My comment was obviously pointing out that Matt's arguments were so poor that he defeated himself. So good job exposing yourself in public as a troll, buddy. (and yes you've been blocked)
It's almost like he never has paid attention to any of the arguments against his position. I've seen this before in conversation with friend of mine who claimed "I've argued my beliefs for over 50years" Then why would you put forward such weak arguments?
How is it possible that grown ups believe in talking snakes, magic fruits, impossible animal boats, talking donkeys and resurrected people, but still function relatively normal in everyday life?
Mr. Slick has learned 20 'big' words. He lets them fall out of his mouth in any random order and repeats this process over and over. This is his debating style. Now I could go into various other levels and iterations on this but I would need half an hour to an hour to do that so I will happily debate any of you after this.
30 minutes in and I realized that slick read his opening statement off a paper, and Dan went and just had a nice talk and walk. The parallels of confidence and ability
I noticed something about these debates: Barker (and other non-believers) always seems comfortable no matter where they are debating. But, the theists always seem nervous if they are not at a church or on a "home court."
All he has has is special pleading, as well as every other religious person on the planet and throughout the history of religion. Believing in an imaginary being that a religious person or anyone else cannot prove is not or will not prove their god, no matter how much they want it to be true.
Dan Barker is fantastic. He is, hands down, one of the most articulate, most well-versed atheist debaters there is. His biblical knowledge is specific enough to dismantle Christian absurdities, and his philosophical acumen is broad enough to deconstruct theistic wordplay. Well done Dan!
@Bob Smith So amazing to hear another ex-atheist!...Love It!!! It took some work for me to finally "give God a chance"...It's odd to me however, that atheists these days offer nothing, literally, yet think they have something to "evangelize"!
@Bob Smith So true Bob. It's lunacy at the least. Sheer wickedness at it's worst. I do suspect Aron Ra :)... but, it amusing, then they get "insulted"? when you point our their own belief to be descendants of fish, or monkeys...or something. heh
@@clearascrystal4960 ahh, yes he did. Yes, he was the epidamy of the enlightened, evangelical, saved Christian. Then he realized it was all a stage play. It was all contrived. He was simply playing out a conscripted role, He was following what he was led to follow. And it had no validity in the real world.
I've watched many of these debates. All these theists have one thing in common. They try to push their views by trying to belittle you instead of having a logical discussion.
@@rembrandt972ify Logic will always overule common sense because logic are philisophical premises that comes to an exact conclusion of posabilities that solves the premise, WHAT IF? Common Sense tells us God Does Exist or GOD dosen't Exist due to a scientific belief system but is either really right? Logic ask questions and hypothicates an answer at the same time. If God Does Exist Then Where Are Proofs of His Existance. If GOD don't exist, why does all his creations through granted procreation bring forth life and this living being believes in God / or the athesist that traveld the same path of procreation. But both utters these words, Oh My GOD, when facing danger, terror, horrific, circumstances, and death. Therefore, in a logical scientific premises that the beliver and the Atheist have proven from their utterances, GOD does Exist.
Justify that he didn't use any logic. Don't just personally attack, actually justify that his arguments were illogical by addressing and rebutting them. This is how debate works.
@@lightbeforethetunnel if I told you why I’m a Christian you won’t BELIVE me “HE CAME TO ME ONE DAY “ you’re using emotional arguments meanwhile he talks about his son and Christ in flesh came to him … Jesus is god in flesh … long after the Bible was written how does Matt apply transcends to God one logical spear to another he takes about Jesus being God and God having to natures which is a non sensical statement
Just not when it comes to Christianity he used to be a pastor yet he knows nothing about Christianity at all all he does is just argue and complete bad faith and strawman peoples positions.
@@pleaseenteraname1103 he was a Christian more than you’ll ever be, Dan Barker was a preacher for 19 years, I’m assuming you probably go every 5 months to church
@@Chuked I don’t go to church every single week, I watch church on zoom most of the time, and yes he was a pastor but he didn’t go to seminary he even admitted he was taught in the Sunday school type of environment, a student at seminary who is only been there for two months studying week could absolutely destroy and Daniel Barker, and I never said I was a Christian and I’m not gonna tell you because I don’t really think that’s important, and also you’re saying that is if that makes it better if anything that’s even worse because he used to be a Christian yet he knows nothing David Silverman has a better understanding of the Bible then Dan Barker, Dan Barker acts in complete bad faith and he doesn’t attempt to try to understand anything in the Bible trying to communicate or what it says. Just because you used to be a Christian means nothing there are a lot of Christian to have a very shallow understanding of Christianity Dan had a completely superficial level understanding when he was a Christian and that carried over to his atheism.
@@andydany3260 Leviticus25:44-46 tells you to buy your slaves from the nations around you, that you may own them as property for life and pass them onto your children as inheritance. Exodus21 20-21 tells you how bad you could beat a slave. As long as the slave recovered in a day or two the owner wasn't punished since the slave was his property.
I wish I had heard your arguments, Dan, before I went to college. I have a Bible and Theology BA now, and I'm using your debates to deprogram. Thank you
I have to say, completely independant of the positions he takes (I'm also comparing him to other Christians) Matt Slick is the worst debater I've ever seen. I've seen MANY "debates" he's taken part in, and I don't think I've ever seen him actually defend a point. He just goes "I'm right. I'm right because god says I'm right, and god's right because god says he's right." and then when somebody challenges him on... well... ANYTHING... he just gets flustered and hung up on terminology, or defines himself into a corner and goes into repeat mode. It's almost like he's got a (very poorly) written list of approved talking points, and as soon as the conversation goes off that list he forgets who he is, where he is, and what the conversation's about.
@@inquisitiveskeptic1789 ughhh that's just an excuse to not check into what the miracle is. And stuff like the guadolope are well known. And then there are alot of Eucharistic miracles
@@crackingcrisps8407 Eucharistic miracles = God of the gaps fallacy. Your argument is tantamount to the 800 BCE peasants who thought the miracle of thunder was from a supernatural agent.
bruh do you even know anything about the Eucharistic miracles? This has nothing to do with what you just said. Also the God of the Gaps argument is just stupid
Especially when juxtaposed with (Un)slick’s long-winded attempts at dazzling with jargon. I think God was trying to shut him up with that “head cold.” Dan probably could have healed him with hands. Lmao
My favorite part was when he brought up magic magical sky God at 1:10:45 his clarity of thought was, wait what was I talking about? ... He must have realize it's a little too close to what he's literally preaching. Good catch. Don't bring up the magical sky God while preaching about the mythological Christian God as something logical.
@Dag Koj Dag Koj, first, I am so sorry for your loss. Being a parent, I think I can understand. I did have a gentle brother who lived and loved the Lord, but the Lord took him at the age of 28. This world is not meant to live forever. God has an amazing better plan, but, for here, and now, it's this life. I'm ex-atheist and know how empty and meaningless it is, so I pray that you turn to the Lord God again in truth. Let Him help you in this, and you will see your child again.
Jenny Valentine I dislike telling people what their church preaches because I do not know if you even attend church. Many people now take a cafeteria approach to the bible where they pick out what they like and leave the rest. You should do some research on what the trinity means and I look forward to hearing feed back on what you find out.
Scot McDonald God is a trinity of persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. They are three distinct persons but they are all the one God. They aren't three Gods, there is one God (Deuteronomy 6:4; 1 Corinthians 8:4; Galatians 3:20; 1 Timothy 2:5) Each has its own different function, the father chooses who will be saved, the Son redeems them, and the holy spirit seals them.
I really do want to have a conversation about this, but did you read the passages before you responded? Old Test Deuteronomy 6:4; Says there is one god and goes on to say do not worship other gods. It is not speaking of jesus, but this is an old testament book and if it did it would lend more credence to the trinity concept. New Test 1 Corinthians 8:4 Speaks of idol worship has nothing to do with jesus Galatians 3:20; Speaks of angels being a mediator between parties and not mediating a single person. This chapter speaks about the children of Abraham. This is to say that god in the god of the genitals and of the jews . 1 Timothy 2:5 Alright here we go. (I will say that I am sorry about the end of this bullet point I do not wish to be rude but if it is there I feel I need to point it out.) For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; So does this mean that Jesus is not part of the trinity and is not god or that he is in fact part of the single being that is god. It is not clear. I looked further on to see if it specified when I read1 Timothy 2:9-2:15 is that the way you want to live your life? As a second class citizen
In this debate, Matt Slick demonstrated that he is many things: a fast-talking snake oil salesman; a two-bit motivational speaker; a Bible-thumping Fundamentalist Christian preacher-but not a debater, and certainly not an intellectual.
Creation Proves God Exists and Is the True God. Obviously if the universe was created by God, then God must exist. But note also that no god can be the true God unless He is the Creator. Old Testament passages Nehemiah 9:6 - You alone are the Lord; You have made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth and everything on it. Psalm 86:8-10 - He alone is God. There is none like Him among the gods. All nations should worship Him, because he made them. Psalm 95:1-7 - The Lord is the great God and King above all gods. He made the sea and His hands formed the dry land. Worship the Lord our Maker, for He is God. Psalms 100:3 - Know that the Lord, He is God. It is He who has made us, and not we ourselves. Isaiah 45:18 - For thus says the Lord, Who created the heavens, Who is God, Who formed the earth and made it, Who has established it: "I am the Lord, and there is no other." Jeremiah 10:11,12 - "Gods" that did not make heaven and earth will perish! Any "god" that did not make the Universe, must be a false God! He will perish. 1 Chronicles 16:25-36 (also Psalm 96:1-10) - How do we know we should fear God, worship Him, recognize that He reigns, call on Him to save us, and believe that He will judge us? Why not trust ourselves, or something in nature, or some idol? Because God made the heavens and established the earth: That's why! The Old Testament teaches that God is clearly proved to exist and to be God because He made heaven and earth. No one can be God, if he did not make heaven and earth. [2 Kings 19:15; Psalm 8:3-9; Isaiah 37:16; 17:7; 40:25,26; 42:5-9; Jer. 32:17; 14:22; 51:15-19]
@@tdickensheets The god of the bible is evil. Sanctions slavery, commands genocide and kills children of all ages! Even pregnant women too. Uh-huh, sure is a deity worthy of being worshipped... 🙄
God is clearly proved to exist and to be God because He made heaven and earth. A being that doesn’t make heaven and earth is no true god. The earth is real, so God must be, too. Nothing else can explain our universe. Sock goblins are clearly proved to exist and to be sock goblins because my socks keep going missing. A being that doesn’t eat socks is no true sock goblin. My missing socks are real, so sock goblins must be, too. Nothing else can explain my missing socks. EXACTLY THE SAME LOGIC!!
Also Matt Slick seems very, well, unbalanced. I have watched him participate in several debates, and his behavior is just weird. He keeps whispering weird editorial comments here. He constantly claims that he has various things wrong with him so therefore he can't answer a particular question (here he snapped at the audience that he had five hours of sleep in two days as if it is the audience's fault). He claims that he "knows" his God exists but denies the revelation of any other religious persons. He keeps recommending that people visit his website. Screw that nonsense.
I think you probably haven't heard Slick trot out the same tripe in the same way--forgetting that he's already been well-refuted--over and over again. And it makes no difference whose channel it is. It's an unedited debate, for Cthulhu's sake!
+Eli S. Ramirez no, I use the term because I'm accurately diagnosing Matt Slick as someone who is terrible at assessing his own ability to reason because he's so bad at reasoning.
@Eli S. Ramirez no.. it's not his opinion.. matt presents PRATT arguments while towering over others.. That's dunning Kruger.. and what you are doing is just sad apologetics for an apologist
Eli S. Ramirez I don’t think you can explain how I’m using circular reasoning. Matt’s arguments are easily shown to be quite fallacious. He just expresses them as though they were insightful and cannot back them up when push comes to shove. For example: the laws of logic are merely descriptions of the nature of all things. In order to tell which brains are reasoning correctly, we appeal to the predictive capabilities and coherence/logical soundness of their reasoning to see if it stands up or not, and determine that by a set of agreed upon axioms: ua-cam.com/video/_jLJczkOU44/v-deo.html It’s not that hard. Also his tag argument has been debunked: www.scottclifton.com/malpass/ So there’s no point in pretending like you’re going to be able to explain how I’m using circular reasoning because I know I didn’t and that you’re defending indefensibly stupid arguments. Already had personal experience of feeling the presence and love Christians regularly mistake as personal experience of a real god. Turns out those feelings are generated by anyone in any religion that makes regular attempts to communicate and be close to the god of their religion, which shows that it’s the “accepting Christ” that’s makes you think he’s real, which makes you feel the same things I did. Turns out it feels exactly like it would if it was all an effect of convincing yourself he’s real by acting like he’s real (which is the deceptive nature of asking someone to “accept Jesus” and _then_ he’ll “reveal” himself). This is not an intelligent way to distinguish between a real god and an imaginary god, and if Jesus is genuinely god, then he should know that this is manipulative and deceptive, as well as a moronic way to reveal oneself to people.
Eli S. Ramirez, in that case I’ll go for the Flying Spaghetti Monster, lots of personal experience, never find the need to debate whether to eat it or not and it makes me happy and full of good will. I’ve come to accept I’m a spaghettian.
Probably allergiet. Bain of my existence. Constant sinus ifections x Ray my head and my am uses under eyes look 3/4 inch thick and for most of my life my sinus had no drainage on left ent out in a low window and I think it grew back. Face hurts
Dan has a very clear, very important argument @ 1:08:18 that I've not previously heard stated so well. Many times in discussing morality you'll hear an atheist speaker question a Judeo-Christian apologist as to whether or not they would follow Abraham's example and sacrifice their only child if a god commanded it; many times you'll hear the Judeo-Christian apologist attempt to either wriggle out of the answer, or simply say 'Yes, because whatever god commands is right.' Dan Barker rightly puts a pin right in the middle of that ugly immoral insect and sticks it to the board: "That is the opposite of Morality; what you've just described is the Nuremburg defense! That morality boils down to following the orders of the slave-master, the god, the dictator, the Lord; which means that you Believers don't have any basis for moral judgment within yourself, you're having to look out to some orders to tell you what to do. In which case, nothing is right, nothing is wrong, everything just boils down to the whim in the mind of some deity who just declares what is right or wrong." BOOM. Done. Case closed on a god being the basis for morality. Combine that with his observation that morality transcends religion, it's why religions generally have some overarching moral goals in common (Peace, Love, etc.). Because those morals belong to humanity, and humans made religions. Dan rightly places morals first, and religions codifying morals second. Our morals come from our shared experience as a species, which is why morality so often is the subject of disagreement even among Believers. Especially among Believers. It's why saying "Jesus Christ, the Son of the Eternal God" instead of "Jesus Christ, the Eternal Son of God" will get you burned at the stake by John Calvin--even if you're a friend of his. It's like Emo Philips' classic Golden-Gate Jumper joke; because of one minute difference of theology in spite of the many shared values, the religious will scream, "Die, Heretic!" and push you off the bridge. The good values preached by the religions of the world are HUMAN values; the religion-specific values are the divisive, exclusionary, harmful values. As Christopher Hitchens was fond of pointing out, the suicide bomber and genital mutilation communities are nearly exclusively religious. That's what religious values will get you: mutilation and death in body, mind, and spirit.
Abraham was given a promise that his descendants from Isaac would be the chosen heirs of God. That's what Abraham had faith in believing God to keep His word. However, something else comes from it. God asked Abraham to give up his only son, to in fact show how God Himself was willing and did so with His own Son centuries later. John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
@@keithboynton I addressed why God did what He did. It was a foreshadow of His own love and willing to sacrifice His own life. Btw I'm an ex-atheist whom God answered and saved my own life.
@@clearascrystal4960 Why is blood sacrifice so important to your god? If it's not his own son, he seems to enjoy a sacrificial lamb so much that I think that the Bible tells us that the smell of burning flesh is pleasing to him. As you believe that he is real, I guess you must be terrified of him. Love me, fear me. Abusive parent syndrome. I find it sad.
@@tobythedog3606 When you understand what "justice" is, you'll understand why a sacrifice has to be made. If you can understand, rather than each of us paying for what we've done, God had His own Son be that Sacrificial Lamb, once for ALL and all time. It is out of Great Love that He did it Himself. Justice is not abuse.
I thought it was to make xtians, those who haven't staked a career in this nonsense, realize how flimsy their arguments are and how silly the very concept of sky daddy is
1:40 (approx). When Slick praises these Christian missionaries for going to the Philippines to help the poor, he should remember that much of the misery in that country (along with most of Latin America), IS the result of such Christian meddling in the first place ! In this case through the Catholic Church, firstly with the conquistadors & the inquisition and later, through the Pope’s opposition to contraception, abortion and divorce. Granted he’s a Protestant minister but I’m sure he’s also opposed to these things as well.
You really have that right......he attempts to place is condescending responses in a twisted human that is really quite irritating if you pick up on it...........other than that he is a horrible debater of logic.........but we are talking about another pastor trying to play scientist and/or philosopher in a debate.
When Barker is talking during the question period, you can hear Slick muttering snide comments to himself since they sometimes leave his mic on. It's completely unprofessional and petty. Slick is such a piece of shit.
Dan is so right when he says that all arguments for god just end up begging the question and I would say they also end up engaging in special pleading.
@@FaiaHalo I totally agree with you Faia anyone who agrees with slick is limited in knowledge he’s a car salesman at best thank you for seeing him in his real setting
Plenty of doctors claim they have personally witnessed people survive when they deemed it was not medically possible and they can't come up with any Naturalistic explanation. Virtually every doctor has experienced this first hand. My Dad was a radiation oncologist.
This Slick character is reprehensible. He utilises a word salad of pseudointellectual, pseudo philosophical terms interspersed with a third grader understanding of logic. He is also apparently an unpleasant husband and father according to news reports. His favourite line is 'go to my website where I lay it all down'. You have come to a debate. We don't want to go to your website. I can barely watch this because he is so odious.
If the bible contains morality from God Matt, when God told Abraham to murder his son, he could have said "no, that's immoral and don't sound like you God", and God would've said, "Good answer." Instead of psychologically traumatizing Isaac and provided one of the most awkward rides home and probably strained their relationship with Isaac wondering if his dad would try to murder him again if "God, said so."
Having now seen Matt Slick debate Dan Barker twice, Matt Dillahunty twice, and AronRa once, I've noticed a few common themes: - Slick hasn't spent any time considering what he actually means by some of his terminology. When pressed on what free will, morality, omniscience, evidence, etc, actually MEANS, he always draws blank. - He doesn't understand basic logic, despite often bragging about his knowledge in that department. He throws out names of fallacies left and right, but uses them incorrectly almost 100% of the time. - He's very keen on arguing from authority, and very much wants to assume his opponent will do the same thing. He keeps bringing up his experience as a pastor and his masters degree in gobbledegook as proof that he knows what all christians think, and what god is thinking. He also wants to assume all atheists agree with all other atheists 100% of the time. - He never accepts nuance from his opponent, which ties into his fondness for strawmanning. He will ALWAYS listen to a long and nuanced response and try to boil it down to one word from his own terminology, which he can then attack instead of the argument actually made. - He loves making appeals to emotion, such as in this debate with all the references to his son, while in the same breath accusing his opponent of appealing to emotion. - His TRUE reason to believe is personal revelation, which of course can't be verified, and thus all his other arguments are smoke screens. - By "all his other arguments" I mean TAG, because that's literally the only one.
Matt slick seemed very rude, condescending and angry during this debate. That was also a cheap appeal to emotion when he spoke about his son dying in his arms.
Matt just invited Dan to his home for supper. How's that work. How can a Christian like a man that he thinks his God hates. I'm guessing that Matt's hatefull god is sending Dan to hell. That's where the whole theory breaks down. Matt has better morals than his god. I'm assuming that the only way to heaven is by accepting Jesus. Dan hasn't done that. The only thing a god should expect, out of you, is that you be the best that you can and believing should have nothing to do with it.
Jesus ate with tax collectors and sinners and when the Pharisees asked why, he replied: “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.” Well, no Christian I know of thinks God hates anyone. God may indeed hate the sin, but never the sinner. God is not hateful and sends no one to hell. In fact, the truth is "hell" is not found in the bible and many bible translations correctly do not include the word. Don't take the tribal god of the earliest stage of biblical history as who God is. Those were expressions of the desert tribes of the Hebrew beliefs embodied in the form of narratives but not evidence of the truth of who God is. Moreover, this god of the Hebrews takes on more universal and moral attributes and requires justice and mercy. The highest stage reached in the Hebrew scriptures is where he does not wade in the blood of his enemies, but suffers with the poor and oppressed.
Mad Rhino That there is no God might be true, though it's hard to imagine. But I can see no reason why there cannot be an unembodied mind, pure Spirit, that has knowledge and awareness that has always existed and always will.
+Mad Rhino Yes, it's called consciousness. Moreover, it is certain that the basic laws of physics cannot explain the contents of consciousness, since such contents are neither stated in the premises of physical laws nor entailed by their operation.
@@crystalheart9 Yea I got the joke about God turning off Matt's microphone, Cause you know God wouldn't do that to him. Want to hear a funnier joke? Dan Baker said "The Fact Of Evolution". Now that was funny, as he couldn't provide any evidence for that silly assumption!!
Matt comes across as a thoroughly unpleasant, arrogant and snidey little man child. Even when he's talking about his dead child, his own child, he sounds like a heartless psychopath
Matt asks atheists to explain why harm (or suffering) should be labeled "bad". The answer is simple, because that labeling leads to our continued existence as a species. One could just as easily ask why a god's commands are labeled good. The answer is always "just because". This answer is at least as arbitrary as (if not more than) the humanist one.
I have listened to Matt Slick a few times but I sat down and really listened to all he had to say this time. OMG what an arrogant buffoon. Imagine being shipwrecked on a desert island with this man. I would look out for the nearest shark and offer myself to it for its lunch!
+john hammond Oh man, I would go to the other side of the island and spend the rest of my years alone rather than spend a moment with that man. And I'm sure he would have some trolly, arrogant remark about how the atheist is afraid of criticism or some such thing (that man projects like a champ, although to be fair I wouldn't say he's afraid of criticism, he just turns on his christian filter to deal with incompatible arguments), but I don't know what it is with him, whether his willfully ignorant or just an outright liar, but I can't stand people like that.
john hammond Matt Slick's home? Well, to be fair, allot of kids leave home because they get sick of their parents, I'm not sure if it's okay to comment on his family life.
Every time I see Matt Slick, he’s fighting a cold that necessitates making apologies for his voice, theatrically drinking water. Just do the debate, Matt.
Not defending Slick, but for those of who struggle with allergies, sinus infections/colds can happen easily several times a year. I don't fault him for that.
The best thing "god"has done, was shutting down Matts microphone I know one thing. As a non believer i have more free will than a believer. I have not to follow meaningless non sense rules written in books from non educated humans.
"Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones." Marcus Aurelius
The more I watch these debates the more I feel the believers are saying, in order to believe something, you can't use logic or reason or sense to believe, what we believe is outside the realm of the material world. I think I agree with that. If you don't use the brain in a way that makes sense out of things logically, we will surely believe things.
@@omnius1357 Yeah, the faithful would try to give reason a bad name because it makes sense and shows how faith has no legs to stand on. If reason is a whore, faith is a legless one.
As a foreigner, I've got a disadvantage from the start point, but I've to say: I understand every word from Dan, but Matt, I don't understand anything, completely nonsense for me
The Bible says that we must accept by faith the fact that God exists: “And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to Him must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him” (Hebrews 11:6). If God so desired, He could simply appear and prove to the whole world that He exists. But if He did that, there would be no need for faith. “Then Jesus told him, ‘Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed’” (John 20:29).
First, there is the ontological argument. The most popular form of the ontological argument uses the concept of God to prove God’s existence. It begins with the definition of God as “a being than which no greater can be conceived.” It is then argued that to exist is greater than to not exist, and therefore the greatest conceivable being must exist. If God did not exist, then God would not be the greatest conceivable being, and that would contradict the very definition of God. A second argument is the teleological argument. The teleological argument states that since the universe displays such an amazing design, there must have been a divine Designer. For example, if the Earth were significantly closer or farther away from the sun, it would not be capable of supporting much of the life it currently does. If the elements in our atmosphere were even a few percentage points different, nearly every living thing on earth would die. The odds of a single protein molecule forming by chance is 1 in 10243 (that is a 1 followed by 243 zeros). A single cell is comprised of millions of protein molecules. A third logical argument for God’s existence is called the cosmological argument. Every effect must have a cause. This universe and everything in it is an effect. There must be something that caused everything to come into existence. Ultimately, there must be something “un-caused” in order to cause everything else to come into existence. That “un-caused” cause is God. www.gotquestions.org/Does-God-exist.html
@@tdickensheets I am guessing that you either wrote all of this just for the hell of it, or you are in fact a naive and dangerously stupid individual. If you REALLY believe in some voluntarily invisible "god," then you should go to Walmart and start praying to and worshiping the first stuffed animal you see in the toy aisle because you will get the same results. It is truly a sad thing when people fail to open their minds and instead fall into delusion.
Good question. Quite ridiculous that Matt harps on about objective morality's importance but doesn't even have a definition of the term 😅 And then the definition he drums up is perfectly circular.
The thing is, if the Adam and Eve story is a parable and a metaphor, then the whole edifice of Christianity suddenly becomes mythical because the whole concept of salvation is founded on the "sins" of Adam and Eve.
And at McDonald’s you can get a burger in 3 minutes. Does that mean their burgers are higher quality than those that take longer to make? The length of time it takes to articulate a position is IRRELEVANT to the truth of the claim.
+Tom Brooks _You like calling pots black Mr. Kettle?_ Scientists are by definition people open to having their beliefs modified or changed by new evidence. Theists are not!
Great debate I only recently came across. Dan ruled! In the argument regarding the man sacrificing himself by throwing himself on a grenade, how does a theist explain dolphins saving swimmers or guarding divers from sharks? Higher mammals do feel compassion even cross species and that has nothing to do with a higher power...
That argument was incredibly obtuse. An animal sacrificing itself for other members of its species is obviously going to promote the survival of the species, which is exactly what evolution by natural selection expects.
The "blessing" of being an atheist and free of church life is no longer having to listen to sanctimonious disingenuous preachers, church goers or twits like Slick. With that said, I am glad Slick is out and about spewing his nonsense as his utterances may help others realize the fools errand of religion.
Why is it that when Matt Slick talks, it sounds like he's pulling big words out of the dictionary and putting them in random combinations? Seriously, I'm not trying to be facetious, his sentences really don't make any sense to me. Anybody else experience this?
John Doe - Yes, indoctrination is a thing. Some are smart enough to break free of the illogical thoughts; some faster than others. No one is saying that that is exclusively the reason that people believe. Think about when someone adopts their beliefs later in life while being born to secular parents.. no one disputes that occurrences like that happen!
It's a great argument. Matt doesn't understand how brains identify and label patterns (logic) and therefore a very specific god exists. It's one big god of the gaps based on incredulity.
Bertrand Russell would have bust Matt Slick's face up so badly in a debate. But well done Dan Barker, because he did more than enough to show how Matt Slick fires off fallacies like P90.
Still, I don't understand one word from Slick, it's a word salad, confusing, God is mysterious and all that. Barker is consistent and I understand every word coming from him. Another thing: Look at the Slick body movement, like a magic, why this unnecessary gestures?
Watching this on 12 Aug 21 and can’t get over how we used to walk around sick, coughing, head colds.. etc…. Since Covid has been rampaging through the world, people would run from the sick nan!
Slick should've called in sick!. If he wasn't so arrogant and smug, I may have felt sorry for him. Matt Slick doesn't even know the difference between Fine tuning and Anthropic principle? Wow. Also, he got stumped by a "good question" just simply asking him a basic question on morality. Honestly Matt Slick proves himself unworthy to share a stage with a titan like Barker.
It's hard to imagine that apologists like Slick are bringing the average person to Christianity. Most people these days see church as a social club where they can show their faces to let others know what a good little Christian they are. With rare exception, apologists come across as despicable people.
Please let's remember many Christians are genuine in their beliefs and attack ad hominem looks just as bad coming from people who often claim to have the ability to reason. Mocking is not funny or productive. I hope theists don't let this person's comment be representative of all atheists. We're all claiming we know how to care about one another but we aren't all reflecting it. We can be honest without being disrespectful.
If God knows everything that means he created everything then we are blamed for sin makes no sense because God already knows what we will do before we do it
Can you see the elephant in the room? This guy is arguing for the existence of God yet somehow God won't give him a clear voice and throat to act as his representative. Pretty much a QED in the "God doesn't exist or if he does he doesn't do anything useful in our lives".
Slick is more comfortable with an external authority telling him what's right and wrong than he is figuring it out for himself. Fear of responsibility?
You probably learned yours from your parents as most do. it's our governing laws that are/were based on the 10 commandments so we can have a civil society.
@@tannermclaughlin2653 When one grows to a certain age the most often question what they were taught. I'm speaking generally. If you were raised in other cultures you would likely think the same, until you question.
God is real and you will know that went u die but it will be to late for you then cause u didn't believe God was real went u was alive so u will go to hell forever the Bible said
When Matt began his opening statement, someone in the audience advised that Matt should try "laying on hands" to see if a miracle would happen and cure the "the penis in his throat" coughing. Matt should have said, "If I'm cured by laying on hands right now, would that end the debate and everyone would be convinced there's a God?" (That would have been a priceless response). If Matt had any sense of humor instead of being arrogant and defensive, he would have had a similar response instead of being a nasty Christian as he usual is in his debates.
![Does God Exist? William Lane Craig vs. Christopher Hitchens - Full Debate [HD]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/0tYm41hb48o/mqdefault.jpg)
The host can never tell when Matt is finished with his answer because he doesn't say anything
If Dan Barker didn't show up, Matt Slick still would have lost.
My comment was obviously pointing out that Matt's arguments were so poor that he defeated himself. So good job exposing yourself in public as a troll, buddy. (and yes you've been blocked)
Sye ten is also similar too bro
@@jamesrosano9439
After a sex scandal Sye Ten is no longer on the scene, typical Christian 😝
@@jimmyh6601 is that really true did that really happen
@@jamesrosano9439
Yes that's really true, he had an extra marital affair and left his ministry
"nothing comes from nothing unless you're into magic and child's imagination" Ironic
🤣👍🏾 Always makes me laugh every time I watch believers shoot themselves in the foot with what is supposed to be their best line.
Projecting hard isn't he salesmen idiot pushing a needless product
@@victormanuelcorpeno1095 a salesman that is trying to convince you that you are sick in order to sell you snake oil 🛢
I know you meant Snake Oil but now i want some Sneak Oil, that sounds handy
I had the same reaction. Nothing comes from nothing is a straw man. Plus, where did God come from? Nothing? no, Imagination and magic. Ironic.
Dan Barker smashed this one. Very intelligent fellow.
Dan Barker wipes the floor with Matt Slick.
That should be the title! LOL
You could eat off that floor!
Matt didn't even come close. He had no argument that made any coherent sense. Dan destroyed him
It's almost like he never has paid attention to any of the arguments against his position.
I've seen this before in conversation with friend of mine who claimed
"I've argued my beliefs for over 50years"
Then why would you put forward such weak arguments?
@@badgerbush3556 perfectly said.
How is it possible that grown ups believe in talking snakes, magic fruits, impossible animal boats, talking donkeys and resurrected people, but still function relatively normal in everyday life?
That’s why they only go to church once a week and suspend there beliefs and donate a day of the week
Maybe their parents told them
I’d say some of those are metaphors
To keep their congregation in a child like state of obedience,oblivion
Mr. Slick has learned 20 'big' words. He lets them fall out of his mouth in any random order and repeats this process over and over. This is his debating style. Now I could go into various other levels and iterations on this but I would need half an hour to an hour to do that so I will happily debate any of you after this.
You mean debating with christians right? Good luck with that
I could listen to Dan debate all day.
30 minutes in and I realized that slick read his opening statement off a paper, and Dan went and just had a nice talk and walk. The parallels of confidence and ability
Dan Barker utterly destroyed Slick and beat him at his own game. Slick knew it and blamed it on sleep deprivation and a head cold.
Total JOKE!!!! Dan Barker is INTELLIGENT and RATIONAL. Matt Slick......none of the above!!!
@@coachbrendan
"Total JOKE!!!! Dan Barker is INTELLIGENT and RATIONAL. Matt Slick......none of the above!!!"
NOT TRUE
Matt is Slick 🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂
Matt just non-stop using arguments from ignorance. “How could an atheist worldview account for X, I can’t think of a way therefore God”.
Thats basically every “strong” argument for god now fine tuning, transcendentals, moral argument are all “i dont know so god”
I noticed something about these debates: Barker (and other non-believers) always seems comfortable no matter where they are debating. But, the theists always seem nervous if they are not at a church or on a "home court."
Yes like they need there friends there to help them defense their beliefs
Witness. Although Trent Horn, Catholic debater, gets more insulting on home court where he feels safer so there’s a little column a. little column b.
30 seconds into the debate and Matt resorts to special pleading. Expected.
Jack McMillionaire I always time that too!
All he has has is special pleading, as well as every other religious person on the planet and throughout the history of religion. Believing in an imaginary being that a religious person or anyone else cannot prove is not or will not prove their god, no matter how much they want it to be true.
It is clear that Matt is more interested in " being right" than proving his argument. Arrogant seeps from his every fiber and word.
Dan Barker is fantastic. He is, hands down, one of the most articulate, most well-versed atheist debaters there is. His biblical knowledge is specific enough to dismantle Christian absurdities, and his philosophical acumen is broad enough to deconstruct theistic wordplay. Well done Dan!
What Dan didn't have is an encounter with the Living God. Ex-atheist here
@Bob Smith LOL thanks for that Bob...so funny..."it's not fair!..."
@Bob Smith So amazing to hear another ex-atheist!...Love It!!! It took some work for me to finally "give God a chance"...It's odd to me however, that atheists these days offer nothing, literally, yet think they have something to "evangelize"!
@Bob Smith So true Bob. It's lunacy at the least. Sheer wickedness at it's worst. I do suspect Aron Ra :)... but, it amusing, then they get "insulted"? when you point our their own belief to be descendants of fish, or monkeys...or something. heh
@@clearascrystal4960 ahh, yes he did.
Yes, he was the epidamy of the enlightened, evangelical, saved Christian.
Then he realized it was all a stage play. It was all contrived. He was simply playing out a conscripted role, He was following what he was led to follow.
And it had no validity in the real world.
I've watched many of these debates. All these theists have one thing in common. They try to push their views by trying to belittle you instead of having a logical discussion.
They often assume that God exists, which makes it easy to then conclude that God exists.
I’ve never heard a person say the word logic as many times as Matt did while not using any.
I don't think Matt knows what that word means.
@@rembrandt972ify Logic will always overule common sense because logic are philisophical premises that comes to an exact conclusion of posabilities that solves the premise, WHAT IF? Common Sense tells us God Does Exist or GOD dosen't Exist due to a scientific belief system but is either really right? Logic ask questions and hypothicates an answer at the same time. If God Does Exist Then Where Are Proofs of His Existance. If GOD don't exist, why does all his creations through granted procreation bring forth life and this living being believes in God / or the athesist that traveld the same path of procreation. But both utters these words, Oh My GOD, when facing danger, terror, horrific, circumstances, and death. Therefore, in a logical scientific premises that the beliver and the Atheist have proven from their utterances, GOD does Exist.
@@rembrandt972ifyMatt just knows 20 big words and let’s them fall out of his mouth in any order
Justify that he didn't use any logic. Don't just personally attack, actually justify that his arguments were illogical by addressing and rebutting them. This is how debate works.
@@lightbeforethetunnel if I told you why I’m a Christian you won’t BELIVE me “HE CAME TO ME ONE DAY “ you’re using emotional arguments meanwhile he talks about his son and Christ in flesh came to him … Jesus is god in flesh … long after the Bible was written how does Matt apply transcends to God one logical spear to another he takes about Jesus being God and God having to natures which is a non sensical statement
I think this is one of Dan's best debates ...he's a smart guy
Just not when it comes to Christianity he used to be a pastor yet he knows nothing about Christianity at all all he does is just argue and complete bad faith and strawman peoples positions.
@@pleaseenteraname1103 what more is there to say? Religion is a man made idea, its not an actual factual claim or argument for the natural world
@@pleaseenteraname1103 he was a Christian more than you’ll ever be, Dan Barker was a preacher for 19 years, I’m assuming you probably go every 5 months to church
@@Chuked I don’t go to church every single week, I watch church on zoom most of the time, and yes he was a pastor but he didn’t go to seminary he even admitted he was taught in the Sunday school type of environment, a student at seminary who is only been there for two months studying week could absolutely destroy and Daniel Barker, and I never said I was a Christian and I’m not gonna tell you because I don’t really think that’s important, and also you’re saying that is if that makes it better if anything that’s even worse because he used to be a Christian yet he knows nothing David Silverman has a better understanding of the Bible then Dan Barker, Dan Barker acts in complete bad faith and he doesn’t attempt to try to understand anything in the Bible trying to communicate or what it says.
Just because you used to be a Christian means nothing there are a lot of Christian to have a very shallow understanding of Christianity Dan had a completely superficial level understanding when he was a Christian and that carried over to his atheism.
@@Chuked that is not a definition, religions of subjective term I try to avoid using it as much as possible.
Cracks me up what Slick claims about morality since he gets his from a book that clearly endorses slavery.
If you don't mind since you've read the bible , what was slavery in the bible and it's purpose and why did the living God allow it to happen????
@@andydany3260 Leviticus25:44-46 tells you to buy your slaves from the nations around you, that you may own them as property for life and pass them onto your children as inheritance.
Exodus21 20-21 tells you how bad you could beat a slave. As long as the slave recovered in a day or two the owner wasn't punished since the slave was his property.
@@andydany3260 I doubt there is a living God because the you'd think the so called loving God of the bible wouldn't inspire instructions for slavery.
@@andydany3260 forced labor and because the people writing the biblical books wanted for labor.
@@todbeard8118black people defending slavery is proof religion is a powerful tool
Can any apologist demonstrate god instead of just concluding god through convoluted word salad?? Yeah...didn't think so
I wish I had heard your arguments, Dan, before I went to college. I have a Bible and Theology BA now, and I'm using your debates to deprogram. Thank you
He probably wishes he heard them himself!
@@Cheepchipsable Good point!
You can use your biblical knowledge to help other people deprogram, Sivan. ❤️
@@dorememe8548 Yeah, maybe..
Hey sigan, just know that you are thanking dan for helping you go to hell. 😂😂😂😂 dumbas
I have to say, completely independant of the positions he takes (I'm also comparing him to other Christians) Matt Slick is the worst debater I've ever seen. I've seen MANY "debates" he's taken part in, and I don't think I've ever seen him actually defend a point. He just goes "I'm right. I'm right because god says I'm right, and god's right because god says he's right." and then when somebody challenges him on... well... ANYTHING... he just gets flustered and hung up on terminology, or defines himself into a corner and goes into repeat mode. It's almost like he's got a (very poorly) written list of approved talking points, and as soon as the conversation goes off that list he forgets who he is, where he is, and what the conversation's about.
have a little grace. Matt Slick has aspergers, and the way you characterize him is basically a perfect stereotype of someone with aspergers syndrome.
What else can you expect from a christian. There is nothing to defend
I am very impressed with Dan Barker's performance here.
6 billion cellphone cameras. No miracle footage yet.
Uhhh, do u want me to send one. I am not sure if it was shot on a cellphone camera tho.
@@crackingcrisps8407 no I think if it was a miracle it would be widely known by everyone... not just you.
@@inquisitiveskeptic1789 ughhh that's just an excuse to not check into what the miracle is. And stuff like the guadolope are well known. And then there are alot of Eucharistic miracles
@@crackingcrisps8407 Eucharistic miracles = God of the gaps fallacy. Your argument is tantamount to the 800 BCE peasants who thought the miracle of thunder was from a supernatural agent.
bruh do you even know anything about the Eucharistic miracles? This has nothing to do with what you just said. Also the God of the Gaps argument is just stupid
Listening to a theist like Matt Slick is like listening to the ravings of a lunatic.
Dan Barker's clarity of thought is mesmerising.
Especially when juxtaposed with (Un)slick’s long-winded attempts at dazzling with jargon.
I think God was trying to shut him up with that “head cold.”
Dan probably could have healed him with hands. Lmao
My favorite part was when he brought up magic magical sky God at 1:10:45 his clarity of thought was, wait what was I talking about? ... He must have realize it's a little too close to what he's literally preaching. Good catch. Don't bring up the magical sky God while preaching about the mythological Christian God as something logical.
Thank you for holding this event and publishing the debate for free. This is always incredibly appreciated.
matt's go to arguments always boil down to "god is real because the bible says so" there's no substance in his side of the debate. bummer.
"My son who died in my arms. I literally heard his last breath... You're using emotional arguments, Dan.
Man
Then he plugged his radio show....
Dag Koj lmao so god has to promise everyone 100 years of like to exist?
@Dag Koj Dag Koj, first, I am so sorry for your loss. Being a parent, I think I can understand. I did have a gentle brother who lived and loved the Lord, but the Lord took him at the age of 28. This world is not meant to live forever. God has an amazing better plan, but, for here, and now, it's this life. I'm ex-atheist and know how empty and meaningless it is, so I pray that you turn to the Lord God again in truth. Let Him help you in this, and you will see your child again.
@@clearascrystal4960 Where the fuck did god take your brother to. And that place is so great please join him.
so, what are you trying to say?
If Jesus was God, why would God kill himself to appease himself for our sins?
Because he couldn't forgive himself for his failed creation. Who else could he punish?
Jesus was not God, Jesus is the son of God.
Jenny Valentine I dislike telling people what their church preaches because I do not know if you even attend church. Many people now take a cafeteria approach to the bible where they pick out what they like and leave the rest. You should do some research on what the trinity means and I look forward to hearing feed back on what you find out.
Scot McDonald God is a trinity of persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
They are three distinct persons but they are all the one God. They aren't three Gods, there is one God (Deuteronomy 6:4; 1 Corinthians 8:4; Galatians 3:20; 1 Timothy 2:5)
Each has its own different function, the father chooses who will be saved,
the Son redeems them, and the holy spirit seals them.
I really do want to have a conversation about this, but did you read the passages before you responded?
Old Test
Deuteronomy 6:4; Says there is one god and goes on to say do not worship other gods. It is not speaking of jesus, but this is an old testament book and if it did it would lend more credence to the trinity concept.
New Test
1 Corinthians 8:4 Speaks of idol worship has nothing to do with jesus
Galatians 3:20; Speaks of angels being a mediator between parties and not mediating a single person. This chapter speaks about the children of Abraham. This is to say that god in the god of the genitals and of the jews .
1 Timothy 2:5 Alright here we go. (I will say that I am sorry about the end of this bullet point I do not wish to be rude but if it is there I feel I need to point it out.) For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; So does this mean that Jesus is not part of the trinity and is not god or that he is in fact part of the single being that is god. It is not clear. I looked further on to see if it specified when I read1 Timothy 2:9-2:15 is that the way you want to live your life? As a second class citizen
Matt Slick's entire argument literally applies to any other religion out there. His arguments support Norse and Greek gods, but he won't admit it.
In this debate, Matt Slick demonstrated that he is many things: a fast-talking snake oil salesman; a two-bit motivational speaker; a Bible-thumping Fundamentalist Christian preacher-but not a debater, and certainly not an intellectual.
My friend Matt is an excellent debater.
Since you make this claim, why not debate him yourself?
I can set that up. LMK
@@Chesterchurch It would be beneath my dignity!
@@MichaelMendis thought so.
@@MichaelMendis figures.
Thank you Mr.Dan Baker you are simply the best...
Matt's first rebuttal: "Atheistic worldview can't explain A. Atheistic worldview can't explain B. Atheistic worldview can't explain C. Therefore God". Classic God-of-the-gaps.
Is there any gap so wide that only a God can fill it?
Is 30 times from the Earth tonthe Sun and back wide enough?
"I know it's evil because God told me it's evil in this book" lolz....typical. Sigh.
My holy book is, "Candy" and Marlon Brando is the chosen one. ua-cam.com/video/bNP8Q_8u89A/v-deo.html
Creation Proves God Exists and Is the True God.
Obviously if the universe was created by God, then God must exist. But note also that no god can be the true God unless He is the Creator.
Old Testament passages
Nehemiah 9:6 - You alone are the Lord; You have made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth and everything on it.
Psalm 86:8-10 - He alone is God. There is none like Him among the gods. All nations should worship Him, because he made them.
Psalm 95:1-7 - The Lord is the great God and King above all gods. He made the sea and His hands formed the dry land. Worship the Lord our Maker, for He is God.
Psalms 100:3 - Know that the Lord, He is God. It is He who has made us, and not we ourselves.
Isaiah 45:18 - For thus says the Lord, Who created the heavens, Who is God, Who formed the earth and made it, Who has established it: "I am the Lord, and there is no other."
Jeremiah 10:11,12 - "Gods" that did not make heaven and earth will perish! Any "god" that did not make the Universe, must be a false God! He will perish.
1 Chronicles 16:25-36 (also Psalm 96:1-10) - How do we know we should fear God, worship Him, recognize that He reigns, call on Him to save us, and believe that He will judge us? Why not trust ourselves, or something in nature, or some idol? Because God made the heavens and established the earth: That's why!
The Old Testament teaches that God is clearly proved to exist and to be God because He made heaven and earth. No one can be God, if he did not make heaven and earth.
[2 Kings 19:15; Psalm 8:3-9; Isaiah 37:16; 17:7; 40:25,26; 42:5-9; Jer. 32:17; 14:22; 51:15-19]
@@tdickensheets The god of the bible is fictional.
@@tdickensheets
The god of the bible is evil.
Sanctions slavery, commands genocide and kills children of all ages! Even pregnant women too.
Uh-huh, sure is a deity worthy of being worshipped... 🙄
God is clearly proved to exist and to be God because He made heaven and earth. A being that doesn’t make heaven and earth is no true god. The earth is real, so God must be, too. Nothing else can explain our universe.
Sock goblins are clearly proved to exist and to be sock goblins because my socks keep going missing. A being that doesn’t eat socks is no true sock goblin. My missing socks are real, so sock goblins must be, too. Nothing else can explain my missing socks.
EXACTLY THE SAME LOGIC!!
Also Matt Slick seems very, well, unbalanced. I have watched him participate in several debates, and his behavior is just weird. He keeps whispering weird editorial comments here. He constantly claims that he has various things wrong with him so therefore he can't answer a particular question (here he snapped at the audience that he had five hours of sleep in two days as if it is the audience's fault). He claims that he "knows" his God exists but denies the revelation of any other religious persons. He keeps recommending that people visit his website. Screw that nonsense.
Gotta Love Matt Slick. Every single debate he starts out with his typical set-up to protect himself from answering the hard question...
Gotta love a guy who thinks he has the answers to hard questions and posts them as comments in atheists youtube channels .....
I think you probably haven't heard Slick trot out the same tripe in the same way--forgetting that he's already been well-refuted--over and over again.
And it makes no difference whose channel it is. It's an unedited debate, for Cthulhu's sake!
Glad you think this is funny.
@@MN-zy1wx I think Matt Slick's arguments are funny, yes. At least he stays consistent through the years...
@@RigelCentauris well, you're both funny and cynical. Can I hear your arguments about the existence of God or the lack thereof?
Slick is such a self conscious preening peacock.
Yeah he is a moron
The Dunning Kruger is strong is Matt slick
+Eli S. Ramirez no, I use the term because I'm accurately diagnosing Matt Slick as someone who is terrible at assessing his own ability to reason because he's so bad at reasoning.
+Eli S. Ramirez according to the definition of "dunning Kruger effect", not my opinion.
@Eli S. Ramirez no.. it's not his opinion.. matt presents PRATT arguments while towering over others..
That's dunning Kruger.. and what you are doing is just sad apologetics for an apologist
Eli S. Ramirez I don’t think you can explain how I’m using circular reasoning. Matt’s arguments are easily shown to be quite fallacious. He just expresses them as though they were insightful and cannot back them up when push comes to shove.
For example: the laws of logic are merely descriptions of the nature of all things. In order to tell which brains are reasoning correctly, we appeal to the predictive capabilities and coherence/logical soundness of their reasoning to see if it stands up or not, and determine that by a set of agreed upon axioms:
ua-cam.com/video/_jLJczkOU44/v-deo.html
It’s not that hard. Also his tag argument has been debunked:
www.scottclifton.com/malpass/
So there’s no point in pretending like you’re going to be able to explain how I’m using circular reasoning because I know I didn’t and that you’re defending indefensibly stupid arguments.
Already had personal experience of feeling the presence and love Christians regularly mistake as personal experience of a real god. Turns out those feelings are generated by anyone in any religion that makes regular attempts to communicate and be close to the god of their religion, which shows that it’s the “accepting Christ” that’s makes you think he’s real, which makes you feel the same things I did. Turns out it feels exactly like it would if it was all an effect of convincing yourself he’s real by acting like he’s real (which is the deceptive nature of asking someone to “accept Jesus” and _then_ he’ll “reveal” himself).
This is not an intelligent way to distinguish between a real god and an imaginary god, and if Jesus is genuinely god, then he should know that this is manipulative and deceptive, as well as a moronic way to reveal oneself to people.
Eli S. Ramirez, in that case I’ll go for the Flying Spaghetti Monster, lots of personal experience, never find the need to debate whether to eat it or not and it makes me happy and full of good will. I’ve come to accept I’m a spaghettian.
Has anyone else noticed that Slick has these "head colds" in several other debates?
And after 15min it vanishes from his voice
Came here to say this. Sometimes it's some other problem but that dude starts every debate with some preliminary excuses.
Cooooocaaaaainnne
Why does god keep giving him colds.
Probably allergiet. Bain of my existence. Constant sinus ifections x Ray my head and my am uses under eyes look 3/4 inch thick and for most of my life my sinus had no drainage on left ent out in a low window and I think it grew back. Face hurts
Dan has a very clear, very important argument @ 1:08:18 that I've not previously heard stated so well. Many times in discussing morality you'll hear an atheist speaker question a Judeo-Christian apologist as to whether or not they would follow Abraham's example and sacrifice their only child if a god commanded it; many times you'll hear the Judeo-Christian apologist attempt to either wriggle out of the answer, or simply say 'Yes, because whatever god commands is right.' Dan Barker rightly puts a pin right in the middle of that ugly immoral insect and sticks it to the board: "That is the opposite of Morality; what you've just described is the Nuremburg defense! That morality boils down to following the orders of the slave-master, the god, the dictator, the Lord; which means that you Believers don't have any basis for moral judgment within yourself, you're having to look out to some orders to tell you what to do. In which case, nothing is right, nothing is wrong, everything just boils down to the whim in the mind of some deity who just declares what is right or wrong."
BOOM. Done. Case closed on a god being the basis for morality. Combine that with his observation that morality transcends religion, it's why religions generally have some overarching moral goals in common (Peace, Love, etc.). Because those morals belong to humanity, and humans made religions. Dan rightly places morals first, and religions codifying morals second. Our morals come from our shared experience as a species, which is why morality so often is the subject of disagreement even among Believers. Especially among Believers. It's why saying "Jesus Christ, the Son of the Eternal God" instead of "Jesus Christ, the Eternal Son of God" will get you burned at the stake by John Calvin--even if you're a friend of his. It's like Emo Philips' classic Golden-Gate Jumper joke; because of one minute difference of theology in spite of the many shared values, the religious will scream, "Die, Heretic!" and push you off the bridge. The good values preached by the religions of the world are HUMAN values; the religion-specific values are the divisive, exclusionary, harmful values. As Christopher Hitchens was fond of pointing out, the suicide bomber and genital mutilation communities are nearly exclusively religious. That's what religious values will get you: mutilation and death in body, mind, and spirit.
Abraham was given a promise that his descendants from Isaac would be the chosen heirs of God. That's what Abraham had faith in believing God to keep His word. However, something else comes from it. God asked Abraham to give up his only son, to in fact show how God Himself was willing and did so with His own Son centuries later. John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
@@keithboynton I addressed why God did what He did. It was a foreshadow of His own love and willing to sacrifice His own life. Btw I'm an ex-atheist whom God answered and saved my own life.
@@clearascrystal4960 Why is blood sacrifice so important to your god? If it's not his own son, he seems to enjoy a sacrificial lamb so much that I think that the Bible tells us that the smell of burning flesh is pleasing to him. As you believe that he is real, I guess you must be terrified of him. Love me, fear me. Abusive parent syndrome. I find it sad.
@@tobythedog3606 When you understand what "justice" is, you'll understand why a sacrifice has to be made. If you can understand, rather than each of us paying for what we've done, God had His own Son be that Sacrificial Lamb, once for ALL and all time. It is out of Great Love that He did it Himself. Justice is not abuse.
@@clearascrystal4960 Sorry, I've heard these tired justifications trotted out so many times and I cringe everytime I read them.
I don't think theists are ever going to notice that the reason we have these debates is to laugh at their silly beliefs.
I thought it was to make xtians, those who haven't staked a career in this nonsense, realize how flimsy their arguments are and how silly the very concept of sky daddy is
1:40 (approx). When Slick praises these Christian missionaries for going to the Philippines to help the poor, he should remember that much of the misery in that country (along with most of Latin America), IS the result of such Christian meddling in the first place !
In this case through the Catholic Church, firstly with the conquistadors & the inquisition and later, through the Pope’s opposition to contraception, abortion and divorce.
Granted he’s a Protestant minister but I’m sure he’s also opposed to
these things as well.
Matt Slick's analogy with the free will example during question time is incorrect. And Barker nails it in the rebuttal.
What a dis-likable character Slick is!
"cough...excuse me...I speak in public all the time, its not that..i have a cold"
douche
You really have that right......he attempts to place is condescending responses in a twisted human that is really quite irritating if you pick up on it...........other than that he is a horrible debater of logic.........but we are talking about another pastor trying to play scientist and/or philosopher in a debate.
When Barker is talking during the question period, you can hear Slick muttering snide comments to himself since they sometimes leave his mic on. It's completely unprofessional and petty. Slick is such a piece of shit.
Matt is turning Christians into atheists. Who would have guessed!
@@JamesRichardWiley I was one of them, this debate put the final nail in the coffin of christianity a few years ago.
Dan is so right when he says that all arguments for god just end up begging the question and I would say they also end up engaging in special pleading.
I disagree.
@@pleaseenteraname1103 ok one argument for God that doesnt beg the question
@@tannermclaughlin2653 All arguments for god beg the question?
@@pleaseenteraname1103 yes
@@tannermclaughlin2653 how so, how does the cosmological argument forgot existence beg the question.
Why did Matt start acting like a child at the end on the talk? Embarrassing...
He always acts like that nobody can take this clown seriously Holy Ghost might have taken over his soul
@@jamesrosano9439 right? I can't imagine the thought process people who believe he's right unironically have going on in their brains...
@@FaiaHalo I totally agree with you Faia anyone who agrees with slick is limited in knowledge he’s a car salesman at best thank you for seeing him in his real setting
“God healed my child!”
The doctor who spent years in medical school: hi
The doctor who worked his arse off to get where he is: ahem 😤
No when ppl say God healed my child they mean they got healed without any medical intervention.
God created the doctor and gifted him with the ability to be a doctor.
Plenty of doctors claim they have personally witnessed people survive when they deemed it was not medically possible and they can't come up with any Naturalistic explanation. Virtually every doctor has experienced this first hand. My Dad was a radiation oncologist.
@@bible1st mf what that’s really rude
This Slick character is reprehensible. He utilises a word salad of pseudointellectual, pseudo philosophical terms interspersed with a third grader understanding of logic. He is also apparently an unpleasant husband and father according to news reports. His favourite line is 'go to my website where I lay it all down'. You have come to a debate. We don't want to go to your website. I can barely watch this because he is so odious.
If the bible contains morality from God Matt, when God told Abraham to murder his son, he could have said "no, that's immoral and don't sound like you God", and God would've said, "Good answer." Instead of psychologically traumatizing Isaac and provided one of the most awkward rides home and probably strained their relationship with Isaac wondering if his dad would try to murder him again if "God, said so."
The bible is a horrible book
Having now seen Matt Slick debate Dan Barker twice, Matt Dillahunty twice, and AronRa once, I've noticed a few common themes:
- Slick hasn't spent any time considering what he actually means by some of his terminology. When pressed on what free will, morality, omniscience, evidence, etc, actually MEANS, he always draws blank.
- He doesn't understand basic logic, despite often bragging about his knowledge in that department. He throws out names of fallacies left and right, but uses them incorrectly almost 100% of the time.
- He's very keen on arguing from authority, and very much wants to assume his opponent will do the same thing. He keeps bringing up his experience as a pastor and his masters degree in gobbledegook as proof that he knows what all christians think, and what god is thinking. He also wants to assume all atheists agree with all other atheists 100% of the time.
- He never accepts nuance from his opponent, which ties into his fondness for strawmanning. He will ALWAYS listen to a long and nuanced response and try to boil it down to one word from his own terminology, which he can then attack instead of the argument actually made.
- He loves making appeals to emotion, such as in this debate with all the references to his son, while in the same breath accusing his opponent of appealing to emotion.
- His TRUE reason to believe is personal revelation, which of course can't be verified, and thus all his other arguments are smoke screens.
- By "all his other arguments" I mean TAG, because that's literally the only one.
Matt is not slick.
Boom!!!!!!!
Shit is pretty slick....
He’s slimy
Matt slick seemed very rude, condescending and angry during this debate. That was also a cheap appeal to emotion when he spoke about his son dying in his arms.
dan barker, a voice of reason in an otherwise insane world...
Matt just invited Dan to his home for supper. How's that work. How can a Christian like a man that he thinks his God hates. I'm guessing that Matt's hatefull god is sending Dan to hell. That's where the whole theory breaks down. Matt has better morals than his god. I'm assuming that the only way to heaven is by accepting Jesus. Dan hasn't done that. The only thing a god should expect, out of you, is that you be the best that you can and believing should have nothing to do with it.
BOB OVER I'll let God know hes doing it wrong & to listen to you cause you obviously know better.
Jesus ate with tax collectors and sinners and when the Pharisees asked why, he replied: “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.” Well, no Christian I know of thinks God hates anyone. God may indeed hate the sin, but never the sinner. God is not hateful and sends no one to hell. In fact, the truth is "hell" is not found in the bible and many bible translations correctly do not include the word. Don't take the tribal god of the earliest stage of biblical history as who God is. Those were expressions of the desert tribes of the Hebrew beliefs embodied in the form of narratives but not evidence of the truth of who God is. Moreover, this god of the Hebrews takes on more universal and moral attributes and requires justice and mercy. The highest stage reached in the Hebrew scriptures is where he does not wade in the blood of his enemies, but suffers with the poor and oppressed.
Mad Rhino That there is no God might be true, though it's hard to imagine. But I can see no reason why there cannot be an unembodied mind, pure Spirit, that has knowledge and awareness that has always existed and always will.
+Mad Rhino Yes, it's called consciousness. Moreover, it is certain that the basic laws of physics cannot explain the contents of consciousness, since such contents are neither stated in the premises of physical laws nor entailed by their operation.
41:19 God turns off Matt's microphone, he doesn't want to hear him either.
So you're admitting that God exists?
@@dontworry4082 No Sheldon, that's what is known as sarcasm.
@@crystalheart9 Yea I know. All athiests are nothing but comedians!!! I love to laugh at your guy's jokes.
@@dontworry4082 You got the joke!
@@crystalheart9 Yea I got the joke about God turning off Matt's microphone, Cause you know God wouldn't do that to him. Want to hear a funnier joke? Dan Baker said "The Fact Of Evolution". Now that was funny, as he couldn't provide any evidence for that silly assumption!!
Dan Barker handily and easily defeated Slick.
Matt comes across as a thoroughly unpleasant, arrogant and snidey little man child. Even when he's talking about his dead child, his own child, he sounds like a heartless psychopath
It's no wonder why Matt's own daughter left the Christian faith.
Matt asks atheists to explain why harm (or suffering) should be labeled "bad". The answer is simple, because that labeling leads to our continued existence as a species. One could just as easily ask why a god's commands are labeled good. The answer is always "just because". This answer is at least as arbitrary as (if not more than) the humanist one.
I have listened to Matt Slick a few times but I sat down and really listened to all he had to say this time. OMG what an arrogant buffoon.
Imagine being shipwrecked on a desert island with this man. I would look out for the nearest shark and offer myself to it for its lunch!
+john hammond Oh man, I would go to the other side of the island and spend the rest of my years alone rather than spend a moment with that man. And I'm sure he would have some trolly, arrogant remark about how the atheist is afraid of criticism or some such thing (that man projects like a champ, although to be fair I wouldn't say he's afraid of criticism, he just turns on his christian filter to deal with incompatible arguments), but I don't know what it is with him, whether his willfully ignorant or just an outright liar, but I can't stand people like that.
Hobbs
Do you know his daughter couldn't stand him ether? she left home!
john hammond Matt Slick's home? Well, to be fair, allot of kids leave home because they get sick of their parents, I'm not sure if it's okay to comment on his family life.
Hobbs
His daughter explained why she left him. Google it.
+john hammond lol, your too funny
Every time I see Matt Slick, he’s fighting a cold that necessitates making apologies for his voice, theatrically drinking water. Just do the debate, Matt.
I've noticed this too. It does seems that way.
Not defending Slick, but for those of who struggle with allergies, sinus infections/colds can happen easily several times a year. I don't fault him for that.
The best thing "god"has done, was shutting down Matts microphone
I know one thing. As a non believer i have more free will than a believer.
I have not to follow meaningless non sense rules written in books from non educated humans.
Plenty of nonsensical things you believe. You have just never examined most of them.
"Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones." Marcus Aurelius
The more I watch these debates the more I feel the believers are saying, in order to believe something, you can't use logic or reason or sense to believe, what we believe is outside the realm of the material world. I think I agree with that. If you don't use the brain in a way that makes sense out of things logically, we will surely believe things.
It is exactly how mr slick started. I can't stand these dunkeys
"Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has(...)." -Martin Luther
@@omnius1357
Yeah, the faithful would try to give reason a bad name because it makes sense and shows how faith has no legs to stand on. If reason is a whore, faith is a legless one.
Flame on
He hogties his own God when he describes Him as invariably transcendent, in order to explain the staggering lack of evidence.
Dan the Preacher vs Dan the Athiest would have been an interesting debate to behold. Certainly closer than this embarrassing demolition of Matt.
As a foreigner, I've got a disadvantage from the start point, but I've to say: I understand every word from Dan, but Matt, I don't understand anything, completely nonsense for me
Agree
Matt's "sentence" structure is what we call "word salad" and the point is actually to confuse or obfuscate not enlighten. Good cal!
"Does God Exist?"
"Yes!"
"Do you have evidence?"
"No."
The Bible says that we must accept by faith the fact that God exists: “And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to Him must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him” (Hebrews 11:6). If God so desired, He could simply appear and prove to the whole world that He exists. But if He did that, there would be no need for faith. “Then Jesus told him, ‘Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed’” (John 20:29).
First, there is the ontological argument. The most popular form of the ontological argument uses the concept of God to prove God’s existence. It begins with the definition of God as “a being than which no greater can be conceived.” It is then argued that to exist is greater than to not exist, and therefore the greatest conceivable being must exist. If God did not exist, then God would not be the greatest conceivable being, and that would contradict the very definition of God.
A second argument is the teleological argument. The teleological argument states that since the universe displays such an amazing design, there must have been a divine Designer. For example, if the Earth were significantly closer or farther away from the sun, it would not be capable of supporting much of the life it currently does. If the elements in our atmosphere were even a few percentage points different, nearly every living thing on earth would die. The odds of a single protein molecule forming by chance is 1 in 10243 (that is a 1 followed by 243 zeros). A single cell is comprised of millions of protein molecules.
A third logical argument for God’s existence is called the cosmological argument. Every effect must have a cause. This universe and everything in it is an effect. There must be something that caused everything to come into existence. Ultimately, there must be something “un-caused” in order to cause everything else to come into existence. That “un-caused” cause is God. www.gotquestions.org/Does-God-exist.html
Do you exist?? Yes or no
Thomas Dickensheets lame like usual
@@tdickensheets I am guessing that you either wrote all of this just for the hell of it, or you are in fact a naive and dangerously stupid individual. If you REALLY believe in some voluntarily invisible "god," then you should go to Walmart and start praying to and worshiping the first stuffed animal you see in the toy aisle because you will get the same results. It is truly a sad thing when people fail to open their minds and instead fall into delusion.
It's hilarious how fallacious, arrogant, and dishonest apologists are. Matt is a champion contender.
Dark Barker for the win
@kcuf7 eternity in hell? What do you worshipped? The devil?
Is it me or was comments deleted?
If morality is based upon anything other than our health, safety, happiness and overall well being then in what way is it morality?
Good question.
Quite ridiculous that Matt harps on about objective morality's importance but doesn't even have a definition of the term 😅
And then the definition he drums up is perfectly circular.
Matt slick is sorely lacking in the Logic he thinks he has.
@XICODECOPA Jesus couldn't be ok with slavery since he didn't exist.
The thing is, if the Adam and Eve story is a parable and a metaphor, then the whole edifice of Christianity suddenly becomes mythical because the whole concept of salvation is founded on the "sins" of Adam and Eve.
Matt:
God exists because I say so
😂😂😂
Matt says he can’t define morality in 30 mins to an hour and Dan does it in 4 sec’s - says it all
And at McDonald’s you can get a burger in 3 minutes. Does that mean their burgers are higher quality than those that take longer to make? The length of time it takes to articulate a position is IRRELEVANT to the truth of the claim.
Dan Barker is a better debater, very convincing and compelling.
Jose Kariamadam Dan is Delusional
Nick Jaramillo care to explain ?
Theodore Vasilopoulos How would dan barker deal with an exorcism I wonder
@josekmcmi No one Straw-man's better than Dan Barker.
The problem in this kind of debates is that the theist is never open-minded to their believes and/or arguments being false.
+Jimi02468 You like calling pots black Mr. Kettle?
+Tom Brooks Barker has stated numerous times what it would take for him to truly believe. Slick won't (and most apologists won't) go that far.
+Jimi02468 If you could use reason or logic with the religious mind they wouldn't be religious....
+Tom Brooks
_You like calling pots black Mr. Kettle?_
Scientists are by definition people open to having their beliefs modified or changed by new evidence. Theists are not!
john hammond Then by your definition no scientist can be a theist. Fail!
Great debate I only recently came across. Dan ruled! In the argument regarding the man sacrificing himself by throwing himself on a grenade, how does a theist explain dolphins saving swimmers or guarding divers from sharks? Higher mammals do feel compassion even cross species and that has nothing to do with a higher power...
Where is scientific evidence that animals can feel compassion?
And if they do show compassion, how does that prove Their creator didn't put that in them
Doncha know? God SENT those dolphins!
That argument was incredibly obtuse. An animal sacrificing itself for other members of its species is obviously going to promote the survival of the species, which is exactly what evolution by natural selection expects.
Matt is probably the most dishonest debator I have seen.
Except for William Lane Craig.
The "blessing" of being an atheist and free of church life is no longer having to listen to sanctimonious disingenuous preachers, church goers or twits like Slick. With that said, I am glad Slick is out and about spewing his nonsense as his utterances may help others realize the fools errand of religion.
Why is it that when Matt Slick talks, it sounds like he's pulling big words out of the dictionary and putting them in random combinations? Seriously, I'm not trying to be facetious, his sentences really don't make any sense to me. Anybody else experience this?
So, without his god, Matt Slick wouldn't know not to hurt people and care for sick children.
Would love to see Matt Slick debate his atheist daughter Rachal Slick
Positively Brainwashed That would be great!
John Doe - Yes, indoctrination is a thing. Some are smart enough to break free of the illogical thoughts; some faster than others. No one is saying that that is exclusively the reason that people believe. Think about when someone adopts their beliefs later in life while being born to secular parents.. no one disputes that occurrences like that happen!
Clearly his daughter is a better thinker than her Dad.
Who wouldn't be an atheist growing up with that pig
@Bob Smith Please release your "evidence" - Let the world know - but we both know what youre being a liar... Stop breaking them commandments, geez
Matt, you do not make me think. I'm only listen to this for the comedic value of your argument. Thank you for delivering.
Im not an atheist but if i listened to slick for long enough i might become one 🤦
Good idea 👌🏼🤣
It's a great argument. Matt doesn't understand how brains identify and label patterns (logic) and therefore a very specific god exists. It's one big god of the gaps based on incredulity.
Bertrand Russell would have bust Matt Slick's face up so badly in a debate. But well done Dan Barker, because he did more than enough to show how Matt Slick fires off fallacies like P90.
Still, I don't understand one word from Slick, it's a word salad, confusing, God is mysterious and all that. Barker is consistent and I understand every word coming from him. Another thing: Look at the Slick body movement, like a magic, why this unnecessary gestures?
Matt Slick through this debate showed how narcissistic he is. Wow Dan Barker was so convincing, really helpful.
Why do I get the impression that Matt Slick is the product of personal trauma. He has my sympathy.
Watching this on 12 Aug 21 and can’t get over how we used to walk around sick, coughing, head colds.. etc…. Since Covid has been rampaging through the world, people would run from the sick nan!
You are an amazing debater and speaker Dan Barker!!!!!!
If you just started watching, the apologist lost this one big time.
"Transcendent does not mean supernatural" Thanks for finally clearing that up, i get so sick of hearing about this transcendence argument
“We can’t understand things that are transcendent. Now, let me proceed to tell you all about them.” 🤔
Super enjoyable debate. Love Dan.
Seeing people like Matt Slick sometimes convinces me that some people really need to be saved... from their ignorance at the very least.
Slick should've called in sick!. If he wasn't so arrogant and smug, I may have felt sorry for him.
Matt Slick doesn't even know the difference between Fine tuning and Anthropic principle? Wow. Also, he got stumped by a "good question" just simply asking him a basic question on morality. Honestly Matt Slick proves himself unworthy to share a stage with a titan like Barker.
It's hard to imagine that apologists like Slick are bringing the average person to Christianity. Most people these days see church as a social club where they can show their faces to let others know what a good little Christian they are. With rare exception, apologists come across as despicable people.
Please let's remember many Christians are genuine in their beliefs and attack ad hominem looks just as bad coming from people who often claim to have the ability to reason. Mocking is not funny or productive. I hope theists don't let this person's comment be representative of all atheists. We're all claiming we know how to care about one another but we aren't all reflecting it. We can be honest without being disrespectful.
@@LucretiusDraco
Mocking? These apologists have been corrected....and know better. When that happens, motive has to be questioned.
If God knows everything that means he created everything then we are blamed for sin makes no sense because God already knows what we will do before we do it
I have not heard so much dribble, as I have out of the mouth of Matt Slick
Can you see the elephant in the room?
This guy is arguing for the existence of God yet somehow God won't give him a clear voice and throat to act as his representative.
Pretty much a QED in the "God doesn't exist or if he does he doesn't do anything useful in our lives".
Maybe God was trying to tell him to stay home, all that stuff about missed flights etc.
Slick is more comfortable with an external authority telling him what's right and wrong than he is figuring it out for himself. Fear of responsibility?
You probably learned yours from your parents as most do. it's our governing laws that are/were based on the 10 commandments so we can have a civil society.
@@keithboynton Well according to atheists and evolutionists. Anything tangible? Written? You're going on "faith" actually.
@@clearascrystal4960 I didn't that's why I'm not racist/homophobic like my parents
@@clearascrystal4960 lol stop projecting your faults onto us
@@tannermclaughlin2653 When one grows to a certain age the most often question what they were taught. I'm speaking generally. If you were raised in other cultures you would likely think the same, until you question.
Matt's arguments are so dumb, if his god really existed, he would have smitten him after a few minutes for doing such a bad job in arguing for him.
ha! of course if He is hiding for some reason, Matt's big dumb arguments provide the perfect controlled opposition
5 years later and I’m hear laughing hard at 3am at this comment😂😂😂😂😂
I think god was trying to shut him up .
God is real and you will know that went u die but it will be to late for you then cause u didn't believe God was real went u was alive so u will go to hell forever the Bible said
Diane Athey
And how do you know this ? Because you read it in an old book ? How gullible are you ?
When Matt began his opening statement, someone in the audience advised that Matt should try "laying on hands" to see if a miracle would happen and cure the "the penis in his throat" coughing. Matt should have said, "If I'm cured by laying on hands right now, would that end the debate and everyone would be convinced there's a God?" (That would have been a priceless response). If Matt had any sense of humor instead of being arrogant and defensive, he would have had a similar response instead of being a nasty Christian as he usual is in his debates.