Atheist Debates - Debate Review vs Matt Slick (Pt 2)

Part 2 of this debate review covers my thoughts on my opening remarks and begins to analyze Slick's opening remarks...did they address the topic? What's all this about brain fizz and certainty and truth...and is it relevant to which is the best strategy?

In part 3, we'll finish the opening and discuss the cross-examination.

[lilrobbiek]

Any debate that Matt Slick has *ever* done ALWAYS comes back to a repackaged TAG argument. No matter the topic, his arguments ultimately are the equivalent of a broken record.

[aharonheitsche]

it really frustrated me when I was watching the debate that he kept saying "your brain made you say that". That was very childish.

[cloudoftime]

"Your brain made you say that".

Well, if you're a dualist then your soul made YOU say that THROUGH YOUR brain! Either way you can't account for it, no matter how strongly you "trust" or believe to be absolutely certain.

[matthewdavid]

@24:40 when Matt Slick is talking about “the laws of logic are not the same thing as the laws of physics, they are not derived from the laws of physics”. I disagree. The laws of logic and the laws of physics are both simply descriptions of reality and both can be broken down and described mathematically.

[alexdoerofthings]

Isn't it true that whether or not God created logic, secular humanism is still superior to Christianity?

[_LifeOfReilly]

Watching Matt Slick’s side of this debate was like dealing with a 7 year old who just keeps saying: “I know you are, but what am I?”

[Phi]

Sorry, Matt, but it looks like you were duped. It appears that Slick was hellbent on debating "naturalism" regardless of what the agreed upon topic was. I get the sense that if Matt agreed to the topic of whether the sky is blue or light blue, that Slick would use that as a springboard to debate "naturalism".

[JMUDoc]

"You can't win at chess unless you know who wrote the rules."


- Matt Slick.

[ApostateltsopA]

These reviews take away some of the pain that I felt listening to the debate in the first place.

[Sines]

A simple disproof of the idea that a self-refuting strategy cannot be a good one follows.

"Alright guys, we're going to lose no matter how well we play, so lets go out gloriously. Here's the plan..."

The coach then lays out the plan for the team. However, in spite of what he thinks, the plan accidentally wins the game. Since the plan was based on "Losing gloriously", but they won, then it was self-refuting. However, it was actually very successful, turning an almost certain defeat into a victory, even if only by accident.

Indeed, the scientific method itself is partially based on this. It doesn't matter if a theory describes some fundamental truth, but rather whether it has predictive utility. Newton was wrong in many aspects, but his formula are still very useful. And due to their simplicity, would have been far more useful in a pre-computer era than our modern, closer to the truth, hyper-complex formula. Ironically, Newtons 'less true' theories would be more useful than Stephen Hawkins 'more true' theories, because of the limits of the time.

So not only can something be successful despite being untrue, it can actually be more successful than the truth, given that (to paraphrase) we might not always know what to do with the turth.

[spacedoohicky]

The question is did Slick's brain make him say anything?

[renevelation]

Basically Slick pulled a SyeTenB in this debate!

[ixamraxi]

I use bleach to clean or sanitize things. I find it useful, and there are all manner of things for which we can use bleach. We found these different uses through various methodologies.

We don't need to know *why* bleach does what it does in order to use it effectively, nor do we need to know why bleach works in order to decide whether certain ways of using bleach are superior to other methods.

I feel like Matt S. is basically saying that there are a bunch of microscopic ninja's in bleach, and when you pour bleach on something those microscopic ninjas start attacking whatever its on, and in saying this he's "accounted" for the reason bleach works, and then declared that because his position accounts for why bleach works, its automatically superior to any other methodologies that use bleach, no matter how effective or useful those methods are.

[differous]

39:13 "If someone says 'please evaluate my physics homework' and your response is 'your physics homework isn't relevant because you can't account for why the laws of physics are as they are', is it reasonable to expect them to care about your opinion on the topic in the future?"
That's pre-suppositionalism in a box (ie. not quite in a nutshell but memorable)

[jeremymac]

Hey Matt, really appreciate these videos. They help me learn about a debating process and what type of evidence is solid.

[mrcombustiblelemon]

"your brain made you say that"

Many of you say that he's guilty of the same, but I have to grant this point to Slick: it does appear that his own decisions do not obey anything that could come from a brain, his own or another's.

[AMmentOfScience]

I'd say you've reached a significant standard of debating ability and a good name for yourself and your abilities of debate when people (Sye & now Rachael's father) will do anything to get to be on a stage with you only to refuse to participate in the activity for which they've agreed in order to get to be on stage with you. Congratulations, Matt.

[stevie-c]

I think that Slick and Sye's method of arguing shows that a lot of theists are at a point where they cannot really defend theism anymore, particularly the actual methods and results theisms promote to affect change on humanity.

How can you argue that in order to promote human flourishing it's better to follow an ambiguous (and heavily open to interpretation) methodology proposed in an antiquated book of dubious heritage over a methodology that has been set up (and allows for continuous improvement) specifically with the goal of promoting human flourishing? The answer is clearly to disregard any actual discussion and simply claim 'I'm certain my book is correct therefore my book is correct and you're not arrogant tenough to claim certainty therefore you're wrong'.

Whilst it may be a difficult position to argue against, I believe that the more theists have to resort to this childish and disingenuous debate tactic the more normal people will recognise this desperation and reject theism. People are much less likely to believe you about something when you're not willing to actually discuss the thing you're trying to convince them of in an open and honest manner.

[darksoul]

Oh good I'm glad I found this. I watched part one of this yesterday.

[adako]

Thanks Matt and the apologists I've heard thus far for helping me finalize my long struggle to deconvert. I wander if these apologists realize that they're actually hurting - not benefiting their own cause. Thanks!! 🙂