Eric wants a debate but falls apart when the person he's debating doesn't follow his script.

Started so very confident... then immediately crashed and burned lol

This guy sounds like he wants a fight more then a debate

Tracie is really bright.

The Dunning-Kruger Effect is strong with this one

He has "7 proofs of God".. cant get past step 1

I'm always amazed at how easily Tracie can reduce a rambling argument to a simple and clear statement or analogy. Her brain is like a machine; fast and precise.

I love Tracie so much. She's my favorite person on the show. She doesn't mince words. She concisely makes her point and then she sits back and laughs.

"From this conversation, nothing comes."

9:55 "I believe you'll agree with every one of them." "Sure. Okay, go ahead. I bet you're wrong." ...collapses on the first premise

This Eric guy is a legend in his own mind.

The funniest part in this clip is at 9:27, when Matt says "a single point, that we can maybe adress on the show. You know, apart from us just sitting here, jousting back and forth about nothing." Then they spend the rest of the call jousting back and forth about nothing.

17:39 Tracie tears caller's brain apart with one question. Long silence while he spoons his shattered cerebellum back into his cranial cavity.

This guy was so hostile, aggressive and with a big ego. He acted so confident but he failed lol

Tracie's point that we don't have an example of nothing was excellent.

Professional Atheist: Someone who professionally does not believe in god. I am a professional unicycle non rider.

I've run into this so many times. Theists so often simply do not understand the difference between "I don't accept claim A" and "claim A is false." They just *dont get it*. It's absolutely bizarre to watch. It's like their brain is broken. This guy was a perfect example.

Poor Eric Lounsbery comes in all butt hurt and crying about how a little 1 hour atheist public access TV show is just so unfair to Christianity.....boo hoo......then he goes on to throw a few sissy punches challenging Matt to a debate but only under Eric's rules.....tool.....gee he sounds like he's actually the one who is Cramer in the kids karate class.

"If we ever debate...I DEMAND there be a vote tally." - Hahahahahaha! Comedy gold!!!

I love it when Eric says "90% of the callers(theists) have probably never studied theology or apologetics. What kind of study do you need? Once you learn some critical thinking skills, theology and apologetics can be shown to be a waste of time. :p

Well, I vote that Matt won, clearly, this guy just was NOT getting it. He's either not very bright, or just so deluded that he's cordoned off certain areas of his brain to avoid ever questioning his own beliefs

If I was Matt, I wouldn't debate this guy because he'd never shut up.

The stunned silence after Tracie's put-down is just pure gold xD .

If you listen very closely at 17:45 you hear the sound a man realizing he has lost.

"What I mean by 'nothing' is non-existence." 'Non-existence' doesn't _exist!_ How could it? So what the hell are you talking about?

Wow he's got a huge case of the Dunning Kruger Effect. I love that when Eric finally did debate him, he got his ass destroyed.

Why is it not possible for "Something to come from nothing" but an all powerful God who can just snap his fingers and create an entire universe can come from nothing and that's totally okay? Oh wait. It's because "God transcends all space and time so screw you!" What an amazing argument of special pleading. Not only that but just like Tracie and Matt said. We can't study or analyze "Nothing", so the entire argument is invalid right out of the gate. It amazes me how confident Eric is with his cut and paste 'one size fits all' argument, yet he is absolutely clueless to how useless his argument is.

Tracie is hot.

If this caller still insists there is a god then he has to accept that his version of that god certainly left his ass hanging out in the breeze on this one. Matt - 1 Caller - 0

Saw this for the first time in 2023 and have watched it multiple times. Nothing👀 is better than watching Matt and Tracie totally clobber Eric Murphy and his sh*tty apologist argument😁

17:34 And Tracie with the Logic SLAM! Eric is speechless from 17:44 to 17:50 a full 6 seconds!!! LOL OWNED "Ohhhhh!" (audience member) And the look she gives him at 17:47 Priceless. Tracie is so good, sometimes I forget Matt is even there when she's arguing.

Typical theist trying to set up a specific formula for a debate so he can make a million ridiculous claims so the atheist can't disprove them all.

I love how this creatard argument that totally ignores that they think GOD came from nothing....

"WHAT IS NOTHING?" -Tracie Harris.

The moment this cocky guy said he had an argument with SEVEN premises that he thinks are so simple we will agree with all of them real quick it was pretty clear how this was going to go. Most apologists cannot get two premises past their opponents. The thing these clowns never seem to get is that these discussions enter such unknown territory that there is virtually no presupposition on which we can begin.

The atheists are correct. 1. "something comes from something" does not imply "something does not come from nothing." 2. Even if the caller was correct, then it could still be the case that the universe has always existed. "Something cannot come from nothing" does not imply that at one time there was nothing.

No one is saying 'something can come from nothing' except for theists who say everything came from the magical wishes of some invisible magical being, which conveniently needs no explanation for where IT came from.

It's hilariously ironic at 9:30 Matt asks him if he'd like to bring up an argument instead if "jousting back and forth about nothing", and then they proceed to joust back and forth about "nothing".

Now I wonder what his other 6 premises were. Kramer wins again.

Even before they had the debate they made this caller look like a fool! lol

Did this internet nobody "Eric" just say he trounced an atheist in a shitty little unknown debate? How cute.

He was so confident until faced with logic and reasoning and then he started stuttering and trying to think of a response 🤣

18:35.... The exact glorious moment the caller FINALLY realizes he just labeled HIS OWN first premise "self-contradictory" 🤣 And Matt's next words are "Now he's gettin' it!" JUST A GLORIOUS MOMENT! I want to pour that moment all over my cereal and slurp it down for breakfast every morning until the end of time 😆 Hahaha

“Something cannot come from nothing”. Just agree with him. ‘Okay, well we have something so therefore something must have always existed.’

This caller got ejected for committing the same penalty three times. Goes to show you how much they actually listen to the other person.

"Pride goeth before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall"... This caller was the perfect illustration of that.

I just love the fact that he really thought he could just ramble off his '7 logical points' to own the atheists just to get stopped in his tracks at the first one😂

"Nothing cannot make something" is equally likely as "There was once nothing" in my opinion. I don't think there was once nothing, because if that was the case, then it would most likely still be nothing, because "nothing can come from nothing". But what do I know?

Tracie nailed it. We only have evidence that "something can come from "something". It is not a demonstrable fact that "something cannot come from nothing".

“I DEMAND that there be a vote tally.” I’m still laughing! Nearly made my day.

Christian: "Something can't come from nothing" Then goes on to explain how god spoke the universe into existence.. from nothing.

I really hope the caller realized at the end of this call that you can't just always assert that something has a direct opposite. The reason why the caller was so confused when faced with the question of "did you examine "nothing" before ?" is that many can't seem to differentiate the poorness of our languages from the "logical" statements we try to make using its limited convenience. The logical requirements of an infinite "entity" as the Primal cause ARE MET by the definition of a singularity. The rest of the statements from the bronze age about the soul, emotions being in your hearth(try telling that to a psychiatrist), or any other metaphysical "knowledge" is absurd since by definition, a metaphysical knowledge cannot be obtained by a physical thing as we are. From this, the circular argument was made that since the being(s) that created us are metaphysical and we are their "children" our minds(and soul) were thought to be that same metaphysics. We now know that even your thoughts AREN'T METAPHYSICS, the electricity in your brain emits a specific magnetic field that can be mapped. Everything that we thought was "nothing" like the air we breath, we now know to be something... but no ancient book has any answer to such an advanced understanding of our world as to provide an explanation to what IS "nothing". tl;dr: You can't state "something cannot come from nothing" before you've determine if BOTH "something" and "nothing" exists in the first place.

The fact that "something can not come from nothing" DOES NOT point towards a God. if a bicycle tree miraculously appeared in front of me, I don't have the necessary evidence to bridge the gap between the tree and God. All i could say for a fact is that a bicycle tree had appeared right in front of me. I could not tell you with any certainty how it got there, who put it there or why it was there, I could only assume and come to a decision based on probability. Religious people seem to think that God fills the unanswered gaps in life. "Oh it hasn't been discovered how this was done yet, it must have been God" NO NO NO NO NO! YOU CAN NOT MAKE THAT ASSUMPTION, IT'S FLAWED!

It's crazy to me that people call believing "I have the facts that NO ONE has ever presented before!!!"

Matt won the debate btw.

...tool. (loved it)

"it's not like i have ducked anybody who has ever asked to debate....... unlike William Lane Craig." Killed it !!

Tracieeeee, I love you! Please marry me. Even though I'm female and have a boyfriend, you're the one.

Everybody lets this pass: "The law of causality" does not exist, is not a law at all.

So in this guy Eric's mind, the truth needs to be softened to not hurt feelings of theists. Also, he's so proud of his winning debates and having votes at the end to stroke his pride, so much that he's ignoring the fact that his debate would have no ground to stand on.

This caller is bottom of the class in debating technique.

I can give an example of nothing: Eric's arguments.

The problem with rigidly following a script is that you are unable to adapt when the conversation doesn’t go in the direction you anticipate. As illustrated by “let’s go ahead” Eric.

LOVE this segment!! ;) My day is made.

WOW thank GOD we did not get to step two ha ha ha

"Are you done now" Matt says as Eric is freaking out on the first premise.

Fascinating how the banter at the beginning shows that he is actually capable of talking like a normal human.

I know the caller personally, he is a highly intelligent person that has incredible debating skills. He has debated several hundred atheists, and has even debated several at a time. I would call him a religious mass-debater.

This caller wanted to demonstrate how clever he was.....FAIL

Late to the party but as a follow up to this found the actual follow up debate! OMG - Matt to Eric is like David Attenborough debating someone who has read the hungry caterpillar.

it appears that the part of the brain that processes nuance is rewired in Christian brains.

Eric makes three catastrophic errors. The first error is not to critically evaluate the premises of his arguments, as we see clearly with P1, to determine whether they are actually sound (clearly P1 isn't). The second error is to assume that winning a debate means his claim is correct and demonstrates his god exists. The third error is to believe arguments sans evidence demonstrate claims are true. They don't and they can never do this. The only time an argument alone can show a claim is false (and only false) is when the argument is shown to be logically incoherent. Such arguments are false by axiomatic definition. Poor Eric isn't smart enough to know and understand that no amount of apologetics (excuses and storytelling) can rescue a position that is fatally and fundamentally flawed. The entire enterprise is no more than a huge exercise in an argument from ignorance, as the comments in the forum below show to great effect.

I love this video! I didn't know how to contradict that claim and now I know! Thanks Matt!

It's humorous that he brought up Seinfeld and then had a heated debate about what "nothing" is. I kept hearing George saying "It's a show about NOTHING!"

Tracy kicked that guy's butt. She is the best and most intelligent host.

Poor Eric. Shot down in flames on his very first premise! The cognitive dissonance is strong in this one, Luke! It's a simple enough concept to grasp - if we don't have an example of absolutely nothing, how can we determine if something can/cannot arise from it? Eric's obvious frustration was palpable, and he was therefore unable to progress through to his erroneous conclusion. Typical of christian apologists - assuming their fundamental principles are true and correct, by bouncing their hypotheses off other apologists, who also see nothing wrong in the assumptions, but when exposed to rational, secular thinking, they always seem to come unstuck! Go, Matt Dillahunty! You rock! Oh, those atheists! They're just so unfair when they won't play along with your diversionary word games!

“Since you’re so scientific and so reasonable...” Um... was Eric admitting that he isn’t?

This guy came in swaggering, thinking he's the business, and at his first claim, he was blasted. What a guy 😆

This might be the best theist crush I've ever seen! Matt and Tracie are beasts!!

Tracies mind is a beautifully constructed savage steel trap of FLAWLESS LOGIC.

Your show has me rolling on the ground laughing hysterically.

That pause...twice are friggin hilarious. I could imagine the crickets chirping in the background.

Matt is awesome and my intellectual debate hero, a worthy champion to fill the hitch debate vacuum. Time to step up Matt and inherit the burden to mattslap people with some refreshing logic!!

Actual astrophycisists such as Lawrence Krauss define 'nothing' as '30% dark matter, 70% dark energy', so obviously the theist apologists and actual scientists have very different ideas about the definition of 'nothing'. BTW, where did the God of the Old Testament come from, nothing or something else? I've never heard them even attempt to explain that.

Another classic call that should've been an e-mail

“I have 7 proofs and they’re all brainless” 🤦🤣

I MUST FIND THIS DEBATE

Do the religious people ask the same question again and again hoping for a different answer?

Holy crap, "rather than us jousting back and forth about nothing". What a prophetic statement considering the conversation to come.

Parting shot -'tool'. I would LOVE to meet Matt, what an intelligent guy! The Atheist Experience is simply awesome!!!!! Thanks for making me realise I am not alone in my way of interpreting my experience of reality........

I would pay top dollar to watch that debate LOL

so let's say that we could somehow assert that stuff cannot come from "nothing" that still wouldn't explain any gods, you can just argue that the universe has always been. The funny thing is that how could a god somehow exist in nothing and produce from nothing? if anything, the whole argument would also argue against the existence of a god or gods...

The furcktard's caller's head almost exploded. The silences in the part of the caller are magic.

Always a fun video.

The Seinfeld reference is ironic considering the rest of the call...

I like how arrogant Eric is about debating Matt. He's so certain that he'll destroy him and convince the entire audience that God exists. You can tell just by the inflection of his voice how superior he thinks he is. Well, here we are post-debate and his argument was a complete joke, and this call right here demonstrates his stupidity very well. He's just another run of the mill apologist committing every fallacy in the book.

I love this clip!!!

How come god doesn't call in and settle this for good?

This caller has a real ego problem. He really really thinks he's important. Anybody who starts bragging about their flawless debate record and how they are so sure they'll win is as Matt stated, a complete tool.

I really enjoyed the debate on the Dogma Debate podcast. Both were very cordial and articulate, but Eric's attempts in proving God's (and moreover the Christian God's) existence was superficial and, frankly, pathetic. I'm interested in hearing a second debate between the two. I propose the subject to be "The Legitimacy of the Bible", or something regarding the accuracy of biblical claims.