Worst Caller Ever Nomination?

[kyokuma_jr]

I nominate Matt Slick & his transcendental argument, anyone else?
Here's his website: http://www.mattslick.com/
Transcendental argument on ironwiki: http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php? ... l_Argument

Anyway, a few days ago, somebody on youtube was nagging me about the AE clips, that all the fundies that call in are morons & don't know what they are talking about; furthermore, they should have a professional call in.
Yeah...

Through the entire call he seemed to have been trying to drag out time, just my opinion.
Moreover, his "arguing style" reminded me of the basic fundie methodology where they get you to agree on some things & then Bam! PROFIT! & God exists; however, if you interupt that flow, like the hosts did, it doesn't exactly work.

I think what makes this even worse is that he is supposed to be good at this...

[Mr.Blahface]

It’s a real shame that the phones were messing up again. I hope he does call back next week with Matt as host and I also hope that the phones work properly this time.

I bet that on his own radio show he will talk about this experience as if he defeated atheists in a debate on their own show.

[kyokuma_jr]

lol I think so too.

Anyway, it's really annoying the phones seem to mess up each week... I mean they never had this problem before, at least not so every time...

[Cephus]

This guy was a complete moron. He kept asserting things that I was tearing apart immediately. He claimed that logic was universal, but the simple fact is that logic as a model is something that people are TAUGHT, it doesn't simply exist in the brain. Man came up with logic as a means of describing the world and this little shit is simply ignoring reality.

I'd have smacked him in the head if I was in the same room with him. What a prick.

BTW: Didn't the studio replace all the hardware a couple of months ago? I remember Matt making a big deal about new cameras and computers... why are there so many phone problems all of a sudden? Sounds to me like someone needs to call for tech support.

[Sans_Deity]

Matt was correct...in his definitions and explanations. There was a breakdown in communications, though.

Don was talking about 'logic' as: reasoning, the reasoning process, the language and symbols we use as tools to describe reality. In this sense, logic is descriptive and not proscriptive and it's wrong to extricate it from the mind.

Matt was talking about the foundational principles of 'logic' as in the nature of reality - or the reason logic works. I was impressed that he actually bothered to give precise definitions that should have broken down communication barriers. His definitions were right on the money and I've said similar things on the show repeatedly (the foundational principle of logic is: A xor !A, etc.) In this sense, and we're really talking 'philosophy 101' or 'philosophy of logic 101', he's correct - these principles are transcendent (not contingent on a mind) and immutable.

It's a philosophical argument, not a mathematical one and he tried to make this clear.

His argument is ultimately flawed...but he never actually got to make it. Hopefully he'll call next week and we can continue.

[bigbadbedwetter]

His argument is ultimately flawed...but he never actually got to make it. Hopefully he'll call next week and we can continue.

A direct link to his argument on his apologetics site

http://www.carm.org/secular-movements/a ... stence-god

[Kazim]

I had a long chat with Matt at dinner last night, and I kind of agree with him that we could have handled that call a whole lot better. As I understand it, Matt had two major issues:

1. I was so eager to get to the fallacy that I jumped way ahead in the argument, claiming he was going to say things that he hadn't said yet. Not only did this come across as potentially rude, but it also allowed him to claim that he wasn't saying that at all.

2. Don was kind of out in left field when he denied that logic wasn't universal.

Upon further reflection, I am not terribly satisfied with the way that call went. Of course, the kludgy phone fix made it hard to hear Matt Slick, and I wasn't sure what to do when I wanted to avoid directly contradicting Don. But those excuses aside, I still wish I'd had more patience in letting him go on for a bit before jumping on him. Call it a learning experience.

For your information, here's an email I received from Slick after the show:

Just did a gig on the atheist thing here on Sunday. I must say, the hosts
really don't like me to finish a thought.

If they had just been a little more patient, then I could have presented my
case for God's existence and they could have responded to what I WAS saying
instead of reading into the discuss what I was NOT saying. They did this
many times. But, that is pretty typical for atheists...no offense meant.

They also have not done their homework dealing with logic and
transcendentals, the latter I wouldn't expect them to know about. The
former, they should know better. They are not able to provide the necessary
preconditions for logical absolutes and just saying, basically, that people
made them up...doesn't cut it.

Too bad we ran out of time. Perhaps our next encounter might be more
productive. It'd be better if it were a formal, in person debate.

[GizmoIscariot]

I think the issue is that the call came in at the tail end of the show, with the phones not working properly and the call started off with a confusion on who should start with some topic or something to argue/discuss. It kind of threw off the whole balance of it, and because Matt Slick apparently likes to hear himself talk, he went on longer than most callers do.

[Cephus]

1. I was so eager to get to the fallacy that I jumped way ahead in the argument, claiming he was going to say things that he hadn't said yet. Not only did this come across as potentially rude, but it also allowed him to claim that he wasn't saying that at all.

Unfortunately, you were actually doing the right thing, you were just doing it before Matt Slick made the points that you were tearing down. It was funny, as we were listening to the show, my wife was laughing about how fast Matt was back-pedalling. You weren't rude, Matt Slick was. First off, he calls *YOUR* show, virtually without warning, and expects *YOU* to come up with something to talk about. Then he sits around and tells you what atheists are like. Then he acts entitled to spew his irrational nonsense over *YOUR* airwaves without any rebuttal. You're worried about you being rude?

2. Don was kind of out in left field when he denied that logic wasn't universal.

Which he shouldn't have been because he was absolutely correct. Logic, like mathematics, is a purely human invention, created to explain our observations of the world around us. The laws of logic were not handed down on stone tablets, they were invented by humans and refined over centuries of human observation and reasoning. They appear universal because mankind is similar, with similar brains and similar senses and therefore makes similar observations. We also tend to throw out anything that falls outside of the norm, which is why, despite the fact that color-blind people exist, it doesn't make us reconsider our assumption that there is color in the world. Want to hear about different observations, go talk to a synesthete, someone who hears colors and tastes sounds, what the world is like.

Matt's arguments are extremely humanocentric, which is hardly surprising because Christianity is ridiculously so, it'll be interesting to see how our mathematics, for instance, which are based on a three-dimensional understanding of the world around us, stacks up against the first alien species we meet which sees in, say, 12-dimensions. If you keep up on modern science, particular theoretical physics and quantum mechanics, we're discovering just how limiting human perception can be on our understanding of the universe around us, our physical abilities are not strengths, they are limitations to our real understanding of the world.

Of course, I don't expect anyone to be able to get Matt Slick to admit to it, he's utterly convinced that man is a perfect design and nothing is ever going to change his mind.

[Kazim]

I had a long chat with Matt at dinner last night

By the way, just for clarification, I meant Dillahunty. Not Slick.

[Kazim]

Unfortunately, you were actually doing the right thing, you were just doing it before Matt Slick made the points that you were tearing down. It was funny, as we were listening to the show, my wife was laughing about how fast Matt was back-pedalling. You weren't rude, Matt Slick was. First off, he calls *YOUR* show, virtually without warning, and expects *YOU* to come up with something to talk about. Then he sits around and tells you what atheists are like. Then he acts entitled to spew his irrational nonsense over *YOUR* airwaves without any rebuttal. You're worried about you being rude?

It was pointed out to me later that my first big mistake was not accepting his invitation to pick the topic. As I've been repeatedly saying in my blog series on debating, when theists pick the topic they are guaranteed to pick one that is slanted in their favor. If I had it to do over again, I think I would have accepted his offer and immediately gone on the offensive by asking him to specifically define what he means by "God" and then poke holes in that.

[GizmoIscariot]

The thing that I don't get about the transcendental argument is doesn't it rely on the concepts of absolutes? Or at least logic can't see God, therefore he can be there, therefore he is?

To me this seems like one of the dumbest arguements and the easiest to refute. "I don't really hold that there are absolute certainty in anything." I know Matt has said similar in the past.

Am I missing something and if so if someone could enlighten me on it I would appreciate it.

[Kazim]

The thing that I don't get about the transcendental argument is doesn't it rely on the concepts of absolutes? Or at least logic can't see God, therefore he can be there, therefore he is?

No, I don't think that's right. I think it's more like this:

Logic exists and is absolute
A godless universe cannot explain the existence of any absolutes
Therefore this is not a godless universe.

[stenlis]

I briefly read Matt's argument

The most obvious thing to me is special pleading.

Law of Identity

1. Something is what it is and isn't what it is not. Something that exists has a specific nature.
2. For example, a cloud is a cloud, not a rock. A fish is a fish, not a car.

So can a father be his own son? Oh, I forgot that god can be everything.

Or another thing - can god do a thing that is not logically possible?

[GizmoIscariot]

The thing that I don't get about the transcendental argument is doesn't it rely on the concepts of absolutes? Or at least logic can't see God, therefore he can be there, therefore he is?

No, I don't think that's right. I think it's more like this:

Logic exists and is absolute
A godless universe cannot explain the existence of any absolutes
Therefore this is not a godless universe.

Ok, but isn't the second premise that a godless universe cannot explain the existence of any absolutes an assumption that hasn't been shown yet?

To me even if this were completely true, it still doesn't show which god/mind apparently exists. At best this would be perhaps a case of deism (or again, im missing something. This one seems to me one of the harder ones to get my mind around for whatever reason).