Atheist Debates - Debate review of Dillahunty v Dyer - with Alex Malpass and Ozymandias
Вставка
- Опубліковано 9 вер 2024
- Part of the Atheist Debates Patreon project: / atheistdebates
Ozymandias and Alex Malpass join me for a hangout to discuss my recent debate with Jay Dyer. What mistakes were made by Jay and by me?
This is matt's group therapy after losing
Losing what?
@@Imrightyourewrong1 the argument lol 😅
@@Imrightyourewrong1
His patience for liars….
@@IWasOnceAFetus What argument? Jay didn't make one.
Come in and get the perfect smile at:
Transcend Dental
Pay now, receive your perfect smile in afterlife!
There actually is a dentist office here in our city called this....
Here's how to put the Transcend Dental in to syllogistic form:
P1: Logical fallacies that transcend logic aren't fallacies.
P2: My claims aren't logical fallacies.
Conclusion: Yahweh the Monkey God is real (but only my Orthodox version).
My food breaks up when I chew without my gums becoming sore. Therefore teeth exist.
@@markgross6006 ,
Does logic, real science, math, fulfilled prophecy and history count???
What "proves" GOD??? GOD keeping His covenant promises.
Please explain away a GOD promise that was originally made (2 Samuel 7:12-16, 931-722 BC) at least 722 years B.C., then that same promise expanded upon (Psalms 89:27-37, 1410-450 BC, and Jeremiah 33:14-22, 586-570 BC) at least 450 years BEFORE Jesus Christ was even born, which He fulfilled 450 years later in Matthew 16:18 resulting in 2,000 and ongoing years of "proof":
www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm
catholicexchange.com/church-new-israel
Would this be just another Biblical "accident" to an atheist or something "divine" proving the ONE HOLY CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH is the "ONE TRUE FAITH"???
Christ is Lord 🗿
Jay's argument seems to me to have been clear:
P1) Coherentism is the proper epistmic base.
P2) Universals/Transcendentals need to cohere within any epistemic model
P3) Orthodoxy is the epistemic model that best/the only one that coheres with the universals.
C) Orthodoxy is the best/only coherent epistemic model
I thought Jay adheres to foundationalism, not Coherentism?
@@christaylor6574 No. Jay is very critical of foundationalism. TAG tends to favour coherentism stating circularity is unavoidable and making a comparison of circular paradigms
did he sign off on that? Im not sure if that's his argument.
@@CorndogMaker Not sure what you mean. No, he has not explicitly stated as such to confirm my take. It's my take from watching multiple videos.
What do oyu think his argument is?
@@natanaellizama6559 I didn't see all of Jays videos but I didn't get that from the debate they're talking about. its hard to be charitable and not be suspicious that his argument- was to not make an argument, even when directly asked. then, to people who have watched all his videos, he can wink and imply things by never allowing it to be vulnerable and shrug off any critique as a misunderstanding.
Matt lost the debate so bad he needed to call in back up to explain how he didn't actually lose.
It’s one of those debates where the Theists didn’t understand the argument that their guy made… which obviously means that the argument must be brilliant.
And if it takes relatively long to explain how silly the argument is then of course that’s even better evidence that the argument must be amazing.😂
@@thelobsterking1055
Please repeat the argument in your own words and explain the argument to me.
@@thelobsterking1055
So in other words it’s just the usual presup nonsense combined with a God of the gaps fallacy. Lots of baseless assertions with zero supporting evidence.
That’s the short response and dismissal that such an embarrassing argument deserves.
But it’s still funny that this video takes the time to take the argument apart on every level.😂
@@thelobsterking1055
Nah… obviously only people who don’t understand the argument and generally don’t know much about how philosophical arguments work think that it’s a good argument.
@@thelobsterking1055
Just more baseless assertions… I notice a trend.
Just an incoherent collection of non sequiturs… literally no logical connection between any of your claims.😂
I just listened to the debate and I too had really difficulty pinning down what Jay's argument actually was. He kept saying TAG is a "different kind of argument" that can be evaluated in different ways from other arguments. He said you can't use standard methods of evaluation on paragigmaitic arguments like his, but I didn't get a clear explanation of what that means and why it's so. I wasn't clear how it was different or how he was evaluating it. It was all very confusing.
The comments on his channel were, not surprisingly, scathing about Matt. One person called him "exasperating", yet I was with Matt pretty much all the way.
I concluded that Jay's argument is convincing to those people who already agree with Jay. That's standard for apologetics.
Matt got destroyed in this debate, this is a coping session like a funeral. Rip
You wish
@@SansDeity Funny, ok, then I'll put it to you frank...You were the one practically searing in frustration most the debate and you know it, Jay came prepared, you didn't have good responses, 'cause you weren't prepared or even aware of this kind of presuppositional position, where he's going after the preconditions of the transcendentals (logic, reasoning, math, universals, etc.) of epistemology and induction/identity over time ontologically, so you just floundered about how you haven't heard any argument or evidence all debate when that was not the case, he was providing a reductio ad absurdum, you just didn't understand it correctly. You said he was being circular, you ignored his response that this wasn't the same kind of circular as just proving numbers by using numbers, etc. Trust me, the only thing I wish is that you didn't waste 2 hours of my life saying "I'm just not convinced" and "that isn't evidence" while bringing nothing to the table yourself... other than "I"m Matt and I'm a skeptic, I'm not convinced.. its your job to convince me" Sry but you do this in EVERY frickin debate playing the role of "its your job to convince me", when ZERO formal debates work that way.. you both have to present an argument for or against something, YOU personally not being convinced means literally nothing its the audience that needs to be convinced in a debate. Sorry but you're a one trick pony and nobody should ever debate you your style is a disgrace to formal debates.
@@Jaryism You really need to listen to this discussion again and pay better attention. Why wouldn't Matt say he's unconvinced?...HE IS UNCONVINCED! And, depending on which position you are presenting, you can absolutely be the "defense" position. Matt is literally asking for a formal argument so he CAN provide evidence for why the argument doesn't work. That might have come in the form of fallacies etc.
I'm sorry you're a Jay fan boy and can't see past your own biases, but Jay does this in almost every debate he has. Even if you're going to hold onto Jay as your idol, at least admit that, if Jay cares about getting us to understand his position, he should just present the syllogism.
Sorry, but you're claim that he's a one trick pony demonstrates that nobody should ever listen to your critique of debates because your biases and style are a disgrace to intellectualism and analysis. Just go watch more Jay content...
@@MrMusashiMusashiNope, Matt got absolutely slaughtered, he showed a very surface level understanding of philosophy and didn't refute any of Jay's claims
@@tigerahitman6828 Matt isn't obligated to refute anything that Jay didn't properly establish as true in the first place. That's how claims work in a debate.
Jay Dyer's argument was essentially "Matt claims to be a skeptic. Matt does not have a justification for logic. Therefore, Matt is not a true skeptic. Consequently, the Christian god exists because it can be used to justify everything."
Straw man argument lol!!
@@georgedoyle7971 You think it's a strawman? Please correct it.
@@joerdimI disagree with Dyer for epistemic reasons, but the form above is wrong. Again, not that I think Dyer’s way of arguing for God is correct.
If man knows or operates in the world, then he necessarily uses the preconditions for cognition or knowing. If knowledge exists, then these preconditions for the possibility of knowing are knowledge conducive. If they are knowledge conducive, they function correctly and are reliable. If these conditions are reliable and knowledge conducive, then they are necessarily universal and invariant. The justificatory basis for these preconditions cannot be man’s mind, nor some conglomeration of sense datum to yield epistemic justification. Only God can justify this functionality, existence, and reliability. No other explanation works, and entails a contradiction by claiming one knows things without attaining the conditional of justification to know. Only God can therefore satisfy.
@@InquisPrinciple lol
@@InquisPrinciplethis is when you know people have bored themselves so deeply into the tree of philosophy that they’ve completely lost sight of the forest. Biology/Physics/Sociology/Psychology can all assist us here regarding these topics and how to properly contextualize our place in this universe- as best we can.
This is so much wishful thinking and smoke and mirrors gobbledygook to appease the potentially doubting minds of the already converted. Just say you believe on faith and live accordingly. It’s honest. This other stuff is embarrassing and desperate.
Jay Dyer is a master of gibberish that sounds good if you don't really listen to the individual statements. Jay is nowhere near as smart as he thinks he is.
Jay Dyer is the epitome of Arrogant Ignorance in action. He doesn't know what he's talking about, but he's gonna say his garbage with confidence.
@@Noetic-Necrognosis actually it's a common sign that the interlocutor doesn't have a full grasp of the concepts when overly complicated terminology is used.
Yes, Jay Dyer says a lot of words, but when the rubber hits the road, he's still just spewing nonsense that only applies to the mythology in his head. Seriously, the Absolute Gibberish that is Presuppositional Arguments is like listening to a child make up words about the stories in their head.
@@Noetic-Necrognosis really, you didn't bother to pay attention to the video? It's fairly obvious that Jay is a BS artist, much like Mr William Lane Craig, just not as well paid yet.
I called it overly complicated because it's a demonstration that Jay is hiding behind words that don't have a functional concept behind them; which is why I called them gibberish. Jay is trying to play linguistic tricks, it's a fairly common tactic among people who pretend to be experts in subjects they know nothing about. Mr Craig is an excellent example of Dunning-Kruger when it becomes apparent that for his arguments to function, our calculations in Spacetime would be wrong. He literally got shot down but multiple physicists because he was trying to talk about something that he has less knowledge on than I do.
I used to teach Philosophy, and the first indication of a student that didn't know that material, was the inability to articulate their points without overly complicated terminology to hide behind. Presuppositional Arguments require multiple terms that only apply to concepts within presuppositionalism, which means that those concepts don't actually apply to reality in any meaningful way.
Trying to talk about an Entity that is "outside" of Spacetime is act of futility, you had the problem of talking about an Entity that no human concepts relate to, and as such no words/sounds we can make will accurately reflect any part of that Entity.
The basic definitions of the god concept contained within presuppositionalism, exclude any words we have to talk about that Entity.
All religions are based in words/concepts contained within human languages
All religions/mythologies are inaccurate when it comes to any kind of communication about the god concept.
Presuppositionalism refutes itself by using human language to talk about an Entity that they claim is beyond the limits of human language to talk about.
@@Noetic-Necrognosis yes, something being outside Space-Time renders it completely incomprehensible because it's literally outside our ability to perceive. You're literally just making up words that don't actually apply to Reality.
The universe is an ongoing change in state, the concepts of "begin" and "end" are only human limited perspectives. There is no "beginning" point to the universe, just the current instantiation. The concept of Before looses meaning when we realize that Time is a change in State of matter, god being Timeless means what exactly? Are you saying that god doesn't experience change, and therefore doesn't Experience Existence at all?
Yea, these things literally are beyond human ability to comprehend, presup is just Gibberish that doesn't apply to anything in Reality.
@@Noetic-Necrognosis lol, Epistemology of what exactly? The "how you know" of god?
Hmmm, how about we try and show something beyond pointless word salad games to try and "logically" prove a god exists. No? Thousands of years, and millions of attempts and still absolutely nothing to show for it? Every myth of the bibble shown to be completely garbage?
Presuppositional Arguments are just the latest in empty rationalizations by theists to pretend to have something worth listening to.
@@Noetic-Necrognosis the laws of logic and math exist as mental constructs, they are representations of how humans perceive relationships between other concepts. This is why I refer to it as the god concept, because just like mathematics and the Laws of logic, these concepts only exist as part of the conceptual understanding that is in the mind.
The god concept has equal existence to the delusions in a schizophrenic's mind, those beliefs are very real to that person, but ultimately only "exist" within the mind.
The debate was rather painful
Jay: TAG demonstrates god.
Matt: that's a presupposition. Prove it.
Jay: I just did. You dont get it.
Ad hoc. Ad hoc. Arbitrary.
Rinse lather repeat
You left out one thing: The dickering about the Laws of Logic and their foundation. Spelled out with syntax, the foundation of the Laws of Logic is the existential verb, which in English has "is", "are", "was" and "were" (your kilometerage may vary in other languages). Jay took the "I am what I am" passage in Exodus a little too literally and claimed that the existential verb has a personality. To be fair, the existential verb may in fact transcend logic, but it can't really do shit on its own and wouldn't let you rape virgin Midianites just because their family is sitting on a piece of real estate the Israelites want.
@@markgross6006
How would existential verbs transcend logic, when that is precisely what the Laws of Logic touch upon?
The Law of Identity
@@LordDTwigo Part of the comment above got cut off somehow, but there's no reason to think that existential verbs *actually* transcend logic any more than the logical fallacies in Jay's argumentation actually transcend logic (and the existential verb, on its own, certainly doesn't transcend anything); I'm stating, in my own smartass way, that they're are required component of the Laws of Logic when using syntax to describe the aforementioned laws, albeit possibly not necessarily a requirement for any truth the LoL might point to. A rock *is* a rock, a rock *is* not not a rock, and a set *is* composed of a rock and not a rock.
But I should note that your kilometerage may vary in some languages, especially ones that conclude sentences with verbs, ala Yoda.
While I certainly don't agree with Jay's argument, I'm going to concern troll and state that I can make it better than he did. First: The basic strategy is to get one's interlocutor to tap out and then declare victory. The tactics include obfuscation (long gish-galloping canards about other philosophers in history that do nothing to support or negate the argument), claiming that the argument "transcends" logic, which is a convenient way of weaseling out of providing a demonstration or even a syllogism, because transcendental arguments apparently transcend syntax as well. It's also a convenient way to excuse away any logical fallacies the interlocutor might point out.
When cornered, simply state that your interlocutor doesn't understand the argument. And of course, pointing out flaws in the arguments of one's interlocutor that may not actually be flaws, a time-honored tradition with presuppositional apologetics.
In a nutshell, if A+~A=Set, then some thinking agent has to define what the set is. With syntax, we human beings get to define what the set is, but when attempting to point to what the Laws of Logic appear to represent in reality, Jay argues for Jay's imaginary extraterrestrial alpha male, the god of Orthodox Christianity, reality management, behavior enforcement, and impossibly large numbers (who's actually Jay -- Jay is Jay's god, and also Jay's god's god if you can figure that one out).
@Deus Vult Okaaay - so feel free to provide the demonstrative evidence that suggests otherwise, since there doesn't appear to be any gods willing to do so on your behalf.
Hi Matt, i'm the one who E-mailed you to set up the debate. Thanks for the well thought out feedback on the debate. It's amazing how much more charitable the atheist interlocutors seem to be than the other groups Jay debates with. I really enjoyed this. I hope there are future engagements between you/Malpass/Ozy and Jay, may be even not in a debate setting.
Agreed. I tried to be charitable to Jay, but there is no excuse for him performing so poorly when he has a masters in Philosophy. He should know how to present his argument clearly and concisely.
I lean towards him being flat out dishonest, and I find that he's engaging in tactics rather than being interested in the truth.
Jay dosen't seem to understand that pointing out why Matt's stove is broken does not prove Jay's fridge works. Matt could be wrong but I'm not Matt. I want Jay to present something, an argument, evidence, anything in support of HIS position.
This is a great analogy. Usually we see that Atheists act as the deconstructionists in these situations as the believer is trying to build up a case. Here, we got an unusual instance of the believer being a deconstructionist but not building a positive case.
@@achilles4242because that wasnt the point of the debate. Jay can give you loads of evidence, but for you to even consider the evidence, requires pressuppositional critique.
You missed the point.
What is an athiest formal argument?
I'm an Orthodox Christian myself. Good discussion, I enoyed this. Cheers.
I think it would be fair to see a follow up debate to flesh out the questions you and your friends have.
First! Love you Matt! Keep up the good work!
I am still waiting for your second half of this comment...
I think he meant he was the first to comment, lol
Louigi Verona hey! You got my joke! Thanks
@@Rebuswind Damn, I suspected it :D
“Love you Matt”
Love you too Matt!! Keep up the good work of undermining the credibility of atheism as a coherent, caring, empathetic and pragmatic philosophy!!
Sorry but why “ought” we take an overgrown amoeba with illusions of grandeur claims to the rational and moral high ground seriously? Why should we believe the myths, delusions and “truth” claims of an evolved ape who shares half their DNA with bananas?? Your existential crisis and epistemological crisis not ours Matt!!
Matts response: “I’m not convinced we need a foundation for logic”
The irony is that a strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism basically says that (nobody took no time to turn nothing into everything) a belief that at worst is synonymous with the belief in magic and at best it’s synonymous with the belief in myths and miracles. I don’t need secular myths and secular religion to know what right and wrong is!! I wouldn’t have the arrogance to lecture a bereaved mother during a pandemic who’s only consolation is the hope of being reunited with her child in some kind of afterlife.
Dillahunty syllogism: 1) I don't know 2) I don't know C) Therefore, I can't know, " and you can't either!"
BUT GIVE ME A SYLLOGISM!!
Muh syllogism, Jay... 'cause " I can't know! " LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!! Geez!!!
It’s been four years. Have you perhaps grown up a bit? Humility and honesty aren’t really things worth mocking in this world simply because we’re feeling defensive.
*A law God can't break?:* (the squared circle)
If God created everything, including the "laws of logic" then he should be able to break those laws.
And if God can't break those laws, then he is subject to them, and is not all powerful.
This is the beginning and end of all this. Either logic supersedes your god, making it unnecessary, or they don’t and they are thus demoted from laws of logic to whims of logic, which for some very obvious reasons would provide far less practical utility and universality.
@@asyetundetermined First ; I don't have any God beliefs.
I was only offering a hypothetical.
Secondly ;
Any attempt to disprove the "laws of logic" would be subject to the use of those same laws, which would set up a paradox.
@@moodyrick8503 I’m agreeing with you in my reply. The “your god” isn’t meant to mean you specifically, but to one who would hold this paradoxical belief. Like a royal we.
@@asyetundetermined Yeah, I suspected that was a possibility.
I should have asked for clarification, first.
No prob.
I thought it was a good debate. Jay honestly seemed impressive until you paused to think about the fact that he really didn't have an argument. For a guy who loves to quote philosophers and who's clearly well educated on logic, even a novice like myself could see that he was just pulling word salad out. It was a little disappointing because I kept thinking he was really getting to something and then he would go on a tangent or would just stop before getting to anything concrete.
Yeah, I had a lot of trouble following his argument. I went through the transcript and pulled out quotes to capture what he actually claimed out of all the tangents.
Indeed, as if listening to a less congenial, prickish Jordan Peterson.
He doesn't need concrete, because God. That's the transcendental argument and where the goalposts grow their legs, leaving the cosmological argument.
TheN00bmonster, perhaps he went off on tangents because he had nothing concrete to go to.
Ulf ViKings, can you state Jay’s argument? Jay couldn’t.
Just a quick point: at around 08:30, Matt gets the cosmological argument backwards. It's "The universe began to exist. Therefore the universe has a cause." Not "...has a cause, therefore the universe began to exist."
Going by the same line of thinking as the commenters, if Jay was just spouting word salad, then whenever Dawkins talks about serious biology, unless you are a biologist, it's just word salad.
The thing Jay did that made me the most frustrated was when he kept telling Matt what his argument 'should' be instead of presenting his own argument. Also, telling Matt that he didn't understand his own position. I thought that was really condescending.
Christian Fasy somehow that reminds me of when I’m told I actually do believe in god; I’ve just hardened my heart. Condescending is the perfect word.
Trying to have a rational discussion with someone who does not appreciate, or understand rationality, is maddening. There is almost nothing that can be said to them. It was a bizarre interchange.
Matt: "I don't know what to do with what Jay said".
Christian Fasy: "Jay saying that Matt doesn't understand what he's saying is condescending."
The man's saying that he doesn't understand what Jay was saying.
@@crackedhands
Since when does Dyer "not understand rationality"?
The man's literally a philosopher by education.
Nikola Avramov being educated in a subject doesn’t make one rational.
Thank you so much for posting this! I dearly loved hearing from Ozy and Alex when they posted more, a couple years back, especially Alex's work on TAG. I'm always combing the net for more of their discussions, so I'm very glad you brought them together with you Matt. Thank you very much!
“Always combing the net”
Oh the irony!! So not biased at all then?
Apparently if you are looking for “evidence” to support militant atheism you will find it!!
Very useful discussion. I watched the Dillahunty-Dyer debate in question with growing bemusement and I'm glad greater minds than mine found it equally frustrating.. While Matt I felt was bending over backwards to put something concrete on the table, such as a coherent argument, Dyer seemed reluctant to do so, making it very difficult, particularly for the layman, to grasp what he was driving at. My shit detector tends to vibrate when someone seems to be suggesting there's some special form of truth which doesn't conform to the normal rules of correspondence with reality.
Which was exactly what Jay was doing, it was so frustrating, he kept saying oh it is a different kind of argument and it's somehow not special pleading, it was baffling
You don't have a shit detector. That's a metaphysical claim ghat only exists in phony land. You're a materialist who wants everything to follow material laws based on material observations. But nine of that matters outside your own feelings, which in themselves don't matter.
@@BarbaPamino Oh,oh, my shit detector vibrating again, albeit metaphorically. (As if I needed you to tell me that.)I am indeed a materialist in the sense that the existence of unicorns, fairies and invisible gorillas under my bed have yet to demonstrated so I tend to leave them aside and concentrate on what the consensus of most human sense data, time and time again, agrees to be reality. When I shit in my toilet it flushes down to the local sewage plant. A demonstrable fact. No angel or demon has ever been detected intercepting it and diverting it or my other turds to some metaphysical domain, a celestial bogsphere, as intriguing as that sounds. It's not about me wanting things to be material - I'd like to join a few goblins dancing a jig to a flute playing banana - it's just that nothing and nobody has satisfactorily convinced me that this delightful world is anything but a figment of my imagination. I asked for demonstratiion the special form of truth which transcends the empirical and might take me there, but unfortunately all I got was hot air.
alex malpass is one of my favorite philosophers
wertytrewqa
The clarity he brings to a conversation is truly amazing.
One of your fav... wait how many philosophers are there?!?
@@MarkAhlquist
Too many....too few worth a damn
Ozy is also one of the very best. Matt is great at what he does, but when it comes to the philosophy of this stuff, Ozy and Malpass are in a league of their own. It’s cool that Matt has access to them.
He's kind of annoying to me. Ozy is easier to listen to imo and so is Matt .
Is it correct to say that a transcendental argument is essentially, “If we accept premise B, then premise A and the consequence of A and B are both true.”
That is literally the now infamous version of Matt slicks Tag
I'm fairly confident Dyer intentionally avoids revealing any syllogistic formats simply because he knows it'll be the beginning of the end when he debates a worthy opponent. Keeping his foundations unclear allows for him to avoid being tore down while subsequently using philosophy to keep things flowery and off-track. I bet it works well for him with novice debators.
Subject Zero yup keeping things loose allows him the flexibility to avoid being pinned down by a good argument.
People experience God, there isn't any argument that could be put forth to validate an experience, except mabye parallels of experience from multiple testimonies, which you have plenty of. Those who haven't experience God would never grasp such conceptual descriptions, but rather you could, through discipline, try believing and see what happens.
@@dan11D179 People have experiences they attribute to a god. That's not necessarily the same thing as experiencing god. Also, belief isn't a choice, it's a consequence of being convinced. To believe is to be convinced. Failure to convince results in non-belief, which is also seperate from disbelief.
@@Apoplectic_Spock Yes well if you want to experiment the claim you would have to use yourself as a test subject. Belief is a choice, its a matter of will power. If you can close your eyes and create an image in your mind, you can also close your eyes and audit yourself to believe, people do this all the time. Consider how dangerous it is to drive in a car, yet people do this naturally without 2nd thought because they have self-audited away the fear of the very real dangers. Similarly, you could audit yourself to be terrified of driving and refuse to step in any vehicle, and while many would consider that insane, you would statistically be better off than everyone else, and therefore more sane.
@White Supreme Cis-Mail belief isn’t a choice which is easily demonstrated.
Also God could impart information to the recipient that would be remarkable like winning lottery numbers or cure for cancer. This would at least show that there’s something worthy of investigation even if we couldn’t determine the source.
"The laws of logic can't be basic; they must be accounted for, and that account is Jehovah."
"OK - account for his existence."
"Don't have to - he's basic."
Occam's Razor favours treating the laws of logic as basic: one fewer entity.
Now I have something to listen to while I plan my classes, thank you so much guys.
You nice gentlemen are much too kind and charitable towards Jay than he deserves. In my estimation he was disingenuous, talking past Matt's sound explanations for his presuppositions and using Matt's desire to be precise in language as a weapon to frustrate. It's a page straight out of Sye's playbook.
Eli Santana I think this is pretty naive. The coherentist view obviously holds weight.
OR... you just outright hate Jay 'cause you hate what he stands for and you're trying to rationalize it.
@@NikolaAvramov lol we don't know what Jay stands for because he never articulated an argument. =D
@@JayMaverick
That's just dishonest. He made many.
He talks very fast and is very concise.
Sorry.
Denying it is just blowing raspberries.
@@steviewonder417 Great username 😂
Science can't explain how Starship built a city on rock and roll... must be god.
That's basically the argument still yep.
God created a whole universe if he wants to build a city on rock and roll he could.... Therefore god exists
@@georgepapps815 assertion x assertion = no conclusion
@@youweechube im just joking bud
@@georgepapps815 hard to tell when you're used to talking with theists that's a legit thing they'd say 😂
I've noticed several people in different comment sections effectively saying that Dyer's position and arguments are not being understood. That is Dyer's fault for not bothering to or not being able to clearly communicate and explain himself.
What’s telling is they claim his argument is very easy to understand and so they’re asked to sum up his argument and they don’t.
Lyndon Spencer, “several people”, of course, have a cognitive bias toward the conclusion of the argument, and therefore can “understand” it clearly, and offer faux astonishment when others do not. When one fears an infinitely burning cauldron, and yearns to see lost loved ones again, one might undertake any means to shield the paradigm, even unto dishonesty.
Here is an argument from Truth to God:
There are necessary truths. For instance, that a is a, or that if either a or b; not a; therefore b, or if a=b and b=c then a=c or if a then b, a, therefore b. Or that a curved straight line, square circle, married bachelor, are all impossibilities that cannot exist. Or that if there are human beings, then there are human beings, or if there is a universe, then there is a universe, or if something exists, then something exists. These truths are necessary because they cannot be any other way. Such truths are not dependent on human beings since even if every human disagreed with these propositions, they would still be true. Or even if human beings went out of existence, these truths would still be true. Neither are these truths grounded in material reality since even if material reality went out of existence, these truths would still be true. And even if material reality went out of existence, it would still be true that there is no material reality (but if this is the case, then such a truth cannot be grounded in material reality since it wouldn't exist in that case). But then, how do these truths exist? Well, they aren't physical or material at all. In fact, since they are abstract, they must be grounded in some mind or intellect (these abstract propositions are not material or physical things that float around in space somewhere; they only exist within a mind or intellect that conceive of them). Thus, there must be some necessarily existing intellect that serves as the ontological basis for these necessary truths. And this just is the Divine Intellect, which is God.
So Matt bears no responsibility in trying to understand Jay? Of course he does; discourse goes both ways. You're also assuming each side will act in good faith to understand the other side. Matt repeatedly refused to understand Jay's arguments or claimed ignorance - neither of which is Jay's fault.
@@HonzoRichI didn't mention Matt because I wasn't referring to Matt. Try again.
I've probably watched about every minute of Matt's debates....until his debate with Dyer. It was unwatchable. I couldn't listen to someone use so many words to articulate sentences with no meaning whatsoever.
As soon as I found out it was TAG I didn't even bother. Matt Slick has poisoned that well enough for me to know.
that's because until his debate with Jay Dyer, Matt hasn't really debated any theistic philosopher. he's cherry picked his opponents his entire atheistic career from young earth creationists to some guy at your local baptist Church. I would say Jordan Peterson was an exception but Peterson approaches it from purely a psychological point of view. Matt would equally get destroyed by classical theists like Edward Feser. Heck even Nick Fuentes would destroy Dillahunty. There are numerous others I could list. and in the end, all Dillahunty would be doing is criticizing a positive position without ever supporting or validating his own (atheism).
Ive saw quite alot of dillahunty debates he hasnt lost many but he lost this 1...... Anytime jay made good points that made the point hes trying to prove more probable than not..... Matt just kinda says so what if its probable..... Then he will run to the old....( I dont know) as his rebuttal without offering counter reasons.........
@SS 1964 what do you make of the new testament?
@@AP-bo1if What are you wanting him to validate? His lack of belief in something there's no evidence for? Do you think you should have to validate your lack of belief in Bigfoot or Santa Clause? How do you plan on proving they don't exist? It would be unreasonable to put the burden on you for that. If you are not making a positive claim, there's nothing to validate.
Also, the phone lines are open every Sunday to talk to Matt and have been for 15 years. To say he cherry picks opponents us disingenuous as best.
Jay is writing a book on the argument, perhaps you can look at it when it comes out
What Ozy said about transcendentalism being about fighting skepticism makes perfect sense. It seemed to me Jay knew Matt is a skeptic, and decided to focus almost entirely on attacking skepticism instead of presenting and defending his argument. And instead of asking Matt what his version of skepticism entailed, he attacked classical skepticism.
Jay did spend a lot of time attacking skepticism. The reasoning I believe was that the point of comparing worldviews. So criticism of skepticism and Matt's position naturally plays a part of that. Jay still set up his argument, although I can see much of the criticism in the video on how he tried explaining it.
@@Octavian2 Jay made no argument whatsoever.
@@Lux_Aeterna "If it's acceptable to make that conclusion for material facts of reality it should be acceptable to do the same for metaphysical facts.".....BULLSHEIT !!! After all that, all those big words and exhausting word salads - You cannot prove anything "Metaphysical"......You can believe in it but you still "Don't know".....Yes there can be a deity out there - Yes there can be multiple universes, yes there can be something beyond the senses - But you "Don't know".......I'll stay with what Science has been able to prove - and nothing is going to change that makes evolution completely wrong. It only alters the already proven directions. Your BS of talking snakes, talking donkeys, zombies and white horses in the Sky will never be proven; only laughed at....
@@Lux_Aeterna"
@@Lux_Aeterna" If you're not engaging in metaphysical thought it just means your commitments are hidden and you're prone to accepting irrational positions because you don't actually understand what you're affirming by pretending that there's just "science" in a vacuum without any other ontological precommitments."......You got some balls kid !!! That my friend is "
This is the way I understood Jay's argument: it seems like he was saying that being a sceptic requires presuppositions which can't be proven to be true such as the laws of logic, therefore he's allowed to do the same thing and presuppose god and there's nothing we can do about it. So if we waive our burden of proof for the laws of logic that we use to not accept the god proposition, he will do the same with his presupposition of god and set a trap for us by saying that logic only makes sense because god made it this way. Clever trap in my opinion.
Cedric Adam
I don’t think that is quite what Jay is saying. He is either saying belief in God, specifically the God of Orthodox Christianity, is necessary to account for “transcendental categories” (math, morals, logic, etc.) or that the existence of God is necessary for such things to attain. It’s not so much “you have your presuppositions so I can have my presuppositions.” It’s more like “your beliefs or the things you believe in necessarily presuppose a belief in my God/his existence, even if you don’t recognize it.” In other words, the worldview of an atheist, skeptic, empiricist, naturalist, etc. is lacking in something and that something is Jay’s theology.
@@samuelstephens6904 I think that if it was clear what Jay's argument was we wouldn't be having this exchange, so I stand by my interpretation of what I think he was trying to say. But I do agree with the part where you say he seems to say that sceptics and all lack something that he doesn't. But you'd have to agree that a belief in a god is a presupposition since it hasn't been proven yet. Therefore whatever he believes in that hasn't met its burden of proof is a presupposition.
@@cedricadam3850
-"But you'd have to agree that a belief in a god is a presupposition since it hasn't been proven yet."
Sure. But in Jay's coherentist model of justification, _every_ belief you hold is a presupposition with respect to some other beliefs, like a node in a spider's web or log in a raft. He isn't using "presupposition" in the foundationalist sense of an axiom or properly basic belief. So a presupposition isn't necessarily something that is without foundation or hasn't met its burden of proof in Jay's argument.
@@samuelstephens6904 I agree with the first thing you said. Every unjustified belief is a presupposition. In Jay's case, he's making a special pleading that his belief in a god doesn't require justification. I can understand where he's coming from. The idea of a creator doesn't bother me. But having that creator be a god does, specially the god of the bible. It wouldn't bother me to know that I'm in a simulation.
@@cedricadam3850
-"I agree with the first thing you said. Every unjustified belief is a presupposition."
But that's not what Jay is saying. Alex used a number of examples to show that. Saying "this cup of tea is cold" presupposes there is a cup of tea. That doesn't mean the belief that there is a cup of tea is unjustified. Jay would say belief in God is justified by other things we believe and vice versa.
-"he's making a special pleading that his belief in a god doesn't require justification."
It's not special pleading and that's not what he is doing. He does think that belief in God is justified.
-"The idea of a creator doesn't bother me. But having that creator be a god does, specially the god of the bible. It wouldn't bother me to know that I'm in a simulation."
How you feel about these propositions is irrelevant to whether or not they are valid and sound. If you encountered Nick Bostrom and he laid out his simulation argument to you, would you accept that argument because you agree with the premises or would you accept it because the conclusion doesn't bother you? The latter is a fallacy.
I thought Jay's "argument" (really more of a tactic) was quite clear:
1) Presume that logical laws require an explanation.
2) Presume that, absent an explanation for logical laws, we are on an inexorable path to cynicism and nihilism.
3) Pretend that these presumptions are on the same level as necessary axioms like the reliability of our senses.
From there he presumed god was the explanation, but that is largely irrelevant. With the first three steps in hand, Jay felt justified in deflecting Matt's attempts to expose the problems in his tactic because the first three steps are required for logic to have application in the first place. And around and around we go.
That's it, there really was nothing more to his argument aside from the occasional reference to prior philosophers.
And of course complaining about a truth because it leads to nihilism is just an argument from consequences; it doesn't matter if the truth causes us to drop atomic bombs; it is still the truth
I like this summary. That's basically the presuppositional argument right there
Here is an argument from Truth to God:
There are necessary truths. For instance, that a is a, or that if either a or b; not a; therefore b, or if a=b and b=c then a=c or if a then b, a, therefore b. Or that a curved straight line, square circle, married bachelor, are all impossibilities that cannot exist. Or that if there are human beings, then there are human beings, or if there is a universe, then there is a universe, or if something exists, then something exists. These truths are necessary because they cannot be any other way. Such truths are not dependent on human beings since even if every human disagreed with these propositions, they would still be true. Or even if human beings went out of existence, these truths would still be true. Neither are these truths grounded in material reality since even if material reality went out of existence, these truths would still be true. And even if material reality went out of existence, it would still be true that there is no material reality (but if this is the case, then such a truth cannot be grounded in material reality since it wouldn't exist in that case). But then, how do these truths exist? Well, they aren't physical or material at all. In fact, since they are abstract, they must be grounded in some mind or intellect (these abstract propositions are not material or physical things that float around in space somewhere; they only exist within a mind or intellect that conceive of them). Thus, there must be some necessarily existing intellect that serves as the ontological basis for these necessary truths. And this just is the Divine Intellect, which is God.
@Anonymous Person
"In fact, since they are abstract, they must be grounded in some mind or intellect (these abstract propositions are not material or physical things that float around in space somewhere; they only exist within a mind or intellect that conceive of them)."
They cannot be necessary if they rely on any mind at all, because that mind not existing is entirely possible and would cause them to fail. If this mind went out of existence, they would still be true, no?
If a human mind cannot ground logic, what makes you think any other kind of mind can?
@@Kevorama0205 "They cannot be necessary if they rely on any mind at all, because that mind not existing is entirely possible and would cause them to fail. If this mind went out of existence, they would still be true, no?"
No, because if they are grounded in a necessarily existing intellect, then that intellect could not possibly fail to exist, and thus, would serve as the ontological ground for the necessary propositions.
"If a human mind cannot ground logic, what makes you think any other kind of mind can?"
Because human minds are contingent while the truths are necessary. So, the necessary truths must be grounded in a mind beyond contingent minds, hinting at their source in the necessarily existing Divine Mind of God.
I love how Matt was like "I can do the Kalam Cosmological argument" and then switches the second premise with the conclusion to no response.
That Was Funny Hehe
Because they knew he just misspoke
@@koenigsforst_ I took it as a joke, because it was so clearly done directly after the boast. It's certainly Matt's sense of humor.
Like all true skeptics they will end with necessary pre- existent laws of logic, math and physics. That ontological foundation is not very explanatory. Hence as conscious beings we intuit a conscious mind...still does not produce any finality. Being is eternal and thus we all fall into circular thinking when we get to this starting point for ontology.
Nice... You, Alex, and Ozy are friends. Cool!!!!
They have done several video together of the past couple of years
Speaks volumes that Matt needs two people with PHDs to review his debate with Jay Dyer who is a qualified philosopher.
Matt in previous debates claimed consciousness isn’t even real but he still believes he can have “agency” and ground existential truth, experiential truth, logical truths and moral values in his world view ? Matt also claimed that he has no problem with mixing determinism and agency. ? This contradicts the basic rules of logic and philosophy because you can’t have two mutually exclusive alternatives. There is no such thing as a married bachelor. Jay Dyer called him out on this which is why he now has two philosophers with PHDs to dissect the debate he had with Jay. However, Jay had no difficulties highlighting Matts presuppositions and ignorance regarding the reality of metaphysics and the qualitative subjective experience of reality that is the fundamental nature of mind and consciousness. Matt can’t win a debate against a trained philosopher with nothing but ambiguity and rhetoric and a very limited understanding of the rules of logic and philosophy hence the reinforcements, that is two philosophers with PHDs to gang up on Jay. The irony is that the comments section will be flooded with Dilahunty fans now who believe that they can make absolute claims to “truth” whilst declaring allegiance to someone who doesn’t believe they are conscious. Equally, you can’t claim to be an agent and state you don’t have a problem with determinism. Which is what Matt does in previous debates. You can’t have a square circle. Again it’s a contradiction in terms as determinism literally means you are not the agent of your actions as your actions are determined by nothing more than “matter”. It means that murderers rapists and even the Nazis were not accountable for their actions because they were just doing what they were determined to do by “matter”. This philosophy could clearly be used by criminals as an excuse to carry out any evil act against our children and our families no matter how depraved. Free will clearly exists. If people actually took determinism seriously it would harm society. Research has actually demonstrated that people who believe they are determined are more likely to be dishonest as they believe that they are not accountable. What a surprise! Did we really need to do a study to confirm such an obvious conclusion.
Matt clearly did not get rid of the “anthropomorphic metaphysical assumptions” that he claims to be rid of by appealing to rhetorical lawnmowers. You are either a conscious agent who is responsible for his actions or you are a lawnmower. You can’t be both. You can’t be a square circle lol!! ❤️
@@georgedoyle7971 since you brought it up, what was the basic opinion of J’s performance, by the two aforementioned phd’s?
(I kept hearing them say “Jay had trouble or The fault lies with Jay)
👹Hahhahhha lol 🦞
@@georgedoyle7971 if Dyer is qualified, in relation Dillahunty is exalted.
It should speak volumes, that one of said PhD’s , had never heard of your qualified philosopher.
“You probably need More jesus”
Read your bible, with emphasis on the Begets
And pray for me
The link to the debate should be in the description bar, Matt.
Hmmm, wonder why...lol
@@beastemeauxde7029 maybe he doesn't want to promote Jay.
Matt, you literally said that even though you're not convinced by the Kalam cosmological argument, you can still rattle it off adequately and precisely any time, any place, but then you laid out the argument but you got it wrong and upside down. The actual argument is: everything that begins to exist has a cause - the universe began to exist - therefore the universe has a cause (and that cause is God).
This is their "argument"
P1 God is the necessary precondition for intelligibility (assertion)
P2 The universe is intelligible (non controversial premise)
C Therefor god is the necessary precondition for the universe being intelligible. ( derived by circularity)
That is it.
Yeah, that first premise doesn't make any sense. I'm not sure why apologists think it does.
Did you reverse the conclusion on the Kalam at 8:10, or am I missing something?
Yep, Slipped his mind hehe
Yep, Matt got talking too fast and reversed the conclusion
and one of the premises. I noticed it, but didn't want to interrupt when he was working towards his point just to point out Bea's was clearly a slip.
Good that you caught it though.
Cheers,
- Ozy
@@OzymandiasRamsesII Greetings! Thanks fot talk!, I Loved it! Hopefully you guys and Matt can explore the justifications for induction at some point, if there's any, I'd love to see that :).
@@OzymandiasRamsesII I want to say I appreciate your early comments on "privilege" of your education. There is a group of people that enjoy using "published" philosophy papers as an appeal to authority that I find completely absurd. Publishing in philosophy is nothing like publishing in science, all it requires is internal consistency while science not only requires a firm theoretical background, but data and statistical mathematics that cannot be evaluated or replicated by the reader easily. If a philosophy paper makes an argument, that argument is going to be able to be repeated, reworded to anyone and the soundness of the premises and validity of the conclusion can be evaluated. The idea that the argument is published in anyway supports the argument is absurd.
It seems to me that Transcendental logic is like saying "Because I can't prove I exist, anything I think of can exist because I thought of it, therefore because I thought of God as being the only pure; perfect; infallible; and eternal true thing (even though I, which there is no proof of, thought of god) must exist despite there being no proof of."
Kind of like:
I Think therefore I am because I think I am, therefore god.
It just doesn't cut it, sorry.
Yep that's pretty much my understanding of their nonsense
Thats exactly what it is except you are confused about provability. Provability is a weaker notion than truth. You need something beyond arithmetic to define the truths of arithmetic. in order to have proof, it requires you have existence. Proof is a second order phenomena. A castle is made out of bricks. Asking someone to prove god is like asking them to formulate a brick into the shape of a castle. you misunderstood what comes first. It is very difficult for the physicist to accept the view that the substratum of everything is of mental character but no one can deny that the mind is first and most direct thing in our experience and that all else is remote inference.
@ShinRaPresident way to miss the whole point about provability itself... let me ask you a question. what is the substance of all appearances?
@@YouJustCantCompare The fact that we only have access to the world through our senses does not imply that the "substratum of everything is of mental character". We can't "prove" we are not brains in bottles, but that in no way proves that we are. Or are you just taking some Plato's cave position, that all we can see is the shadows of reality on the wall of the cave?
Infinite Consciousness that just sounds like deluding yourself to me.
Good hangout. Thanks for sharing it with us. We appreciate your efforts.
Fastest 1:47 ever. 3 of my favorites on UA-cam thankyou for a great discussion I always learn so much from all of you.
i was trying to find an argument from jay, but there isn't one. just a statement that pretty much amounted to "i believe X ought to have a foundation and that foundation is the christian god. i believe that this is coherent."
Argument from Jay is very simple, justification for logic is rational mind, absent mind you do not have any justification for logic so as skeptic you can deny law of logic scientific method and ethics, absence mind there is no objective truth. Argument from Jay is very simple. Matt should asked during the debate for Jay's Argument which is clearly stated. Matt conceded the Argument and admitted that he has no justification for logic, now he is being just intellectually disingenuous
TAG is all about trying to define god into existence. X, Y, Z exist therefore something must have created it, therefore there must be a cause, therefore god must exist. The problem with TAG is that fundamentally its just another god of the gaps argument, an intellectual trapdoor to stop you going nuts when asking the question “what came before?”
Yes. It this were the medical field, the argument would essentially be - "cancer is a disease of the genetic structure and reproduction pattern of a cell, and has no known cure. Therefore I propose Excellentin: an existing-but-undiscovered chemical that acts on the genetic code of cells, and is a cure for cancer."
This in no way demonstrates the actual existence of such a chemical, nor does it show whether a cure for cancer is necessarily possible. And, what's more, it brings no new information to the table, and relies entirely on the effort of other people who put in the time to find reasonable answers.
Such an argument would then often attempt to bully the listener into buying it by saying "If you do not believe this, then you are obligated to accept that we live in a world where cancer has no possible cure." No, I am not.
That's not a problem... that's the only logical way to think.
@@L1Run You can't equate the the medical field with worldviews and your example has nothing to do with evidence of a creator therefor concluding a creator. Your existing but undiscovered chemical has no basis for belief, but evidence of a creator all around you in the world does.
@The Skeptic Philosopher What's your point? If there were a grand cause wouldn't you want to know which being is responsible so you can honor him/it? Perhaps learn something?
@@Ban_Usury_Worldwide if theres evidence of a creator, just provide that.
"Maybe the way he says it isn't precise" Pretty much sums it up. You guys did a great job of breaking down the debate.
Nice debate. Jay spewed a lot of word salad.
That seems to be the standard with a lot of religious nutters. Perhaps they believe they can word salad their god into existence?
@@ihateexcessivelylongandpoi4490 How better to create a god that speaks things into existence than to try to speak him into existence. It's the closest anyone will ever get, of course.
@@stevencurtis7157 and point to people saying honestly that "I don't know" as some kind of weakness and their unsupported ideas win by default lol
@@stevencurtis7157 Speak god into existence by speaking gibberish? Makes sense.
@@ihateexcessivelylongandpoi4490 Yes, after all, the theological noncognitivist would contend that all talk of gods is nonsense.
1:03:00 I really respect Alex for saying this
And on the Dyer version of this video his fans are praising him thinking he won this debate lol
I'm a fan of Matt but Matt definitely lost that one. It was embarrassing to watch.
I've noticed a few, ”matt lost” comments. Now, while I don't think, ”matt lost, therefore, God exists”, is in anyway a sensible statement; I'm also failing to see the ”loss.”
Dyer appears to be a smart man, however, I don't see how constantly and purposely misrepresenting your opponent's position can truly be seen as a victory.
"Appear" is the key word
Just like the "appearance" of intelligent design is the only thing creatards can show to support their claims. Dyer can only "appear" to be smart to support his word salad.
There's a problem with what Ozymandias says at around 1:17:00
He says that showing people images of embryos being thrown in the dumpster is similar/same as showing people a factory farm slaughterhouse.
There is no analogy there.
This kind of thing happens to human embryos occasionally/perhaps sometimes it happens. Generally speaking, if abortion is legal is a said country, the law forbids people from "dumping" a full blown embryo that is practically a human being at this point.
The slaughterhouse thing is common practice. It's LITERALLY the only way you're getting all your meat in your local market/supermarket/whatever.
If you want to get, let's say, ham from AOTHs (animals other than humans), then you need to live in the countryside and have a friend, who is a farmer, who has his own pigs, and once in a while he kills one of his pigs. But overall that pig had a great life. That pig could've had friendships, she could've had some moments of joy in her life, she could've dug up the mud and whatever.
THAT'S NOT WHAT HAPPENS.
It's fucking Aushwitz 24/7 NON-STOP for any non-human animal.
I’m not “convinced” that Matt would know what a “transcend..dental” was if it smacked him in the mouth and sent his teeth “Transcend Dental”. Furthermore, I’m not “convinced” that I need to provide a foundation for my belief and “logical” conclusion. The Dilahunty dodge strikes again lol!!
I am sorry you could only criticise saint Matt without providing specific content.
I'm not "convinced" that you could paraphrase five of Jay's sentences, and you are not alone because many viewers had difficulty understanding him.
He came across like a horse-race caller on meth gushing a combination of *Ikea and Pitmans Shorthand.
As you set the scene, I suppose the dentist analogy would be ideal. The alphabet soup from Jay's mouth was the sort of incoherent nonsense dentists put up with while running their angle grinder, jackhammer, and the hygenist driving the Hoover and managing the firehose. The -victim- patient probably knows what they mean but has no way of being understood. *Yes, the furniture catalogue.
I may be wrong, but my understanding is that he was trying to use the transcendental argument.
The premise as far as I could understand is that when one uses and follows the line of logic to survey and draw conclusions about the universe, and this use of logic fails to find a conclusion that is intelligible to the mind, then then it is a logical next step in the process of using logic , to assume that there is a transcendental principle at work.
Both of you concede that you have presuppositions, and those are derived from your logical analysis of your empirical knowledge. The difference seems to be that Matt is saying it’s illogical to claim that there is a transcendental force or God at play, while Jay was saying that following logic to its end, it’s actually still within the framework of logic, and is s logical next step to make a claim for something transcendent, in his case, God.
In the very least, he seems to be saying that whatever it is that has caused this experience of life to exist is necessarily transcendent, since it transcends the ability of logic to know it.
At the same time, he argues that it is not illogical to jump to this conclusion, but is in line with the constraints of logic.
Does any of that make sense? Was I understanding the transcendental argument correctly?
Because I do see what he was saying to an extent.
To me, it seems Matt was saying that he doesn’t need justification for his arguments, which if that is true, why is he trying to debate or make his case at all? If he doesn’t believe he needs to justify his worldview, why debate? What’s the point?
Matt said that he doesn’t care about the traditional constraints of debate, and I’m not sure jay was following them either since I’m not an expert.
Nonetheless, Matt is also using transcendent categories to fight his case since logic and the other categories jay mentioned are metaphysical in nature and not strictly material or empirical.
Nature Myth
The problem is with the category “transcendent.” Many philosophers disagree that abstract objects actually exist. So the way Jay sets this up as being a dichotomy between transcendentals and purely social constructs doesn’t fairly represent the full landscape of metaphysics about things like math and logic. While Jay was indeed using a transcendental argument, that much is obvious, it’s difficult to say what the exact argument is because he never presents it in a formal and digestible way. Alex demonstrates this by conceiving of several versions of what Jay might have been saying, some more modest or ambitious than others, some more epistemic or metaphysical than others, etc. There is no single version of TAG and Jay’s seems like it could be somewhat novel, or at least he claims it to be so in comparison to people like Matt Slick.
Samuel Stephens What do you mean by abstract object? Could you give me an example?
So the problem mainly is he hasn’t distilled his argument clearly enough?
I could see that. Even now I feel like I was following him but it took over half of the debate before the extent of what he was arguing kicked in, and even then I only think I understand it the way he was intending.
Nature Myth
Numbers would be an example of something we might consider to be an abstract object. A mathematical realist would say numbers exist. They are real object or items, but don’t map to anywhere in space and are non-causal. Jay seems to present that either this is true, or that numbers are just a subjective and arbitrary social construct. But there are other positions. Some try to show how mathematical concepts are objectively true without appealing to any kind of transcendent or platonic ontology. So to say Matt is dependent on transcendental categories may not be true, but it never really came up in the debate because Matt took it for granted.
Jay smoked you dude
Lol
@@shawn4888
He did
@@lordofhostsappreciator3075 Jay didnt even come close. He couldn't even articulate what his actual argument was.
Really enjoyed listening to Alex whom I just discovered via this video. Very impressive, dispassionate approach.
Dyer is a well trained obfuscator.
He does it by default..
Whenever a point is well explained, and it becomes starkly clear that his foundational world view is crumbling, he will miss-direct and confuse the issue.
Reasonable Speculation “Theatricality and deception; powerful agents to the uninitiated... but we are initiated, aren't we Bruce”
“Dyer is a well trained obfuscator ”
Now that’s ironic coming from a Dilahunty fan!! Sorry but “I’m not convinced”!! Equally, “I’m not convinced” that I need a “foundation” for my logical conclusion. We can all be arbitrary and ad hoc buddy!!
Jay's argument hinges on a myriad of unjustified assertions:
- The false equivocation of the laws of logic (as invented by humans, for the purpose of formulating true thoughts) with the true/factual/absolute logic of the universe.
- The idea that these laws can hold without lifeforms (real minds) to perceive them or a reality for them to apply in.
- The idea that this logic can originate outward from a mind and is not ultimately inferred from the interaction of lifeforms with reality.
(and, if he can prove the assertions above):
- The idea that it must be a SINGLE mind that acts as the guarantor of absolutes.
- The idea that this single mind must be the Orthodox Christian God (an embarrassing logical leap, which he acknowledged in his opening statement).
- The idea that matter can be created from nothing (ironic) by a "non-contingent" entity (non-subject of reality and its truths).
- The idea that we can describe something to whom the laws of logic don't apply (if you grant his special pleading fallacy).
And what can he make of the following contentions:
- Scripture does not account for Transcendentals, or Transcendental arguments.
- 99.9% of all Christians that ever lived (Orthodox or otherwise) cannot even formulate the TAG.
Brilliantly stated
“Ultimately inferred from the interaction of life forms with reality”
Ho the irony!! What do you mean by “inference”, “life forms” and “reality”. Prove your first principles please!! I’ll wait!!
“Inference” according to what “life form” and what “reality”?
Why “ought” we take the “inferences” and truth claims of an overgrown amoeba with illusions of grandeur seriously?
Why should we believe the myths, delusions and “truth” claims of an evolved ape who shares half their DNA with bananas?? Your existential crisis and epistemological crisis not ours buddy!!
I’m not making any appeals to authority but the fact is that according to the expert linguist and brilliant cognitive scientist Noam Chomsky…
“There are only two ways of looking at eliminative materialism (the idea that all things reduce to solid substance). One is that it is total gibberish until someone tells us what matter is. Until someone tells us what eliminative materialism is there can’t be such a thing as eliminative materialism and no one can tell us what matter is”. (Noam Chomsky).
Similarly, I’m not making any appeals to authority, but on the cognitive level Albert Einstein utilised a more nuanced approach and demonstrated that “matter” is nothing more substantive than the curvature of space and time which is why he completely rejected atheism for the belief in the fundamental nature of mind and consciousness. That is Einstein completely rejected atheism for the nuanced God of Spinoza/deism/panentheism not pantheism. Equally, Einstein’s closest friend Michelle Besso, who Einstein stated “was the greatest sounding board in Europe”, completely rejected atheism for the belief in the fundamental nature of mind and consciousness/monotheism/Christianity. I’m not making any appeals to authority just pointing out that the conflict myth between science and faith is exactly that, a myth and a false dichotomy perpetuated by militant internet atheists.
Nevertheless, when are strictly reductive materialists, atheists or philosophical naturalists going to understand that the belief in the fundamental nature of mind and consciousness/monotheism/deism/panentheism are just default positions and they are just a (lack of belief) in atheism until materialists, atheists or philosophical naturalists can “prove” that “nothing” and then a “cosmic accident” created everything and that “matter” is all there is to reality and existence, not mind and consciousness or both.
Sorry but its just a (lack of belief) in nihilism, fatalism, solipsism and moral subjectivism/relativism until strictly reductive materialists, atheists or philosophical naturalists can prove that a cosmic accident, a cosmic toss of a coin, the accidental arrangement of the cosmic tea leaves at the bottom of their morning cup of tea created “truth”, the prescriptive laws of logic, conscious agents, science, rationality, free will, morals, ethics, art, poetry, literature, music, beauty, truth, empathy and love.
There’s no extra burden of proof!!
When are strictly reductive materialists, atheists or philosophical naturalists, going to understand that under “relativism” we are all on equal footing at the very least. The fact is that the nuances of objective morality will always be most hotly debated by those who want to justify evil and depravity!!
The fact is that reality and existence and in particular the qualities of experience such as empathy, compassion, real beauty, real bravery, meaning and purpose and ultimately real truth and love isn’t made of “matter” they are made of (what matters).
I rest my case!!
@@isidrosalas5088
“Brilliantly stated”
Why “ought” we believe this was “brilliantly stated”. Because it was rational or because it was completely determined by “matter”? Brilliant” according to who a biological and chemical robot or a determined machine? “Brilliantly stated” according to a bag of chemicals or an overgrown amoeba with delusions of grandeur? Just a thought!! I’ll wait though!!
Thank you for this. I responded on Jay's channel about his arguement being pointless because if there was a god we wouldnt be arguing about it and was just beat up by his fans and JAY basically calling me an idiot in a round about way.
Yeah it was a bit silly how they ignore his lack of any argument
And it wasn't exactly a round about way either
Well, because your argument has a false premise.
It may be valid, but unsound, therefore wrong.
Even if there is proof for somethings existence it does not follow that everybody accepts this proof. Therefore, people would still argue about such things. The fact that we argue does not mean that there is no God.
Hence we argue about the existence for God, even if there is proof.
Just when I wanted to send this comment I remembered, that somebody has actually written about this argument.
From a nice book I recently read:
Introduction:
„If by "ultimate proof" we mean an argument that will persuade everyone, then the answer has to be no. The reason is simple: persuasion is subjective. Sometimes people are not persuaded even by a very good argument. Conversely, people are (unfortunately) often persuaded by very bad arguments. Generally speaking, most people are simply not very rational; they are not good, clear thinkers. Of course, this does not mean that people are unintelligent. But most of us are not as rigorously objective as we would like to think. We often believe things for psychological reasons, rather than logical reasons. Many people refuse to accept a very good argument simply because they do not want to believe its conclusion. For these reasons and others, it is impossible to construct an argument that will always persuade everyone.“
[…]
Chapter 8 - Logical Fallacies 2
„Sometimes when the enthymeme is converted into a standard syllogism, it turns out to be valid but unsound. More often than not, the false premise is precisely the premise that was left unstated. For example: "There cannot be proof of God’s existence. After all, there are many atheists in the world today." By supplying the missing premise (1) we end up with this syllogism:
If there was a proof of God’s existence, then there would not be any atheists.
There are atheists.
Therefore, it is not the case that there is proof of God’s existence.
The argument is a perfectly valid Modus Tollens (denying the consequent),6 but it is unsound because the first premise (the very one left unstated by the critic) is false. Just because there is proof of something doesn’t mean that everyone will accept it.“
Excerpt from: Dr. Jason Lisle. „The Ultimate Proof of Creation.“ iBooks.
bro maybe because saying that is actually dumb?
@@Giorginho agreed.
The most charitable formulation of his argument I can think of resembles the reasoning behind the Nash Equilibrium :
A) By presupposing a specific religious dogma, Dyer managed to derived a personal worldview that seems to him sufficiently coherent to warrant full adhesion.
B) From this point of view, adopting any other worldviews would prompt a revision process that would at least temporarily if not permanently, necessitate of him to abandon this apparent coherence.
C) (B) reinforces (A)
It's unfortunately a circular argument : A -> B -> A ->....
To use a geometric metaphor, I suspect he found a local maxima and argues it must be the global maxima because, looking around, all that he can see is a negative slope. Abandoning is commitment to this myopic view, he might realize other maximas, often greater than his, also populate the landscape. www.kdnuggets.com/images/rapidminer-feature-selection-3d-471.jpg
The "emotional appeal" exchange you reference around 1:15 was driving me crazy with Dyer's argumentation during the ENTIRE debate. It underlies his entire position.
For what it's worth, some christians even said you won the debate, so please don't beat yourself up :)
seems to me that the only valid presuppositions in a debate are ones that both parties agree on. Otherwise there's no grounding to have productive discourse. Is there a situation in debating where the debaters don't need to agree on a presupposition and can still be productive?
Yes of course its possible. Dy just kept acknowledging the common ground they shared and then rescinded it in the next sentence. Truly astonisning in the worst possible of ways
It’s going to be nearly impossible because if you assert the axioms of science and the laws of logic as useful to build an understanding of reality, the presup is going to practically demand that all axioms must be grounded in something else and that something else must be his god. They refuse to accept that debaters can have common ground because the presup’s argument demands that you accept the “fact” that everything but Christianity is incoherent.
Wow, awesome conversation!
I was not familiar with Ozymandias or Alex but after listening to them here I'd definitely love to see them as co-hosts on AXP :)
Thanks for the great video, Matt
I have morality just cuz
I believe in logic cuz it works so far - no need to wonder why
This isn’t the quest for truth guys. You don’t like Hume’s conclusions so you just backup and say you don’t know and that’s ok.
The best analogy I can think of is the basic math concept that every other whole number is odd. Yup it works. We can even interate a (+2) function for years and see that it works really really well. But if you want knowledge, real knowledge - and if you want to develop higher mathematics, then you will want to prove what you assume to be obvious.
Without intellectual curiosity, there would be no higher math. That’s the analogy. And yes you can live your whole life that way and be perfectly happy, but then don’t debate abstract concepts.
“You SHOULD put a proper syllogistic form together”
Why?
Cuz reasons. Cmon people.
Instead, just go to the coffee shop and talk about there’s no god cuz cancer.
-"I believe in logic cuz it works so far - no need to wonder why"
No one said this. At best, Matt said there _might_ not be a justification for things like logic. There is nothing wrong with entertaining that possibility.
-"Why?"
Because TAG is a deductive argument and there are various versions of TAG. How many premises are there? What are they? How ambitious is the argument? Is the argument about necessary belief in God or the actual existence of God? Knowing these things would be helpful if we are expected to meaningfully engage with the argument. You might as well be asking "Why does Jay need a good argument for the existence of God?" This was all mentioned in the discussion. Did you actually bother to listen to it? I mean, Jay isn't trying to vitiate logic here. He thinks it's quite cozy in his worldview. Others have no problem putting forth a syllogism when arguing for their version of TAG. So there is no reason for Jay not to do so.
Samuel Stephens
Yes I listened to it, and I understood every word and every concept spoken. Matt keeps saying he’s not well-versed on the philosophy. Rather than address the justification of the transcendental, Matt kept going to the strange tangent that he didn’t see how logic COULD HAVE BEEN any other way than it is. Huh?
On the basic level, why SHOULD anyone use logic in debate?
I would personally add the question, do you realize that you believe in a supernatural governing force that has dominion over the universe? (The laws of physics, logic, math, etc)
That’s faith, though without justification.
-“Matt kept going to the strange tangent that he didn’t see how logic COULD HAVE BEEN any other way than it is. Huh?“
Matt is saying logic might just be a brute fact about reality, no justification require. He is entertaining foundationalist perspective of justification as opposed to Jay’s coherentism. Jay thinks that’s arbitrary, but his own justification is circular. Both prongs take on their own unsavory problems.
-“On the basic level, why SHOULD anyone use logic in debate?“
You are doing this wrong. The presuppositionalist need not ask _why_ we should use logic. Jay doesn’t think logic isn’t important or that non-Orthodox Christians can’t be master logicians. Everyone is in agreement that we should. It’s how we meaningfully communicate ideas with each other and make sense of things. What the presuppositionalists asks is _how_ we know logic is actually doing what we think it is doing. What’s the guarantor of logic?
-“I would personally add the question, do you realize that you believe in a supernatural governing force that has dominion over the universe? (The laws of physics, logic, math, etc)“
What? Math and logic are supernatural? You are getting this so wrong. Math and logic _might_ be immaterial things. They might refer to abstract objects, non-causal entities with no location in space. But that doesn’t make them supernatural. They don’t violate our basic understanding of reality. And even this platonic view of these objects as transcendental things is not a given. Many logicians and mathematicians are nominalists of some variety and don’t think there is any reality to these abstracts. You are making the same mistake Jay did in the debate by not fairly acknowledging that his ontology is contested.
Samuel Stephens
Great reply.
Two things.
1. That we agree we SHOULD use logic, does not mean I can’t ask why you believe that. What are the ethics behind your belief that we SHOULD do anything - in particular, logic? Why?
2. If the laws of physics and math govern the physical universe, they are by definition not inside it. They are unchanging and absolute, the universe, however, is not. The universe is BOUNDED (abstractly) by these rules. There is causation in nature, so I could ask you: what caused the laws of physics?
-“What are the ethics behind your belief that we SHOULD do anything - in particular, logic? Why?“
In this case, what one should do is contingent upon a goal. So if your goal is to, say, argue for the existence of a deity, then it follows that you probably should present that argument in a way that is intelligible and assessable. Otherwise, you might be deluding yourself. Jay has no obligation to present an argument of course, but then he can’t expect others to find his views convincing. It’s entirely up to him.
-“If the laws of physics and math govern the physical universe, they are by definition not inside it.“
Again, you are trying to itemize these things in a way that probably isn’t necessary. Things like math and logic and regularities in physics could just relate to the characteristics of physical reality itself. The idea that we are discussing entities with a reality unto themselves comes with no shortage of problems and objections. This is a long-standing debate in philosophy.
-“There is causation in nature, so I could ask you: what caused the laws of physics?“
This is a fallacy of composition. We can only recognize causation as a property within our physical reality. It doesn’t necessarily follow that there are or needs to be causes for this reality, outside this reality
This is the sanity I've needed lately. Thank you.
I enjoy Matt floundering in his Dilletantism...
Y dont u just leave 1 coherrant comment
Seems like god was hiding all these years behind words and terms almost no one understands...
Would be great to hear you three again on the problem of induction indeed.
@802701
Well it depends what you're trying to accomplish by presenting this problem to atheists (or people in general).
If the goal is to provide an argument for your god, then I'm not surprised that it gets ignored, because the problem of induction is not solved by a god.
Now many people, theists and atheists alike, don't know about the problem of induction, but that's irrelevant to whether it's solved or not.
People are not property
36:18 it means your worldview is incoherent, untrue, without justification.
Kant is more relevant in critiquing Humean skepticism...
I wish Jay Dyer would present his argument in a different form. Here's what I gather it is:
1. To argue for anything, you need assumptions.
2. Some of these assumptions are impossible to disbelieve consistently because they would be presumed during the statement of disbelief.
3. These are examples of presuppositions.
4. The existence of presuppositions breaks the model of classical argumentation as well as naive empiricism.
5. This necessitates a different mode of argumentation whenever there is disagreement on presuppositions: Comparison of belief systems and analysis of their coherence.
6. Jay's belief system includes God as a presupposition and the foundation for logic and other presuppositions.
7. Jay proceeds to ask questions of his opponent until they are forced to reveal that they either don't understand what presuppositions are, or don't understand that they have them and either say something unreasonable or shrug shoulders and say "I don't know".
8. Jay then concludes that his belief system is the only one that hasn't failed due to presuppositional analysis.
9. Occasionally, the opponent understands what just happened and starts criticizing the idea of God from their own aesthetics and (so far as I've seen) incoherent-as-stated belief system.
It is a form of transcendental argumentation, but it's also comparative and a kind of meta-argument because he has to apply it to each specific belief system presented to him. This is a way to avoid trying to prove a negative ("There are no coherent belief systems aside from my own") and still applying this kind of argument in a debate. Since the goal of a debate is for him to present a better argument than his opponent, it's a strategy that can work. However, if you're going into the situation thinking it's just a conversation about arguments, then you will not be ready for such a competitive rather than neutral strategy. To be fair, I don't think it is unfair to apply this technique due to the pragmatic consideration of trying to prove a negative when you have someone right in front of you who has a belief system and thinks theirs is at least as coherent as his, so if he can show that their system is less coherent than his, it's an easy way to show them they have something to learn.
I guess. If only the argument of “my presupposition of an unnecessary being assures me im more rational” was valid. Making more assumptions means his position was less coherent.
@@HappyHippieGaymer The point of presuppositional argumentation is to reveal required assumptions. You're begging the question by asserting that God is an unnecessary assumption in response to Jay's argument that God is necessary. You have to provide a competing, coherent paradigm rather than relying on him to share your presumption that you can just use logic without accidentally presuming God.
Jay's argument might be:
P1. There are a number of transcendent abstract objects that we all presuppose in order to make sense of reality.
P2. These transcendent abstract objects work together.
P3. When we presuppose these transcendent abstract objects, we presuppose a grounding for them.
P4. The trinitarian Christian God is the only possible grounding for these transcendent abstract objects.
P5. All humans presuppose the existence of the trinitarian Christian God.
P6. It is impossible to not presupose the existence of the trinitarian Christian God.
C. Therefore God exists.
There are a number of ways to challenge those premises, but the conclusion doesn’t seem to follow them. As Alex pointed out, it may be possible to grant that having Jay’s God in your worldview is a necessary presupposition without that God actually existing.
@@samuelstephens6904 Yeah, I think Jay may get there with some extra steps from Coherentism, but I don't know.
He might go standard presup: you presuppose God therefore you know God exists.
Jay confirmed that his argument is something like this, but deals not only with conceptual abstract objects but with reality itself and universals like the fact that an external world exists outside of our minds. I think this is how he moves from presuppositions to God existing in reality. I asked for clarification, and for him to fix my syllogism.
Wow. I haven’t seen Dillahunty in a while. He looks like he’s lost a good amount of weight.
bi0lizard1 Maybe he is cutting back on animal body parts and secretions.
Most probably @Twelve Dozen hope he some day take Alex O'Connor's advice to stop eating dead carcasses for his good and for his loved ones as well
Riky Jacho And especially good for the alleged carcasses
Yep, he has! He just posted in the last month or so that his weight is now the lowest it's been since high school. Hella respect for him.
Actually eating MORE carcasses and LESS sugar and carbs would result in the most weight loss.
Every believer in a god try to proof his/her/it,s existence by looking at the scriptures and so called knowledgeable people but never give proof that can be tested and proven by some visual god that can appear to me and tell me that himself. Didn't the god/gods of Abraham talked face to face with Abraham and some other prophets according to scriptures.
What happened to your god why doesn't he show himself. Why cant he do the same now especially at a time like this when his followers really needs him to show the non believers that he exist and what is really written in his scriptures and tell us who is right and who is wrong. Dont the believers think that will solve the problem immediately
Yes, and if they were honest I'd say the're frustrated that he doesn't give some of that great evidence he is supposed to have given (or so their book says,) thousands of years ago, course they'd never admit that
Nice to see Matt talking to people who can actually follow what he's saying.
I agree since most of his logic was invented by him..He writes the books he reads.
@@tylercampbell6365 Example, please.
Matt was not prepared to debate jay. He is well advanced in Philosophical understanding. Now postmortem is done once defeated and that's good to know weakness in one's argument.
@@rajeshshetty4862 what are you talking about?, He embarrassed Jay, it was such a ridiculous debate
@@tylercampbell6365 nope, nice try though
Alex, Ozzy and Matt in the same view - couldn't be better! Great stuff!
This is the true presup argument:
1. Assuming X allows me to make sense of Y,
2.Y
C. Therefore, X
Which is obviously unsound.
Do you mean invalid?
@@FinneousPJ1 Actually, yes - I thought that P1 was false, but it's the inference that's faulty - C does not follow from P1 and P2. Good catch.
Premise 1 in TA is that X is necessary for Y, so the conclusion does follow. The difficulty is justifying that first premise.
@@STAR0SS The problem is the Y itself - they equivocate "...for me to be able to reason" with "... for reason to be possible."
It's not unsound if X is true
Side note: you dirty atheists dealt with the audio much better. Jay's mic cutting matt off pissed me off, not so much near the beginning but when it was back and forth matt and jay, it was awful..so much so it seemed intentional. It was a clear advantage for jay
@Oners82 how is that bigoted lmao
Haven't heard of Alex Malpass before.... I Like him already!
If I'm remembering correctly, Jay did start to put his argument into syllogistic form but ultimately concluded that since this argument is based on metalogic, it may be impossible to form a syllogism. It's an argument about a thread that connects various syllogisms and is about the pattern that coheres those syllogisms. But, putting on my Dillahunty hat, recognizing the challenge doesn't mean it's not possible and I agree with the view expressed here that it'd be nice to discuss an attempt at syllogism even if we can agree afterwards that syllogism wasn't sufficient.
I think Dyer borrowed this kind of thinking about "metalogic" from Chris Langan. Metalogic is actually just logic applied to logic, not some special different higher type of logic. I guess what Jay means is just thinking rationally about what rationality is.
Almost two hours of Matt, Alex and Ozy talking about the issues with presupposition apologetics...is it my birthday?
rabbitpirate
Yes. Happy Birthday, bunny.
Deduction: The turkey experiences the farmer coming every day to feed it, so it presumes that he well feed it again today, not knowing that today it's Thanksgiving.
That's induction, not deduction.
@@BurakovAS Well I am not a native english speaker so I looked it up, but the Cambridge Dictonary definition of induction something totally unrelated. dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/induction where as deduction would be more close dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/deduction assuming the turky takes its experiences as facts about the world.
But maybe you are right and this is how it is used commonly today. Non the less you get what I meant.
@@junkfoodvegan6198 I'm not a native speaker either, and this is not about language. It is about types of logical arguments.
A deductive argument is roughly what you would see in classical logic - premise, premise, conclusion. That is, if the premises are true and the argument is valid, the conclusion is necessarily true - that is deductive argument.
An inductive argument relies on prior experience. That is, if something was previously true by observation, you conclude that it's probably true universally.
The fallacy of the black swan is not in the conclusion that black swans don't exist - it is a perfectly valid deductive argument to say "black swans don't exist, therefore you won't ever find one". The problem is rather in the inclusion of a premise you arrived at by means of induction - "I've never found a black swan so far, therefore they don't exist". The premise that you use to conclude that you won't see any black swans is arrived at by inductive means, and therefore doesn't hold the same weight as a purely deductive premise, and cannot lead to a deductive conclusion.
This is your turkey fallacy. The farmer feeds the turkey every day, therefore the turkey inductively concludes that it will be fed every day. The fact that one day it wasn't true demonstrates why inductive arguments can't ever lead to absolute certainty, and this is what differentiates inductive from deductive arguments: deductive argument *cannot lead to a false conclusion* if the argument is valid and the premises are true, whereas an inductive argument can.
@@junkfoodvegan6198 or, to simplify, you can think of it like this: deductive arguments generally deal with absolutes and universals, i. e. something that's either true or not true in all possible worlds. Inductive arguments are probabilistic by nature, i. e. they rely on prior experience but do not raise to the level of absolutes and universals, because you simply _can't_ arrive at an absolute through induction.
@@BurakovAS wouldn't that mean that inductive arguements always are deductive one, with one premise being based on inductive reasoning and therefore the possibility of being false? So all inductive arguements are deductive in nature but one (or more) premises can't be shown to be true, in which case the deductive reasoning can lead to a false conclusion.
If you don’t have a handle on the basic arguments of modern philosophy, Descartes, Hume, Kant you really have no business debating philosophical questions, it’s wasting everyone’s time. Dillahunty is a dilletante
Jay’s entire argument came off as special pleading. That’s all I was able to derive from his repeated emphasis that traditional logic doesn’t apply to TAGs.
Thats literally all it was. It was also the first and hopefully only time I've ever seen one special pleading to be able to special plead.. with his only "reason" being that its "different". Lol I just cant stomach these christian apologetics any more. I can't believe I wish for the william lane craigs of the world to come back. Apologetics genuinely seem to be getting ever dumber with a larger vocabulary of ever more pseudo sophistocated/intellectual words. Its painful
Jay had a solid rebuttal in response to Matt's charge that Jay was committing special pleading. Matt even acknowledged that transcendental categories are unique or special due to their fundamental nature. And their supreme importance compared to things at the normative level.
@@ChessArmyCommander Transcendental? Normal? Arbitrary values created by humans somehow gives something the permission to evade a logical explanation for its existence?
@@HappinessOrDeath Thats the thing, transcendental concepts are NOT arbitrary constructs of the human mind. They are things we have discovered, such as mathematics.
@UC9g4x6tWwSZR5dAXWT99fuw Its easier to live in a world with subjective morality, I think it's close to willful ignorance for most of them.
I remember towards the end of that debate thinking: - "You know, I don't care whether god exists or not any more, I just can't take more of this mental verbiage".
Apatheism, it happens
@1:28:50
Thank you!
I don't know why this isn't an immediate response to presup nonsense.
This is my immediate thought whenever I hear a presup start up, and demand explanations for stuff they think they can demand you explain.
It matters not that they're pointing to "logical laws" and giggling when _you_ can't defend the world view they throw at you, and demand you justify it.
They think God is required for the world to be here... in the first place.
Strange then, that they don't sit there and tell you that you can't even argue that you exist unless you accept that a God is necessary first, or your world view falls apart.. and whatever else.
Maybe, juuuuuust maybe, they know that doing that would be an absurd thing to state and would very obviously require them to come up with.... anything, like at all, to be able to discuss that at the idea at the adult table.
No, that bit isn’t just to fill your ape ego and your naive beliefs. The purpose of that bit is to allure Jay to state his premises and syllogism so that they can argue against it. This is exactly what they’ve been talking about throughout the whole entire damn thing.
Dyer insisted things had to be one specific way until it mattered and then it was the opposite. He persisted in either not listening or misrepresenting Matt's positions.
Yep, spot on
Matt you should point out to him next ti.e that "pure skepticism" the way he was talking about it makes it impossible to believe anything at all. You could say that flat earthers are "purer skeptics" than people who believe earth is round based on great evidence. "Pure skeptic" is just as bad as when apologists call atheism a "worldview" it is a total misrepresentation the words.
@AlienToy 87 will check it out thank u
1:13:31 LOL so basically Jay had a Sargon moment :'D just in his case it was not 'Have you even read Locke' (Loki) but 'Have you even read Quine' :'D :'D :'D
It’s this simple: not all presuppositions are equal. Presupposing reality vs presupposing god’s existence are miles apart in terms of validity.
The thing that doesn't make any sense to me is how Jay talks about being a coherentist (an idealist theory of truth) and then goes on to talk about realism and truthmakers for his belief in the laws of logic etc...
If Jay wasnt so bloody defensive it might be interesting to draw out what he thinks... instead you get this random incoherent exposition of the entire history of philosophy (that isnt even accurate) so as (I think) he can legitimise his views because he is well-read or something, without actually giving any argument...
Thank you guys! :)
It's funny how Jay presupposes the christian god and then tries to convince Matt that he isn't sceptical enough. And then says former debater of Matt haven't done a good Job. That's hilarious.
Jay is saying he should be skeptical enough to be skeptical of the laws of logic themselves. He also stopped believing at one my point.
But do there exist properly basic evidences for the post-Matthuvian transcendentals or is the non-inclusive supposition murderously circular?
Matt should debate Ozzy on the definition of "atheist".
if an atheist is one without beliefs about the existence of deity, then a person who has the belief there are no deity is not an atheist.
argumentum ad absurdum
swartz says in "definitions, dictionaries, and meaning" that one isn't free to give some word any meaning they'd like even if stipulatively since doing so may create inconsistency in the language.
If you define atheist to be the category of people who do not believe in gods, then someone who believes there are no gods is an atheist.
I'm a no-gods atheist, but this is a matter of popular use. As much as I dislike descriptivist vocabulary, dictionaries describe usage. If they don't describe atheism that way, they should eventually, and if you don't like it, all that means is that you don't like it.
@@stevencurtis7157 ... that's correct and that's been the traditional definition of what atheism is.
what is new is the idea that not only do atheists lack belief in the existence of god, they lack beliefs about god full stop.
my initial comment was to outline the inconsistency this definition in fact creates (as an atheist is then supposed to be one without any beliefs about the existence of deity and one who has beliefs about the existence of deity, namely that there aren't any).
finally, i underscore with citation that atheists, just by so-naming themselves, are not entitled to simply define that term however they will.
@12 years old ...
there's no difference that makes a difference in saying one lacks a belief in god and one doesn't believe in god.
both express one and the same thing: "i do not believe that P is true".
P is "god exists".
@@stevenhoyt I meant to but forgot to add that atheist under this definition essentially replaces or is equal to the category nontheist. This wouldn't create an inconsistency, which was the point I intended to make.
I'm quite certain that atheists of any definition have as much license to define their own terms and reject those of others as anyone else. As long as the context being used is not deliberately hidden the only "issue" that remains is how much whinging it causes among others. To me, the amount of whinging seems absurdly huge. If only we could get away with such pedantry over the definition of theist or god! But that would be a lame tactic and I don't think we'd be proud of those using it.
I agree that intentionally creating confusion is not helpful, and I'm none too pleased but neither too annoyed with the ACA's and Matt's attitude toward being corrected yet continuing to be antagonistic toward the criticism. Confusion over the term atheist is not borne of the ACA, though, it goes back much further, and is largely the fault of apologists having control over the religious discussion space pre-internet and the fact that young people were the targets of those apologists as well as the ones who built the spaces now argued in by old philosophers and pedants. Early atheist youtube shared in common with the Internet at the time a very rough attitude, one more concerned with savaging the opponent than the content, and not a single fuck was given about the label.
Legacy isn't hard to fight, it will just end you before you accomplish anything. That legacy hasn't faded yet. Good luck.
Transcendental arguments are like talking about the _rules_ of chess, instead of _playing_ chess, in an effort to win at chess.
Wow, I dont feel so bad now. None of you could figure out exactly what Jay's argument was. This was a fascinating discussion.
Yeah, I was feeling bad. English isn’t my first language and thought I had gone dumb and was not able to understand his argument.
Pretty simple. Matts go to is to pretend he has no position - when in fact he does. Which is what Jay exposed. You can't use tools like logic and truth to deconstruct the God argument without having faith in those exact things - which means you need to explain where they come from.
@@Sbock86it’s a monumental leap to go from this to “god” much less your preferred flavor of god and all the silly baggage that entails. Predictably, Jay doesn’t even feign to attempt either. It’s merely asserted. He’s simply preaching to the choir.