Atheist Debates - Debate review: Does God Exist? with Jay Lucas Part 1

In April of 2012, I debated Jay Lucas on the topic, "Does God Exist?"

This video is part of a series that provides additional commentary, corrections and clarifications of the topic discussed. Over the course of this series, we'll look at mistakes that were made by all parties in the hope that others can avoid those mistakes.

This is Part 1 and covers the opening remarks. As we continue discussing this debate, we'll also cover the remainder of the debate as well as circumstances and topics surrounding this debate.

[RadioactivFly]

Presuppositional apologetics is the logical equivalent of flipping over the game board before being checkmated.

[oscillocelot]

I like how Michael Rouse is an 'eminent philosopher of science' while Carl Sagan is a 'famous atheist'. No bias there, right?

[JMUDoc]

"Imagine the worst, most heinous thing ever done to you by another.
Now, imagine the offender apologizing not to you, but to Jesus, and being forgiven and going to heaven forever, while you go to hell. Forever."


Christianity, folks!

[ArtfullyMusingLaura]

Matt, very much enjoyed the deconstruction of the debate. Looking forward to the other videos. Thanks!

[holz_name]

You can also summarize.
7:36 - special knowledge, straw man, poisoning the well
9:58 - special knowledge (that Matt have a world view), and he contradicted himself (earlier he stated that he and Matt are both theists, so they should have both the same world view).
12:00 - special knowledge (that Matt's world view is atheism), poisoning the well
13:10 - straw man. It is even called the *humanist* manifesto, not the "atheist manifesto" or "Matt's manifesto".
17:47 - appealing to consequences, straw man. He quotes a bunch of people and assumes that's Matt's position, and appealing to consequences that under atheism there is no free will, there is no moral absolutes, etc. It's utterly irrelevant what you want to be true. If there is no God so there are no moral absolutes, if that's true, it's true.
26:15 - continue to appeal to consequences, appeal to emotions. It doesn't matter how we feel about stuff. And personally, it's not even a such convincing argument. If you feel that something wrong or evil was done to you, was does it matter if it was _really_ wrong or evil. If you stab me, I will bleed, if you shoot me, I will die. That is evil from my subjective experience, because I value my life. If I wouldn't value my life, then killing me is not evil from my subjective experience.

[wertytrewqa]

Hey Matt can you please make a video on how every time apologists can't defend a part of their books they say "that part wasn't meant to be taken literally that was meant to be taken figuratively" there's nothing an apologist can't weasel out of with that one.

[cloudoftime]

I'm really glad you are doing these videos. Since I started watching these debates, I have thought that they require follow up videos. Also, that many debates should be done through videos and video responses. That way: the time periods for each side can be precise, and longer; you can utilize images and other visual aids; links can be added at relevant times, to direct people to resources for research on specific points; debates can continue as needed for each topic that arises; the rebuttals will be prepared better; there will be enough time to address the format/semantic issues of the arguments which, while still very important, don't take precedence over the main topics; the audio and video is much better; etc.

This is exciting stuff.

[Phi]

Notice how the christian apologist spends most of his time muddying the waters around the concept of "presuppositionalism" to the point where it's almost meaningless, and, therefore, impossible to argue against. This is an example of what I like to call the "I'm rubber and you're glue" argument. That is, the apologist is merely trying to reflect all reasonable criticisms of his argument back onto his opponent without ever actually bolstering his own argument with facts and evidence. (See the fallacies of equivocation, tu quoque, red herring, begging the question and poisoning the well)

[Atanar]

Yay, been waiting for this. I love those.

[todbeard]

Good job with these debate reviews Matt. I watched them out of order though. You clearly handed Jay Lucas his ass in the debate.

[roryreviewer]

Matt debating Jay Lucas' performance during Matt's debate with Jay Lucas.

Debate-ception!

[JMUDoc]

"I have AN answer; you don't. Therefore, I'm one up on you."

No, sir - some of us would rather have NO answer than ANY answer.

[Bobvanksy]

Step 1: Oh, I'm just a humble son of a gun who has felt the lords presence blablabla.


Step 2: Now let me tell you why atheism (which I'll also bundle together with Hitler and many established sciences) sucks / or is at least as flawed as we are, here I have picture of Carl Sagan where he dropped his pants.


Step 3: Logical necessity, philosophical acrobatics, everything has a cause except for when it doesn't, the lords teachings are perfect except for these obvious human errors you brought up that other denominations get totally wrong but I won't go into much detail.


Step 4: I wouldn't want to live in a world were...I know that I know that I know...


Step 5: Oh gosh, I guess we'll just agree to disagree *winks at audience*.

[jebuskryst]

5:40 - That is one of your strongest attributes. You are not an "ivory tower" atheist.

7:50 - Is this not just a version of the presuppositional apologetic position?

[oscillocelot]

Matt did you put those pictures back there so we'd stop fixating on your DVD collection? xD

[MrDrManPerson]

love the videos Matt! keep them up! I absorb these things like candy lol.

[MarkRosengarten]

I was there. It was a fantastic experience.

[amazingbollweevil]

I love this series. It's so much better than a debate.

[jss]

"think about the worst thing that someone has ever done to you in your life. Was that act genuinely wrong? Would they say that in their opinion that act was acceptable?" Thisb should have been followed with "well don't worry, because the God I believe in will commit cosmic justice against that person for you UNLESS that person converts to Christianity before they die. In that case, you will be able to enjoy living along with that person for the rest of eternity with them never receiving any sort of cosmic repercussion!" Yippee!

[beerhangover]

I'm so tired of theistic arguments, I don't even listen to them anymore. They talk a lot and say so little. I just skip and listen to what the atheist has to say hoping I will learn something New.