Pay now, receive your perfect smile in afterlife!

There actually is a dentist office here in our city called this....

Here's how to put the Transcend Dental in to syllogistic form: P1: Logical fallacies that transcend logic aren't fallacies. P2: My claims aren't logical fallacies. Conclusion: Yahweh the Monkey God is real (but only my Orthodox version).

My food breaks up when I chew without my gums becoming sore. Therefore teeth exist.

@@markgross6006 , Does logic, real science, math, fulfilled prophecy and history count??? What "proves" GOD??? GOD keeping His covenant promises. Please explain away a GOD promise that was originally made (2 Samuel 7:12-16, 931-722 BC) at least 722 years B.C., then that same promise expanded upon (Psalms 89:27-37, 1410-450 BC, and Jeremiah 33:14-22, 586-570 BC) at least 450 years BEFORE Jesus Christ was even born, which He fulfilled 450 years later in Matthew 16:18 resulting in 2,000 and ongoing years of "proof": www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm catholicexchange.com/church-new-israel Would this be just another Biblical "accident" to an atheist or something "divine" proving the ONE HOLY CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH is the "ONE TRUE FAITH"???

That is literally the now infamous version of Matt slicks Tag

Agreed. I tried to be charitable to Jay, but there is no excuse for him performing so poorly when he has a masters in Philosophy. He should know how to present his argument clearly and concisely. I lean towards him being flat out dishonest, and I find that he's engaging in tactics rather than being interested in the truth.

Yep, Slipped his mind hehe

Yep, Matt got talking too fast and reversed the conclusion and one of the premises. I noticed it, but didn't want to interrupt when he was working towards his point just to point out Bea's was clearly a slip. Good that you caught it though. Cheers, - Ozy

@@OzymandiasRamsesII Greetings! Thanks fot talk!, I Loved it! Hopefully you guys and Matt can explore the justifications for induction at some point, if there's any, I'd love to see that :).

@@OzymandiasRamsesII I want to say I appreciate your early comments on "privilege" of your education. There is a group of people that enjoy using "published" philosophy papers as an appeal to authority that I find completely absurd. Publishing in philosophy is nothing like publishing in science, all it requires is internal consistency while science not only requires a firm theoretical background, but data and statistical mathematics that cannot be evaluated or replicated by the reader easily. If a philosophy paper makes an argument, that argument is going to be able to be repeated, reworded to anyone and the soundness of the premises and validity of the conclusion can be evaluated. The idea that the argument is published in anyway supports the argument is absurd.

I thought Jay adheres to foundationalism, not Coherentism?

@@christaylor6574 No. Jay is very critical of foundationalism. TAG tends to favour coherentism stating circularity is unavoidable and making a comparison of circular paradigms

did he sign off on that? Im not sure if that's his argument.

@@CorndogMaker Not sure what you mean. No, he has not explicitly stated as such to confirm my take. It's my take from watching multiple videos. What do oyu think his argument is?

@@natanaellizama6559 I didn't see all of Jays videos but I didn't get that from the debate they're talking about. its hard to be charitable and not be suspicious that his argument- was to not make an argument, even when directly asked. then, to people who have watched all his videos, he can wink and imply things by never allowing it to be vulnerable and shrug off any critique as a misunderstanding.

I am still waiting for your second half of this comment...

I think he meant he was the first to comment, lol

Louigi Verona hey! You got my joke! Thanks

@@Rebuswind Damn, I suspected it :D

“Love you Matt” Love you too Matt!! Keep up the good work of undermining the credibility of atheism as a coherent, caring, empathetic and pragmatic philosophy!! Sorry but why “ought” we take an overgrown amoeba with illusions of grandeur claims to the rational and moral high ground seriously? Why should we believe the myths, delusions and “truth” claims of an evolved ape who shares half their DNA with bananas?? Your existential crisis and epistemological crisis not ours Matt!! Matts response: “I’m not convinced we need a foundation for logic” The irony is that a strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism basically says that (nobody took no time to turn nothing into everything) a belief that at worst is synonymous with the belief in magic and at best it’s synonymous with the belief in myths and miracles. I don’t need secular myths and secular religion to know what right and wrong is!! I wouldn’t have the arrogance to lecture a bereaved mother during a pandemic who’s only consolation is the hope of being reunited with her child in some kind of afterlife.

Does Matt have any philosophy training?

Christian Fasy somehow that reminds me of when I’m told I actually do believe in god; I’ve just hardened my heart. Condescending is the perfect word.

Trying to have a rational discussion with someone who does not appreciate, or understand rationality, is maddening. There is almost nothing that can be said to them. It was a bizarre interchange.

Matt: "I don't know what to do with what Jay said". Christian Fasy: "Jay saying that Matt doesn't understand what he's saying is condescending." The man's saying that he doesn't understand what Jay was saying.

@@crackedhands Since when does Dyer "not understand rationality"? The man's literally a philosopher by education.

Nikola Avramov being educated in a subject doesn’t make one rational.

Yeah, I had a lot of trouble following his argument. I went through the transcript and pulled out quotes to capture what he actually claimed out of all the tangents.

Indeed, as if listening to a less congenial, prickish Jordan Peterson.

He doesn't need concrete, because God. That's the transcendental argument and where the goalposts grow their legs, leaving the cosmological argument.

TheN00bmonster, perhaps he went off on tangents because he had nothing concrete to go to.

Ulf ViKings, can you state Jay’s argument? Jay couldn’t.

You can DM me on Facebook if you wish and I can pass it along to Matt on your behalf. Cheers, - Ozy

@@OzymandiasRamsesII Thanks!

Why not just post it here?

@AnHebrewChild Oh lordie! This is an old comment thread! I don't have the syllogism any longer and couldn't care less what Dillahunty had to say about it anyway! Matt lost my respect and viewership when he forsake his principles on the altar of progressivism.

@@molecularalchemy7798 my apologies. I didn't realize how old this debate and the ensuing comments were! I guess I need to get better at checking on these things. Kindly disregard. Unless you randomly happen to come across it! This whole debate and Jay's seeming deafness to the two basic requests Matt gave him left me baffled, and also embarrassed for both gentlemen (it was awkward). It was an extreme instance of a total communication impasse, imo Anyway... Blessings & cheers

Hmmm, wonder why...lol

@@beastemeauxde7029 maybe he doesn't want to promote Jay.

Yes of course its possible. Dy just kept acknowledging the common ground they shared and then rescinded it in the next sentence. Truly astonisning in the worst possible of ways

It’s going to be nearly impossible because if you assert the axioms of science and the laws of logic as useful to build an understanding of reality, the presup is going to practically demand that all axioms must be grounded in something else and that something else must be his god. They refuse to accept that debaters can have common ground because the presup’s argument demands that you accept the “fact” that everything but Christianity is incoherent.

Which was exactly what Jay was doing, it was so frustrating, he kept saying oh it is a different kind of argument and it's somehow not special pleading, it was baffling

You don't have a shit detector. That's a metaphysical claim ghat only exists in phony land. You're a materialist who wants everything to follow material laws based on material observations. But nine of that matters outside your own feelings, which in themselves don't matter.

@@BarbaPamino Oh,oh, my shit detector vibrating again, albeit metaphorically. (As if I needed you to tell me that.)I am indeed a materialist in the sense that the existence of unicorns, fairies and invisible gorillas under my bed have yet to demonstrated so I tend to leave them aside and concentrate on what the consensus of most human sense data, time and time again, agrees to be reality. When I shit in my toilet it flushes down to the local sewage plant. A demonstrable fact. No angel or demon has ever been detected intercepting it and diverting it or my other turds to some metaphysical domain, a celestial bogsphere, as intriguing as that sounds. It's not about me wanting things to be material - I'd like to join a few goblins dancing a jig to a flute playing banana - it's just that nothing and nobody has satisfactorily convinced me that this delightful world is anything but a figment of my imagination. I asked for demonstratiion the special form of truth which transcends the empirical and might take me there, but unfortunately all I got was hot air.

Jay did spend a lot of time attacking skepticism. The reasoning I believe was that the point of comparing worldviews. So criticism of skepticism and Matt's position naturally plays a part of that. Jay still set up his argument, although I can see much of the criticism in the video on how he tried explaining it.

@@Octavian2 Jay made no argument whatsoever.

@@Lux_Aeterna "If it's acceptable to make that conclusion for material facts of reality it should be acceptable to do the same for metaphysical facts.".....BULLSHEIT !!! After all that, all those big words and exhausting word salads - You cannot prove anything "Metaphysical"......You can believe in it but you still "Don't know".....Yes there can be a deity out there - Yes there can be multiple universes, yes there can be something beyond the senses - But you "Don't know".......I'll stay with what Science has been able to prove - and nothing is going to change that makes evolution completely wrong. It only alters the already proven directions. Your BS of talking snakes, talking donkeys, zombies and white horses in the Sky will never be proven; only laughed at....

@@Lux_Aeterna"

@@Lux_Aeterna" If you're not engaging in metaphysical thought it just means your commitments are hidden and you're prone to accepting irrational positions because you don't actually understand what you're affirming by pretending that there's just "science" in a vacuum without any other ontological precommitments."......You got some balls kid !!! That my friend is "

This is a great analogy. Usually we see that Atheists act as the deconstructionists in these situations as the believer is trying to build up a case. Here, we got an unusual instance of the believer being a deconstructionist but not building a positive case.

​@@achilles4242because that wasnt the point of the debate. Jay can give you loads of evidence, but for you to even consider the evidence, requires pressuppositional critique. You missed the point.

What is an athiest formal argument?

Argument from Jay is very simple, justification for logic is rational mind, absent mind you do not have any justification for logic so as skeptic you can deny law of logic scientific method and ethics, absence mind there is no objective truth. Argument from Jay is very simple. Matt should asked during the debate for Jay's Argument which is clearly stated. Matt conceded the Argument and admitted that he has no justification for logic, now he is being just intellectually disingenuous

Yes it was. It's up on Matt's channel (the upload just before this one)

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/eKl_lNml0L-rZKs.html

Lester Jester I know Dyer posted it. It popped up on my feed. I didn’t watch it though so I’m not sure if he simply posted the debate or if it’s a breakdown of it.

@@trishayamada807 Jay's is the same though it includes more of the technical difficulties before hand.

Golden Alt good to know, thanks. ⭐️👍🏼

Straw man argument lol!!

​@@georgedoyle7971 You think it's a strawman? Please correct it.

@@joerdimI disagree with Dyer for epistemic reasons, but the form above is wrong. Again, not that I think Dyer’s way of arguing for God is correct. If man knows or operates in the world, then he necessarily uses the preconditions for cognition or knowing. If knowledge exists, then these preconditions for the possibility of knowing are knowledge conducive. If they are knowledge conducive, they function correctly and are reliable. If these conditions are reliable and knowledge conducive, then they are necessarily universal and invariant. The justificatory basis for these preconditions cannot be man’s mind, nor some conglomeration of sense datum to yield epistemic justification. Only God can justify this functionality, existence, and reliability. No other explanation works, and entails a contradiction by claiming one knows things without attaining the conditional of justification to know. Only God can therefore satisfy.

@@InquisPrinciple lol

@@InquisPrinciplethis is when you know people have bored themselves so deeply into the tree of philosophy that they’ve completely lost sight of the forest. Biology/Physics/Sociology/Psychology can all assist us here regarding these topics and how to properly contextualize our place in this universe- as best we can. This is so much wishful thinking and smoke and mirrors gobbledygook to appease the potentially doubting minds of the already converted. Just say you believe on faith and live accordingly. It’s honest. This other stuff is embarrassing and desperate.

Two Dogmas of Empiricism, by Quine: www.theologie.uzh.ch/dam/jcr:ffffffff-fbd6-1538-0000-000070cf64bc/Quine51.pdf

@@alexmalpass Thanks Alex!

Cedric Adam I don’t think that is quite what Jay is saying. He is either saying belief in God, specifically the God of Orthodox Christianity, is necessary to account for “transcendental categories” (math, morals, logic, etc.) or that the existence of God is necessary for such things to attain. It’s not so much “you have your presuppositions so I can have my presuppositions.” It’s more like “your beliefs or the things you believe in necessarily presuppose a belief in my God/his existence, even if you don’t recognize it.” In other words, the worldview of an atheist, skeptic, empiricist, naturalist, etc. is lacking in something and that something is Jay’s theology.

@@samuelstephens6904 I think that if it was clear what Jay's argument was we wouldn't be having this exchange, so I stand by my interpretation of what I think he was trying to say. But I do agree with the part where you say he seems to say that sceptics and all lack something that he doesn't. But you'd have to agree that a belief in a god is a presupposition since it hasn't been proven yet. Therefore whatever he believes in that hasn't met its burden of proof is a presupposition.

@@cedricadam3850 -"But you'd have to agree that a belief in a god is a presupposition since it hasn't been proven yet." Sure. But in Jay's coherentist model of justification, _every_ belief you hold is a presupposition with respect to some other beliefs, like a node in a spider's web or log in a raft. He isn't using "presupposition" in the foundationalist sense of an axiom or properly basic belief. So a presupposition isn't necessarily something that is without foundation or hasn't met its burden of proof in Jay's argument.

@@samuelstephens6904 I agree with the first thing you said. Every unjustified belief is a presupposition. In Jay's case, he's making a special pleading that his belief in a god doesn't require justification. I can understand where he's coming from. The idea of a creator doesn't bother me. But having that creator be a god does, specially the god of the bible. It wouldn't bother me to know that I'm in a simulation.

@@cedricadam3850 -"I agree with the first thing you said. Every unjustified belief is a presupposition." But that's not what Jay is saying. Alex used a number of examples to show that. Saying "this cup of tea is cold" presupposes there is a cup of tea. That doesn't mean the belief that there is a cup of tea is unjustified. Jay would say belief in God is justified by other things we believe and vice versa. -"he's making a special pleading that his belief in a god doesn't require justification." It's not special pleading and that's not what he is doing. He does think that belief in God is justified. -"The idea of a creator doesn't bother me. But having that creator be a god does, specially the god of the bible. It wouldn't bother me to know that I'm in a simulation." How you feel about these propositions is irrelevant to whether or not they are valid and sound. If you encountered Nick Bostrom and he laid out his simulation argument to you, would you accept that argument because you agree with the premises or would you accept it because the conclusion doesn't bother you? The latter is a fallacy.

@802701 Well it depends what you're trying to accomplish by presenting this problem to atheists (or people in general). If the goal is to provide an argument for your god, then I'm not surprised that it gets ignored, because the problem of induction is not solved by a god. Now many people, theists and atheists alike, don't know about the problem of induction, but that's irrelevant to whether it's solved or not.

You left out one thing: The dickering about the Laws of Logic and their foundation. Spelled out with syntax, the foundation of the Laws of Logic is the existential verb, which in English has "is", "are", "was" and "were" (your kilometerage may vary in other languages). Jay took the "I am what I am" passage in Exodus a little too literally and claimed that the existential verb has a personality. To be fair, the existential verb may in fact transcend logic, but it can't really do shit on its own and wouldn't let you rape virgin Midianites just because their family is sitting on a piece of real estate the Israelites want.

@@markgross6006 How would existential verbs transcend logic, when that is precisely what the Laws of Logic touch upon? The Law of Identity

@@LordDTwigo Part of the comment above got cut off somehow, but there's no reason to think that existential verbs *actually* transcend logic any more than the logical fallacies in Jay's argumentation actually transcend logic (and the existential verb, on its own, certainly doesn't transcend anything); I'm stating, in my own smartass way, that they're are required component of the Laws of Logic when using syntax to describe the aforementioned laws, albeit possibly not necessarily a requirement for any truth the LoL might point to. A rock *is* a rock, a rock *is* not not a rock, and a set *is* composed of a rock and not a rock. But I should note that your kilometerage may vary in some languages, especially ones that conclude sentences with verbs, ala Yoda.

While I certainly don't agree with Jay's argument, I'm going to concern troll and state that I can make it better than he did. First: The basic strategy is to get one's interlocutor to tap out and then declare victory. The tactics include obfuscation (long gish-galloping canards about other philosophers in history that do nothing to support or negate the argument), claiming that the argument "transcends" logic, which is a convenient way of weaseling out of providing a demonstration or even a syllogism, because transcendental arguments apparently transcend syntax as well. It's also a convenient way to excuse away any logical fallacies the interlocutor might point out. When cornered, simply state that your interlocutor doesn't understand the argument. And of course, pointing out flaws in the arguments of one's interlocutor that may not actually be flaws, a time-honored tradition with presuppositional apologetics. In a nutshell, if A+~A=Set, then some thinking agent has to define what the set is. With syntax, we human beings get to define what the set is, but when attempting to point to what the Laws of Logic appear to represent in reality, Jay argues for Jay's imaginary extraterrestrial alpha male, the god of Orthodox Christianity, reality management, behavior enforcement, and impossibly large numbers (who's actually Jay -- Jay is Jay's god, and also Jay's god's god if you can figure that one out).

@Deus Vult Okaaay - so feel free to provide the demonstrative evidence that suggests otherwise, since there doesn't appear to be any gods willing to do so on your behalf.

@@Noetic-Necrognosis actually it's a common sign that the interlocutor doesn't have a full grasp of the concepts when overly complicated terminology is used. Yes, Jay Dyer says a lot of words, but when the rubber hits the road, he's still just spewing nonsense that only applies to the mythology in his head. Seriously, the Absolute Gibberish that is Presuppositional Arguments is like listening to a child make up words about the stories in their head.

@@Noetic-Necrognosis really, you didn't bother to pay attention to the video? It's fairly obvious that Jay is a BS artist, much like Mr William Lane Craig, just not as well paid yet. I called it overly complicated because it's a demonstration that Jay is hiding behind words that don't have a functional concept behind them; which is why I called them gibberish. Jay is trying to play linguistic tricks, it's a fairly common tactic among people who pretend to be experts in subjects they know nothing about. Mr Craig is an excellent example of Dunning-Kruger when it becomes apparent that for his arguments to function, our calculations in Spacetime would be wrong. He literally got shot down but multiple physicists because he was trying to talk about something that he has less knowledge on than I do. I used to teach Philosophy, and the first indication of a student that didn't know that material, was the inability to articulate their points without overly complicated terminology to hide behind. Presuppositional Arguments require multiple terms that only apply to concepts within presuppositionalism, which means that those concepts don't actually apply to reality in any meaningful way. Trying to talk about an Entity that is "outside" of Spacetime is act of futility, you had the problem of talking about an Entity that no human concepts relate to, and as such no words/sounds we can make will accurately reflect any part of that Entity. The basic definitions of the god concept contained within presuppositionalism, exclude any words we have to talk about that Entity. All religions are based in words/concepts contained within human languages All religions/mythologies are inaccurate when it comes to any kind of communication about the god concept. Presuppositionalism refutes itself by using human language to talk about an Entity that they claim is beyond the limits of human language to talk about.

@@Noetic-Necrognosis yes, something being outside Space-Time renders it completely incomprehensible because it's literally outside our ability to perceive. You're literally just making up words that don't actually apply to Reality. The universe is an ongoing change in state, the concepts of "begin" and "end" are only human limited perspectives. There is no "beginning" point to the universe, just the current instantiation. The concept of Before looses meaning when we realize that Time is a change in State of matter, god being Timeless means what exactly? Are you saying that god doesn't experience change, and therefore doesn't Experience Existence at all? Yea, these things literally are beyond human ability to comprehend, presup is just Gibberish that doesn't apply to anything in Reality.

@@Noetic-Necrognosis lol, Epistemology of what exactly? The "how you know" of god? Hmmm, how about we try and show something beyond pointless word salad games to try and "logically" prove a god exists. No? Thousands of years, and millions of attempts and still absolutely nothing to show for it? Every myth of the bibble shown to be completely garbage? Presuppositional Arguments are just the latest in empty rationalizations by theists to pretend to have something worth listening to.

@@Noetic-Necrognosis the laws of logic and math exist as mental constructs, they are representations of how humans perceive relationships between other concepts. This is why I refer to it as the god concept, because just like mathematics and the Laws of logic, these concepts only exist as part of the conceptual understanding that is in the mind. The god concept has equal existence to the delusions in a schizophrenic's mind, those beliefs are very real to that person, but ultimately only "exist" within the mind.

I think Dyer borrowed this kind of thinking about "metalogic" from Chris Langan. Metalogic is actually just logic applied to logic, not some special different higher type of logic. I guess what Jay means is just thinking rationally about what rationality is.

wertytrewqa The clarity he brings to a conversation is truly amazing.

One of your fav... wait how many philosophers are there?!?

@@MarkAhlquist Too many....too few worth a damn

Ozy is also one of the very best. Matt is great at what he does, but when it comes to the philosophy of this stuff, Ozy and Malpass are in a league of their own. It’s cool that Matt has access to them.

He's kind of annoying to me. Ozy is easier to listen to imo and so is Matt .

To use a geometric metaphor, I suspect he found a local maxima and argues it must be the global maxima because, looking around, all that he can see is a negative slope. Abandoning is commitment to this myopic view, he might realize other maximas, often greater than his, also populate the landscape. www.kdnuggets.com/images/rapidminer-feature-selection-3d-471.jpg

And of course complaining about a truth because it leads to nihilism is just an argument from consequences; it doesn't matter if the truth causes us to drop atomic bombs; it is still the truth

I like this summary. That's basically the presuppositional argument right there

Here is an argument from Truth to God: There are necessary truths. For instance, that a is a, or that if either a or b; not a; therefore b, or if a=b and b=c then a=c or if a then b, a, therefore b. Or that a curved straight line, square circle, married bachelor, are all impossibilities that cannot exist. Or that if there are human beings, then there are human beings, or if there is a universe, then there is a universe, or if something exists, then something exists. These truths are necessary because they cannot be any other way. Such truths are not dependent on human beings since even if every human disagreed with these propositions, they would still be true. Or even if human beings went out of existence, these truths would still be true. Neither are these truths grounded in material reality since even if material reality went out of existence, these truths would still be true. And even if material reality went out of existence, it would still be true that there is no material reality (but if this is the case, then such a truth cannot be grounded in material reality since it wouldn't exist in that case). But then, how do these truths exist? Well, they aren't physical or material at all. In fact, since they are abstract, they must be grounded in some mind or intellect (these abstract propositions are not material or physical things that float around in space somewhere; they only exist within a mind or intellect that conceive of them). Thus, there must be some necessarily existing intellect that serves as the ontological basis for these necessary truths. And this just is the Divine Intellect, which is God.

@Anonymous Person "In fact, since they are abstract, they must be grounded in some mind or intellect (these abstract propositions are not material or physical things that float around in space somewhere; they only exist within a mind or intellect that conceive of them)." They cannot be necessary if they rely on any mind at all, because that mind not existing is entirely possible and would cause them to fail. If this mind went out of existence, they would still be true, no? If a human mind cannot ground logic, what makes you think any other kind of mind can?

@@Kevorama0205 "They cannot be necessary if they rely on any mind at all, because that mind not existing is entirely possible and would cause them to fail. If this mind went out of existence, they would still be true, no?" No, because if they are grounded in a necessarily existing intellect, then that intellect could not possibly fail to exist, and thus, would serve as the ontological ground for the necessary propositions. "If a human mind cannot ground logic, what makes you think any other kind of mind can?" Because human minds are contingent while the truths are necessary. So, the necessary truths must be grounded in a mind beyond contingent minds, hinting at their source in the necessarily existing Divine Mind of God.

What’s telling is they claim his argument is very easy to understand and so they’re asked to sum up his argument and they don’t.

Lyndon Spencer, “several people”, of course, have a cognitive bias toward the conclusion of the argument, and therefore can “understand” it clearly, and offer faux astonishment when others do not. When one fears an infinitely burning cauldron, and yearns to see lost loved ones again, one might undertake any means to shield the paradigm, even unto dishonesty.

Here is an argument from Truth to God: There are necessary truths. For instance, that a is a, or that if either a or b; not a; therefore b, or if a=b and b=c then a=c or if a then b, a, therefore b. Or that a curved straight line, square circle, married bachelor, are all impossibilities that cannot exist. Or that if there are human beings, then there are human beings, or if there is a universe, then there is a universe, or if something exists, then something exists. These truths are necessary because they cannot be any other way. Such truths are not dependent on human beings since even if every human disagreed with these propositions, they would still be true. Or even if human beings went out of existence, these truths would still be true. Neither are these truths grounded in material reality since even if material reality went out of existence, these truths would still be true. And even if material reality went out of existence, it would still be true that there is no material reality (but if this is the case, then such a truth cannot be grounded in material reality since it wouldn't exist in that case). But then, how do these truths exist? Well, they aren't physical or material at all. In fact, since they are abstract, they must be grounded in some mind or intellect (these abstract propositions are not material or physical things that float around in space somewhere; they only exist within a mind or intellect that conceive of them). Thus, there must be some necessarily existing intellect that serves as the ontological basis for these necessary truths. And this just is the Divine Intellect, which is God.

So Matt bears no responsibility in trying to understand Jay? Of course he does; discourse goes both ways. You're also assuming each side will act in good faith to understand the other side. Matt repeatedly refused to understand Jay's arguments or claimed ignorance - neither of which is Jay's fault.

@@HonzoRichI didn't mention Matt because I wasn't referring to Matt. Try again.

Yes. It this were the medical field, the argument would essentially be - "cancer is a disease of the genetic structure and reproduction pattern of a cell, and has no known cure. Therefore I propose Excellentin: an existing-but-undiscovered chemical that acts on the genetic code of cells, and is a cure for cancer." This in no way demonstrates the actual existence of such a chemical, nor does it show whether a cure for cancer is necessarily possible. And, what's more, it brings no new information to the table, and relies entirely on the effort of other people who put in the time to find reasonable answers. Such an argument would then often attempt to bully the listener into buying it by saying "If you do not believe this, then you are obligated to accept that we live in a world where cancer has no possible cure." No, I am not.

That's not a problem... that's the only logical way to think.

@@L1Run You can't equate the the medical field with worldviews and your example has nothing to do with evidence of a creator therefor concluding a creator. Your existing but undiscovered chemical has no basis for belief, but evidence of a creator all around you in the world does.

@The Skeptic Philosopher What's your point? If there were a grand cause wouldn't you want to know which being is responsible so you can honor him/it? Perhaps learn something?

@@Ban_Usury_Worldwide if theres evidence of a creator, just provide that.

Yep that's pretty much my understanding of their nonsense

Thats exactly what it is except you are confused about provability. Provability is a weaker notion than truth. You need something beyond arithmetic to define the truths of arithmetic. in order to have proof, it requires you have existence. Proof is a second order phenomena. A castle is made out of bricks. Asking someone to prove god is like asking them to formulate a brick into the shape of a castle. you misunderstood what comes first. It is very difficult for the physicist to accept the view that the substratum of everything is of mental character but no one can deny that the mind is first and most direct thing in our experience and that all else is remote inference.

@ShinRaPresident way to miss the whole point about provability itself... let me ask you a question. what is the substance of all appearances?

@@YouJustCantCompare The fact that we only have access to the world through our senses does not imply that the "substratum of everything is of mental character". We can't "prove" we are not brains in bottles, but that in no way proves that we are. Or are you just taking some Plato's cave position, that all we can see is the shadows of reality on the wall of the cave?

Infinite Consciousness that just sounds like deluding yourself to me.

Yeah, it was so baffling, it's a different kind of argument, no dude it's a fallacious argument

@802701 How is it possible to deny one's own existence without contradiction ?

They have done several video together of the past couple of years

Speaks volumes that Matt needs two people with PHDs to review his debate with Jay Dyer who is a qualified philosopher. Matt in previous debates claimed consciousness isn’t even real but he still believes he can have “agency” and ground existential truth, experiential truth, logical truths and moral values in his world view ? Matt also claimed that he has no problem with mixing determinism and agency. ? This contradicts the basic rules of logic and philosophy because you can’t have two mutually exclusive alternatives. There is no such thing as a married bachelor. Jay Dyer called him out on this which is why he now has two philosophers with PHDs to dissect the debate he had with Jay. However, Jay had no difficulties highlighting Matts presuppositions and ignorance regarding the reality of metaphysics and the qualitative subjective experience of reality that is the fundamental nature of mind and consciousness. Matt can’t win a debate against a trained philosopher with nothing but ambiguity and rhetoric and a very limited understanding of the rules of logic and philosophy hence the reinforcements, that is two philosophers with PHDs to gang up on Jay. The irony is that the comments section will be flooded with Dilahunty fans now who believe that they can make absolute claims to “truth” whilst declaring allegiance to someone who doesn’t believe they are conscious. Equally, you can’t claim to be an agent and state you don’t have a problem with determinism. Which is what Matt does in previous debates. You can’t have a square circle. Again it’s a contradiction in terms as determinism literally means you are not the agent of your actions as your actions are determined by nothing more than “matter”. It means that murderers rapists and even the Nazis were not accountable for their actions because they were just doing what they were determined to do by “matter”. This philosophy could clearly be used by criminals as an excuse to carry out any evil act against our children and our families no matter how depraved. Free will clearly exists. If people actually took determinism seriously it would harm society. Research has actually demonstrated that people who believe they are determined are more likely to be dishonest as they believe that they are not accountable. What a surprise! Did we really need to do a study to confirm such an obvious conclusion. Matt clearly did not get rid of the “anthropomorphic metaphysical assumptions” that he claims to be rid of by appealing to rhetorical lawnmowers. You are either a conscious agent who is responsible for his actions or you are a lawnmower. You can’t be both. You can’t be a square circle lol!! ❤️

@@georgedoyle7971 since you brought it up, what was the basic opinion of J’s performance, by the two aforementioned phd’s? (I kept hearing them say “Jay had trouble or The fault lies with Jay) 👹Hahhahhha lol 🦞

@@georgedoyle7971 if Dyer is qualified, in relation Dillahunty is exalted. It should speak volumes, that one of said PhD’s , had never heard of your qualified philosopher. “You probably need More jesus” Read your bible, with emphasis on the Begets And pray for me

"Appear" is the key word Just like the "appearance" of intelligent design is the only thing creatards can show to support their claims. Dyer can only "appear" to be smart to support his word salad.

Nature Myth The problem is with the category “transcendent.” Many philosophers disagree that abstract objects actually exist. So the way Jay sets this up as being a dichotomy between transcendentals and purely social constructs doesn’t fairly represent the full landscape of metaphysics about things like math and logic. While Jay was indeed using a transcendental argument, that much is obvious, it’s difficult to say what the exact argument is because he never presents it in a formal and digestible way. Alex demonstrates this by conceiving of several versions of what Jay might have been saying, some more modest or ambitious than others, some more epistemic or metaphysical than others, etc. There is no single version of TAG and Jay’s seems like it could be somewhat novel, or at least he claims it to be so in comparison to people like Matt Slick.

Samuel Stephens What do you mean by abstract object? Could you give me an example? So the problem mainly is he hasn’t distilled his argument clearly enough? I could see that. Even now I feel like I was following him but it took over half of the debate before the extent of what he was arguing kicked in, and even then I only think I understand it the way he was intending.

Nature Myth Numbers would be an example of something we might consider to be an abstract object. A mathematical realist would say numbers exist. They are real object or items, but don’t map to anywhere in space and are non-causal. Jay seems to present that either this is true, or that numbers are just a subjective and arbitrary social construct. But there are other positions. Some try to show how mathematical concepts are objectively true without appealing to any kind of transcendent or platonic ontology. So to say Matt is dependent on transcendental categories may not be true, but it never really came up in the debate because Matt took it for granted.

That Was Funny Hehe

Because they knew he just misspoke

@@koenigsforst_ I took it as a joke, because it was so clearly done directly after the boast. It's certainly Matt's sense of humor.

I guess. If only the argument of “my presupposition of an unnecessary being assures me im more rational” was valid. Making more assumptions means his position was less coherent.

@@HappyHippieGaymer The point of presuppositional argumentation is to reveal required assumptions. You're begging the question by asserting that God is an unnecessary assumption in response to Jay's argument that God is necessary. You have to provide a competing, coherent paradigm rather than relying on him to share your presumption that you can just use logic without accidentally presuming God.

@Oners82 how is that bigoted lmao

"it represents how far the topic of gods has retreated over the years and is now being fought in the back waters of philosophy" Returned, not "retreated". When you read the Church Fathers, they are pretty much arguing there. St John of Damascus was saying the same things Jay pointed out in the debate. The "basic bitch" debate of the last decades is a modern phenomena.

Eli Santana I think this is pretty naive. The coherentist view obviously holds weight.

OR... you just outright hate Jay 'cause you hate what he stands for and you're trying to rationalize it.

@@NikolaAvramov lol we don't know what Jay stands for because he never articulated an argument. =D

@@JayMaverick That's just dishonest. He made many. He talks very fast and is very concise. Sorry. Denying it is just blowing raspberries.

@@steviewonder417 Great username 😂

Muh syllogism, Jay... 'cause " I can't know! " LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!! Geez!!!

It’s been four years. Have you perhaps grown up a bit? Humility and honesty aren’t really things worth mocking in this world simply because we’re feeling defensive.

-"I believe in logic cuz it works so far - no need to wonder why" No one said this. At best, Matt said there _might_ not be a justification for things like logic. There is nothing wrong with entertaining that possibility. -"Why?" Because TAG is a deductive argument and there are various versions of TAG. How many premises are there? What are they? How ambitious is the argument? Is the argument about necessary belief in God or the actual existence of God? Knowing these things would be helpful if we are expected to meaningfully engage with the argument. You might as well be asking "Why does Jay need a good argument for the existence of God?" This was all mentioned in the discussion. Did you actually bother to listen to it? I mean, Jay isn't trying to vitiate logic here. He thinks it's quite cozy in his worldview. Others have no problem putting forth a syllogism when arguing for their version of TAG. So there is no reason for Jay not to do so.

Samuel Stephens Yes I listened to it, and I understood every word and every concept spoken. Matt keeps saying he’s not well-versed on the philosophy. Rather than address the justification of the transcendental, Matt kept going to the strange tangent that he didn’t see how logic COULD HAVE BEEN any other way than it is. Huh? On the basic level, why SHOULD anyone use logic in debate? I would personally add the question, do you realize that you believe in a supernatural governing force that has dominion over the universe? (The laws of physics, logic, math, etc) That’s faith, though without justification.

-“Matt kept going to the strange tangent that he didn’t see how logic COULD HAVE BEEN any other way than it is. Huh?“ Matt is saying logic might just be a brute fact about reality, no justification require. He is entertaining foundationalist perspective of justification as opposed to Jay’s coherentism. Jay thinks that’s arbitrary, but his own justification is circular. Both prongs take on their own unsavory problems. -“On the basic level, why SHOULD anyone use logic in debate?“ You are doing this wrong. The presuppositionalist need not ask _why_ we should use logic. Jay doesn’t think logic isn’t important or that non-Orthodox Christians can’t be master logicians. Everyone is in agreement that we should. It’s how we meaningfully communicate ideas with each other and make sense of things. What the presuppositionalists asks is _how_ we know logic is actually doing what we think it is doing. What’s the guarantor of logic? -“I would personally add the question, do you realize that you believe in a supernatural governing force that has dominion over the universe? (The laws of physics, logic, math, etc)“ What? Math and logic are supernatural? You are getting this so wrong. Math and logic _might_ be immaterial things. They might refer to abstract objects, non-causal entities with no location in space. But that doesn’t make them supernatural. They don’t violate our basic understanding of reality. And even this platonic view of these objects as transcendental things is not a given. Many logicians and mathematicians are nominalists of some variety and don’t think there is any reality to these abstracts. You are making the same mistake Jay did in the debate by not fairly acknowledging that his ontology is contested.

Samuel Stephens Great reply. Two things. 1. That we agree we SHOULD use logic, does not mean I can’t ask why you believe that. What are the ethics behind your belief that we SHOULD do anything - in particular, logic? Why? 2. If the laws of physics and math govern the physical universe, they are by definition not inside it. They are unchanging and absolute, the universe, however, is not. The universe is BOUNDED (abstractly) by these rules. There is causation in nature, so I could ask you: what caused the laws of physics?

-“What are the ethics behind your belief that we SHOULD do anything - in particular, logic? Why?“ In this case, what one should do is contingent upon a goal. So if your goal is to, say, argue for the existence of a deity, then it follows that you probably should present that argument in a way that is intelligible and assessable. Otherwise, you might be deluding yourself. Jay has no obligation to present an argument of course, but then he can’t expect others to find his views convincing. It’s entirely up to him. -“If the laws of physics and math govern the physical universe, they are by definition not inside it.“ Again, you are trying to itemize these things in a way that probably isn’t necessary. Things like math and logic and regularities in physics could just relate to the characteristics of physical reality itself. The idea that we are discussing entities with a reality unto themselves comes with no shortage of problems and objections. This is a long-standing debate in philosophy. -“There is causation in nature, so I could ask you: what caused the laws of physics?“ This is a fallacy of composition. We can only recognize causation as a property within our physical reality. It doesn’t necessarily follow that there are or needs to be causes for this reality, outside this reality

bi0lizard1 Maybe he is cutting back on animal body parts and secretions.

Most probably @Twelve Dozen hope he some day take Alex O'Connor's advice to stop eating dead carcasses for his good and for his loved ones as well

Riky Jacho And especially good for the alleged carcasses

Yep, he has! He just posted in the last month or so that his weight is now the lowest it's been since high school. Hella respect for him.

Actually eating MORE carcasses and LESS sugar and carbs would result in the most weight loss.

That's basically the argument still yep.

God created a whole universe if he wants to build a city on rock and roll he could.... Therefore god exists

@@georgepapps815 assertion x assertion = no conclusion

@@youweechube im just joking bud

@@georgepapps815 hard to tell when you're used to talking with theists that's a legit thing they'd say 😂

rabbitpirate Yes. Happy Birthday, bunny.

This is the beginning and end of all this. Either logic supersedes your god, making it unnecessary, or they don’t and they are thus demoted from laws of logic to whims of logic, which for some very obvious reasons would provide far less practical utility and universality.

@@asyetundetermined First ; I don't have any God beliefs. I was only offering a hypothetical. Secondly ; Any attempt to disprove the "laws of logic" would be subject to the use of those same laws, which would set up a paradox.

@@moodyrick8503 I’m agreeing with you in my reply. The “your god” isn’t meant to mean you specifically, but to one who would hold this paradoxical belief. Like a royal we.

@@asyetundetermined Yeah, I suspected that was a possibility. I should have asked for clarification, first. No prob.

Subject Zero yup keeping things loose allows him the flexibility to avoid being pinned down by a good argument.

People experience God, there isn't any argument that could be put forth to validate an experience, except mabye parallels of experience from multiple testimonies, which you have plenty of. Those who haven't experience God would never grasp such conceptual descriptions, but rather you could, through discipline, try believing and see what happens.

@@dan11D179 People have experiences they attribute to a god. That's not necessarily the same thing as experiencing god. Also, belief isn't a choice, it's a consequence of being convinced. To believe is to be convinced. Failure to convince results in non-belief, which is also seperate from disbelief.

@@Apoplectic_Spock Yes well if you want to experiment the claim you would have to use yourself as a test subject. Belief is a choice, its a matter of will power. If you can close your eyes and create an image in your mind, you can also close your eyes and audit yourself to believe, people do this all the time. Consider how dangerous it is to drive in a car, yet people do this naturally without 2nd thought because they have self-audited away the fear of the very real dangers. Similarly, you could audit yourself to be terrified of driving and refuse to step in any vehicle, and while many would consider that insane, you would statistically be better off than everyone else, and therefore more sane.

@White Supreme Cis-Mail belief isn’t a choice which is easily demonstrated. Also God could impart information to the recipient that would be remarkable like winning lottery numbers or cure for cancer. This would at least show that there’s something worthy of investigation even if we couldn’t determine the source.

As soon as I found out it was TAG I didn't even bother. Matt Slick has poisoned that well enough for me to know.

that's because until his debate with Jay Dyer, Matt hasn't really debated any theistic philosopher. he's cherry picked his opponents his entire atheistic career from young earth creationists to some guy at your local baptist Church. I would say Jordan Peterson was an exception but Peterson approaches it from purely a psychological point of view. Matt would equally get destroyed by classical theists like Edward Feser. Heck even Nick Fuentes would destroy Dillahunty. There are numerous others I could list. and in the end, all Dillahunty would be doing is criticizing a positive position without ever supporting or validating his own (atheism).

Ive saw quite alot of dillahunty debates he hasnt lost many but he lost this 1...... Anytime jay made good points that made the point hes trying to prove more probable than not..... Matt just kinda says so what if its probable..... Then he will run to the old....( I dont know) as his rebuttal without offering counter reasons.........

@SS 1964 what do you make of the new testament?

@@AP-bo1if What are you wanting him to validate? His lack of belief in something there's no evidence for? Do you think you should have to validate your lack of belief in Bigfoot or Santa Clause? How do you plan on proving they don't exist? It would be unreasonable to put the burden on you for that. If you are not making a positive claim, there's nothing to validate. Also, the phone lines are open every Sunday to talk to Matt and have been for 15 years. To say he cherry picks opponents us disingenuous as best.

I'm a fan of Matt but Matt definitely lost that one. It was embarrassing to watch.

Yes, and if they were honest I'd say the're frustrated that he doesn't give some of that great evidence he is supposed to have given (or so their book says,) thousands of years ago, course they'd never admit that

Yeah it was a bit silly how they ignore his lack of any argument

And it wasn't exactly a round about way either

Well, because your argument has a false premise. It may be valid, but unsound, therefore wrong. Even if there is proof for somethings existence it does not follow that everybody accepts this proof. Therefore, people would still argue about such things. The fact that we argue does not mean that there is no God. Hence we argue about the existence for God, even if there is proof. Just when I wanted to send this comment I remembered, that somebody has actually written about this argument. From a nice book I recently read: Introduction: „If by "ultimate proof" we mean an argument that will persuade everyone, then the answer has to be no. The reason is simple: persuasion is subjective. Sometimes people are not persuaded even by a very good argument. Conversely, people are (unfortunately) often persuaded by very bad arguments. Generally speaking, most people are simply not very rational; they are not good, clear thinkers. Of course, this does not mean that people are unintelligent. But most of us are not as rigorously objective as we would like to think. We often believe things for psychological reasons, rather than logical reasons. Many people refuse to accept a very good argument simply because they do not want to believe its conclusion. For these reasons and others, it is impossible to construct an argument that will always persuade everyone.“ […] Chapter 8 - Logical Fallacies 2 „Sometimes when the enthymeme is converted into a standard syllogism, it turns out to be valid but unsound. More often than not, the false premise is precisely the premise that was left unstated. For example: "There cannot be proof of God’s existence. After all, there are many atheists in the world today." By supplying the missing premise (1) we end up with this syllogism: If there was a proof of God’s existence, then there would not be any atheists. There are atheists. Therefore, it is not the case that there is proof of God’s existence. The argument is a perfectly valid Modus Tollens (denying the consequent),6 but it is unsound because the first premise (the very one left unstated by the critic) is false. Just because there is proof of something doesn’t mean that everyone will accept it.“ Excerpt from: Dr. Jason Lisle. „The Ultimate Proof of Creation.“ iBooks.

bro maybe because saying that is actually dumb?

@@Giorginho agreed.

That seems to be the standard with a lot of religious nutters. Perhaps they believe they can word salad their god into existence?

@@ihateexcessivelylongandpoi4490 How better to create a god that speaks things into existence than to try to speak him into existence. It's the closest anyone will ever get, of course.

@@stevencurtis7157 and point to people saying honestly that "I don't know" as some kind of weakness and their unsupported ideas win by default lol

@@stevencurtis7157 Speak god into existence by speaking gibberish? Makes sense.

@@ihateexcessivelylongandpoi4490 Yes, after all, the theological noncognitivist would contend that all talk of gods is nonsense.

@Samurai Jack I Don't know why you are being hostile? I am Atheist and I have exactly the same point of view as you man. I hate everything that happens as a result of religion. I think the actions taken by some under the name of religion is one of the worst things about our world, But me hating it is not stopping it happen. I have discussions about it with people and I have no idea how we fix it. I am not the one blowing people up and I am certainly not saying its right. I don't know why you think that's what I am asking with this question. The point of it is, that nothing would change.. So why are the people arguing for religion wanting us to believe it so much that they do the things you are talking about under it's name? that's what I am saying. I possibly miss worded my intention but reading it over you answered to to say that bad things are happening in the world. I don't agree with any of these things that happen so why are you making assumption that I do?

@Samurai Jack O.k. man, I have re-wrote my question to have tried to be more specific with my intention as re-reading it I could see how it would be taken badly. please if you have an answer I would like to hear your thoughts?

@Samurai Jack Nice man, that makes sense.. I never thought about how much it would actually change day to day life in that way. I seem to be caught up in my own thought process and that other people don't think of the world/universe etc the same way as me. Cause and effect in that if I want to live I just deal with the physical side of life that I have to eat/sleep and that If I go outside I can see the sun.. I have no ability to understand the spiritual understanding people have because I feel it can not be presented to me in a way that I can use my senses to experience it. I live a fairly simple existence that I believe is driven by the physical world and very much based on the rules of what I touch, see and smell is the world that I call my reality. I seem to struggle with the concept of people driven by faith and fail to understand how it can be such a powerful stimulus for them them to take actions, so much so that it has an effect on others even though the basis seem only in their minds. As I have lived and learned to accept all the underlying things that have been around since I was born it has become default and not acknowledged even by myself that I just take it for granted.. but If there was a change of the underlying rules that would come with adopting a single religion, then everything that I take for granted would change and therefore my reality would in actual-fact become different. Things would then change so much that over time they would become the standard as our old ways would be forgotten and the new reality that has formed around the single religion concept would be the basis for what reality is. I like that explanation and it helps me to wrap my mind around it a little. thank you.

David Scott It’s going to be based on necessity bc we are here

Something that goes on forever... sounds a bit like "God". ;-)

You wish

@@SansDeity Funny, ok, then I'll put it to you frank...You were the one practically searing in frustration most the debate and you know it, Jay came prepared, you didn't have good responses, 'cause you weren't prepared or even aware of this kind of presuppositional position, where he's going after the preconditions of the transcendentals (logic, reasoning, math, universals, etc.) of epistemology and induction/identity over time ontologically, so you just floundered about how you haven't heard any argument or evidence all debate when that was not the case, he was providing a reductio ad absurdum, you just didn't understand it correctly. You said he was being circular, you ignored his response that this wasn't the same kind of circular as just proving numbers by using numbers, etc. Trust me, the only thing I wish is that you didn't waste 2 hours of my life saying "I'm just not convinced" and "that isn't evidence" while bringing nothing to the table yourself... other than "I"m Matt and I'm a skeptic, I'm not convinced.. its your job to convince me" Sry but you do this in EVERY frickin debate playing the role of "its your job to convince me", when ZERO formal debates work that way.. you both have to present an argument for or against something, YOU personally not being convinced means literally nothing its the audience that needs to be convinced in a debate. Sorry but you're a one trick pony and nobody should ever debate you your style is a disgrace to formal debates.

@@Jaryism You really need to listen to this discussion again and pay better attention. Why wouldn't Matt say he's unconvinced?...HE IS UNCONVINCED! And, depending on which position you are presenting, you can absolutely be the "defense" position. Matt is literally asking for a formal argument so he CAN provide evidence for why the argument doesn't work. That might have come in the form of fallacies etc. I'm sorry you're a Jay fan boy and can't see past your own biases, but Jay does this in almost every debate he has. Even if you're going to hold onto Jay as your idol, at least admit that, if Jay cares about getting us to understand his position, he should just present the syllogism. Sorry, but you're claim that he's a one trick pony demonstrates that nobody should ever listen to your critique of debates because your biases and style are a disgrace to intellectualism and analysis. Just go watch more Jay content...

​@@MrMusashiMusashiNope, Matt got absolutely slaughtered, he showed a very surface level understanding of philosophy and didn't refute any of Jay's claims

@@tigerahitman6828 Matt isn't obligated to refute anything that Jay didn't properly establish as true in the first place. That's how claims work in a debate.