DEBATE: Is Christianity True? | Matt Dillahunty Vs Perspective Philosophy | Podcast

At Modern-Day Debate (MDD), our vision is to provide a neutral debate platform so everyone has their fair shot to make their case on a level playing field.

ALL OUR DEBATES ALSO END UP ON OUR PODCAST, USUALLY WITHIN 24-HOURS OF BEING LIVE:

_______________________________________________________________________________
LINKS TO GUESTS:

Matt Dillahunty: @SansDeity

PerspectivePhilosophy: @PerspectivePhilosophy

__________________________________________________________________

OUR NEW DISCORD:

__________________________________________________________________

Ways to support Modern-Day Debate:
*If you click that link and make your usual Amazon purchases, 2-3% of your purchase goes to Modern-Day Debate while you still pay the same price for your Amazon products!
_______________________________________________________________________________

WANT TO COME ONTO MDD? CHECK OUT THIS INFO PAGE:
_______________________________________________________________________________

RULES FOR CHAT
-Chats flagrantly disrespectful toward speakers will receive a warning. *Attack the ideas instead of the person.
-Chatters continuing the disrespect after a warning will be banned.
-Chatters violating YouTube TOS are banned immediately.

______________________________________________________________________________________

DISCLAIMER The views shared by guests on Modern-Day Debate are not necessarily representative of the views of Modern-Day Debate, James, or any university he has or has had any affiliation with. This includes our debate podcast.
______________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

#Debate #Podcast

[achooothanks]

Imagine a world in which personal gods do not exist but people wanted them to. That world would look like exactly like the one we are living in.

[marklewis]

It's amazing how simple Matt's questions are to answer when you're not trying to defend the truth of Christianity.

[kaiza]

Matt: Asks a simple yes/no question on whether a perfect thing could be imperfect.

Perspective: "So long as it obtains it's identity then it had shown to be perfect, then it would be... I wouldn't say it would be.. I'd say that it's existence contains the possibility of it's existence, which would, would in contain the possibility of it's, maybe it's... yeah I'd probably say there's no possibility that it could not be itself, that would be the law of identity."

Sounds like something an AI spit out lol

[mikefoster]

Matt's great in so many ways, but his actual superpower is being able to stay focused on his opponents' word salads without his brain shutting down from frustration.

His opponents just throw SO MANY false suppositions into their points - literally one every few seconds - that unpicking it all seems like a massive memory game. If Matt wasn't so sharp and able to summarise, he'd have to stop them constantly to challenge each assumption.

As always, his opponents seem to be playing a sort of "if I can confuse the atheist, we win" strategy, rather than a reasonable "I ought to get on and start robustly proving my extraordinary assertions" strategy.

[adityapathania]

Matt is simply the best debater for atheist I have ever seen. All the points are from a simple mans point of view. Never overcomplicates things, no word salad and very simple to follow. Simply wiped the floor with PP.

[mariobethell]

Whenever an honest man discovers he is mistaken, he will either cease to be mistaken, in that he wil accept correction and acknowledge he is wrong, or he will cease to be honest, in that his pride won't permit him to admit that he is wrong.

[eleventhchimp]

I’m amazed at the amount of philosophy it’s possible to learn while understanding none of it.

[TheWeekinDoubt]

I’ve watched this debate multiple times now and it’s like my mind blanks out and goes into a fugue state every time I try to process one of PP’s convoluted word salad arguments…

[treylearns]

Matt won this debate, just by letting this man talk

[locococo]

I'm only at the beginning, but i already can't believe PP used such overused argument for god in his opening against someone like Matt who debunked it more than he can count.

The worst is it's completely off topic. The topic of the debate is "is christianity true". At best, his argument would proof the existence of god, but he would still need to proove the bible.

What an horrible start...

[owenwilliams]

Ive seen tap dancing by Christians, but this takes it to a new level.

[god]

From philosopher to an apologist. That's a real step down for me.

[oliverthompson]

Great that Matt got to debate Thomas Aquinas, anyway. I bet he never thought he'd get to do that.

[kennethsanford]

I love that the debate was supposed to be about if christianity is true and the one time Matt pushed his opponent to answer one of the few questions pertaining to the debate it was never even answered. All that word salad is never going to help anyone come to the "truth" of christianity. All that philosophy only gets you to the possibility of a God and says nothing about christianity.

[stargatemaster]

Matt made a better argument for God than this guy did, and then he smashed it.

[goodquestion]

Wow, Perspective Philosophy's religion seems to be based on the unclarity of his spiraling confused reasoning.
The word "necessary", sprinkled on any random sentence, seems to be the bedrock of his epistemology.

[weirdwilliam]

Matt: “Do you have any evidence a god exists?”
PP: “No, but I can think about some abstract concepts in this ad hoc way that is consistent with a god.”
Matt: …?

[jlb]

Perspective Philosophy reminds me of myself as a young philosophy student trying so desperately to find a way to rationally justify a ridiculous belief because it was comforting to me at the time (don't worry, I came to my senses)

[dianabender]

Matt won hands down. Perspective just spat out a bunch of word salad and tap danced around Matt's questions when all he needed was a yes or no to his questions.

[joerdim]

Feels like another case of: "I need money but no useful education. Let's start a christian apologist channel."