In this video a beautiful defense of our Lord Jesus is given and Matt Dillahunty loses his composure after realizing how inverted his logic is and commits the fallacy of Argumentum ad Populum.
The video got yanked by Google because Matt issued a bogus DCMA take down notice. In it this wise Christian first tricked Matt into stating that it is impossible for the resurrection of Christ to have occurred because non-living matter cannot become living. The Christian then pointed out, that by the same logic evolution from non-living matter is impossible. Matt realized he walked into a trap and was very angry, usually he calmly shreds the callers Evidential logic to pieces, which is why almost 99% of callers should not call in. Matt refuses though to debate his intellectual equivalent, namely Bruggencate because he cannot resolve Agrippa's trilemma.
Dillahunty is the president of the Atheist Community Of Austin.
Matt Slick coined a term to describe Dillahunty's dishonest evasiveness during debate called the Dillahunty Dodge
Ex-Wife Feminist Pig
Matt was married to disgusting feminist Beth Presswoo who falsely accused David Silverman of sexual assault. Dillahunty referred to Silverman as a "Piece Of Shit" on the Atheist Experience.
Matt Dillahunty former wife was Beth Presswood from Godless Bitches.
The Dillahunty Dodge Debate Tactic
The Dillahunty dodge is a term invented by Matt Slick in order to describe dishonest tactics for evading questions weilded by Matt Dillahunty.
Dillahunty exposes his inconsistency by appealing to Hume’s problem of induction when denying arguments for God, but subjectively dismisses the problem when supporting naturalism, evolution, etc. He thereby routinely commits the fallacy of special pleading…
== His ultimate objection to virtually all arguments for the Biblical worldview is ‘the third option appeal’ (aka ‘The Dillahunty Dodge’), which goes something like this: ‘There could be another explanation we’re not aware of; I don’t know’. Thus, he will deny everything we do know and jump to nonsensical appeals to the unknown. This is a self defeating approach to knowledge as a whole, as it can just as easily be applied to virtually everything that Dillahunty himself claims to know. E.g., if and when Dillahunty asserts that ‘evolution is true’ we can dismiss all (supposed) evidence for it, not with rational arguments, but instead with the third option appeal: ‘There could be another explanation for what you believe is explained by evolution that we’re not aware of; I don’t know’. We could (ultimately) postulate a third option for virtually any truth claim, ad infinitum. If and when Dillahunty objects by stating that we know of nothing else that is better supported by the evidence, we can call his objection an ‘argument from ignorance’ (vs. an argument based upon what he does claim knowledge of) — just as he objects to the statement that we know of no other means by which logic could be derived apart from mind. If Dillahunty appeals to inductive inference to support naturalism and evolution, then in the interest of consistency and rationality he must agree that inductive inference points to conceptual laws of thought.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3TsyshlR_k#t=329 Matt Dillahunty error is that logic cannot be demonstrated, he had to bootstrap law of excluded middle in order to express his view around 5min. and elsewhere. If he only accepts what can be demonstrated then we can't accept the very sentence itself because it hasn't been demonstrated.