Christian Radio Host Calls Back: Proof Of God – TAG Debate Matt Slick & Matt Dillahunty (5)

Christian Radio Host Calls Back: Proof Of God - TAG Debate Matt Slick & Matt Dillahunty (5)



Views:77069|Rating:4.66|View Time:9:53Minutes|Likes:1445|Dislikes:104
… Christian Radio Host Calls Back: Proof Of God – TAG Debate Between Matt Slick & Matt Dillahunty (5/5): Arguing about the existence of God (The Atheist Experience #593 with Matt Dillahunty and Tracie Harris).


Please SUBSCRIBE to Science & Reason:




Link to last week’s show (Matt Slick’s first call):

Matt Slick’s Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God:

Matthew J. Slick is the creator and webmaster of the Christian website “Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry” ( ), and is the host of a related radio program in Boise, Idaho entitled “Faith and Reason”. Slick is a Protestant presuppositional apologist and a leader in the counter-cult movement. He considers it his mission to “answer opposition to the Christian faith,” which in his view includes all non-Christian worldviews and non-Protestant denominations of Christianity, including Catholicism (though he believes many individual Catholics are saved) and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

What is The Atheist Experience?

The Atheist Experience is a weekly cable access television show in Austin, Texas, geared at an atheist and non-atheist audience. The Atheist Experience is produced by the Atheist Community of Austin (ACA), a nonprofit educational corporation to develop and support the atheist community, to provide opportunities for socializing and friendship, to promote secular viewpoints, to encourage positive atheist culture, to defend the first amendment principle of state-church separation, to oppose discrimination against atheists and to work with other organizations in pursuit of common goals.

Wiki:
Fan club:
Cartoons:
Email: [email protected]
.

20 thoughts on “Christian Radio Host Calls Back: Proof Of God – TAG Debate Matt Slick & Matt Dillahunty (5)”

  1. Ok I've looked up what TAG is, it presupposes that logic and morals come from God….. But that implies they were created and it would have to be shown that God was the only thing that can create to make him/her/it the only possible way to come up with logic and morals and as we are a creative creature that shows God isn't the only candidate for a possible source

  2. If I'm getting this right God can exist as a thought or concept of mind…..so doesn't that mean that we created God not the other way around ? Also doesn't it show God isn't eternal and also that God didn't come from nothing but from a something?….am I missundestanding TAG ? This is the first time I've come across it so I'm going on what's been said

  3. The saying is you can't win an argument with someone stupid but it would also appear you can't win an argument with someone smart if they refuse to accept facts…… the Earth still went around the sun in accordance with the laws of the Universe (or at least obeyed the laws of the universe if there was ever a period when the earth didn't go around the sun ) before life and mind existed , it's state was not subject to mind to conceive it, it just was

  4. how many times can matt slick repeat his black swan fallacy ive never seen anything but white swans therefore there are no black swans, ive only seen 2 options, and therefore there are only 2 options.

  5. MAtt is trembling……………. GREAT CALLER…………. Classic Matt He always hangs up on Callers who prove him wrong….

  6. Wow, that was painful and the patience of Matt is extraordinary.
    All this verbal masturbation when really none of it proving or identifying invisible gods (allegedly seen only by dead people) exists.

  7. There is no absolutes in the sense this guy pointed out. I don't know why Tracy didn't bring her thoughts before. And the Matts just went running in stupid circles. "What are the absolutes? Physical or conceptual? What's the third option?" There is no evidence for a third option, but luckily there's no need for it. The absolutes are big ass conventions. Things that, through our collective experiences of billions of people and thousands of years, we learned by observing the reality. We don't need the absolutes to know what's real, they are made upon reality. Not ours, but everyone's.

  8. What is the point of matt slick's God? If you have to word salad the shite out of your belief in a deity, what is the point?

  9. is that an avatar of ray comfort, he was dribbling the same incoherent biblical crap, If you research history and leave the bible ,all of them out , religious claims fall down in 5 minutes on google search

  10. Just because I can conceive something, doesn't then make that thing conceptual. To be conceptual, it would have to only exist as a concept, like a god for instance. The logical absolutes would still be true even if there were no minds to conceive of them, therefore they are not conceptual. They also are not physical, so there you go, the logical absolutes are one of the other categories Matt Slick couldn't think of.

  11. 1) If you press the buttons Ctrl-Alt-Delete at the same time. The computer will enter the "shutdown" menu. 2) It must be possible to enter this page by other means. Please explain the other actions you need to take to prove the second statement true. The set formed by statement 1 is finite and well defined. The set defined by statement 2 is infinite and very badly defined. Therefore that statement can not be proved to be true. So things are A or Not A. A is finite and clear not A is infinite and undefined. Why do theists struggle with these simple ideas. Maybe they have to get their god into it and as atheists learn more and have stronger tools to support them the idea of trying to insert god into the world becomes impossible or at least very silly. When a theist says "I can prove the existence of god" you know straight away you are in for a laugh.

  12. So Matt Slick doesn't agree with himself? How can something be conceptual and "transcendent" (his own words) at the same time?

    It seems that Matt Slick changes his argument depending on what part is argued.

    Also, logical absolutes do not exist, things can be both true and not true at the same time…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *