Atheist Debates - Debate review: Does God Exist? with Jay Lucas Part 1
Вставка
- Опубліковано 7 сер 2024
- Part of the Atheist Debates Patreon project: / atheistdebates
In April of 2012, I debated Jay Lucas on the topic, "Does God Exist?"
The entire debate can be viewed here: • Video
This video is part of a series that provides additional commentary, corrections and clarifications of the topic discussed. Over the course of this series, we'll look at mistakes that were made by all parties in the hope that others can avoid those mistakes.
This is Part 1 and covers the opening remarks. As we continue discussing this debate, we'll also cover the remainder of the debate as well as circumstances and topics surrounding this debate.
![Does God Exist? William Lane Craig vs. Christopher Hitchens - Full Debate [HD]](/img/n.gif)
Presuppositional apologetics is the logical equivalent of flipping over the game board before being checkmated.
+RadioactivFly And declaring a win.
Smilley MLK
Heh. Yup.
+RadioactivFly CHECKMATE ATHEISTS!
Heh. Learn something new everyday.
It's the equivalent of saying you can't win unless you know who invented the game.
I like how Michael Rouse is an 'eminent philosopher of science' while Carl Sagan is a 'famous atheist'. No bias there, right?
+dzScritches And Bertrand-friggin'-Russell is also a "famed atheist"!
"Famous Atheist" is a completely useless description. That's like pointing at Madonna and calling her a "famous non-chess player"
Jay is a filthy liar whose existence disproves his pretend god character that, as he defines it, could NEVER allow Jay to advocate for it.
"Imagine the worst, most heinous thing ever done to you by another.
Now, imagine the offender apologizing not to you, but to Jesus, and being forgiven and going to heaven forever, while you go to hell. Forever."
Christianity, folks!
You can also summarize.
7:36 - special knowledge, straw man, poisoning the well
9:58 - special knowledge (that Matt have a world view), and he contradicted himself (earlier he stated that he and Matt are both theists, so they should have both the same world view).
12:00 - special knowledge (that Matt's world view is atheism), poisoning the well
13:10 - straw man. It is even called the *humanist* manifesto, not the "atheist manifesto" or "Matt's manifesto".
17:47 - appealing to consequences, straw man. He quotes a bunch of people and assumes that's Matt's position, and appealing to consequences that under atheism there is no free will, there is no moral absolutes, etc. It's utterly irrelevant what you want to be true. If there is no God so there are no moral absolutes, if that's true, it's true.
26:15 - continue to appeal to consequences, appeal to emotions. It doesn't matter how we feel about stuff. And personally, it's not even a such convincing argument. If you feel that something wrong or evil was done to you, was does it matter if it was _really_ wrong or evil. If you stab me, I will bleed, if you shoot me, I will die. That is evil from my subjective experience, because I value my life. If I wouldn't value my life, then killing me is not evil from my subjective experience.
+Erwin Müller I cover some or m most of this in the rebuttal sections.
+Erwin Müller Excellent job my friend! Hold this W!
*****
I have no idea what you are talking about.
+Tony Moni So you think because most of the comments on a video about God's existence and philosophy are about logical arguments that nobody in the comments section has a life outside of this topic? That makes no sense. That's like going to the comments of a Taylor Swift video and saying "Don't you people talk about anything other than Taylor Swift!?!?!"
Sweet fallacy map. Thank you!
Notice how the christian apologist spends most of his time muddying the waters around the concept of "presuppositionalism" to the point where it's almost meaningless, and, therefore, impossible to argue against. This is an example of what I like to call the "I'm rubber and you're glue" argument. That is, the apologist is merely trying to reflect all reasonable criticisms of his argument back onto his opponent without ever actually bolstering his own argument with facts and evidence. (See the fallacies of equivocation, tu quoque, red herring, begging the question and poisoning the well)
Hey Matt can you please make a video on how every time apologists can't defend a part of their books they say "that part wasn't meant to be taken literally that was meant to be taken figuratively" there's nothing an apologist can't weasel out of with that one.
+wertytrewqa Yes. It's on the list! :)
+Matt Dillahunty I've seen that one...thanks for that. It's a very common strategy of evangelicals, and your video goes a long way towards helping me debate them in my own life.
+wertytrewqa Blessed are the cheese makers?
Step 1: Oh, I'm just a humble son of a gun who has felt the lords presence blablabla.
Step 2: Now let me tell you why atheism (which I'll also bundle together with Hitler and many established sciences) sucks / or is at least as flawed as we are, here I have picture of Carl Sagan where he dropped his pants.
Step 3: Logical necessity, philosophical acrobatics, everything has a cause except for when it doesn't, the lords teachings are perfect except for these obvious human errors you brought up that other denominations get totally wrong but I won't go into much detail.
Step 4: I wouldn't want to live in a world were...I know that I know that I know...
Step 5: Oh gosh, I guess we'll just agree to disagree *winks at audience*.
Atheism is not an organized religion, it's not even a proper label for everyone how doesn't recognize a diety . When you're born and are growing up, you have no persistent beliefs, after a few years, the indoctrination of some religion begins in various ways. If you're born in an isolated area in the jungles, depending on your circumstances, either you'll go and try to discover the world around you, or you'll think that everything around you may be a gift of someone probably like you (have brain, eyes, etc).
Prayer works to cure disease given by plan of some god....People turn into salt, snakes talk like humans, and books written by humans are never wrong especially if they call it a holy book. I don't think so...oh so many fallacies.
It was meant as a joke but I seem to have failed.
Lol I got it. Was thinking you did a pretty good break down.
I got it too. However I enjoyed a bit of joking myself. Religion is generally a joke to some extent in itself I think.
I'm so tired of theistic arguments, I don't even listen to them anymore. They talk a lot and say so little. I just skip and listen to what the atheist has to say hoping I will learn something New.
Same
Matt, very much enjoyed the deconstruction of the debate. Looking forward to the other videos. Thanks!
"I have AN answer; you don't. Therefore, I'm one up on you."
No, sir - some of us would rather have NO answer than ANY answer.
Any answer making truth claims must be demonstrable. So their answer isn't even an answer but just an assertion
I'm really glad you are doing these videos. Since I started watching these debates, I have thought that they require follow up videos. Also, that many debates should be done through videos and video responses. That way: the time periods for each side can be precise, and longer; you can utilize images and other visual aids; links can be added at relevant times, to direct people to resources for research on specific points; debates can continue as needed for each topic that arises; the rebuttals will be prepared better; there will be enough time to address the format/semantic issues of the arguments which, while still very important, don't take precedence over the main topics; the audio and video is much better; etc.
This is exciting stuff.
Yay, been waiting for this. I love those.
love the videos Matt! keep them up! I absorb these things like candy lol.
Good job with these debate reviews Matt. I watched them out of order though. You clearly handed Jay Lucas his ass in the debate.
Matt debating Jay Lucas' performance during Matt's debate with Jay Lucas.
Debate-ception!
+Rory reviewer ..We need to go deeper..
+Hercules Rockefeller Why oh why did I not take the blue pill ...
+whynottalklikeapirat Different movie, but acceptable nonetheless lol Kudos!
nmryda
In a fragmented culture reminiscence of theme will have to do for cohesion =.o
Nah, they'd have to be debating about a debate. This is clearly just a review. Can we send all the people who make -ception jokes to a special place somewhere?
Matt did you put those pictures back there so we'd stop fixating on your DVD collection? xD
+dzScritches In part. I also found the black-velvet devil/sin painting at an antique shop and haven't had a chance to hang it, so I wanted to show it off. :)
Matt Dillahunty What a great find! =) Thanks for doing these videos by the way - I really appreciate the effort you've put into all of them, and I know I'm not alone. =)
I like your layout Matt. 😎👍
I have never debated (in this sort of format) and I think it's a really tough skill. One thing I notice from a lot of the debates I watch, is that it is very easy to miss or accept a statement that the opponent makes (which is incorrect). Especially if the opponent is throwing out a lot of information/claims at a fast pace and many of them are unfounded. I really enjoy the debates (and observing the skills needed to debate live) but I have to say I do find the review videos much more interesting and informative. I recently watched the debate you had on "does the soul exist". What I would really like to see is you have a sit down discussion with Eric on demonic possession. I would also like to see a Christian public speaker who does not believe in demonic possession involved in the debate. What would be really interesting would be if you could get Eric to allow you (with a camera) to view him using his unproven skills to fight an unproven phenomenon.
I was there. It was a fantastic experience.
This was very timely for me. I just finished watching the original debate, and I was a little disappointed by the tired tactics that Lucas dragged onto staged. My most hated argument is the assertion that non believers are somehow forced to resort to the theist's "world view". (I include the quotes because those are the words that keep popping up as a queue to the listener that this argument is about to be peddled.)
Looks like Matt is addressing this line of thought in a separate video, which I very much appreciate. I don't think that the problems with this argument need be spelled out for most of us, but it does warrant it's own time for a special reason: I think that this is one of those arguments that is aimed at shoring up the believer's faith rather than convincing anyone outside of the believer community. It really needs to have an answer that is easily digestible to the people that need to hear it and go looking for one.
Thanks Matt :)
I love this series. It's so much better than a debate.
I could not agree more with 28:00 in the video. When originally watching the debate, I "grred" out loud at the appeal to emotion when Jay asked the audience to relive a personal tragedy (and then listed off some).
P.S.
I'd love to see you debate Ray Comfort live in a format where the quality of your arguments dictates how much time you get to respond. I have a feeling Ray's arguments wouldn't get him much time and also you wouldn't need much time to respond to them.
Awesome a debate review! You should open it with the fox sports music. Make it like a sports review :P
Ugh. The second a Christian apologist cites Paul's unfounded assertion we're all theists in denial in Romans 1 I stop debating them. They're presups and there's nothing you can do at that point since they'll dismiss everything you say because if it doesn't fit with their unfounded conclusion they'll reject it without logic or reason.
Presupposition is an automatic disqualification in a debate. I could presuppose that everyone is an Atheist and just pretends to believe to feel better about themselves. I doubt such an argument would get anywhere.
I have followed you for some time now. At first, although certainly in your camp (and you, mine), I was lukewarm. But I have to say, if you pardon a compliment, you have developed into a 1st rate critic and orator. Impressive.
Good video, but your levels between the video and your comments are drastically different. not sure if you use headphones while editing. thanks!
debate video not available, any other copies available?
18:05 Regarding Sagan's use of "the cosmos," I'm not saying you're wrong, I don't know what he intended, but if he is using "cosmos" to mean all possible universes and realities then what's the point? He's basically saying, "All that ever was is all that ever was." Or is he just using that to define the word "cosmos?"
does anyone know if matt has made a video adressing the kalam's cosmological argument? I seem to remember seeing that at some point in the atheist debates series, but I cannot find it anywhere. perhaps my memory is faulty?
+girafmad
Not yet, but Kalam is a rather laughable argument that builds equivocation fallacies into its language.
TheZooCrew Thank you.
constructive criticism, the audio levels from the debate clips to Matt talking are so different. The debate clips are so much louder than the clips of Matt talking.
+VAUncleBadTouch2 The original debate was a low-quality, left-channel only audio from a camcorder that is all over the place during the debate. I tried to normalize the levels...but I guess I missed some of it. :(
5:40 - That is one of your strongest attributes. You are not an "ivory tower" atheist.
7:50 - Is this not just a version of the presuppositional apologetic position?
The devil artwork is totally awesome. Can I get any info about it?
+sluttyfrogmagician it seems really familiar to me but i just can't place it.
Thats not a painting of the Devil. Its a reflection of Matt's soul. As he commits more evil in the name of atheism it becomes more demonic ala Dorian Gray.
/s in case there was any doubt.
Matt, could have flipped this by saying that Jay knows that god doesn't really exist, and that he is just deluded, pretending or downright lying. Now, Jay, how are we going to discover the truth?
+Matt Dillahunty, when you said "deviate" I thought you said, "BB-8." Star Wars on the mind I guess...
Matt,
In my mind, the analogy below might be similar to your detective point (Ref. Stephen Law vs. Sye Ten Bruggencate):
[ - - - - - >
Five go on holiday on a deserted island. Bert, one of the five, dies apparently alone in a boating accident. Now I, as prosecutor, claim that this was no accident and Bill, one of the other four, murdered Bert.
Trouble is, not only have I not yet produced any good evidence that Bert was murdered, Bill, unlike the others, has a particularly good alibi (being on the phone at the time of the death-the phone being miles from the death).
Now, as Bill’s defense attorney, you do not believe Bert was murdered. You start by pointing out there is, as yet, no evidence he was.
And then you add, “But in any case, even if Bert was murdered, why should we suppose Bill is the guilty party? Where’s your evidence that it wasn’t one of the other three?”
Would it be fair for me to respond, “But you don’t believe any of the others murdered Bert either, do you? Because you don’t think he was murdered. So you see-we don’t even need to consider the others!”
This would be an entirely dishonest move, would it not?
If I, as prosecutor, want rightly to convince my audience that Bill did it, I do have to rule the other three out, whether my audience happens to believe any of the other three guilty or not.
If I now whipped out conclusive evidence Bert was indeed murdered, and then got Bill convicted by means of such logic, that would be a grave miscarriage of justice.
My prosecutor’s move is just a rhetorical ploy, with no justification.
-Professor Stephen Law
< - - - - - ]
It’s my increasing opinion, Matt, debates titled, “Does God Exist?” should be avoided. Following the advice of A. C. Grayling-making the opponent define the specific attributes and premises for their argued-for God and subsequent world view-is paramount to an honest debate.
E.g., the debate might have been: Does Jay’s God, Yahweh, the God of his Christian Bible, exist? It speaks volumes if an opponent will not debate with such a title. [Ref. The God Argument -A. C. Grayling]
Matt, you’ve spoken many times about true dichotomies. With that in mind, the debates should be structured upon that concept and not allowed to transition into the classic Christian ‘bait and switch.’
Examples:
1. YHWH vs. ἄYHWH
2. Χριστός vs. ἄΧριστός
3. τὰ βιβλία vs. ἄ τὰ βιβλία
4. τὰ Χριστός βιβλία vs. ἄ τὰ Χριστός βιβλία
yinYangMountain
"think about the worst thing that someone has ever done to you in your life. Was that act genuinely wrong? Would they say that in their opinion that act was acceptable?" Thisb should have been followed with "well don't worry, because the God I believe in will commit cosmic justice against that person for you UNLESS that person converts to Christianity before they die. In that case, you will be able to enjoy living along with that person for the rest of eternity with them never receiving any sort of cosmic repercussion!" Yippee!
I think what shows how stupid their position is, is that each debate ends up in an argument about how do you know things. They know they can't win without changing the rules.
+Jani SIr
That's exactly it. If someone tried these same tactics in a debate about economics or foreign policy, they'd be ejected from the debate on the grounds of misconduct.
No
Something immediately seemed familiar with Lucas' opening statements. It feels like it was lifted directly from John Morris Pendleton.
I agree with you about when he asked the audience to remember a time when they were hurt. I go a little farther and say that it was irresponsible and even harmful. That is his morality? To manipulate with some of the worst traumas people can experience? People go to therapy just to move past involuntarily reliving memories, and here he is encouraging it.
That doesn't make his argument wrong; it just makes him a dick, whether he means well or not.
The problem with Lucas' argument is that his _primary presupposition_ is not actually his primary presupposition, it is secondary to his presupposition of the validity of the laws of logic... the same primary presupposition an atheist, or any other non-comatose person for that matter, makes. There is one line I have heard, I forget who wrote it, describing what the laws of logic are and what they do... and i realized that it was _this_ line, almost word-for-word that presuppositionalists have been plagiarizing but simply replacing the word _logic_ with God.
I have a question for you Matt. In the start you indicate that one of the important things to do in a debate is to "Define your Terms". While understand the reasoning behind doing so, in practice I dont see what benefit it has. Not only are you both likely to disagree as to what the definition is, but given your opponent hasn't seen your definitions in advance, they are likely to either have already misrepresented your definition, or are purposely going to equivocate on alternate definitions of the words to prove you wrong.
So I am thinking of this in a "big picture" kind of thing (considering this is after all a deconstruction of the debating process and this one in particular).
This may be me thinking out aloud, or simply hypothesizing... but wouldn't it be better to have a debate where you can first AGREE on the definitions of the terms you are going to use? Imagine how different a debate would be if both of you had already agreed to the terminology, and each of you were already aware of how the other was going to use them. I would have to wonder if the result from this would be a far better debate (given both sides genuinely want there to be conversation), rather than two people talking passed each other and both claiming the other "got them wrong" all the time. If we know this kind of issue comes up all the time, and we know debaters are constantly having to deal with this, then why not resolve it?
As an example... "faith". How often in a debate does the atheist use the definition which is without evidence? And how often does the theist use the definition which is with confidence? And how often do both sides equivocate to each other? If it was agreed before hand that "blind faith" was the term to be used for belief without evidence, and "confident faith" was the term to be used for belief coming from confidence and trust, then wouldn't that make for a better debate by being able to have both sides remind the other when they equivocate as they both agreed to these terms? Now sure the issue then becomes that the texts being read from only use the word faith, so the argument revolves around interpretation of the passage(s), but this is the actual source of the misunderstanding in the first place, so wouldn't this naturally be the first place to actually address? What is the point in trying to argue that the use of the word is wrong, if not by referring back to the actual place in text where it is being misused? Some places in the bible it makes it clear the faith they are talking about is "blind faith", while in others the theist would choose to interpret it as "confident faith". This in itself raises the question of why there are multiple different uses of the word faith and how any use of blind faith contradicts all others because it isn't possible to say on the one hand that it is good to believe without evidence, and then to assume that in other cases it is only confident faith that is being sought.
Though I have no doubt theists would want to steer clear of such a debate... after all, it would be taking away from them one of the only falsehoods they think is valid. How else then could they claim we have "faith in evolution" or "it takes more faith to believe there is no god".
Worth a thought?
+Enigmatical Jedi
*While understand the reasoning behind doing so, in practice I dont see what benefit it has. Not only are you both likely to disagree as to what the definition is, but given your opponent hasn't seen your definitions in advance, they are likely to either have already misrepresented your definition, or are purposely going to equivocate on alternate definitions of the words to prove you wrong*
This is _precisely_ why it's important to define terms...equivocation fallacies are exposed, if not avoided. Theists are intent on being dishonest, so all you can do is set up an exposure of their dishonesty.
TheZooCrew "This is precisely why it's important to define terms...equivocation fallacies are exposed, if not avoided."
How can they be avoided? Each person has already come up with their arguments before the debate has started, so ALL of the preparation is false. Either the other person upon hearing the definition goes "debate over, I have a different definition for what he said and my whole debate revolves around it" or "I need to double down to make my debate worthwhile".
Neither of those options are beneficial.
"Theists are intent on being dishonest, so all you can do is set up an exposure of their dishonesty."
The key word you used here is "set up". One cannot set something up, when it is already too late
I think you need to be more pragmatical here. If an equivocation fallacy is brought up, nobody is going to throw out their prepared material and attempt to wing it, that would be debate suicide, nobody is going to call off the debate, people are already there. The *ONLY* option left to the person, no matter how dishonest or deceitful it is, would be to just push on, which means you have an entire debate where two people are talking at cross purposes, essentially talking over each other and it isn't productive.
This is why I am suggesting that IN ADVANCE an agreement is made to terms, or that you have an entire debate on what the definition of those terms are so that by the time you reach the actual debate, you can actually have a valid discussion.
Of course, you would never reach that second debate for those theists intent on being dishonest and do you know what? I am perfectly comfortable with NOT watching a debate where one person has to lie and ignore the obvious to make an invalid point that isn't even representative of the other person's argument. It is completely unhelpful on every front. What's more, I think the fact that you could possibly even have a separate debate on each individual term and in ALL cases the debate would fail with the person misusing the terms claiming "they just dont agree" without ever disproving the evidence provided to the contrary, would speak volumes as to why the debates themselves never succeed. If you cannot even get passed the definitions, again... what is the point in even stating them in advance other than to highlight the entire debate will be on misrepresentation of that
Enigmatical Jedi
*do you know what? I am perfectly comfortable with NOT watching a debate where one person has to lie and ignore the obvious to make an invalid point that isn't even representative of the other person's argument*
Same here. This is why I hate the alternating "state of the union" debates with theists. I don't see the point. I prefer more back-and-forth types.
I've noticed that a lot of apologists will find a statement by some atheist somewhere and then expect that all atheists are obliged to think that exact thing. They seem to think we have scriptures or dogma like them.
I wonder what a video of Jay's analysis of the debate would look like?
He would just make a bunch of assertions without backing them up again.
Matt, wouldn't that be "_complimenting_ the opponent" ? :p Keep up the good work ;)
I know you have already addressed the moral argument, have you addressed the "You're just borrowing from my world view" argument they so often make to avoid addressing the argument?
He did in the commentary of his Sye Ten Bruggencate debate. Of course he did: that is pretty much Sye's one and only argument.
+Broderick Siz But, how do you know that? Could you be wrong? ;)
+Darkpumpkin21 That video is coming, probably next month.
+Matt Dillahunty hey Matt, I know someone who claimed that the church created the Big Bang Theory, what do you think of that? He's a horrible debater too as he just makes up things as evidence
The term "supernatural" basically means mysterious. As soon as new knowledge and discoveries shed the light on to the dark and mysterious corner, supernatural becomes natural and the mystery is gone.
When jay brought up that people should think of the worst act inflicted upon them I started to hate him. When I first saw this debate I thought I optically of the subject and just wanted to hear matt's ideas. I hadn't considered that a debater would try to pull someone's worst memories out and use that to say "see I must be right because of how you feel about this."
Why are there so many cults where people don't think they are in a cult, or even joining such cults?
Did this guy have a WLC voice-box surgically implanted or was his voice dubbed in???
I am a voice therapist. There is nothing wrong with his voice. It’s totally the sound system!
Debates aren't theater at all. The individual who wins a debate is the winner regardless of what the majority thinks or how it is remembered.
Not complement. Compliment.
I like that painting in the background. 😊
It's difficult to listen to such sleazy dishonesty and not conclude it at least on some level is consciously used as such.
Lucas is a very typical apologist. Fundamentally dishonest.
The irony is that the very existence of apologetics should be a defeater for their god proposition for 2 reasons. First, apologetics should be unnecessary if their pretend god character actually existed, and second, their pretend god character could NEVER choose liars as its advocates. 🎤⬇️
This guy sounds almost exactly like William Lane Craig, especially his tone and inflection...
+dzScritches Learned well he did...
Since there has never been any evidence for any god, what is there to debate about?
+Coy Hampton Precisely.Modern word jousting.
+Coy Hampton
True. But a significant number of people in the world are still convinced there is and in many cases this informs their view of what is right and wrong often to the detriment of those who question their assertion. Three examples: opposition to same sex relationships; opposition to same sex marriage; opposition to abortion. As long as God, even if, with good grounds, people reject claims about his existence, is used as a stick to beat people down, by for instance labelling them sinners, the topic is a valid subject for debate.
+Mario C "There's no evidence for how life began but we believe it began naturally right?"Wrong. We believe life began naturally on the basis of a large amount of evidence, the fossil record, for example, which is readily available to those who can be bothered to read up about it, evidence that is building all the time as science progresses. There is nothing that remotely qualifies as evidence for the existence of a God so in what way is it sensible to assert his or her existence? There is no evidence for the existence of man-eating, monkey-faced potatoes at the centre of Mars. It doesn't mean they don't exist but to assert that they do, without producing, for instance, the remains of a human they have eaten, would be regarded as lacking sense by most people, except those who have unswerving, unsupported faith in their existence. Not many of the latter around. I wonder why?
Mario C That's called an argument from ignorance. You don't know how life arose so you insert God in there. Of course it is the God you believe in and of course you have no evidence to back it up.
+Mario C "So let me get this straight, you say the fossil records prove that life came from non-life right?"Wrong. I cited the fossil record, which is tangible evidence of originally primitive life forms developing over time, as one source of evidence that points to a natural beginning for life. I was not offering a conclusive proof but a high degree of probability. The chemical elements that are necessary for life to exist ( carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen, sulphur, for example, )are not individually a form of life, but combined they can, if the circumstances are right, enable a life form to develop. So not so far fetched suggest, not prove, that a random event several million years ago which involved elements such as these could have resulted in the beginning of life. Compare this with your own assertion (known as "the God of the gaps" argument), based on nothing of substance whatsoever, that because there is no conclusive evidence for the creation of life - at this moment in time - it must have been instigated by a figment of yours and others imagination i.e. a God. You are hung up with the notion that it is impossible for a life form to be created spontaneously. On what basis do you make this assertion? You seem to assume, without anything concrete to support your assumption, that some entity, timeless, non-spatial, independent of all the laws of physics, sat down one day, although of course such an entity cannot by definition sit down, waved a wand and said "Just for fun, let's create a universe, not a simple one, but one of infinite complexity." This entity is apparently non-causal, thus negating any claim that to exist without a cause is impossible. And you attach the label "sensible" to assertions about this entity?
Around 25:00 why is Matt redebating?
Jay Lucas is a *suppressed atheist*!
Not really... but you can see how desperate he must be if that's his strongest argument (non-argument).
I love these 'debate reviews' where Matt tries to get the last word and finish what he couldn't do during the debate itself.
I guess being a douchebag is how your pretend god character created you.
I wonder if Jay Lucas would take the Mark 16 challenge?
+The Suit Is NOT Black!
you misspelled "think"
Can someone explain to me why religious apologists keep using the word "evidences" instead of evidence? If anyone has the answer please let me know i'm genuinely curious. My best guess is that it was used in a book or by a popular apologist and so it has caught on. Thanks in advance.
Hightower489 because they are illiterate idiots who follow the works of an ancient text and who disregard the things they don't like from it
It's crazy that Matt doesn't connect Jay's accusation that he's a suppressing theist with the sharing worldviews argument. That's literally the crux of Jay's argument
you rock Matt
Jay's smarmy preacher voice and inflection stops my even wanting to listen. Write it down Jay and see if you can get it published in any non theist publications.
Is matt still involved with atheism+?
+Cj Casey no
Is there a difference between debating unseen, undetectable, unfalsifiable god type claims and flat earth claims?
it was pretty obvious from Jay lucas's opening words that Matt was in for a debate with a slippery dodgey character,
Just a nit-pick... It's compliment, not complement.
One of the biggest problems debating with Theists, especially those who believe in every word of the Bible is that their thinking isn't joined up, this is a classic symptom of someone who is irrational, it's like they find a way of compartmentalizing conflicting things somehow within them, rather than making an effort to reasonably reconcile those conflicts or if they are irreconcilable just getting rid of them, which is what a rational person would do, so, if you present a point that undermines their premise, even if they kinda concede the point, they don't then seem to understand what conceding the point actually means to their position, they don't seem to realize that by conceding the point they should no longer uphold the 'truth' they were proposing based on that now defeated premise....and yet....oddly...frustratingly....they will continue to do just that as if they've forgotten what they said earlier on in the conversation.
An example of this is one which I have often had when engaging with believers myself, I will say to a Christian...'why doesn't God just show himself to me so I can see he is real and believe?'.... they will then reply.... 'John....the reason God doesn't show himself to you is because he wants you to come to him of your own volition and if he were to show himself to you, then you would have no choice but to come to him'....so then I will say.... 'but if Adam and Even are anything to go by, if God showed himself to me I would still have the choice to decide whether I want to come to him or not like they did wouldn't I?'....they reply....'yes....you are correct John, God gave Adam and Eve the free will to decide whether to obey him or not, he has also given you that same free will to choose to worship and obey him or not'.
I reply....'right...so why doesn't this God show himself to me then so that I can exercise my free will and decide whether I will come to him or not'....they will then say..... 'because God wants you to choose him freely rather than force you to believe'......and then I will say....'but you said just now....'....well I guess you see the point Lol, you just end up going around in circles, it's pointless debating with someone if even after you've won the argument they don't even seem to realize that you've already won the argument Lol, having said that, some might decide it might be a good idea to join up their thinking and the minute they do they will realize there's a problem with their belief system, I guess this is how my journey to Atheism began, I had tried to keep conflicting things separate in my mind too for a longtime in order to force myself to believe in the Bible but there came a point where I had to put my thinking together and as soon as I did, out went my faith.
Leaving aside all content, does anyone else think Jay's tone is like that of a patronizing teacher talking to kids? I can't tell if it's my own bias, but I keep hearing the same, 'aww, you kids have your own ideas, but you're just being silly and here's how things REALLY are, you'll grow out of it...' in his tone. His inflections, word choice... it all sounds so smugly certain. I don't normally like making those kinds of judgements because they often aren't productive, but I wondered if anyone else heard the same thing.
re: "Professed Atheists"
You'll probably mention this later, but it's got to take some serious willpower to hear someone basically call you a liar, and then refuse to respond in kind when he blatantly lies about the practice of slavery described in the bible...
I always enjoy it when they say that atheists "admit" things. As if it's some sort of "gotcha!" moment when someone considers as many possibilities as they can and acknowledges that maybe they _don't_ have the answers to everything.
Be careful of the "hey, it's [current year], so why are we still doing this" line. Seems like more and more often I hear this used in place of any actual argumentation (I'll admit to having done it myself), but I don't think it's a very good tactic. Your point was less about that, and more about how long the debate has been going on without any real progress...but you might want to keep it in mind.
+s bushido I largely agree with you except for your last point. I think it makes sense to shove that fact into the face of theists that after so many millenia of asserting a god, they still have NOTHING! With all the advancements, developments and innovations we've made up to this point, it's seriously pathetic that they've conjured up NOTHING yet still cling on like Klingons to their baseless assertions! So many people have lived, died, and killed for this/these supposed being(s), yet still nothing!
Is it possible he meant youre a great debater for atheism as you show all the flaws he thinks atheism has? one of those backhanded compliments?
I was wondering the same thing.
+wolf wing I think he was just trying to demonstrate how nice and respectful he was, like politicians used to.
+wolf wing I thought about that...but Jay and I had conversations outside of the debate and that sort of thing doesn't seem to be in his character. I think his mannerisms and inflection here, which may hint toward that conclusion, are really just someone trying to pay a sincere compliment. But I coudl be wrong.
+wolf wing Personally I think Lucas was propping himself up by saying Dillahunty is a prominent atheist (which he is). It wouldn't do to have some unknown schmuck on stage with him to slap around, it wouldn't increase Lucas' popularity or standing. Prop up the opponent and you prop yourself up.
+Matt Dillahunty Thats good, I've just seen guys like sy ten use that kind of backhand compliment why I was wondering.
This is not a plea to emotion, now relive your worst trauma.
That was just, wow
Whenever someone claims that I'm a theist but won't admit it or am deceived, I come back with the claim that I don't think they believe in a god and I have more evidence of my claim than they have of theirs. If I thought that the Bible was the word of a god, I would have learned ancient Greek and any languages that might help me understand the original texts and I would be an historian of those periods. Hell, if i thought a book was from a mere alien civilization, I would do that much. If I thought the book was the word of an all powerful creator of the universe and he controlled my existence for eternity, I would devote my entire life to study everything about that book and never worry about this mere blink of human existence.
Yes - we have no objective grounding for morals... why do we NEED one?
When is Part 2 coming out?!
+Frizbi Gmaz next month
+Matt Dillahunty Is it ready yet? I really liked this.
+Matt Dillahunty where the evidence for evolution
If I were doing debates like this I would ask for all my opening statement time be added to my rebuttal time. There is no point to an opening statement; just rebut all the other guy's arguments.
The 'complement your opponent' trick always comes over exactly like Shakespeare's 'honorable man' thing in Julius Caesar - a devious, cynical and manipulative tactic. Anyone who tries pulling it off in a debate deserves to have their pants set on fire there and then.
If you would discover something supernatural in this universe then it would become natural - because every part of this universe is natural.
And who created the big bang?
were did everything came from.
+† Archangel Michael † We just don't know yet. But everything in this universe has a natural cause and so most probably the universe has one too. What makes you assume, a 'God' did it? A being that exists obviously out of space and time and is immortal? We have no evidence that such a being is even possible. It is just stupid to assume 'something' created 'anything' out of 'nothing' with a simple word. That's ridiculous.
Joachim Hannemann my friends I do not assume ,I know.
But because you will not believe my testimony or others , at least take the time to look into my links which I posted above.
Also please look into the prophecies which have and are being fulfilled as we speak.
+† Archangel Michael † Corrections: You do not 'know' - Knowledge can only be achieved by evidence. You however 'believe' - that is something completely different and we both know it.
And for the prophecies: Which ones?
Joachim Hannemann No, correction I do know because of my testimony of what I have seen with my own eyes, but this testimony is only good for me.
For the rest of your questions, I believe I post them in the comment section above.
Please take your time going through them and don't be quick to discard them.
There is a lot of information in those links.
I'm not here to prove to you if God exist or not, I just said that there is evidence of God's existence, I can only show you the door.
Have a nice day
25:15-26:30 I think you underestimate how impressionable many people are to this tactic of trying to connect people's personal experiences with ideas. What he's doing is trying to get people to make a decision on a principle that corresponds to their life. These kinds of things are what make people seem really evasive, misinformed and in denial of things like abortion. It is engraved in their minds that abortion = murder. Unless you justify murder, nothing about the mother's circumstance or whatever is going to matter to them. Jay Lucas is trying to get them to decide that there are objective external morals so that the only narrative that fits is Jeebus.
*Compliment
+aglasser Argh! I had "compliment" typed in my notes and it was auto-corrected to complement before the cut/paste. Damn. Damn. Damn.
Erm you beat me 2 it, but I can forgive Matt an awful lot you know... :)
Erm you beat me 2 it, but I can forgive Matt an awful lot you know... :)
If you close your eyes and listen to Jay Lucas, you will swear its WLC. He sounds like him and has the same tempo as him.
26:00 - I find the BIble and Biblegod's character morally reprehensible.
So, what you are saying Jay, is that your god, in his infinite self-hate, programmed me with morals to find him reprehensible, then he became the hide-and-seek champion of the universe. Yet, he expect me to believe he exists, and to worship him.
Do you see the blaring contradictions in your argument?
"Complement opponent" think you mean compliment
One supposes that God is extremely moral, but suppose you had the powers attributed to God, right this minute and you learn that about 19,000 children under the age of five - 13 each minute - die every day, would you do something about it or just wait until the events predicted in the Bible come to pass sometime in the distant future?
+ffairlane57 That's because I happen to be human. If I was a frog, I would look at it from a frog's point of view. I've read that an adult female frog lays about 2000 eggs every year. Obviously, most of her babies do not survive to have babies of their own, so the system created by God is extremely wasteful and apparently, it's all because he put a cunning snake in the garden east of Eden. Yeah, If I was really stupid, I might believe such nonsense.
+ffairlane57 I don't. But I think humans have better morals than any God.
+ffairlane57 So gods don't care about us - I can believe that - lots of evidence !
Does Jay realize that he's debating you, Matt, and not everyone he quote (mines)?
+Andres64B It is fairly common. They don't like to deal with the people they are talking to but trying to make smart people be on their side even when they are not.
There is something extra that I object to that I think Matt and other atheists are more guilty of than most Christians and that is complicated linguistic expressions. For e.g. "The God claims", if you are aware of what is meant by this phrase then you are also probably already aware of the arguments he is presenting, to a Christian or a layman that is actually undecided on the arguments "the god claims" sounds like "the individual claims made by the Christian God". Confusion with terms is something that affected me when I first started watching counter apologetics on UA-cam.
Being an atheist in Australia I was not even aware theists had the audacity to try and prove their gods by rational argument. So even though I don't start thinking of evil Leprechauns fighting honest farmers in the highlands when I hear "no true Scotsman" and "poisoning the well", I still remember a day when the confusion was enough to miss the point.
So in conclusion, I think it is easy for debaters to loose their audience by not using layman's terms, explaining why things are fallacies instead of just naming them and remembering those on the other side are often hearing these concepts for the first time.
My alma mater! I was at this debate!
How the heck does Jay get from Carl Sagan's quote that, "the cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be," to his statement that atheists believe that the entire universe is merely "matter in motion"? I get so tired of theists claiming that atheists don't believe in anything other than "matter in motion" or "molecules in motion" and therefore have no way to account for such things as consciousness, morality, love, beauty, etc. We've come along way from the Newtonian view of physics and now know that the universe is made up of matter plus energy plus quantum fields and may include such things as dark energy and dark matter.
I'm just wondering why nobody ever seems to call theists on this.
+godzillatemple
Some people do. Armored Skeptic has a takedown of Frank Turek where Turek bootstraps materialism to atheism.
Part of it is that it's actually irrelevant to god claims. This is inanity the same way that creationists spend all their time trying to poke holes in evolution without providing positive evidence for creationism. Sure, we could set the record straight, but all that's needed is to say "Say I do believe that nonsense. What does that have to do with the topic at hand?"
Good point! It's important to never forget who has the burden of proof with god claims, and even if science can't explain consciousness, etc., there's no reason to believe that God must exist in order to explain those things. Sure, God is posited as an explanation for anything that can't otherwise be explained (yet), but that doesn't actually provide any evidence as to whether God in fact exists. Especially since God is basically being defined as "that which explains what otherwise can't be explained", so it's just a tautology.
Matt is a suppressed theist... Right. How condescending...
+jmtnvalley This guy sounds like he was trained by William Lane Craig.
hahaha "suppressed theist"... if he can't show what he says to be true, his arguments can be completely disregarded 😅
+jmtnvalley Not just Matt, everyone is. Ever heard the same said of homosexuals? That they are suppressed heterosexuals, it's just as insulting
+jmtnvalley I am a an oppressor who suppresses myself before anyone else can oppress me, thus I slide by and pass for normal.
+jmtnvalley I thought the same thing - inflection and speech pattern are so close that if I only had audio of this, I would have thought it was the KING of Circular Arguments himself!
Regarding Jay's contention that he's a professing theist and Matt is a supressing theist; this is actually completely irrelevant. Let's say for a moment that the contention is actually true. Matt is still taking the position of an atheist for the purpose of the debate. Matt is still representing the 'con' side of the moot. Matt's actual beliefs on the matter don't change that.
"evidences", sigh.
The moral argument depends on the idea that humans are incapable of making up rules of behavior, so there must be a law giver that is called "God", therefore God exists. This is silly. We find it easy to make up rules of behavior. For example, when there is some invention that many people want, but is also sometimes dangerous (e.g. Cars), then we have no difficulty at all in inventing rules (e.g. traffic laws), even controversial ones (e.g. compulsory seat belts). Some countries have rules that you might find puzzling, such as not allowing a woman to drive. Some of the books used today in English school classes in England were banned when I was a child. At the same time, when they were banned, it was thought OK to hang some murderers, a rule that was later abolished when it was discovered that some of the people hanged were later found to be innocent (e.g. Timothy Evans). As time goes on, we find the need to refine rules, in the light of new ideas, research and changing fashions. "Thou shalt not kill" is silly rule. We kill to survive (e.g. Antibiotics, self defense, bombing Arabs). If I was in a Nazi concentration camp with my children, I would steal from the guards if possible, to feed my children. Working on the Sabbath is not a sin deserving death any more. We've moved on and grown up.
+Matt Dillahunty
I think I love you
my biggest problem with the consistent world view is that it does nothing to show wether it's real or not, god answers alot of questions, but how is that evidence if god didn't exist they would work just as well.
Can you provide an example of a question that is answered by god? I'm usually on the side that "god did it" is actually avoiding to answer questions about "how" something works. But I'm not sure you were even talking about this. ;-)
+SebastianMisch well I mean where they say, "My beliefs in god explain X." but like matt said, just saying it explains and even maybe does, does nothing if you havn't proved god exists. I see this alot when they try to say stuff like, "Atheism doesn't explain logic, but god does, and unless you can show that the belief in god isn't consistent then I'm right." kind of thing.
As if their beliefs being consistent and no outright logical errors means it's right, because if the data put into it is bad then the output is bad.
+wolf wing
God doesn't explain anything at all, even if God would exist. If you ask me, "How do you explain the iPhone?" and I answer, Steve Job exists and he designed it, it wouldn't answer the question. An answer would be the design and manufacturing process of the iPhone.
Erwin Müller
That was my original thought, as well. But the point is that even if god would explain things, you wouldn't be able to use this explanation because you don't know whether god exists in the first place.
+Erwin Müller if we found a artificial satelite beyond our technology saying steve jobs made it is a answer, but it's a answer with no reason to accept without evidence.
Famous Atheists Last Words Before Dying by Nobody: 10:52pm On Aug 28, 2011
[flash=400,400]
ua-cam.com/video/6fSFGrhsBpM/v-deo.htmlversion=3&hl=en[/flash]
Re: Famous Atheists Last Words Before Dying by Nobody: 10:54pm On Aug 28, 2011
Caesar Borgia: "While I lived, I provided for everything but death; now I must die, and am unprepared to die."
Thomas Hobbs political philosopher "I say again, if I had the whole world at my disposal, I would give it to live one day. I am about to take a leap into the dark."
Thomas Payne [/b]the leading atheistic writer in American colonies: "Stay with me, for God's sake; I cannot bear to be left alone , O Lord, help me! O God, what have I done to suffer so much? What will become of me hereafter? "I would give worlds if I had them, that The Age of Reason had never been published. 0 Lord, help me! Christ, help me! …No, don't leave; stay with me! Send even a child to stay with me; for I am on the edge of Hell here alone. If ever the Devil had an agent, I have been that one."
[b]Sir Thomas Scott, Chancellor of England "Until this moment I thought there was neither a God nor a hell. Now I know and feel that there are both, and I am doomed to perdition by the just judgment of the Almighty."
Voltaire famous anti-christian atheist: "I am abandoned by God and man; I will give you half of what I am worth if you will give me six months' life." (He said this to Dr. Fochin, who told him it could not be done.) "Then I shall die and go to hell!" (His nurse said: "For all the money in Europe I wouldn’t want to see another unbeliever die! All night long he cried for forgiveness."
Robert Ingersoll: "O God, if there be a God, save my soul, if I have a soul!" (Some say it was this way: "Oh God, if there be a God, save my soul if I have a soul, from hell, if there be a hell!"
David Hume, atheist philosopher famous for his philosophy of empiricism and skepticism of religion, he cried loud on his death bed "I am in flames!" It is said his "desperation was a horrible scene".
Napoleon Bonaparte, the French emperor, and who, like Adolf Hitler, brought death to millions to satisfy his greedy, power-mad, selfish ambitions for world conquest: "I die before my time, and my body will be given back to the earth. Such is the fate of him who has been called the great Napoleon. What an abyss between my deep misery and the eternal kingdom of Christ!”
Sir Francis Newport, the head of an English Atheist club to those gathered around his deathbed: "You need not tell me there is no God for I know there is one, and that I am in His presence! You need not tell me there is no hell. I feel myself already slipping. Wretches, cease your idle talk about there being hope for me! I know I am lost forever! Oh, that fire! Oh, the insufferable pangs of hell! …Oh, that I could lie for a thousand years upon the fire that is never quenched, to purchase the favor of God and be united to Him again. But it is a fruitless wish. Millions and millions of years will bring me no nearer the end of my torments than one poor hour. Oh, eternity, eternity forever and forever!, Oh, the insufferable pangs of Hell!”
ua-cam.com/video/-GHhtTqtTTo/v-deo.html
Charles IX [/b]was the French king who urged on by his mother, gave the order for the massacre of the French Huguenots, in which 15,000 souls were slaughtered in Paris alone and 100,000 in other sections of France, for no other reason than that they loved Christ. The guilty king suffered miserably for years after that event. He finally died, bathed in blood bursting from his veins. To his physicians he said in his last hours: "Asleep or awake, I see the mangled forms of the Huguenots passing before me. They drop with blood. They point at their open wounds. Oh! That I had spared at least the little infants at the bosom! What blood! I know not where I am. How will all this end? What shall I do? I am lost forever! I know it. Oh, I have done wrong."
[b]David Strauss, leading representative of German rationalism, after spending a lifetime erasing belief in God from the minds of others: "My philosophy leaves me utterly forlorn! I feel like one caught in the merciless jaws of an automatic machine, not knowing at what time one of its great hammers may crush me!"
In a Newsweek interview with Svetlana Stalin, the daughter of Josef Stalin, she told of her father's death: "My father died a difficult and terrible death. . God grants an easy death only to the just. . At what seemed the very last moment he suddenly opened his eyes and cast a glance over everyone in the room. It was a terrible glance, insane or perhaps angry. . His left hand was raised, as though he were pointing to something above and bringing down a curse on us all. The gesture was full of menace. . The next moment he was dead."
[b]Anton LeVey [/b]author of the Satanic Bible and high priest of the religion dedicated to the worship of Satan. Some of his famous quotes are “There is a beast in man that needs to be exercised, not exorcised”. His dying words were "Oh my, oh my, what have I done, there is something very wrong…there is something very wrong…
*Compliment opponent.
If you're still watching in 2021 you're a legend
Jay reminds me of the skipper on Gilligan's Island.