The very fact that there IS debate on the existence of god speaks volumes as to the lack there of.

If there is a god, he sent Matt Dillahunty to disprove himself.

Every time Ferrer/Lee said "therefore" I was gobsmacked. The conclusion never followed from the premises

IF "GOD" actually existed, then we would NOT be having this debate.

Dear god, they formalized the "look at the trees" argument...

It's crazy how you can instantly and completely destroy every single argument given by a theist once you understood the reasoing of an atheist... I was lied to my entire life.

My one question about Christianity, at least, is... If God's omniscient, how can he be disappointed when Adam and Eve eat the fruit? If you know it's going to happen, anyway, you don't GET to be disappointed.

i hate listening to theists speak. It just becomes a word salad and they don't actually say anything.

4:55 Ferrer opening statement 15:15 Lee opening statement 25:14 Eberhard opening statement 35:15 Dillahunty opening statement 45:25 [strategy break] 56:24 Ferrer rebuttal 1:01:35 Lee rebuttal 1:07:11 Everhard rebuttal 1:12:17 Dillahunty rebuttal 1:17:42 Lee closing statement 1:22:48 Ferrer closing statement 1:28:10 Everhard closing statement 1:33:18 Dillahunty closing statement 1:41:21 [Andrea Bocelli possesses Everhard] 1:42:18 Audience Q&A, self-evident truths 1:43:07 Audience Q&A, intelligent life 1:44:58 Audience Q&A, conditions for life 1:48:00 Audience Q&A, intuiting truth 1:53:00 Audience Q&A, objective morality 1:57:12 Audience Q&A, atheism and beauty 2:02:09 Audience Q&A, thermodynamics 2:05:33 Audience Q&A, divine morality 2:13:17 Super Smash Bros Melee

Matt Dillahunty is the only one seems to talk directly from his mind without a prepared speak. The man is a genius.

The opening statement by Dillahunty is priceless--here we are still debating since the beginning of time, someone still hasn't met the burden of proof. Another notch in the belt for Matt Dillahunty.

This wouldn't even be a debate if Yaweh or Allah or God or Zeus or whoever could just come down and appear and do stuff like he used to. Interesting that he can't. I wasted 35 years with a mirage.

Well done Matt & JT. And I love how they left their microphone on so you could hear the strategy session. That was neat.

That opening statement was made with random speech generator.

The theists went first in the opening statements and in the rebuttals. And they are so defensive that both of them expected the atheists to use their opening as a rebuttal and complained that they didn't, thus treating their own rebuttal period as a counter rebuttal. which it wasn't. Sad ... so sad.

I don't see problem with having no object morals, I like the idea of being able to change my behaviour once new information arises.

During the first rebuttal at 59:20, he mentions "none of his points were addressed" before the opposition has even had their first rebuttal. Do these guys even think, I'm severely questioning it.

Dillahunty is a league above his teammate and the opposition lol

Why can't theist prove why God exists instead of why Atheism is wrong.

Watching first opening statement - instant fail. Do they even read their points before presenting them? Is anyone really persuaded by those "arguments"?

"Even though our opponents have not yet had their rebuttal we were disappointed in their inability to rebut our opening statements..." :)

I’ve seen it so many times when after both sides give their opening arguments, the affirmative side points out all the things that the other side didn’t respond to. Well, it was their opening statement, not a response segment. How is that so difficult to understand?

Matt Dillahunty was quite obviously the most educated presenter here in terms of logic and the understanding of passé fallacies. This is rather distressing, since the first Theist presenter actually teaches logic. He should be absolutely ashamed at his presentation.

The same "evidence" for god as usually 1) I have no education in the field I am talking about (science, physics, chemistry, biology), therefore god 2) I willfully misrepresent reality, therefore god 3) I don't understand reality, therefore god

The positive case was pure word salad. The negative addressed every point. This was the best showcase of contrasting logical consistency versus fuzzy woo.

The theist in the glasses pretty much never actually says anything. He just says what arguments he would use, never gives them, then continues to say those were the arguments he used. He made this video hard to watch.

Matt did a beautiful job here. An even, measured, sincere presentation. He is a better voice for the atheist position than some of the more famous people who've taken up that role. As worked up as he often gets on his show (understandably), he showed passion with restraint here.

As soon as I hear "OBjective" I know they're going the way of William Lane Craig and I prepare my eyes for 1.25 hours of rolling.

not done with it yet, but love that Matt and JT's mic was still on for the "Strategy Session" break.

...these theists fail at logic.

I have a question for the believers : Was any of the points made by the apologists what convinced you of believing ? If not, what convinced you ?

Summary was given at around 1:00:30: theism is extremely adaptable. Indeed, the amount of philosophical elasticity filling up the first 25 minutes was only bearable thanks to playing fricking colored lines simultanously. As they were accumulating sophistic hocus-pocus, it became clear, that Ferrer and Lee truly think that (even a bad) argument equals evidence. Lee also seems to be disoriented in his rebuttal time, as he apparently assumes that the opening statements of Dillahunty and Eberhard were supposed to be rebuttals of his opening statement. No case of nonmind producing mind? Perhaps he never heard about neuroscience. Where was his mind before he was born and how does he know that?

nice debate, Matt and JT make a great duo

You can study Christian apologetics? USA you should see a doctor.

Wow. Ten minutes in, and Ferrer has already got logic completely backwards and utterly misunderstood the burden of proof.

wow, the creationists are really good at reading their material. to me, it seems like they don't actually have a thought of their own...

Right now I'm attempting to discern between weather or not a professor in logic doesn't understand occurs razor, or he's being dishonest.

Well there you go. Whoever has the most believers in a god is right. Why aren't these apologist advocating for Allah? Also sad day when two logicians can't follow the rules of a debate (I.e. Knowing when a rebuttal segment is).

“Can you show me sufficient evidence that god exists?” “I can tell you why I believe he does.” “But can you produce sufficient evidence that he does exist?” “I can cite the Bible and all of the other people who believe in god.” “But can you show any sufficient evidence?” “I can present ten arguments as to why god must exist.” “Okay.”

I'm glad that you got an idea of my education from a youtube comment. And I'm glad that I have your approval! And preparing matters in a DEBATE. If it's just points it can be done somewhere like a but when you are dialogue with someone else, preparing matters.

Introduction: I'm going to strawman you.

Eyes do not compensate for the blind spot by jiggling. The blind spot is compensated for by the brain, after the eye is done with the information it's received. The jiggling is actually a compensation for retinal adaptation, where light-sensitive cells stop sending signals when the stimuli doesn't change. The jiggling constantly changes which cells are receiving light stimuli, and prevents this adaptation.

It's a sad world when the same person is considered competent enough to teach logic and religious apologetics.

I'm seriously not quibbling here; genuinely curious. I've read the 'Quantum Graphity' paper from a few years back and was impressed. But I wasn't aware that BB 'Phase', as described by Quach had been reasonably verified. It looks like everything checks out so far but I don't know if we're yet at the stage of confirmation of the UofMelbourne's ideas. If there's been some movement on this I'd love to get a gander at it. Or am I way off and you're discussing something else?

Hey god are you there🤔 30 minutes later I rest my case

Crazy isn't it. I've got an invisible dragon in my garage so the burden of proof is on you to show I haven't (don't think so lol)

I have read it. Were you making a point or did you have a follow up question?

Matt's delivery has gotten so good! It seems that he has slowed down his delivery quite a bit, instead of cramming all the info in.

These debates on youtube are fantastic as it allows people to hear the best arguments for each position (theism vs. atheism). In every debate, the theist argument hasn't presented a shred of credible evidence or logical argument that supports their claim that a god exists. That's why "faith" is always used by theists - because it is the belief without evidence or rational support. What other area of one's life does one accept something without evidence or reason?

5 "arguments," to demonstrate that God exists. Great, thanks, heard them over and over..*but* even if all of that were true, then what on earth does it have to do with the God of the Bible? This is William Lane Craig type stuff and equally as unconvincing.

KZfaq wont let me post links, but go to the Ed Feser blog and look at the most recent post called "the limits of eliminativism" its on the exact same subject.

Chess in the computer era has kind of diminished that metaphor somewhat. Sometimes the objectively BEST, single best, move is not seen by a person, or perhaps the best move is counter-intuitive to the player's plan

"Theism is remarkably adaptable." Translation: we can come up with all kinds of bullshit explanations for everything and anything.

Second guy:Most people who are non theists have a moral code they act upon Therefore God exists?

I was trying to work out what you were trying to say in your previous post and answer. perhapse you could elaborate your original statement.

Why did they invite Matt to a 1st grade debate

It isn't "extraordinary" that we can understand the world around us. Any creature that can understand the world around it has a massive advantage in terms of its own survival and its advantage over other creatures.

13:40 that fruedian slip though

Were the theist professors specifically specialized in philosophy or a related field? If so that genuinely alarms me. If any of my students were to present such deeply flawed arguments, it would raise significant concerns regarding their academic performance.

I had to put the link in sentence form, since youtube wont let me post it directly

The Moby Want-to-be is almost painful to listen to.

If god existed, we wouldn't have debates of finites beings about its existence or non existence. If god existed he/she/it would have the power to make us know that. The christian god created angels with the knowledge of its existence. But we, mere mortal, finite and faliable beings, weren't "blessed" with that inate knowledge. lol And free will is not the answer. Angels have free-will to. Lucifer rebeled against god (of course not... but you know what I mean). We could have free will and knowledge od god too. But we don't. And we don't because probably god does not exist.

I'm trying to find your definition of "existence". While making a comicbook would require just chopping down trees and doing whatever process to create a comic book, could you explain ideas like The Hulk?

Fair and good points, well made. I think i just got caught up in the bat shit crazy of it all. Thanks for breaking me out of it : )

Second religious speaker, argument from ignorance. He can't imagine how we might evolve a moral sense, therefore God. Empathy, altruism or our social, cooperative species don't feature in his thinking. He looks at our imperfect society somehow concludes we're all carrying a perfect, god-given moral sense, despite it being apparent that we're not all using it. But doesn't an imperfect but evolved moral sense map more accurately with the reality we see?

Drinking game! Every time someone says "uh", you thake anurther short ofh scotcyhnbvfhiop

He uses the standard model, which involves a singularity. It would also involve the phase correct?

YEEESSSS. THIS is the sort of thing I've been looking for. THIS is a real debate.

Matt is so correct, if he made a mistake, reality would think it fucked up and it would alter itself to match what Matt said.

At ~41min, as an astronomer Dillahunty is dead wrong when he claims its arrogant and absurd to think there might not be life out there. The fact is, the half of the Drake eqn pertaining to probability of life arising on a given body is *unconstrained*. It could be common, it could be rare, it could be mind-bogglingly rare. We don't know. Period. If we go and say maybe there are ~10^24 planets in our Hubble volume, and you guys can recognize that that's a huge number, it's flat out wrong to assume the probability of life arising on any one of those CAN'T be less than 1 in 10^24. It very well could, it very well might not, it's *unconstrained*. That's the key point. In my opinion, it seems like the absurdity/arrogance is to have half of the eqn pinned down and then jump to the conclusion you find more intellectually satisfying (i.e., extrapolating the history that we first thought we were the center of the solar system, then the galaxy, ect ect, and were always wrong). Anyways, that's my rant, Neil DeGrasse Tyson even gets this wrong in public (so I can understand why the idea is so pervasive). Thanks for reading if you made it this far :)

The reason I believe that I am not seeing it, is because I have no reason to believe that it is actually happening. First of all, I still haven't received an example of where he uses the term Big Bang with a different definition in the same context. So please show me what particular part you think he uses it in syllogism, semantic shift, reference or metaphor. I don't know if you have read his literature, but he goes into detail about several aspects of the Big Bang and other origin theories.

Would you mind if I did a video response to your recent objections? I promise to make it short and sweet.

1:23:50 There is no demonstration that non-mind can produce mind - this is false. But if we are going down this track then there is also no demonstration that mind's exist outside of brains.

When is JT's album coming out!??!?!?!?

Sorry, I watched the video segment and I am still not seeing an equivocation error. He presents the standard model and also mentions that there are some problems with it, such as the very things you mentioned with the physical laws breaking down at a certain point. The standard model involves expansion. So I don't see how Craig is "equivocating" anything.

Question: what benefit is there from accepting there is a god? What predictive utility does it provide? If it doesn't impact me in any way, I don't care about it even if it were true.

I think it is really silly when the theist’s rebuttal is trying to get points by complaining the other side has not rebutted their argument. Do they not understand that the other side has not yet had their rebuttal phase?

When the argument is, "if a mind created the universe, it would be ordered and intelligible. The universe is ordered and intelligible, therefore, a mind created the universe", then the argument is invalid because it's based on an affirming the consequent fallacy (even if the shaky premises are accepted for the sake of argument). Goes like this. "All airplanes fly in the sky. That bird is flying in the sky. Therefore, that bird is an airplane." A property of a premise is not necessarily an exclusive property of that premise, which is why the argument is fallacious. Even moreso when the premise is unjustified and completely invented.

Is this available as a podcast? Ta

I like Eberhard a lot, but next to Dillahunty he almost disappears. Dillahunty is such a well versed debater.

Don,the explain me the process of breath. If you can, please tell me who is driving it? Do we have control on when to stop breathing at our own will?

Note that when I say physics and philosophy are problematic, I mean on the nature of causes. There is no consensus on causes in either one about the nature of a first cause. So it basically evolves a debate within the debate. It makes it problematic or difficult, but not impossible. How is it a false dichotomy; begging the question? I think it is clearly one of the best arguments apologists use.

Go to the smack dragons blog, written by Sloan Lee. And you will find a detailed refutation of that argument. There are many other things wrong with that argument, but Sloan's article works fine for mere refutation.

Funny the theist mentioned "rape" in his example of objective morality since "rape" isn't even mentioned in the Bible as an immoral act and certainly not in the ten commandments. Where does he get this "objective moral law" from?

Okay, since you're now happy to quote Hume, does that mean you accept his principles of causality?

Sorry for so many posts :) KZfaq is not my preferred platform for debate.

You admitted earlier that the singularity was a hypothesis in the standard model. I am not sure how you turn around and say that it is not a part of the theory or at least a theory. I am still lacking examples for this topic on how Dr. Craig has equivocated "Big Bang". Once again, it looks as if though you just merely disagree with him about the singularity or on a matter of science. I still have not seen where he has committed this fallacy. Examples?

Do you have these like prepared, because I see you spamming this shit all over, it's pretty funny.

If I use what word? I am not clear on what you are saying here. I am also unclear on what you mean by two equivocal notions of infinity. Just in case you mean what I think you do, when theists say God is infinite they are doing so in a qualitative way, not quantitative. When I say that God is infinite, I don't mean to say that he is an infinite amount of discrete and finite parts. Otherwise I don't understand what your refutation is and wouldn't even know what to google.

I'm not sure how to answer because your reply can have a double meaning

What makes you "human" Be +ing (Be+ing has a meaning-Hope you are aware)when the entire manifestation is made up of atoms. Can you explain this??

I can't believe JT isn't more known for his singing. Holy shit he's got pipes. What even is that song?

I am actually taking Dr. Lee's philosophy class and i can assure you that he is quite brilliant. He tends to look at all the objections for his argument and debating for those before debating for his own.

I am still not sure how you refuted the ball and cushion. You did cite Hume, but I don't see how Hume's views can apply to the beginning of time. I also find it interesting that you would cite Hume on causality and the give me the Hartle/Hawking model which has a beginning of time. How could time have a beginning if Hume is correct? This is where I mentioned that arguing for causes in physics or philosophy become problematic. I am arguing causes more from the principle of sufficient reason.

Does the affirmative side not know what "rebuttal of the negative side" means?

How does it account for that problem?

Haven't even watched this yet and I can see this won't be a fair fight. Matt and JT against who?

Is this guy really saying that the belief in god must be our default position and therefore I have a "burden of proof" if I reject that position?

Not ten minutes into this and guys already demonstrating he has no idea about basically anything ever. A premise is true when it's shown to be valid.

Im not sure what your trying to say here, please elaborate.