Methodological Naturalism: A discussion with Blake Giunta – VIDEO


Part of the Atheist Debates Patreon project:

Blake Giunta drove down from Dallas to engage in a debate review of our recent debate and this discussion about methodological naturalism…and what other methods one might use to reach a reasonable understanding of reality.

Reblogged 2 years ago from


  1. Although I'm not religious, I was just listening to The Mormon Tabernacle Choir and started laughing. Imagine an atheists' choir? It would never come about — obviously — because atheists are not creative and imaginative, but it would probably be called The All-Knowing Perfect Wonderful Choir of the Logical and Reasonable.

    You creepy people crack me up, lol!!!

  2. Blake seems sloppy in his arguments about a conjectural idea and a conclusive idea and the ascription of certainties to them despite the confidence with which he states them.

  3. 1:37:30 First you need to demonstrate that the accused a) exists, b) is capably of doing the crime, and c) have a motive. What Blake is doing is just begging the question. He assumes that God exists and can and would create the Universe, and then is looking for "fingerprints" of God. Based on that reasoning, of course the Universe would be more likely on theism than on atheism.

  4. Thanks Matt for sitting down for a face to face conversation. You're really great at exposing the problems of the arguments of your debate opponents.

  5. A correction on the 0.9999… = 1 statement. You said you can represent the two differently. Outside of thoroughly rejected interpretations of mathematics (e.g. the ones that reject axioms of infinity, and thus would reject that 0.999 can even go on forever), 0.9999.. is precisely 1. The two are identical.

    Think of it as a limitation of the base-10 system. Saying you can represent the two differently is equivalent to saying that 0.3333.. isn't always 1/3. But 0.333.. is the decimal representation of 1/3, just like 0.999.. is the decimal representation of 1. The only difference is that people get worked up about 0.999.. because it happens to equal an integer and not a fraction.

  6. How is confirming historical facts about Paul a point for the "inerrancist"? You used other methods and other sources but the Bible to confirm the claims about Paul in the Bible. You have betrayed your own philosophical assumption to confirm the hypothesis that the Bible is correct about Paul, hence showed that the "inerrancist" assumption is not needed. I mean, Christian scholars are using Romans, I and II Corinthians, and Galatians as evidence that Paul was a real person, but at the time of the writings those letters were not part of the Bible (I think at the time there wasn't even a Bible). So, you are not relying on the inerrancy of the Bible, because at the time there wasn't a Bible. The letters were later "canonized" and bundled together in what we today call the Bible. Christian scholars first showed that the letters were authentic, they didn't assumed that because of inerrancy.

  7. Wow you guys are so bad a this… the supernatural is an indefeasible claim (metaphysical reality) whereas aliens and you experience of heaven/hell is tentative and defeasible (empirical reality)…

    in order to know you are in the christian heaven or hell you need to know it is impossible for it to be just an illusion in your mind or a product of the matrix. That is the problem with theistic claim they make indefeasible absolute certainty claims which we have no way or knowing such claims.

    same thing applies to supernatural claims, the theist has to define what supernatural actually is and a way to test it because as far as we know we can only test or experience natural (empirical) reality.

  8. Blake is probably one of the only Christian debaters I like. Very intelligent. And less annoying.

  9. I really admire Matt for having such patience. I fully admit that I wouldn't have so much patience. 4:55 We know that Stonehenge is designed because we know that such formations don't occur naturally (at least on Earth). We know that because Stonehenge is unique in a field where there are no such stones anywhere. Just look at it, it is in a flat field of grass, and kilometers and kilometers no stones, especially no stones that are rectangular. So, either the stones just popped out of nothing, or the stones just flew there from about 20 km away (we have no evidence that stones can do any of that), or people (which we have evidence for) crafted and pulled the stones there and created Stonehenge (which we also have evidence for that people at that time could do that). So, one hypothesis have exactly zero evidence, the other hypothesis have evidence. No philosophical assumptions are needed, just follow the evidence.

  10. If you start by asking if there is any evidence for the existence of a god that can be tested, you could save a lot of time.

  11. I have to go poopify my poop, how many more words can Blake make up that don't exist in the English language, it's comical.

Google no longer supports Google Images API and this plugin can't work.

You can try to use other plugins with the same feature:
WP Picasa Box -
WP Pixabay Search And Insert -