that there is a god.
0:57:19 see 0:33:20 Seriously guys, even in my high school debate classes we knew to listen to your opponent and not just go off a script. Its debate tactics 1-0-1 here. If you've even witnessed a proper debate once you get this.
Particularly the second speaker (I think he was the one who taught apologetics). Whenever he made a point I could not help but mutter “From where have I already heard this exact argument? Oh, I know: almost every debate I have ever seen!”
+Peter Metcalfe Try watching it twice when you're not in a hurry or busy multitasking. This was fare better the second time. On many points I think this video is high quality and every one in the debate seemed to be well prepared. I do (however) agree theist arguments are always difficult to make sound sane in the modern world. I thoroughly enjoyed this debate.
"his nature is completely devoid of and remote from the properties of matter" So this god doesn't really exist or interact with anything, but is some kind of ideal concept. Ok.
That doesn't actually follow from what they said. Saying all moral nihilists are psychopaths doesn't imply that all psychopaths are moral nihilists. I disagree with both these ideas, but the implication is still invalid.
@@ahlpym That's just the jets ski's and Sea-Doo analogy. All Sea-Doo are jet skis, not all jet skis are Sea-Doo brand. Arguments do not outweigh evidence especially when it's arguments without supporting good evidence.
In actual fact, though, based on differing levels of society, it was generally accepted for peasants to be kicked, starved, beheaded. At the time, they were seen as nothing, and so were treated like that, and there was no argument against it at the time. Thus, the contingency being that morality is not objective.
Did Paul Chamberlain listen to anything the other side said. Every time they pointed out that he inaccurately described their point of view, he just ignores them and goes back to arguing with his straw man and patting himself on the back for a job well done. Micheal at least had the decency to listen to the other side but Paul was just infuriating.
Wow... I don't think I've ever seen so many straw man fallacies, fallacies in general, or outright deception in a debate in my life. These two theists are nuts.
A good point. Neither side wins over the other side usually, so what is the point? The audience who benefits the most from these exchanges are those who are in doubt, and are looking for answers. Like most debates, the debaters are not in doubt, but able to argue strongly for their position. We must continue to help those in doubt by hosting debates and keeping the channels of communication open.
I don't understand why formal debates have a structure of taking turns and talking. This will allow one side throw out a bunch of claims and seeing what sticks. Whereas the other side will have to respond to all the claims thrown as well as state their own argument. This means which ever side speaks last will get the last word; meaning it can lead to intellectual dishonesty.
1:57:53 - On the subject of the "luck" that allows life and humans to exist, Creationist said: "If we were playing poker and every time the cards got dealt, I got a royal flush and you didn't, and it happened no matter who dealt, over and over and over again, and you started complaining and I said, 'Well you what, I'm just lucky.' I don't think you would accept that and you would probably stop playing." First, the hands we've been dealt are FAR from "royal flushes". We (life forms on Earth) have been dealt a lot of losing hands and most of the players are no longer playing. We could be dealt our own losing hand tomorrow. We may have already been dealt that losing hand and we just don't know it yet. You rarely need a royal flush to win at poker.
You can choose the winning hand. The odds of the royal flushes as you already know are impossible absurdity of random selection to bring life from non life.and to evolve from slime The truth is there is no such thing as luck. We all have to face the challenges of this life including Christians. However Christians have the blessing of understanding and the ability to cope through the supernatural power and love of Almighty God.when we repent all past sin and yield our entrusted freedom of will over to His will and purpose in our life. We are then spiritually reborn to freedom from bondage to the self destructive insatiable demands of the flesh fear, anxiety, guilt and confusion with absolute assurance of our eternal future. I know real peace, real love and real fulfillment.. This is freely available from our creator to all mankind with the courage to seek the truth with honesty.. .
Terry Renehan "Christians have the blessing of understanding and the ability to cope through the supernatural power and love of Almighty God." More commonly known as "ignorance is bliss". "when we repent all past sin and yield our entrusted freedom of will over to His will and purpose in our life. We are then spiritually reborn to freedom from bondage to the self destructive insatiable demands of the flesh fear, anxiety, guilt and confusion with absolute assurance of our eternal future." "Bondage" of what?? Are you honestly saying that people who have repented their sins and forfeited their freedom to god are free from the demands of the flesh? That sounds so odd knowing the stats on users of drugs, alcohol, prostitution, pornography, and sexual assaults. "I know real peace, real love and real fulfillment." If so, it came from yourself and from your relationships with REAL people. "This is freely available from our creator to all mankind with the courage to seek the truth with honesty." That creator sounds like an a-hole. No loving god would put such a restriction on peace, love, and fulfillment. If I could give that to everyone, I wouldn't put a price on it. Maybe I just have much higher moral standards than your god.
JJLatBIM . True Christians are not free from the insatiable demands of the flesh In fact satan and his minions use all out effort 24/7 to attack us. They know where we are most vulnerable. The Holy Spirit ensures that there will be no temptation beyond what we can bear. There will always be an escape under which we can stand. (1 Corinthians 10:13) This frees us from slavery to the flesh. Christians are strengthened in courage to not only withstand persecution and bow to martyrdom but rejoice in that they suffer with Jesus Suffering produces perseverance and perseverance faith. Whenever doubts and confusion arise I look back to the stench and evil from which Jesus has redeemed me.and all doubts are removed.You live in an insatiable void where there exists only anti climax which no offerings of this world can satisfy. Only your creator can bring you real fulfillment in this life and blessed assurance forever.
Terry Renehan "[God] will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able"? What a sadistic joke God hath played on us. People, including true and honest believers of Jesus, lose their lives every day to temptations. It is common to be tempted above that ye are able. Only a fool would believe the words in the Bible and forgive that god for his immoral acts. You and I live in the same world, confronted by the same temptations. The difference is that *I* know that *I* am responsible for making the world a better place while you think you live in a fantasy whereas, you are responsible only to believe in Jesus.
i for one am thankful for such debates. only recently have we had the freedom to question religion in this way and propagating positive atheism. I believe the world is ready to carry on without a social/moral cruth that is religion-it has served its purpose and it has no part in any of our cultural social construct. If through this one questions their faith it is a success. religion is insiduous and without opposition it opresses. It amazes me that we even humour it let alone respect it.
God offers priceless gifts and treasures beyond our comprehension, by rejecting His offer we suffer the loss forever in total despair of the opportunity we rejected. This is not coercion. The world at large rejects God's gifts through the absolute denial of absolute truth simply because they are unwilling to accept accountability to Him for our lives.
@@terryrenehan7606 You do not get to claim your god is responsible for anything without the evidence that is positively indicative of and exclusively concordant with god existing being produced in sufficient amounts first. Skipping the step is the leap taken without warrant.
@@jrskp3677 Do we skip the 99% of creation seen and unseen that is far beyond human capacity of comprehension. e.g. Is it possible to comprehend eternity? In our understanding there has to be a beginning and a cause for everything, Eternity obviously reveals tyhere can be no beginning ??? Can you skip all life and all existence as evidence beyond comprehension. Man cannot create anything. If it were possible for man to create we would have no need for cemetaries.
@@terryrenehan7606 You don't get to call it "creation" because you believe it. It's not a demonstrated fact that creation even happened nor the agent allegedly responsible. Then the "if men could create, we'd have no need for cemeteries" What the fuck does this idiocy even mean? I hope you're dumb enough to leave that up for others to read. That's a great display of straight up idiocy. You should be ashamed of yourself, or you would be if you were able to fathom how moronic that was. Talking to y'all believer's of mythology based cults make me feel like I'm losing IQ just by proxy.
12:00 It's really funny that the first speaker makes, what I call, the "Leave no rocks unturned" argument. It basically goes like this. If you say there is no god, then you must know everything in order to know that. If you know everything, then you are god, thus refuting your statement. This makes the obvious error of not defining his god, because it makes it sound like, "since you haven't turned over every rock in the universe, you can't know everything!" Is his god under a rock?
For one thing, it is possible that the universe occurred when a previous universe contracted to a point and then it exploded from a point... so what "caused" our universe was a previous universe. Second, just because our universe at the beginning did not occupy any space does not mean that there were not other objects that did, that might have lead to our universe. Third, the objection was to the leap that what created it was a "being".
Ezekiel 20:25 Wherefore I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live... Is it objectively moral to give people laws that aren't good?
17:01 I beg to differ. When most of us were kids, most indeed took it seriously. It was only when we started meeting others that figured it out and perhaps told us or even laughed at us that we even bought it. Like how are these things even possible, is there a better explanation for it? and of course with more information about these matters, we understood more and more that there never was such a thing. And with Time and more knowledge that will be the fate of these specific god characters.
Part of the problem is that the word "theory" means something very different in lay language than it does in science: A scientific theory is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that has been substantiated through repeated experiments or testing. If you want to read more, search for "Just a Theory": 7 Misused Science Words
@1:20:00 The dishonesty is strong in this one. Paul keeps repeating that Matt is not disproving god. He is trying to make the audience think that the atheists have no arguments to disprove god, and that they therefor have not done anything to answer the question "does god exist" with "no". He get's very exited when he manages to get Matt to say that Matt also believes that there is no god, and that *that* claim has a burden of proof, and almost explodes with frustration when Matt goes on to say that he's not here to defend the claim that god does not exist, just the atheist position that the god claims are false. He must have felt just like commenter "Johnny A" does; he gets angrier and angrier untill he finally get's the point and then he gets even angier because he looks like an fool. He could just start by asking "What is the difference?" but no, he thinks he has his opponent cornered and he's going to nail this infidel to the wall.... yeah, not really..
+vinny142 _He get's very exited when he manages to get Matt to say that Matt also believes that there is no god, and that that claim has a burden of proof, and almost explodes with frustration when Matt goes on to say that he's not here to defend the claim that god does not exist, just the atheist position that the god claims are false._ You would think that they would be more sympathetic to that; after all, the Christians aren't there to debate whether Jesus is god or not either. So neither side is defending the stronger claim.
I love Matt but I wish that he would have pointed out things that I've heard him point out in response to these claims on TAE, such as the point that the questioner made, that there was a leap in claiming that, if there was a cause for the universe (which was not proven) had to be a being... (he later said it, maybe it didn't have a chance before that...?)
Quick question. For anything that has not been conclusively disproved, should we live our lives as if it exists? If not, then god falls in the same category. For anything not proven, we would be intellectually agnostic, but in all practicality, practising atheists
The performance from all four individuals was subpar, characterized by numerous logical and rhetorical errors. This issue greatly concerns me, particularly due to the abysmal quality of arguments presented by the "Yes"-side.
The biggest failure of the list is the last point: If you want to believe something, no matter how absurd it is, you *can* convince yourself it is true. It reveals that the delusion of god is self induced, not evidence based.
Timeless= not occurring at any time. Spaceless= not occurring in any space. Existence= occurring in space and/or time. Nothing= Timeless and spaceless.
"...in materialism...our choices are determined chemically..." It's not just a materialistic world thingy, if your god is omniscient, there is no free will, no choice, only the illusion of it...
Hello. I know your post is 10 years old, but it is the first I've heard that. Jolly useful in debate if true. You don't happen to know chapter and verse ?
@@guywilletts2804 hi there and hi to me from 10 years ago. Hosea chapter 13 verse 16 and the paragraph around it is one. Also Psalm 137:9 a real barnburner. "Blessed is he who seizes your infant's and dashes them against the rocks."
Don't forget that part of the suffering is natural disaster, an earthquake is not an exercise of free will like a murder or rape. Even if we allow for suffering due to free will, there are still 'acts of God' which are directly under his jurisdiction.
So many of these debates go off the rails due to a poor definition of the topic. This might have been avoided if the topic were something like “There is a compelling case for God’s existence-True or False.” Then they couldn’t waste time arguing about the definition of atheism, burden of proof, null hypothesis, etc.
29:00 What is his definition of "good"? If it is to reduce suffering, his God has failed. If it is to promote well-being, we can figure that out ourselves. And how is the theist judging what is good? If he is doing so using his own moral system, then he has a moral system that can be used and a God is not needed. If he is assuming god is the good one, then to paraphrase Matt, how does he know his God is the good one and the devil is the bad one?
I tend to disagree with a point Matt makes. I think an anti-theist is someone who says "I wouldn't want to live in a universe with a god", without claiming absolute certainty about the non existence of god.
The demand for proof is illogical - because we are required to live by faith. How can anyone "believe" in the existence of a God if He is proven to exist? No debate should focus on the existence of a God - but rather which mindset exemplifies morality.
The Great Debate There is an on-going debate between atheist and theist over the existence of a God - and this has been fraught with misconceptions and disparaging attitude, on both sides, for millennia. What is the problem? Answer: The human condition has a Messiah Complex that has gripped both atheist and theist as they seek to "save the world" from whatever. Theists want to save the world from wickedness - by delivering people into their brand of religion. Atheists want to save the world from religion - because religion is the symptom of delusion. What if I told you: The scripture tells us: God warned man to avoid anything that causes delusion? This can be appreciated when we break down the meaning of the tree of knowledge of good and evil: Tree = Source of information Knowledge of Good = Accurate info Knowledge of Evil = Inaccurate info Partake = Digest and believe Fruit = Ideas, beliefs etc Sin = Delusion (spiritual death) The scripture defines sin as missing the mark because it is the state of mind in which the soul seeks to justify wicked behaviour; which then leads to the creation of religion. The dictionary defines religion as: a belief in and worship of a superhuman controling power. However, that is merely the semblance of a faith - because religion is an institution that has established a set of doctrines to create a hierarchy (that serves the interests of those within the hierarchy). This is why religion has been used to serve those who establish themselves as rulers in this world. Atheists see all the evil in this world is the product of religion and they understand delusion plays a role in this - but they are reluctant to peer introspectively to see their own religiosity. This argument (basically) comes down to: "Who has authority in this world?" If there is no God: man, by default, is the ultimate authority - which means: atheism is the religion of humanism that has a faith in science (as man seeks to attain superhuman controlling power). This is (already) evident as we see insanity festering in this world. Theists, on the other hand, choose to acknowledge the authority of the Most High but they (often) use whatever means, at their disposal, to assert authority over others in the name of their god(s) / idol(s). This is religiosity - because they establish a hierarchy to practice "worship" rituals. If religion is the symptom of delusion - that manifests evil - what is going on? The scripture was prepared to ensure only the humble would understand it (correctly) - because the scripture has a sense of duality that has caused many to stumble and create religions. This is exasperated by the fact we are hardwired to develop a faith in something - whether it's science, politics or whatever. This is to say: we need to acknowledge a faith in something that does not establish a religion. Yahshua (Jesus) never preached religion. In fact, He took issue with those who used the scripture to establish any kind of religion. He taught us how to worship the Father in spirit and truth - which does not require any religion. A faith in a God that does not practice religion is free of hierarchy and devoid of delusion - because the acknowledgement of a faith negates delusion: since we are aware of the fact we don't know either way. The answer, it would seem, is to love one another as Yahshua loved us. Does the scripture reveal a vengeful (hateful) God? Well... that depends what you want to see. If you read the scripture seeking an evil God - you'll find an evil God. If you read the scripture seeking a loving God - you'll find a loving God. I read the scripture and saw a loving God, that (occasionally) took measures to protect His Name, so we may have the opportunity to embrace the peace of Yahshua. All I can do is be informative of these things - so you may make a more informed decision. You see.. there is no point in arguing over this subject - because everyone is free to choose their own destiny: and only the humble, in their courage to look up, will find answers. My Best Wishes 💖 To Everyone
hahaha = faith is "required" ...really?! I never use word faith nor do I ise "faith" whatever it means. so no mallable concept of "faith" is not required and even more so should be discarded all together.
Faith is the most lamest excuse for believing in a god. Faith can be used as a reason to believe in ANYTHING. I can believe there is a big foot and take it on faith. I can beleive in vampires based off faith. Faith is the most useless tool ... its not even a tool ... it is when you believe in something which has no evidence ... Its is a perfect reciepe for self deception. To even say that you are required to live by faith shows that you are admitting that you have no proof ... and you believe in god because you hope it exists.
Watching these "philosophers" dance around the science questions is hysterical. They ramble on and on, yet somehow say nothing. I love debating christians, or at least I used to enjoy it, but I haven't a heard a new argument in like 20 years. As far as I'm concerned the debate is over. Until I see physical proof of a deity, I just can't waste any more time listening to theologians dance around questions to which they have NO proof.
S L Baltimore Everything you see with the eyes you are seeing is physical evidence What more proof do you need? Do you really believe this all came about from 'nothing'. You cannot see nothing' because it is impossible for something to emerge from 'nothing' God's unsearchable wisdom far transcends human comprehension. Atheists claim the 96% God gap will one day be revealed by 'science' Time can never reveal what man can never know.God is slow to anger!
Terry Renehan There are so many problems with your post I don't even know where to begin. First of all your "96%" claim is ridiculous, you can't simply assert an exact number like that with nothing to back it up! Come on! All this talk about what "nothing" is, is your inability to objectively look at another idea that doesn't involve your god. You make all these assumptions that your god created everything yet all you have to back this up is a couple lines of scripture from an ancient book that has no scientific merit, is riddled with historical inaccuracies, fictional people places and events, and most importantly zero explanatory power. By positing an infinitely more complex answer such as god, you have opened the door to a myriad of other issues that must be explained such as where did this god come from, why did he do this, and how? Christianity has moved the goal posts so many times that you have actually invented categories for your god to exist in, and categories that can't be tested, proved, falsified or demonstrated in any way. This is not a victory, this is intellectual dishonesty, and an omission of ignorance. And one last thing, your claim that everything we see with our eyes is physical evidence. Forgetting that there is a great deal we can't see, in fact we have to use various forms of technology to enhance our vision as we are blind to different types of colour such as infrared or ultra violet, and that we are pattern seeking creatures, leaving people like you to believe that looking at the night sky or into a forest is actually in some way evidence for your god, when the opposite is true.Is The best part of all that, is the one thing that you think is the most important, god, can't be seen with our eyes at all. He won't reveal himself, which is to say he is unable to or unwilling to show himself, and needs people like you to defend his existence. This is a weak and feeble being that is not worthy of praise let alone belief in, and has actually convinced you to set aside all logical and rational thought in favour of a magical, invisible, cosmic overlord who is more concerned with dictating peoples sex lives than helping people in desperate need of things like clean water and medicine.
Terry Renehan
If you don't believe that the Universe came from nothing, then please explain how did God created our Universe? If you postulate a God as an explanation, then you must also explain how God did something, otherwise God is equal to magic. And I do not believe that Harry Potter is in any way real.
S L Baltimore Christianity has invented no new goal posts. The Bible has remained constant because it is founded in impregnable truth. It has stood the test of time. Your claims are absurd and untrue.There are no historical errors.. There were claims of this in previous times but upon further discoveries were proved absolutely accurate in history.and every other challenges over thousands of years.Times, dates ancestry ages, and names are outlined in detail for all but the stiff necked disbelievers.There are no ideas that can stand which do not involve Almighty God.Can you explain life, death, decay the intrinsic precision of the Cosmos to sustain all the elements we enjoy just to exist? Can you explain the possibility of any beginning without a prior cause and before that and that etc? It is impossible to explain God's eternal existence or eternity itself. All logic points to there cannot possibly be a beginning.The Bible reveals how time as we know it began in Genesis 1:3 God's wisdom far transcends his creatures capacity of comprehension. God does not dictate any part of our lives. We are entrusted freedom of will. People who rebel and deviate from decency and indulge evil condemn themselves. God has given guidance to life in abundance and fulfillment. Man is without excuse. Fear of God is the beginning of wisdom. There is no escaping His justice. H e loves all of His children and wills no one should perish
Terry Renehan "The Bible has remained constant because it is founded in impregnable truth."
Yes, the bible is 100% correct that the earth is 6,000 years old and is a stationary flat circle orbited by the sun and that man and dinosaurs lived together and a 600 year old Noah put millions of species on his wooden boat along with the requisite food and fresh water.
(sarcasm)
When I’m at the doctor office and she gets me to fill a form out, when it asks questions about your health and you answer yes you have to explain why and what but when you answer no it requires no explanation
The universe is not fine tuned for life. Life is fine tuned TO the universe...
It bogles my mind why the ''fine tuning'' argument is still taken seriously even by intellectuals...
*****
exactly.
Marc Soucie "The universe and the laws of physics seem to have been specifically designed for us. If any one of about 40 physical qualities had more than slightly different values, life as we know it could not exist. Either atoms would not be stable or they wouldn't combine into molecules, or the stars would not form the heavier elements, or the universe would collapse before life could develop. (Stephen Hawking, scientist, evolutionist, 'Austin American statesman' Oct.9 1997) "Slight variations in physical laws such as gravity or electromagnetism would make life impossible. The necessity to produce life lies at the center of the universe's whole machinery and design" (John Wheeler Princeton Uni professor of physics, 'Reader's Digest' Sept 1986) "We are finding that humans have very shallow genetic roots which go back very recently to one ancestor. That indicates there was an origin in a specific location on the globe and then it spread out from there" (US News and world report Dec 4 1995) The universe is specifically designed for life. The precision and outcome of energy sustains and maintains the essentials of all life and it is impossible to assme that all this miraculous design emerged from 'NOTHING" unless you are in a vacuum of absurd denial
Terry Renehan Any universe will seem ''fine tuned'' to create whatever is in it. If you could observe a universe filled with square shaped objects, you would say that universe was ''fine tuned'' to create square shaped objects. If you could produce billions of different universes at random, they would all seem ''fine tuned'' to create whatever is within them. Whatever is in a universe will always be coherent with the particular properties of that particular universe so you will always have the impression that that particular universe was ''created'' with a purpose to create whatever is in it. If the laws of our universe changed by only a fraction, the universe would then seem ''fine tuned'' to create whatever was in that new universe. If a change in one of the laws of our universe created NO universe, then those new laws of physics would seem ''fine tuned'' to create nothingness. Our universe also seems ''fine tuned'' to create black holes, asteroids and a whole lot of cold space and non living things. Does that mean our universe was ''fine tuned'' to create non-life ? The fact that we live in a universe that is based on physical properties that are coherent with the emergence of life means that there is a naturalistic explanation to life. If life existed in a universe with laws of physics that are NOT coherent with the emergence of life, then THAT would be a miracle and would seem to indicate the presence of an omnipotent creator with fantastic magical powers, but that is not the case...Imagine a puddle of water that thinks: wow ! the hole in the ground in which I am, is exactly the same shape as me...that must mean it was designed just for me...''
v KD Kanon Why ?!
v KD Kanon Scientists do think that things are fine tuned to there environment: in the case of biological entities, it's called natural selection. My comment said only this: Any universe would contain things that are coherent with it,s basic laws. Life is coherent with the laws of physics and is coherent with the particular conditions of earth (that's why you don't see life on the moon !!!)...So there is no need to evoke the interference of a supernatural entity...
16:20 I immediately thought of at least 2,000 other examples which at one point in time were not trivial. Instead of Santa or the Tooth Fairy, how about Zeus, Poseiodon, Azura, or any of the other 2,000 dead gods who at one point were believed in by everybody? Do we still have the burden of proof to disprove their existence? Absolutely not, and neither do we have the burden to disprove any god today
The scariest thing I can imagine is if the Bible god exists.
Don't worry.... he doesn't
@@o0o-jd-o0o95 Correct!Glad I found a clear thinker. We are certainly lucky the Bible God doesn’t exist or any other vicious mythical creature. And hi to me from 10 years ago.
@matttim5095 No, no I'm a good person who takes responsibility for his actions. No the reason I would be scared if that God existed, is because in the Bible he condoned and ordered rate, genocide and slavery. It's because he holds up human sacrifice as the highest ideal, in the form of Jesus the lamb. I'm scared because he's decided that eternal punishment is Justice for finite evils.
@matttim5095 No, no I'm a good person who takes responsibility for his actions. No the reason I would be scared if that God existed, is because in the Bible he condoned and ordered rate, genocide and slavery. It's because he holds up human sacrifice as the highest ideal, in the form of Jesus the lamb. I'm scared because he's decided that eternal punishment is Justice for finite evils.
@matttim5095I'll have to answer to a god who used fear upon his children to gain obedience?? A god who condoned slavery?? A god who killed the firstborn of a whole civilization just to show off his powers and glory?? A god who ordered genocide and infanticide? A god who told his children to be the first ones to kill their own family if they tried to convince them to worship another god?? A god who told his children that they could keep a woman for themselves after killing and wiping out her family?? A god who called hypocrites to the ones who didn't kill their own children as Moses's law said?? A god who tells you to shut up because he is god and can do whatever he wants?? A god who created a torture chamber for the people he already knew that would end up there before he created them??
Yeah sure, I'm excited to worship such a monster🤢🤮
Even if the Christian God is real, perfect, and correct in his moral teachings, how can his morality be objective if it comes from the perspective of a being? It is subjective by definition.
Wait what? What do you think subjective and objective means?
rpboulan He made a good point. Read it again.
I did. Beings can be objective. The fewer the limits you put on a being the more objective it can be. An unlimited being could be perfectly objective.
rpboulan "an unlimited being can be perfectly objective" how come? If you mean to say its actions and intentions have no limits, and therefore its idea of a perfect world would be fully realised, why do events occur which directly oppose what it would want? (perhaps you would argue that everything in fact does occur according to its will, but this seems to run counter to many of the conceptions of God found in major religions. Besides, if people are resistant to the moral dictates of such a God, wouldn't this be evidence that God's moral Law is not objectively good, since it is impossible for every living thing to be compelled by God's divine reason, which if God had unlimited power, would surely be all encompassing and compelling?) You would still need to explain why God's Law was objectively good. Why would allowing suffering in the world be objectively good? If you can explain why and convince me that it is in fact moral to allow suffering, then you would compel me toward your position. I would be convinced by your argument. Why, if God has no limits, can he/she not do this with his/her subjects?
good doesn't do it cuz it is good. HE IS the standard of rightness.
I originally watched this for Matt Dillahunty, because the way Matt argues and speaks is really the best from any atheist I've seen, but I must say DiCarlo held his own. I found his explanations pretty compelling in their own right.
im 10 years late but same here, im definitely going to look at more of his debates
"Nothing, except something..."
Bravo! XD
12:10 "You can't simply assume atheism. Why? Because it is a claim to know something. It is a claim to know God does not exist."
**beats head against table** Why do theists try to definite atheism into irrationality? Do they really lack that much confidence in their own position that they think this is an excusable tactic? Is there ANY OTHER CLAIM on this planet that is such that we would consider it irrational to reject it if there was no evidence for it? WHY DO APOLOGISTS WITH DEGREES AND ACTUAL ACCOMPLISHMENTS WHO ARE FULLY GROWN ADULTS USE THESE ARGUMENTS?
It beats me by surprise. For ppl with their levels of education, you would expect them to understand that a negation of a claim of belief cannot be a claim of knowledge. But they fail all the times.
Matt did hold back during this debate. Originally the debate was to have just Christopher DiCarlo on the No side, and Matt was added (I don't know why he was brought in, maybe because the Yes team became a duo?) Matt said he held back during this debate, on purpose.
It's really hard not to face-palm as the first theist states his "argument," in fact, I think it's generous to even call it that. If I could quantify the amount of faulty reasoning and misrepresentations, it'd take me a while. This is the type of logic you get when you debate believers.
Christians:: my god is all loving and if you don't believe in him than you will suffer for all eternity!!!!!!!
Atheists: sure thing scooter.........
maxwell catlett entrusting ur self to GOD is the only remedy for ur evil. Without a remedy for ur evil , you will be tormented by that evil forever. GOD did all HE could do to set you free including warn you of the danger yet you wouldn't listen. You are an utter fool!
strengthinweakness1 He didn't warn the isolated tribes in the Amazon rainforest, or the jungles of Africa, who have never had contact with outside humanity and who have never even _heard_ of 'Jesus' or Christianity. According to your religion those people will burn forever along with all us willing atheists. No exceptions, no reprieve, no appeal - hell forever, for the crime of not knowing about the existence of Christian doctrine.
Your god is not all loving. Furthermore, he does not give people the 'remedy' for evil, he does not 'save' people from the fire.
Here's what your 'god' does; he blindfolds people, sends them walking in a straight line towards a fire, and says it's their own fault for ending up in the fire for not trusting him to save them.
God didn't make hell read your bible !!!!!!!!!!
The Abrahamic god gave the green light to the crusades, sharia law, the inquisition, and transcontinental genocide so your sould could be saved, why can't you love that guy*!?
Note: probably he doesn't look like a caucasian European but let's assume so.
@@bhdarmy3007
Chapter and verse that supports your statement are?
The best line: The fine tuning is beyond comprehension...buts finds the words to comprehend and describe it...
Thank you! Just posted the same thing. I've been scrolling down through tens of comments, awe-struck by the fact that nobody was pointing this out.
I wasn't terribly impressed with Christopher DiCarlo's arguments... I think the atheistic side would have done much better if it were just Matt.
Matt is a joke
Impressive arguments are what the theist position is all about.
Because there's nothing to substantiate them so, they have to be as cleverly worded and devised as possible to attempt to subvert the actual truth.
"Truth is what the facts are"
Without real facts, what is left is evidently not the truth.
@@ceceroxy2227
If that's actually the truth, what facts would you like to make citations of where your statement can be shown to be conclusively correct?
Every time I hear the fine tuned argument, I'm surprised at how they haven't been able to answer it themselves. As Victor Stenger says, "The Universe is not fine-tuned to life; life is fine-tuned to the Universe".
and he is dead and has met God
@@ceceroxy2227
And your evidence that supports your statement is?
(Non-existent?) (Intangible?)
I'm becoming a big fan of Matt. He needs to write a book and get all famous and such. He'd be a nice figure in the burgeoning atheist scene. I mean...he already is, but he's one of the better ones. I'm certainly rooting for him.
What's your thoughts on him a decade later?
@@yep_2431he evolved 😂
Really good debate Matt & Christopher, Well debated, great format, Welldone!!
That guy was remote controlled by William lane Craig. He must love being quoted by these 'apologists' who can't make their own arguements.
That mental image amuses me.
Can Matt do his side solo next time?
Matt is the best
Young Sinatra ALL the atheists think Matt and the other guy won and all the Christians think Chamberlin and his partener won...it just depends on your belief coming into this debate.like they said NOONE changed anyone's mind that we KNOW OF...presupposed notions guide us all in this debate tonight...We all knew who we were going to believe no matter what they other side pointed out. We were prewired to a conclusion going in....and came out the same way.....staus quo
ydnar0591 No, actually i don't just think the Atheist side won. They actually provided great information that helped substantiate their arguments. The Theist side only asserted their position and provided no justification for their arguments.
That's what I just said...you would see it one way and I would see it another..we are preloaded to agree with our own beliefs...remember? We already knew who was gonna win..you knew one thing and I knew another.
ydnar0591
No, it's not a matter of opinion. The reason why the Atheist won is because they can disprove religion by investigating each doctrine, and by using reason and logic. On the other hand, Theist don't bother to investigate a thing. They just keep asserting things without demonstrating the truth of their claims. Theist's have the burden of proof, not Atheist.
If the atheist is the first to make an assertion...then the atheist has the "burden of proof"...whoever makes an assertion is responsible to prove that assertion....that old stuff about "Christians only having the burden of prove" breaks this law of debating....It's the "initiator of the assertion" (whatever that assertion IS) who is the one who carries the "burden of proof".
Furthermore the "statement" it'seslf that "THERE IS NO GOD" is what is known as an "ABSOLUTE STATEMENT"...and in order to even MAKE an "ABSOLUTE STATEMENT", the one who makes it MUST BE "OMNISCIENT"..OR.."KNOWS ALL THINGS" ! What % of "all there is to know" do YOU KNOW? Only 100% will make you "OMNISCIENT".
SO it has to be.....a matter of opinion.?..it can be no other.!..since none of us even know 1/1,000,000th of "ALL THERE IS TO KNOW"...in existence. !
To ME the Atheists were wrong....but...to YOU they were right....!...that is how it was "before and after" the debate on this video...!
Theists: 0
Sceptics: ♾️
"You can't solve a mystery by alluring to a bigger mystery."
@C L
If you don't care about the truth, then yes yes we can.
@C L prove it
You are so so so right! my christian mom blames me for not believing because i have not sought god with all my heart. But this creates a cognitive bias in which you find what you want. Humans are great at finding patterns in things that are random. Its the nature of human brain!
When a debate STARTS with a strawman, you can only hope it will be better later...
But the theists continue with arguments from ignorance, special pleading and assertions about "absolute" morality !
And i hoped to hear something interesting...
As soon as i heard the first speaker say there are three positions i immediately knew he was going to spend the entire time trying to shift the burden of proof, and i wasn't wrong. I don't like it when theists pretend they're using logic or science, because invariably that goes out the window the moment they reach something unexplainable and say god did it. Then again, if theists used real logic they wouldn't be theists.
I was like ... Really? This is their opening? REALLY?
13:15 You CAN prove a negative. From Atheism Explained: "If I prove that 'all the marbles in this box are white', I automatically also prove that 'none of the marbles in this box are blue', 'none of the marbles in this box are transparent', and so on.'" - David Ramsey Steele
Atheism is not necessarily a positive truth claim. There are many atheist who assert that there is NO GOD and will give you their reasons for it. There also agnostic atheist who take the position that they don’t know for a fact that there is no god but they are unconvinced that there is for xyz reasons. You wouldn’t expect someone who doesn’t believe in vampires to prove that there is NO vampires. You do expect the person claiming that vampires exist to present hard evidence & be open to critical examination of said evidence
people like William Lane Craig gave a generation of parrots the false confidence that their crap arguments are valid
The moment the one thiest came up and presented that "the universe had a cause" and started name dropping I said to myself "Thank you Mr. Craig, but this gentleman is at the stage right now would you let him speak?"
MysteriousAya i always get angry at the part 'therefore a timeless, spaceless, immaterial, personal, good...' this is exactly what occam's razor prevents one from doing. he goes from a cause of the universe to a being cause of the universe without giving any justification
askingalexandriaaa Ya I always ask for the justification that the supposed timeless, spaceless, immaterial cause has to have been a mind, the best I ever get is that 'only a mind could have made the decision to step out of a frozen state of eternity' with no demonstration or further reasoning ever provided.
I remember where WLC once dishonestly used two different meanings of the word 'being' in quick succession and went on to pretend he'd just demonstrated a mind:
"Some cause must have existed to bring the universe into being. This being must have been timeless, since time didn't yet exist, spaceless, since...." - WLC
HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke
Don't forget, the being is a male.
askingalexandriaaa Where do you get the ides God is a male? 'He' is referred to as 'He' for convenience. God is 'I Am') Gender is for procreation purposes. God CREATES. We will move on from this life of mortality into eternity to either eternal bliss or to despair beyond all hope forever in hell It is our choice. God has shown the WAY to LIFE. He has warned us in word and in deed of His wrath. He is slow to anger. Wake up before it is too late for you. No one can do this for you. You make the choice and you will have no one or nothing else whatever to blame for your futile denial.
Eh what is ironic is that you can take any arguement from the God squad up there and insert "aliens" in the place of "God" and the arguements work out almost identical
The idea of moral absolutes makes no sense to me.
I agree, a big question. Along with "In what ways would a godless universe differ from the one we are in ?"
a godless universe wouldnt be orderly, it wouldnt have physical laws, it wouldnt have moral laws, it wouldnt have human beings, it wouldnt be fined tuned, it wouldnt even exist actually
If God did not exist, neither would you.
@@richardbutler9692 Hi thanks for your response, but how do you conclude that ? Why can nature not exist naturally ?
@@AsFewFalseThingsAsPossible For the simple reason that things do not create themselves. There must be a First Cause. Something cannot come from nothing.
@@richardbutler9692 How do you know there was ever nothing ? Use logic. There was at t=0 the potential for at least 1 universe. What form that took, we do not know. This "god" then also had a cause, what was that ? And then you have the infinite regression. So again I ask why can nature not create things ? In particular biology and biological diversity ?
Good Dillahunty debate. Also good audience participation.
Tim, if living in delusion is the only thing that stops you from becoming a sociopath then I sincerely hope that you never learn to think rationally
After seeing the Morality Question ( Where Do You Get Your Morals From) come up again and again. I read Machael Schermer's book. We Do get our morals from Evolution. If you can't pass on your genes you're selected out. Mirror Neurons enable Empathy. We've evolved to work together. It's amazing how the Morality question still trips up Skeptics when the science is done.
I guess Hitler got his arguments from evolution
Great, the theists start by strawmanning Atheism. You're arguing against a non existence claim, which is not the Atheist position.
complexity of the universe is not evidence for a christian god :)
But i don't think you understand... it's SO complex! /s
Precisely because the Universe is SO complex, couldn't be created by a self appointed apocalyptic "prophet" that couldn't even get figs from a fig three, that didn't knew that the a universal flood never took place, or that Sodom and Gomorrah were (as archeology have confirmed), that didn't came to bring peace but a sword, that even according with Mark, Mathew and Luke, he never claimed be god (the famous "do not call me good, only god is good", and other specific passages that according with the only book that acknowledge his existence, he pronounced), that prophesied that he will return before the generation he addressed passes away, just to mention few of many reasons why, if a complex universe happen to exist, is not evidence of the Christian god, or any god.
Lalith Vithana It's only evidence for the Magic and Cosmic Pink Pony :P.
I hate to break it to you Einstein, but precisely an “accident brought about the infrastructure of the universe”. In fact the mere fact that you exist, it was because a countless random events took place so you could be typing away all your purposely made complex and nonsense arguments for ignorance fallacies.
There is a very good reason why more than 85% of the scientist of the National Academy of Science; people that even the most dumb of them have more knowledge than me and you and 5 more like us together, yet, they have conclude that more likely, there is not a “creator” somewhere hidden on the observable Universe, or in other mysterious dimension, or that at the very least, nature and our Universe could came to be without the need of one.
I think it is time for you and brainwashed morons like you to unplug your ears and listen. Or ells, submit a scientific hypothesis to be piers reviewed, so it can become a theory, and when you accomplish that, then you can come here and tell us all about it, and I promise you that I, alone with the 99% of the Atheist I personally know, we will be listening to you, and not trying to pierce holes on your overwhelming accepted theory. Therefore until that happen, you are the one that needs to be listening and learning and leaving bronze-age mythologies where they belong: that is… way back on the distant pass.
Before to go further my dear Deepak Chopra imitator, what are your qualifications to be talking of what you pretend to be talking about?
how come no one ever points this out in a debate: very often I will hear theists ask about the moral nihilist argument and they always repurpose the question to something like "If you don't have objective morality would killing someone be objectively moral?"
It's a self defeating question but debaters always try to answer it.
Good point. I’ve never heard that before.
DiCarlo is one of the best professors I had in university. I remember more from his course and use it on a regular basis more than other courses. It is bullshit he was denied tenure after being a professor for 15 years because of "religious insensitivity." I had to sit through learning about the good side of Islam in a Criminology course, but atheism and secular morality, along with critically/rationally think about religion in a philosophy course is wrong? Um!!
One of the important requirements for morality is that it has a reliable update system - if there are some lacks or flaws in it they should be fixed immediately. Waiting for an update from heaven is unreliable, so such morality has to be rejected and replaced with one with a reliable update system - which means updates are made by us, humans.
I don't know if the first speaker is desonest or an idiot.
Atheism and theism aren't claims that something exist or do not exist it just says if you believe in a god or gods or not. If you claim that to be true or probabily true, is another issue.
1:21:19 wow, that theist guys doesn't seem to get the point Matt's trying to make, thus kept coming back with "where is your evidence to prove there is no god?" again and again!
26:26 did he say "torturing toddlers for sport?" Like just torturing toddlers isnt bad? Lol. Phrasing good sir.ahh now I see. If I was torturing toddlers to save the world I could excuse it? Lol. It's just a way to say we need god to find things moral. But if god told you to torture a toddler you would have to do it or disobey god. And if you cant understand god then you cant know why he wants you to so you have to do it. Is that ok?
Think of the concept of ETERNAL joy, and happiness, and love, with NO pain, no heartache, no suffering... It will be dull, uncomplicated, easy, uncolourful. Impossible you say? Ok, try this, take anything that you find joyful, and repeatedly expose yourself to it to excess. A favourite food, a favourite song, a favourite movie, a favourite way of kissing your girlfriend, a favourite blend of coffee, wearing a favourite shirt... NEVER STOP doing it... whatever it is it wears thin doesn't it.
30 seconds....not freaking forever to ask a question...good debate though.....but as usual..the theistic arguments fail yet again...
Right out of the gate we have a fundamental misunderstanding of both atheism and logical argumentation.
Atheism is not a claim that there is no god, it's a lack of belief that there is a god.
WOW Matt is much more tame here than on the AE
0:57:19 see 0:33:20
Seriously guys, even in my high school debate classes we knew to listen to your opponent and not just go off a script. Its debate tactics 1-0-1 here. If you've even witnessed a proper debate once you get this.
It was not a good debate but the theist's arguments were pathetic.
They usually are...
Particularly the second speaker (I think he was the one who taught apologetics). Whenever he made a point I could not help but mutter “From where have I already heard this exact argument? Oh, I know: almost every debate I have ever seen!”
+Peter Metcalfe Try watching it twice when you're not in a hurry or busy multitasking. This was fare better the second time. On many points I think this video is high quality and every one in the debate seemed to be well prepared. I do (however) agree theist arguments are always difficult to make sound sane in the modern world. I thoroughly enjoyed this debate.
you don't like it because you god fearing idiots lost
Well written Matt. Would have made a better impact if better presented. Can't wait to read your book.
They seem to dance a lot. The Theists.
"his nature is completely devoid of and remote from the properties of matter"
So this god doesn't really exist or interact with anything, but is some kind of ideal concept.
Ok.
They just defined him in and out of existence, lol
So, christian psychopaths shouldn't exist.
Those two gents were impressively credentialed buffoons.
That doesn't actually follow from what they said. Saying all moral nihilists are psychopaths doesn't imply that all psychopaths are moral nihilists. I disagree with both these ideas, but the implication is still invalid.
@@ahlpym
That's just the jets ski's and Sea-Doo analogy.
All Sea-Doo are jet skis, not all jet skis are Sea-Doo brand.
Arguments do not outweigh evidence especially when it's arguments without supporting good evidence.
In actual fact, though, based on differing levels of society, it was generally accepted for peasants to be kicked, starved, beheaded. At the time, they were seen as nothing, and so were treated like that, and there was no argument against it at the time. Thus, the contingency being that morality is not objective.
Did Paul Chamberlain listen to anything the other side said. Every time they pointed out that he inaccurately described their point of view, he just ignores them and goes back to arguing with his straw man and patting himself on the back for a job well done.
Micheal at least had the decency to listen to the other side but Paul was just infuriating.
The Picard reference saved my day lol
Wow... I don't think I've ever seen so many straw man fallacies, fallacies in general, or outright deception in a debate in my life. These two theists are nuts.
Without a religion we have better life without the lucrative poison
We learn science and advance a better future and live without lies
A good point. Neither side wins over the other side usually, so what is the point? The audience who benefits the most from these exchanges are those who are in doubt, and are looking for answers. Like most debates, the debaters are not in doubt, but able to argue strongly for their position. We must continue to help those in doubt by hosting debates and keeping the channels of communication open.
I don't understand why formal debates have a structure of taking turns and talking. This will allow one side throw out a bunch of claims and seeing what sticks. Whereas the other side will have to respond to all the claims thrown as well as state their own argument. This means which ever side speaks last will get the last word; meaning it can lead to intellectual dishonesty.
The guy on the far right really wants to shift the burden of proof. He's trying so hard. He keeps misstating Matt's position.
1:57:53 - On the subject of the "luck" that allows life and humans to exist, Creationist said: "If we were playing poker and every time the cards got dealt, I got a royal flush and you didn't, and it happened no matter who dealt, over and over and over again, and you started complaining and I said, 'Well you what, I'm just lucky.' I don't think you would accept that and you would probably stop playing."
First, the hands we've been dealt are FAR from "royal flushes". We (life forms on Earth) have been dealt a lot of losing hands and most of the players are no longer playing. We could be dealt our own losing hand tomorrow. We may have already been dealt that losing hand and we just don't know it yet. You rarely need a royal flush to win at poker.
You can choose the winning hand. The odds of the royal flushes as you already know are impossible absurdity of random selection to bring life from non life.and to evolve from slime The truth is there is no such thing as luck. We all have to face the challenges of this life including Christians. However Christians have the blessing of understanding and the ability to cope through the supernatural power and love of Almighty God.when we repent all past sin and yield our entrusted freedom of will over to His will and purpose in our life. We are then spiritually reborn to freedom from bondage to the self destructive insatiable demands of the flesh fear, anxiety, guilt and confusion with absolute assurance of our eternal future. I know real peace, real love and real fulfillment.. This is freely available from our creator to all mankind with the courage to seek the truth with honesty.. .
Terry Renehan "Christians have the blessing of understanding and the ability to cope through the supernatural power and love of Almighty God."
More commonly known as "ignorance is bliss".
"when we repent all past sin and yield our entrusted freedom of will over to His will and purpose in our life. We are then spiritually reborn to freedom from bondage to the self destructive insatiable demands of the flesh fear, anxiety, guilt and confusion with absolute assurance of our eternal future."
"Bondage" of what?? Are you honestly saying that people who have repented their sins and forfeited their freedom to god are free from the demands of the flesh? That sounds so odd knowing the stats on users of drugs, alcohol, prostitution, pornography, and sexual assaults.
"I know real peace, real love and real fulfillment."
If so, it came from yourself and from your relationships with REAL people.
"This is freely available from our creator to all mankind with the courage to seek the truth with honesty."
That creator sounds like an a-hole. No loving god would put such a restriction on peace, love, and fulfillment. If I could give that to everyone, I wouldn't put a price on it. Maybe I just have much higher moral standards than your god.
JJLatBIM . True Christians are not free from the insatiable demands of the flesh In fact satan and his minions use all out effort 24/7 to attack us. They know where we are most vulnerable. The Holy Spirit ensures that there will be no temptation beyond what we can bear. There will always be an escape under which we can stand. (1 Corinthians 10:13) This frees us from slavery to the flesh. Christians are strengthened in courage to not only withstand persecution and bow to martyrdom but rejoice in that they suffer with Jesus Suffering produces perseverance and perseverance faith. Whenever doubts and confusion arise I look back to the stench and evil from which Jesus has redeemed me.and all doubts are removed.You live in an insatiable void where there exists only anti climax which no offerings of this world can satisfy. Only your creator can bring you real fulfillment in this life and blessed assurance forever.
Terry Renehan "[God] will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able"? What a sadistic joke God hath played on us. People, including true and honest believers of Jesus, lose their lives every day to temptations. It is common to be tempted above that ye are able. Only a fool would believe the words in the Bible and forgive that god for his immoral acts.
You and I live in the same world, confronted by the same temptations. The difference is that *I* know that *I* am responsible for making the world a better place while you think you live in a fantasy whereas, you are responsible only to believe in Jesus.
i for one am thankful for such debates. only recently have we had the freedom to question religion in this way and propagating positive atheism. I believe the world is ready to carry on without a social/moral cruth that is religion-it has served its purpose and it has no part in any of our cultural social construct. If through this one questions their faith it is a success. religion is insiduous and without opposition it opresses. It amazes me that we even humour it let alone respect it.
Do you think that hell might be an example of "divine coercion?"
God offers priceless gifts and treasures beyond our comprehension, by rejecting His offer we suffer the loss forever in total despair of the opportunity we rejected. This is not coercion. The world at large rejects God's gifts through the absolute denial of absolute truth simply because they are unwilling to accept accountability to Him for our lives.
It's the carrot and stick routine.
@@terryrenehan7606
You do not get to claim your god is responsible for anything without the evidence that is positively indicative of and exclusively concordant with god existing being produced in sufficient amounts first.
Skipping the step is the leap taken without warrant.
@@jrskp3677 Do we skip the 99% of creation seen and unseen that is far beyond human capacity of comprehension. e.g. Is it possible to comprehend eternity? In our understanding there has to be a beginning and a cause for everything, Eternity obviously reveals tyhere can be no beginning ??? Can you skip all life and all existence as evidence beyond comprehension. Man cannot create anything. If it were possible for man to create we would have no need for cemetaries.
@@terryrenehan7606
You don't get to call it "creation" because you believe it.
It's not a demonstrated fact that creation even happened nor the agent allegedly responsible.
Then the "if men could create, we'd have no need for cemeteries"
What the fuck does this idiocy even mean? I hope you're dumb enough to leave that up for others to read.
That's a great display of straight up idiocy. You should be ashamed of yourself, or you would be if you were able to fathom how moronic that was.
Talking to y'all believer's of mythology based cults make me feel like I'm losing IQ just by proxy.
Athiesim is the blind faith that death of the body is the death of pain!
8:50 to skip the introductions
See the video of Andy Thompson from this convention for his speech on why believe in gods.
The universe is fine tuned for suffering . . .
12:00
It's really funny that the first speaker makes, what I call, the "Leave no rocks unturned" argument.
It basically goes like this. If you say there is no god, then you must know everything in order to know that. If you know everything, then you are god, thus refuting your statement.
This makes the obvious error of not defining his god, because it makes it sound like, "since you haven't turned over every rock in the universe, you can't know everything!"
Is his god under a rock?
Watching this puts me in mind of the book/movie "In the Name of the Rose."
For one thing, it is possible that the universe occurred when a previous universe contracted to a point and then it exploded from a point... so what "caused" our universe was a previous universe. Second, just because our universe at the beginning did not occupy any space does not mean that there were not other objects that did, that might have lead to our universe. Third, the objection was to the leap that what created it was a "being".
Was the opening statement by the 2nd theist from a WLC debate verbatim or was that just my imagination?
Ezekiel 20:25
Wherefore I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live...
Is it objectively moral to give people laws that aren't good?
It seems our language is not capable of properly conveying all the information. We seem to run into communication problems.
17:01 I beg to differ. When most of us were kids, most indeed took it seriously. It was only when we started meeting others that figured it out and perhaps told us or even laughed at us that we even bought it. Like how are these things even possible, is there a better explanation for it? and of course with more information about these matters, we understood more and more that there never was such a thing. And with Time and more knowledge that will be the fate of these specific god characters.
Part of the problem is that the word "theory" means something very different in lay language than it does in science: A scientific theory is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that has been substantiated through repeated experiments or testing.
If you want to read more, search for "Just a Theory": 7 Misused Science Words
@1:20:00 The dishonesty is strong in this one. Paul keeps repeating that Matt is not disproving god. He is trying to make the audience think that the atheists have no arguments to disprove god, and that they therefor have not done anything to answer the question "does god exist" with "no". He get's very exited when he manages to get Matt to say that Matt also believes that there is no god, and that *that* claim has a burden of proof, and almost explodes with frustration when Matt goes on to say that he's not here to defend the claim that god does not exist, just the atheist position that the god claims are false.
He must have felt just like commenter "Johnny A" does; he gets angrier and angrier untill he finally get's the point and then he gets even angier because he looks like an fool. He could just start by asking "What is the difference?" but no, he thinks he has his opponent cornered and he's going to nail this infidel to the wall.... yeah, not really..
+vinny142
_He get's very exited when he manages to get Matt to say that Matt also believes that there is no god, and that that claim has a burden of proof, and almost explodes with frustration when Matt goes on to say that he's not here to defend the claim that god does not exist, just the atheist position that the god claims are false._
You would think that they would be more sympathetic to that; after all, the Christians aren't there to debate whether Jesus is god or not either. So neither side is defending the stronger claim.
55:00 that's not what the term valid means, he's confusing validity with soundness. You can simultaneously make a valid argument and still be wrong.
I love Matt but I wish that he would have pointed out things that I've heard him point out in response to these claims on TAE, such as the point that the questioner made, that there was a leap in claiming that, if there was a cause for the universe (which was not proven) had to be a being... (he later said it, maybe it didn't have a chance before that...?)
Quick question. For anything that has not been conclusively disproved, should we live our lives as if it exists? If not, then god falls in the same category. For anything not proven, we would be intellectually agnostic, but in all practicality, practising atheists
11 years old. That opening "theres no good reason to not believe god" had to be one of the worst arguements ive ever heard lol
OMG! the first speaker is so right, i can see it now! ALL GODS EXIST!
The performance from all four individuals was subpar, characterized by numerous logical and rhetorical errors. This issue greatly concerns me, particularly due to the abysmal quality of arguments presented by the "Yes"-side.
The biggest failure of the list is the last point: If you want to believe something, no matter how absurd it is, you *can* convince yourself it is true. It reveals that the delusion of god is self induced, not evidence based.
Timeless= not occurring at any time.
Spaceless= not occurring in any space.
Existence= occurring in space and/or time.
Nothing= Timeless and spaceless.
How is it a leap of faith to say that whatever brought time, space, and matter into existence must be timeless, space less, and immaterial?
Yes, that was PZ standing up for Science...
Why would an all-powerful creator have to tune the universe it's making? Tune it to what?
"...in materialism...our choices are determined chemically..."
It's not just a materialistic world thingy, if your god is omniscient, there is no free will, no choice, only the illusion of it...
Trivial?? Who are you to decide what's trivial?? Millions of children take Santa VERY serious!
It's almost like saying to someone criticizing an art piece I drew "You didn't paint this - so you can't tell me if it's bad or not."
And Christians somehow think that the biblical flood was a GOOD thing?
The Bible happily says "Blessed is he who rips the infant from the womb." This is a beautiful objective moral.
Hello. I know your post is 10 years old, but it is the first I've heard that. Jolly useful in debate if true. You don't happen to know chapter and verse ?
@@guywilletts2804 hi there and hi to me from 10 years ago.
Hosea chapter 13 verse 16 and the paragraph around it is one.
Also Psalm 137:9 a real barnburner.
"Blessed is he who seizes your infant's and dashes them against the rocks."
Don't forget that part of the suffering is natural disaster, an earthquake is not an exercise of free will like a murder or rape. Even if we allow for suffering due to free will, there are still 'acts of God' which are directly under his jurisdiction.
So many of these debates go off the rails due to a poor definition of the topic. This might have been avoided if the topic were something like “There is a compelling case for God’s existence-True or False.” Then they couldn’t waste time arguing about the definition of atheism, burden of proof, null hypothesis, etc.
29:00
What is his definition of "good"?
If it is to reduce suffering, his God has failed.
If it is to promote well-being, we can figure that out ourselves.
And how is the theist judging what is good?
If he is doing so using his own moral system, then he has a moral system that can be used and a God is not needed.
If he is assuming god is the good one, then to paraphrase Matt, how does he know his God is the good one and the devil is the bad one?
I tend to disagree with a point Matt makes.
I think an anti-theist is someone who says "I wouldn't want to live in a universe with a god", without claiming absolute certainty about the non existence of god.
energy cannot be created or destroyed, only converted from one form to another. What is that FORM?
The demand for proof is illogical - because we are required to live by faith.
How can anyone "believe" in the existence of a God if He is proven to exist?
No debate should focus on the existence of a God - but rather which mindset exemplifies morality.
The Great Debate
There is an on-going debate between atheist and theist over the existence of a God - and this has been fraught with misconceptions and disparaging attitude, on both sides, for millennia.
What is the problem?
Answer: The human condition has a Messiah Complex that has gripped both atheist and theist as they seek to "save the world" from whatever.
Theists want to save the world from wickedness - by delivering people into their brand of religion.
Atheists want to save the world from religion - because religion is the symptom of delusion.
What if I told you:
The scripture tells us: God warned man to avoid anything that causes delusion?
This can be appreciated when we break down the meaning of the tree of knowledge of good and evil:
Tree = Source of information
Knowledge of Good = Accurate info
Knowledge of Evil = Inaccurate info
Partake = Digest and believe
Fruit = Ideas, beliefs etc
Sin = Delusion (spiritual death)
The scripture defines sin as missing the mark because it is the state of mind in which the soul seeks to justify wicked behaviour; which then leads to the creation of religion.
The dictionary defines religion as: a belief in and worship of a superhuman controling power.
However, that is merely the semblance of a faith - because religion is an institution that has established a set of doctrines to create a hierarchy (that serves the interests of those within the hierarchy).
This is why religion has been used to serve those who establish themselves as rulers in this world.
Atheists see all the evil in this world is the product of religion and they understand delusion plays a role in this - but they are reluctant to peer introspectively to see their own religiosity.
This argument (basically) comes down to: "Who has authority in this world?"
If there is no God: man, by default, is the ultimate authority - which means: atheism is the religion of humanism that has a faith in science (as man seeks to attain superhuman controlling power).
This is (already) evident as we see insanity festering in this world.
Theists, on the other hand, choose to acknowledge the authority of the Most High but they (often) use whatever means, at their disposal, to assert authority over others in the name of their god(s) / idol(s).
This is religiosity - because they establish a hierarchy to practice "worship" rituals.
If religion is the symptom of delusion - that manifests evil - what is going on?
The scripture was prepared to ensure only the humble would understand it (correctly) - because the scripture has a sense of duality that has caused many to stumble and create religions.
This is exasperated by the fact we are hardwired to develop a faith in something - whether it's science, politics or whatever.
This is to say: we need to acknowledge a faith in something that does not establish a religion.
Yahshua (Jesus) never preached religion. In fact, He took issue with those who used the scripture to establish any kind of religion.
He taught us how to worship the Father in spirit and truth - which does not require any religion.
A faith in a God that does not practice religion is free of hierarchy and devoid of delusion - because the acknowledgement of a faith negates delusion: since we are aware of the fact we don't know either way.
The answer, it would seem, is to love one another as Yahshua loved us.
Does the scripture reveal a vengeful (hateful) God? Well... that depends what you want to see.
If you read the scripture seeking an evil God - you'll find an evil God.
If you read the scripture seeking a loving God - you'll find a loving God.
I read the scripture and saw a loving God, that (occasionally) took measures to protect His Name, so we may have the opportunity to embrace the peace of Yahshua.
All I can do is be informative of these things - so you may make a more informed decision.
You see.. there is no point in arguing over this subject - because everyone is free to choose their own destiny: and only the humble, in their courage to look up, will find answers.
My Best Wishes 💖 To Everyone
hahaha = faith is "required" ...really?! I never use word faith nor do I ise "faith" whatever it means. so no mallable concept of "faith" is not required and even more so should be discarded all together.
Faith is the most lamest excuse for believing in a god. Faith can be used as a reason to believe in ANYTHING. I can believe there is a big foot and take it on faith. I can beleive in vampires based off faith.
Faith is the most useless tool ... its not even a tool ... it is when you believe in something which has no evidence ... Its is a perfect reciepe for self deception.
To even say that you are required to live by faith shows that you are admitting that you have no proof ... and you believe in god because you hope it exists.
The debate opened the conference (Friday), and Lawrence was the keynote speaker (Sunday). Bookends.
I actually saw each and every fallacy in that debate
The first question of the cross-examination: The "yes" team demonstrates they don't understand their opponents' position. Derp.