Christian Radio Host Calls Back: Proof Of God – TAG Debate Matt Slick & Matt Dillahunty (1)
Written by admin on March 21, 2009 – 10:30 am -Tags: apologetics, argument, atheism, atheist, atheists, Austin, belief, Bible, catholic, christ, Christian, christianity, christians, creationism, Creationists, Darwin, Dawkins, debate, delusion, Dillahunty, evolution, existence, Experience, faith, for, freethinker, God, Harris, hell, Host, Humanists, jesus, Matt, Matthew, Ministry, of, proof, Radio, religion, religious, Research, Richard, satan, science, Secular, Slick, TAG, terror, the, theory, Tracie, transcendental
Posted in Christianity and Atheism | 25 Comments »
By elvirahx on Mar 21, 2009 | Reply
I will be. Do you …
I will be. Do you know 100% what will happen to you? No. No one does. You may HOPE that something will or will not happen but it is unknown. Same as how we do not know what happened before we were born.
By voidless42 on Mar 21, 2009 | Reply
Sadly when you die …
Sadly when you die you will not be disappointed, you just won’t exist to be anything.
By funincluded on Mar 21, 2009 | Reply
My problem is with …
My problem is with #6; the “reflect the mind” bit is ambiguous.
When I apply a logical axiom in discourse, does that mean the axiom is reflecting my mind?
…then is my mind perfect because it applies a “perfect” axiom?
Further, axioms aren’t “perfect’. They don’t make me feel good. A perfect thing would have ALL attributes, not just conceptual ones. In other words, a logical rule can’t be perfect in the sense that Slick wants it to be
By michaelxxx017 on Mar 21, 2009 | Reply
What is your point? …
What is your point?… That we should allow fear of the unknown to corrupt our search for truth?
By WerewolfOfTheWater on Mar 21, 2009 | Reply
I wouldn’t even go …
I wouldn’t even go so far as to give them the credibility of a theory. They’re more like “crap they made up on the spot because they just really want their magic sky daddy to exist”
By streetz23 on Mar 21, 2009 | Reply
nothing will happen …
nothing will happen, being dead is exactly the same as not being born.
do you know what it was like before your birth? exactly.
By g0dsboy on Mar 21, 2009 | Reply
Try being atheist …
Try being atheist on your death bed not knowing whats going to happen to you next
By g0dsboy on Mar 21, 2009 | Reply
You will know the …
You will know the truth when it is to late and what you believe does not change reality
By Matthew2400 on Mar 21, 2009 | Reply
I hate it how …
I hate it how Christians come up with a very stupid theory and then call it “proof”. Out of all of the hundreds of “proof” that I have heard of relating to how they think God Exists, none of them were proof. They were just stupid theories made by stupid people which make no sense whatsoever. God is the opposite to science and logic so if you believe in him then please go back to your cot and read your fairy books whilst watching spongebob squarepants. Learn the definition of proof u retards!!!!!
By bshaw7325 on Mar 21, 2009 | Reply
Must be harder for …
Must be harder for you being in Texas as steeped in Christianity as it is there.
By jonwainy on Mar 21, 2009 | Reply
If there were …
If there were logical proofs for God there would be no doubt from anyone. Therefore there are no proofs. Think it through dickhead.
By Exmech2 on Mar 21, 2009 | Reply
Portland, OR… …
Portland, OR… down the road from you. And you have a good night too.
By L0rdSaba0th on Mar 21, 2009 | Reply
Haha, don’t worry I …
Haha, don’t worry I won’t be using entropy on you. It was only an example, and one I don’t have enough knowledge to argue on anyways (give me a break, I’m only 17 :p)
I must get to bed though, I’m quite tired, so have a good night, day, or whatever it is where you live.
By Exmech2 on Mar 21, 2009 | Reply
I agree. And some …
I agree. And some require a more stringent proof than others. This is the reason religion survives in the face of overwhelming evidence against it. Regarding entropy… Please, OH PLEASE don’t try to use that one on me. I’ll shred it with immense joy, and jbilantly jump and down on its mangled carcass!
By L0rdSaba0th on Mar 21, 2009 | Reply
It was also nice to …
It was also nice to have a debate with someone who is polite and capable of thinking, so thank you as well.
I must clarify what I mean by “proofs”:
“The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.”
This could be any argument, or evidence that would cause someone to believe in something. There are things like the accuracy of biblical scripture, the problem of entropy, etc. that could be considered as a “proof”. Of course these won’t convince everyone.
By Exmech2 on Mar 21, 2009 | Reply
There are proofs …
There are proofs for his existence? Well please Share! I think this is what everyone’s waiting for!!
Oh… but if there’s doubt, by anyone, can you rightfully call it a “proof”?
As well… Everyone’s allowed to be skeptical.
By L0rdSaba0th on Mar 21, 2009 | Reply
I don’t think you …
I don’t think you can outright prove God’s existence. There are indeed proofs for His existence, but there is always going to be doubt when these proofs are presented to certain people.
By Exmech2 on Mar 21, 2009 | Reply
BTW: It was very, …
BTW: It was very, VERY nice to have a debate with someone who can think. Doesn’t happen often on the net. Thank you.
By Exmech2 on Mar 21, 2009 | Reply
I was just thinking …
I was just thinking of that, actually. But this begs the question of whether there is a God, and whether he is an observer. I didn’t say I was refuting the idea of God. We’re back at square 1. Does God exist or not? I can’t prove either way. No one can.
By L0rdSaba0th on Mar 21, 2009 | Reply
Okay, but if you …
Okay, but if you consider God as an observer it negates your conclusion. He would be able to observe these logical absolutes as (according to TAG) they are a part of His nature.
Also, I’m not exactly sure how great the TAG argument is at this point. I have watched some other videos, and ones from a user called TheoreticalBullshit and I’m beginning to question the arguments validity. I will have to take some time and study the argument very in depth some time soon and see what I come up with.
By Exmech2 on Mar 21, 2009 | Reply
Conclusion…
A: …
Conclusion…
A: there is no truth without an observer,
B: therefore, there are no Logical Absolutes (LA) without an observer
C: Therefore LA cannot be disassociated from the universe.
Refuting TAG.
By L0rdSaba0th on Mar 21, 2009 | Reply
Alright, I will …
Alright, I will concede that. Now…. lets get back to the actual argument. Since you proved your point, please tie it back in with the original conversation before we went off on a tangent.
By Exmech2 on Mar 21, 2009 | Reply
And no… the …
And no… the aliveness of cat is yes or no, if and only if, it is A: Cat, and B: in the set of {alive, dead}. All of these properties are arbitrarilly placed on the object by the observer.
By Exmech2 on Mar 21, 2009 | Reply
Before I talk about …
Before I talk about the cat, I’ll explain “fiveness”.
There’s an infinite set of numbers between 0 and 1. So… what gives 1 its oneness? How do we transcend from the infinite number stream to arrive at 1? Very simply, this is a property arrived at by the observer. Essentially, by ex fiat we arrive at 1.
By L0rdSaba0th on Mar 21, 2009 | Reply
There is truth …
There is truth about the aliveness of the cat. It is EITHER alive or dead. The truth of the matter is WHICHEVER one of options it is. Just because the truth is not knowable does not mean it isn’t there.
… what exactly is “fiveness”? I dont’ quite understand what your driving at, could you explain please?