Here's one for ya.

[Eilonnwy]

Yeah, it's basically a version of the "This statement is false" logical paradox which I got my fill of when I listened to Matt Dilahunty debate TAG with Matt Slick.

So yeah, Pinnochio's head explodes.

[leo-rcc]

Matt Dillahunty dropped the ball on that one though he will not admit it. Not that I would do any better.

[Eilonnwy]

Matt Dillahunty dropped the ball on that one though he will not admit it. Not that I would do any better.

I dunno. I listened to it as well as what he said about it on the Non-Prophets as well as his follow up statement on the next Atheist Experience. I got what Matt was saying and I agree with it. It might not have been a perfect rebuttal but I think Matt D refined it well enough on his follow up. Plus Slick had the burden of proof and he definitely didn't make it. So in my humble opinion Matt won the debate.

[leo-rcc]

No he didn't. Actually neither could claim a win (though Slick of course did). Matt D. got himself backed into a corner on an argument that was flawed and he couldn't see the flaw. That is one of the dangers of live debates. Theoretical BS made a good explanation of the biggest error in Matt Dillahunties refutation.

[youtube]y7OgcCrqFpU[/youtube]

It is no big deal to lose a debate or end in stalemate, I lose debates on a regular basis. That doesn't mean that I am wrong, just that I lost the debate.

[Tiberius]

Is there a video of this debate I could see?

[leo-rcc]

Part 1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v02HM_-Dz2g

Part 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=do7DHRswzJ0

Part 3:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAGqKT0dRMM

Part 4:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOtGa5ziVkE

Part 5:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTVYP1FLZbA

Take plenty of coffee first.

---

Matt Dillahunty's view on the discussion the week after:

Pt1:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypLGCv5fyYk

Pt2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVDXZiKAIiM

And if you are not sick of TAG after that, I can give you links to sites discussing this very topic until you are.

[Darwinian]

A man is sentenced to death by firing squad. However, the head gunman (If that's what you call him) gives the man a choice.

He says to the condemed man, "If you make a false statement we will shoot you, however, if your statement is truthful, then we will strangle you."

The man thinks about this and then makes his statement. He is then immediately released and set free.

What statement did he make?

[Edwardo Piet]

I have no idea.

Did he say "this sentence is false", and the statement was so paradoxically confusing they couldn't decide if to shoot or strange him; so they let him go?

Lol.

[Tiberius]

What does "TAG" stand for btw?

[leo-rcc]

The Trancedental Argument for the existence of God.

The TAG is a transcendental argument that attempts to prove that the Christian god is the precondition of all human knowledge and experience, by demonstrating the impossibility of the contrary. R. L. Dabney describes the concept:

A truth is not necessary, because we negatively are not able to conceive the actual existence of the opposite thereof; but a truth is necessary when we positively are able to apprehend that the negation thereof includes an inevitable contradiction. It is not that we cannot see how the opposite comes to be true, but it is that we are able to see that that the opposite cannot possibly be true.
—(Systematic Theology, sect. 1, chap. 6, lect. 8)

(Source: The most reliable place for information on the planet. )