Trey broke about 32 mins in where Matt broke his script with a ‘I dont know’ and then it was Darth Darwkins all the way till the end

@existdissolve

11 ай бұрын

This is a perfect description of what went down. Trey is the worst, and an idiot. He doesn't listen and seems incapable of hearing and answering straightforward questions. All Christians should be ashamed of him, and all thinking humans should be horrified that valuable energy is wasted on him.

@millerjimd

11 ай бұрын

Trey couldn’t even recognize his reversal on “I know I have the burden of proof” as he demanded Matt tell him what other options besides the 4 he asserted must explain existence. Sad that anyone has ever allowed Trey to assert his contingency requirements and smuggle in a god in his first argument.

@theghazinator

11 ай бұрын

Darth Dawkins is still a thing? Haven't read that name in a couple of years

@thegod-emperorofmankind6638

11 ай бұрын

​@@theghazinatorit's not a name the Jedi would tell

@stevencurtis7157

11 ай бұрын

​@@theghazinator Looks like he is, unfortunately, and running the same pathetic presup, surrounded by sycophants.

The smug laughter throughout was like nails on a chalkboard. Kudos to you for holding it together as well as you possibly could. Within 10 min he would have gotten hung up on and banned from any of the Line’s shows.

@biggregg5

11 ай бұрын

Yep, Trey's smug laughter was annoying. At least when Matt is smug, which seems to be all the time now, it's not accompanied by laughter. Go Matt.

@4Mr.Crowley2

11 ай бұрын

​@@biggregg5 Matt is “smug” “all the time now?” What? Seriously? Matt showed Trey more respect than Trey showed Matt AND the audience by giggling like a pre teen, refusing to make any clear claims about the topic of the debate - is Christianity true - playing silly games, making dumb statements like “Matt is mad at me” etc. Trey refused to make any propositions and just attacked Matt repeatedly in a weak junior high school bully manner so he could get a clip of Matt expressing annoyance so Trey could clip it for TikTok etc and yelp that he “won” a debate with a scary atheist. What single meaningful thing could a believing Christian take from Trey’s “points?” His few basic claims about the biblical texts were riddled with simple errors and a lack of comprehension. His behavior was extremely disrespectful to the KZread channel MDD and to the audience - especially his fellow Christians.

@luamaynard6075

11 ай бұрын

the smug laughter/giggles could be an uneasy, nervous coping mechanism, especially when he recognizes he's strayed out of his lane & is over matched..😅.😂

@Chrisbcfc

11 ай бұрын

​@@luamaynard6075 Trey definitely doesn't think he strayed out of his lane or was over matched. His arrogance on Twitter to the debate shows that

My favorite part is when Matt said "we all lost this debate"

The debate was so bad, Matt is less reviewing it and more teaching Trey how debates actually work. Thank you for your thoughts, Matt. It sucks you had to deal with such a dishonest opponent.

@brucetopping248

11 ай бұрын

truly. I loved how he basically re-wrote Trey's pathetic opening.

@Rusty-Shackleford69

11 ай бұрын

This is what honest review looks like.👍✌️

@A-non-theist

11 ай бұрын

​@@brucetopping248I agree😂

@A-non-theist

11 ай бұрын

I can't figure out how Matt didn't just walk out. The guy was an idiot. 😂

@therationalanarchist

11 ай бұрын

@@A-non-theist He's running out of fools. Now he's scraping the bottom of the barrel

Trey claimed his argument has never been refuted but, as someone pointed out in the comments, trey forgot to bring the argument to the debate.

@IOverlord

11 ай бұрын

That's just how creationists are

@Z4r4sz

11 ай бұрын

@@IOverlord To be fair, Ive seen creationists who had an argument. They all suck but they had more than trey.

@pansepot1490

11 ай бұрын

Lol, if you never present your argument, nobody can refute it. 😅 And you can go on truthfully bragging that nobody refuted it. 😎 Not a stupid tactic after all. 😂

@Robert_Jacobs

11 ай бұрын

@@pansepot1490I didn’t actually realize how intelligent this tactic was until you put it so succinctly 😂!! He’s TECHNICALLY not lying 🤣

@Julian0101

11 ай бұрын

@@pansepot1490 That is what most trolls here have ended up doing lately. I didnt expect someone to do it live.

I have watched hundreds of debates since COVID started lock downs, as a way of keeping entertained and educated, and the debate against trey was the hardest to watch. He didn't present anything of substance the entire time, and was a jerk throughout on top of it. Matt was 10/10 justified in calling him a jackass.

@MG-ot2yr

11 ай бұрын

Yep there's never been anyone more deserving of being called a jackass than Trey Jadlow

@ronalddepesa6221

11 ай бұрын

Darth Dawkins is more deserving to be called a jack ass. Lol. (But Trey is a jack ass for sure)

@ARoll925

11 ай бұрын

​@@MG-ot2yrMichael Egnor

@thekwjiboo

9 ай бұрын

​@ARoll925 ugh, that dumpster fire was so painful to watch. Dude thinks calling a response gibberish or tapdancing is an actual argument.

@geezerbill

6 ай бұрын

Trey still harasses random people daily on Twitter, trying to provoke them into "debate" with him.

I been waiting for this after that debate. Nobody should ever speak to Trey in any serious context again. He is absolutely dishonest and useless as an interlocutor

@brucetopping248

11 ай бұрын

I commented this almost verbatim after Trey's debate with David Smalley. Truly child-like thinking dressed up with nervous laughter, smugness, and lots of Latin inserted in simply in an attempt to to impress. I hope he never wastes anyone's time debating ever again.

@MrCanis4

11 ай бұрын

It's like, throw some salad in a bowl, sprinkle with vinegar and then think you're a three star chef.

@a-borgia4993

11 ай бұрын

@@brucetopping248 I will look up the Trey-Smalley debate.

@Nocturnalux

11 ай бұрын

@@brucetopping248And he has been doing that for years on end, too.

@lreadlResurrected

11 ай бұрын

Been there. Done that. You are 1000% correct.

Trey “I am going to win this debate without evidence” Me “good luck with that” When Trey listed his first point with 4 options, I knew he lost.

@Leith_Crowther

11 ай бұрын

“I am going to demonstrate God without evidence.” And I’m going to be a Formula 1 driver without being born in Europe. Yeah, no, that’s not how any of this works.

@outhousephilosophies3992

11 ай бұрын

Lol 😂 I loved how trey said all he’s going to establish but never actually presented an argument

@nietzschescodes

11 ай бұрын

@@Leith_Crowther hmm I don't see your point. So many actual and former F1 drivers were born outside Europe (US, Canada, South America, Australia, Japan, etc) Just at the moment there is at least Perez (Mexico), Piastri (Australia), Stroll (Canada), Sargeant (USA), Ricciardo (Australia), Tsunoda (Japan), Zhou (China). And Fittipaldi (USA) has great chances to become soon a F1 driver.

@Jake007123

11 ай бұрын

@@nietzschescodes Yeah, he should have said something like "And I'm goning to be a Formaula 1 driver without a car, motor or even wheels".

@wdsbhb

11 ай бұрын

It’s funny. God could easily end all of these debates by showing up today. Yes it doesn’t. So either it can’t, won’t, or doesn’t exist.

Myself and other atheists have all interacted with Trey; and on each occasion he lied, denied, committed endless fallacies, and demonstrated his ignorance, arrogance and hypocrisy. He is thoroughly dishonest, and incapable of having an intellectually honest debate.

@IOverlord

11 ай бұрын

Just so he can go to heaven. Ah yes, the irony

@Nocturnalux

11 ай бұрын

My favorite Trey moment was years ago, when he smugly stated that constitutional amendments had an hierarchy, to that the first is the most important, followed by the second and so forth. He stated this as if it were obvious. I was stunned. By this reckoning, the second amendment “trumps” the 13th.

@ARoll925

11 ай бұрын

Not any different then any other theist/apologist

I have watched you for 20 years from Norman, OK and I was born into Jehovah's Witnesses religion and I wanted to thank you and Tracy and a zillion others who made me feel like I was not alone, that the religious ppl are the deranged lol for believing in talking snakes, talking donkeys, etc It was hell when ALL my friends and family disfelowshiped me. Thanks again wonderful ppl!

@ChainsawChristmas

11 ай бұрын

Isn't it strange that humans feel the need to judge you on earth when "only God can judge you?".

@missinterpretation4984

24 күн бұрын

Ex JW here as well ❤

38:50 Could you imagine an atheist asking a christian apologist to concede a point for the sake of helping them move their own argument along? The chrstian apologist would clamp on to that point and never let go.

Trey basically bragged about his record debating, said his opponents whined, and ended up being almost as pathetic as Sye. He gave up when he realized his script wouldn’t work with Matt. 😂

@millerjimd

11 ай бұрын

Pigeon chess

@jonhowe2960

11 ай бұрын

@@millerjimd more like pigeon checkers, amirite? hey-o!

@imaginationave3687

11 ай бұрын

@@jonhowe2960 Hey, be fair. It was Pigeon Tic Tac Toe

Matt respected the audience's time. Kudos for that

It seemed like Trey’s method was more to irritate his opponent so he can claim a win based on their justified emotional reaction. He’s a terrible debater, and you gave him way to much credit in this analysis.

@NoStringsAttachedPrd

11 ай бұрын

The strategy appeared to be: ask a question, Matt would start to answer, interrupt the answer to give his own answer instead or "so what you're saying is X" strawman to get Matt to react to that so that Trey could respond by calling him names and laugh. He shouldn't have played his hand in his intro by showing he was planning to put words in Matt's mouth. Trey wasn't there to debate, he wanted to "rumble".

@Nymaz

11 ай бұрын

Trey reminds me of the old lawyer quote: "If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts; if you have the law on your side, pound the law; if you have neither the facts nor the law, pound the table."

@chris999999999999

11 ай бұрын

I don't know that it has an official fallacy name, but I agree it looks like Trey was trying to pull the "Your responses are being given in a heated/passionate tone, therefore they must be based in emotion and not reason."

@thekwjiboo

9 ай бұрын

​@@chris999999999999 that's pretty much a non-sequitur fallacy. Since it does not follow that anything Matt says can be considered right or wrong because of the perceived or accused level of emotion. So that's what I would go with.

I love when Matt comes along and steelmans his debate opponent's arguments. If they would actually listen to him, they could have so much more interesting debates (notice I didn't say 'successful' but definitely more interesting).

I had the "honor" of encountering Trey in several Discussion Groups on Facebbok about 10 years ago. He is one of those that "Pigeon Chess" has been created about. However often he failed to actually make his point, he still struted around as if he won the argument.

The more I hear of MDD debaters, the more I am convinced that Matt's interlocutors are there not to debate a topic, but to "get Matt". The double edged sword of being the "End Boss of Atheism."

@Robert_Jacobs

11 ай бұрын

For real, people come ready for the comment section about the debate and not the debate itself.

That guy was insufferable. Kept interrupting Matt, laughed every time Matt got irritated, then pretended he didn't know he was doing it

@IOverlord

11 ай бұрын

This guy is claiming to be saved by grace. Let that sink in lmfao

@billjohnson9472

11 ай бұрын

he would spout off a few latin terms describing philosophy and claim victory

I jumped in to this debate right in the middle. And it was, of course, at a point where I said to myself, "woah Matt! Turn it down a bit." but after a few more minutes of watching, I realized, "OK, Matt, I see what a pretentious, squirrely little prick you're dealing with, carry on." Thanks for this review. Excellent work considering the shitshow you had to work with, and has been mentioned in other comments, this is a great tool for teaching how a debate should actually happen.

Matt: “Muslim apologists are by far the worst.” Trey: “Hold my Bible.”

@nickgillan3912

11 ай бұрын

Ha ha. Mega

Oh man, I remember hearing Trey give these arguments years ago. They've absolutely been addressed before, Trey just doesn't have the honesty/ability to recognize it.

@VaughanMcCue

11 ай бұрын

Not the sharpest in the tray.

Yea, fair enough. I mean, you’re the only one who was pretty much reeling back the debate onto its tracks again, versus Trey, who was going on about ‘are you real’ as if it really mattered. Kudos to you for at least entertaining his simplistic take on philosophy. You’ve just gotta love pseudo intellectuals who aren’t as smart as they deem themselves to be…like Jordan Peterson.

@Scorned405

10 ай бұрын

Jordan Peterson is completely whacked

I have the feeling that theists know they cannot win an honest debate with Matt and so resort to spoiler tactics and word games. Very funny but frustrating too.

@ARoll925

11 ай бұрын

I don't think they give a shit about that, I think they want his audience

@thekwjiboo

9 ай бұрын

I'm pretty sure at least a subset of his debate opponents try and frustrate/anger Matt on purpose so they can point to Matt getting frustrated and go to their creationist echo chambers and say "lol look at the angry atheist, they're always so angry". As though that actually proves anything, even if true.

Honestly, I have no idea how you managed to keep your composure in that debate. You sir are a better person than I!

It's almost like the dumber the person, the stronger their faith.🤷🏾‍♂️

@bootskanchelsis3337

11 ай бұрын

That is what the Dunning-Kruger effect is.

I rarely watch these debates anymore… most Theists are simply not worth debating because they are only parroting boring arguments that have been refuted decades ago or only present baseless claims without even trying to present actual evidence.

@locococo7362

11 ай бұрын

I wish to see at least a debate where the theist will clearly define what Matt's said : "hey, here is how we can know something is true. Here is how we can see if X religion is true. Here is why I claim X religion is true". It should be just the basic stuff for such debate, and yet, it seems so hard for those apologist to get those basics. And when they do, they are using crazy illogical argument as stupid as "it's true because it's in my book, and I believe what is in that book is true." No, that's not how logic, nor truth, works. They don't even get that. It's so annoying.

@ramigilneas9274

11 ай бұрын

@@locococo7362 Exactly, we can’t even properly define or agree on what "good evidence“ is, or how a sound epistemology should look like. I am not interested in philosophical arguments that are nothing more than purely hypothetical thought experiments with questionable premises that can’t be verified whatsoever. It also doesn’t help when all of those arguments look like the Apologists started with their preferred conclusion that God exists and then tried to formulate an argument to arrive at that conclusion instead of starting with the evidence and then following wherever it leads. And of course most arguments boil down to god of the gaps fallacies. The historical evidence is even worse than that. It’s great that we can demonstrate that some of the people and places that are mentioned in the Bible actually existed… but that doesn’t make those stories true. And of course the verifiable non-miraculous stuff isn’t evidence that the totally unverifiable miraculous stuff is also true. I guess I’ll never watch any of those debates again. Even watching the summary here is already frustrating enough.😅

since the truth of christianity (the subject of the discussion) is based on the life of jesus as presented in the gospels one would think that the reliability of the scriptures is of paramount importance and hence refusing to provide actual pertinent evidence to that effect (of any sort) makes the whole effort pointless. philosophical arguments are not relevant to this subject matter.

Trey has always assumed that if you don’t agree with his argument, it’s because you don’t understand his argument. The notion that his argument can be understood then refuted by a rubber band will never occur to him 😅

Wow Matt, I understood about 75% of this video and hope to try to learn more about the parts I struggled to understand, but I appreciate nonetheless! Your explanations and details are wonderful. Your debate with Trey was great on your part, abysmal on Trey's, and your video explains why so brilliantly.

Matt, Just Wanted To Say Thank You For Continuing To Educate On Logic, Critical Thinking and Reasoning Skills. It's Very Much Appreciated!!

@user-fj6kk1vo8n

11 ай бұрын

Every Word Doesn't Need To Be Capitalized. 😂

@no_sht_sherlock4663

11 ай бұрын

@@user-fj6kk1vo8n 😁😁🤣🤣

@GameTimeWhy

11 ай бұрын

​@@user-fj6kk1vo8nmaybe it's auto-capitilization?

I asked the “could the evidence be better than it is question.” Thanks for addressing it, Treys response was very interesting

Was really looking forward to some discussion on this. In my opinion, after about a decade of watching theological debates, Trey had the worst debate performance I've ever seen. Aside from not having any modicum of substance relating to the actual topic in his 'argument', he simply made a complete cock of himself with his behaviour. The mod had to tell him to stop interrupting and even had to mute him. He constantly laughs at things (and not nervous laughter imo, more just obnoxious condescending laughter. On being asked a question he very rarely answers, but whether he does or doesn't, he 100% of the time launches into an insane mish-mash of irrelevant preaching, anecdotes, pointless info, etc. etc. Anyways, rant over. I look forward to now watching the video, thank you for making it!

@NoStringsAttachedPrd

11 ай бұрын

Trey was at one point talking over and interrupting the moderator _while_ the moderator was cautioning Trey for interrupting. And yeah Trey's behaviour was atrocious. In the Q&A at one point Matt held up two fingers to say "now that you've dodged the question twice", Trey slumps back loudly, flips Matt off on camera and then giggles to himself. 1:49:45

@sypherthe297th2

11 ай бұрын

I didn't make it that far originally so i had to go see what you were talking about. It honestly would have been im charaxter for f9r him from what i had seen but he didn't do that from what I saw at your time stamp. He flashed the same two fingers back at Matt but passed out of frame and was obscured. Either way though Trey was a petulant jacka$$.

Thank you. Was looking forward to this debate review.

His awkward laughter is just as cringy as his constant looking up at the ceiling. Or was he looking up to god for answers maybe

Im impressed that matt keeps taking these debates against theists that domt understand logic, critical thinking or basic debate format.

Trey should have just said "uncle" and let Matt teach him a thing or two about debating a seasoned/ honest interlocutor.

I think one of the most, amongst many, pathetic thing from Trey was when he asked the moderator what he thinks.

Steelmanning an opponent’s argument complete with tips for improvement shows a next level debating skill set. It’s almost like Matt was so disappointed with Trey’s weak argument he just took over for him to ensure a better debate. I won’t hold my breath, but I’d love to see Trey take these pointers and try again.

Presenters like Trey are the reason I unsubscribed from that channel, and won't 'like', 'dislike', or engage at all in the live chat or comment sections. That channel has all but directly stated they care more about generating activity than promoting actual honest substantive debate, and are happy to give a platform to whomever can cause the most engagement regardless of the quality.

@fleabitz1474

11 ай бұрын

Yeah, it was at least a year or two ago when it became obvious to me that MDD's goal is to be a circus. I would like to watch debates involving Matt but I can't put myself through this kind of crap; it's too stressful. I do enjoy Matt's post-debate videos, but MDD doesn't get my click.

@PhysiKarlz

11 ай бұрын

The channel is purely a SuperChats money collector for the owner. That's why there is always such a great focus on the Q&A, moving through as many questions as possible, why SuperChats are the ONLY point of moderation in any debate there.

This was more enjoyable than that debate by a LONG shot.

Thank you for doing this review. I couldn't even make it an hour into the debate so this was helpful.

7:34 Watching that bit made feel like Matt could present the apologists' arguments better than they themselves do. I'm actually kind of interested in seeing Matt play Devil's advocate and give a whole opening statement for the proposition that Christianity is true.

@Robert_Jacobs

11 ай бұрын

He could literally do it better than almost anyone I’ve seen him debate

@ARoll925

11 ай бұрын

​​@@Robert_Jacobsyou're probably right, I don't see that happening though because I can't see Matt even as a devil's advocate putting forward a fallacious argument, which as far as I can tell all theist arguments are in someway fallacious, which is probably a fallacy also, put it this way I have yet to hear an apologist put forward a argument that isn't a fallacy

Trey came off as a troll to me. Especially towards the middle of the debate when he seemed to intentionally try to make Matt mad and was laughing about it.

@Apanblod

11 ай бұрын

I don't think he shows any of the typical signs associated with troll debaters. It's just the way he is. He's been the same for several years and in many debates, so if he is a troll he's very consistent and persistent.

@Eyrie007

11 ай бұрын

@@Apanblod He's a really dishonest person then. Definitely not worth any further debates.

@IOverlord

11 ай бұрын

@@Eyrie007 Makes you happy you're not believing into whatever he is shoving up that ass

@Apanblod

11 ай бұрын

@@Eyrie007 I don't think he's dishonest either, really, he probably believes every word he says. Obnoxious, rude, immature and of questionable intelligence I could stand behind.

@Eyrie007

11 ай бұрын

@@Apanblod He was very dishonest for agreeing to a debate and not even trying to address the topic.

Hey Matt, stay strong! Dont stress yourself too much cause we have all the BEST atheist videos on KZread thanks to you!! GOAT Greatest Of Atheist Time yes yes!!

ironically, by being one of the worst debates ever it became one of the most interesting conversations in the QnA

I'm amazed you kept your patience as well as you did. That was less a debate and more a frustrating game of chess with a pidgeon. Thanks for the review.

Thanks, I really appreciate these debate reviews.

I really appreciate these after debate videos. Its nice to to hear exactly why rebuttals work, flaws in whats being defended and sometimes what can be very obvious to some others may not find so obvious. This was a hard one for me. I could barely make it through the debate, because Trey was just infuriating to say the least. Thx Matt, for doing what you do!

I love the first Q&A question. "No, I can't imagine a world without god. Because of the law of identity. That thing I invented, and Matt just debunked." 😂

I had a discussion with Trey and he is so eager to force you to agree with his first statement he starts crowing victory before its even out of his mouth.

Well this was 1000% more interesting and edifying than the actual debate. Dude short circuited when you answered his question 'wrong' and it was all downhill from there. The whole thing was the epitome of "Never play chess with a pigeon."

The rubber band was the hero is that debate.

I reckon Jadlow was focused on getting your concession because his further arguments were built upon it. That may have been why he used the opening statement he did - other debators may have conceded the point just to avoid appearing unreasonable.

The debate was fun to watch, despite his conduct. Thanks for the review. I've learned something new.

Oh i cant wait to watch this. Getting some popcorn :D

Truly a Trey-n wreck, well done for not leaving the chat room sooner...!

That guy saying come up with another explanation, reminded me so much of the Matt Slick debate

I was absolutely stunned when Trey claimed that the evidence for the bible couldn't possibly be better. He had already claimed that one of the gospel writers was essentially unimpeachable as an historian. Wouldn't the evidence for the bible be better if *all* gospel writers were unimpeachable historians? Or even if just two of them were? Or even if the author of Luke-Acts had written simply one more verse? Wouldn't any of those scenarios be definitionally better evidence?

@goldenalt3166

11 ай бұрын

He hasn't read the Bible. That would be evidential. He's just defining it that way.

I watched every minute of this debate Matt, and I was hugely disappointed and I felt he wasted all of our time. I am an Atheist, but this is an important question, and I'm open to listening and learning. It was not fair to you, the moderator, or the rest of the people in the audience that day and all views in the future. Some people will be disappointed and feel their future time is wasted. Btw, my wife and I enjoyed our time with you on the free thought cruise! I Look forward to the next event!

Hi ya, I was re-listening to the triangle representing 3d object example a few times, can I check; does that mean that synthetic statements carry a burden of proof, analytical statements ("all triangles have three sides") do not have a burden of proof as they are tautologically true? So science works within synthetic aposteri statements?

Trey is a smug, incoherent man who embarrassed himself. What an unpleasant person he must me....I pity his wife and family!

@jimcarlson6157

11 ай бұрын

and his dog, too

Heard about it on "The Line" in chat so I will check this out.

Debates can be fun but far more precise and powerful to have short written exchanges. There would be no interruptions, squabbles or evading and Trey's written sentences would be self defeating.

I prefer these longer debate reviews. I like longer content.

Trey was a joke, so was the moderation. The only time I heard anything remotely discussing "Is Christianity true?" Was when Matt would bring up the debate topic.

I watched this in the background while playing Blue Archive. Can't wait for a Wakamo banner

Hey Matt, can you do a video on how you overcame your fear of public speaking. Something a little different 😮

Does the plus and equals imply that I dont mean 2 triangles plus 2 apples equals 4 somethings...or whatever. I dont know ...

I'm with Matt on that one if the person who you're debating doesn't address the topic in their opening give your rebuttal and leave.

Keep up the good. Dr.

consider adding a subtitle, like giving a topical hint? Same title could use a descriptor

The debate was tolerable….right up until Matt, rightly, answered “I don’t know” to one of Trey’s questions, then when Trey had to go off script, it was all down hill from there. Kudos to Matt for not standing up and walking away. The theist side is definitely scraping the bottom of the barrel with these pathetic apologists.

Trey refusing to acknowledge his 'argument' has been debunked over and over again doesn't stop that from having happened.

@millerjimd

11 ай бұрын

But he’s been using it for ten years and NOONE has debunked or refuted it yet! /s 😂😂😂

Re: 39:08 The argument that god cannot make himself (understood) is an argument *against* the bible, right? _And does it also help explain why there are so many differing translations of the bible?_

Thanks Matt. Trey is one of the most dishonest people out there.

@graemerose1616

11 ай бұрын

Makes Kent Hovind appear norma.

@MrCanis4

11 ай бұрын

@@graemerose1616 Almost

Trey was so frustrating to watch. Blatantly manipulative, gaslighting, the laughing and dismissive attitude when you pointed out how he avoided answering questions.. His performance was embarrassing

I didn't see the debate, but this Trey guy sounds like a hilarious character.

Great video Matt. Have you ever read Leonard Peikoff’s article called The Analytic Synthetic Dichotomy? You may not agree with it but it’s a different take on what you went over. The basic premise is that soundness and correspondence are key, as you point out, that all truths are primarily inductive and that’s where premises for deductive arguments come from. Analytic vs synthetic and necessary vs contingent are therefore false alternatives. I can point to a bachelor or two apples. I cannot point to god or anything supernatural.

He does not care about evidence and wants to debate. MDD is the appropriate platform for that silliness.

I have a question regarding the perception of reality. I’m a synesthete. Is my perception of reality right or wrong compared with that of a non-synesthete? Why or why not?

@IncipientClinic

11 ай бұрын

Hopefully Matt replies but I'd like to try and give you some form of answer. It will all depend on how hard you want to define reality, for both you and I facts are still facts, those hard realities are still the same. For most people colours, smells, vision, hearing are similar but will have slight differences, some smells are stronger for some, almost invisible, repulsive or arousing, same for all other senses. Being a synesthete, in my opinion, makes your perception of reality right because it doesn't change any of the hard facts that make reality real and shared for everyone else. Do you feel your perception isn't real because of how you experience it?

@cassandra.wladyslava

11 ай бұрын

@@IncipientClinic It actually wasn’t until recently (ie; the past few years) that I even knew my perception of ‘reality’ was different compared to others. It’s never felt ‘wrong’. Except when it is, of course. I have wonky epilepsy brain. I hallucinate shit from time to time. Only once or twice did I not realize I was hallucinating and those times involved tonic clonic seizures and hospitalization. Most of the time it’s like tripping without drugs. But going back to the synesthesia… My brain mixes up textures/objects and emotions/personalities. Also colors and numbers. I suspect the former is (part of) why I’m a theist.

Matt - is there a more active role the the moderator could play in debates like these were one of the parties makes little attempt to actually adhere to the subject of the debate?

I really thought that Matt would have got up and left after hearing Trey's first rebuttle!

Do some call ins. Also, has the ACA turn into the Vatican? What's your opinion?

I wish I was the moderator in that debate - an hour in, or probably less than that, I would’ve forced Trey to actually address the debate topic. I would’ve kept muting him until he does

@goldenalt3166

11 ай бұрын

Have you seen the "fact-checked" debates on vox channel?

What about the previous debate, before this one? Not going review that one?

@SansDeity

11 ай бұрын

Maybe

That was painful to watch. I hope we get more honest debaters in the future, at least some that are less focused on their record, or winning, and that are actually interested in bouncing ideas off each other, to create something interesting.

When it came to the 'could the evidence for Christianity be better?' question, Trey simply went into defense mode, just a tiny moment of reflection is all that's needed for it to be obviously true, there are thousands of things that could have been different even in small ways to make this so, but Trey just felt obliged to defend his faith come what may and reflexively said 'no'. A preserved original copy of the Bible, that's all it would take for the evidence to be better. The Hindu Rig Veda is much older than the Bible, so it would be quite possible for an original version of the Bible to have survived. What an absolute train wreck of a 'debate'.

10:20 starting with the Perceptual-Eye (Kantian), nice🖖

I love that Matt gives a better version of his opening. Which guarantees that he will never use it, haha.

Probably worth putting a clause in your debates that YOU get to have the first statement. At which time you can point out all of this and what needs to be talked about and what not. Etc

Its like a disaster report: at 11:15 the unthinkable pappend!

I actually audibly laughed out loud when he suggested that the evidence could not POSSIBLY be better. That’s so preposterous that laughter is the only reaction, not even a continuation of debate, it perplexes the rational mind too much to think thats a possibility.

TBH I would laugh my ass off if Matt did in fact show up to a debate ,where his opponent did not address the actual topic, and leave after giving his opening. That would be hilarious.

I watched the debate and was utterly appalled at Trey Jadlow's inability to present any coherent argument. Matt's review is absolutely correct.

I loved this video because Matt got into the weeds in European epistemology. A couple of observations: there can be no synthetic proposition, which is a priori. And not to nitpick Matt but no truth claim regarding geometry or math can be synthetic (that off the cuff example about triangles e.g.). Math is a sub set of logic and logic is by definition analytic (and tautological for that matter).

I think Trey was correct on the definition of "being". In the philosophical community, the term refers to all objects. Your distinction of agent was correct, Matt. Theism will propose God as agent. For physicists, there could be a non-agent being, such as fundamental particles or waves. It may be non-contingent in the sense it has always existed.

Trey started with nothing made some assertions about what will be said in advance to poison the well and that was his best bit😂😂😂

Just curious, do Christians see God as a being? If God is a being with intent, at some point in time God decided to create the universe. I have a vague memory of a section in Augustine's Confessions where he argues, based on God being perfect, that God's creation of the universe wasn't an intentional act in time, but it created time itself. I don't think a being with intent can be conceptualised outside time.

The definition of triangles does NOT include that the sum of the internal angles add up to 180°, even in euclidean space. The definition of a triangle is that it is a set of three distinct points in some space that do not align (there is no line such that all three points are elements of that line). In eucledean space, it can be *proven* from the parallel postulate (which is not a necessary requirement in any space) that the internal angles of a triangle do in fact add up to 180°. So it's a consequence and not part of the definition.

My summary of this debate which I also posted on the debate video: Trey attempted to get Matt to agree to an extremely flawed framework, set of rules/logic, right out the gate so he could attempt to trap him later but being as brilliant as Matt is he saw it right away, tore it apart and the debate was essentially over as that's all Trey came there with.