Atheist Debates – Discussion – Is there evidence for God? Matt Dillahunty and Satyan Devadoss

Atheist Debates – Discussion – Is there evidence for God? Matt Dillahunty and Satyan Devadoss

Part of the Atheist Debates Patreon project:

Recorded in San Jose, in conjunction with The Village Forum and the Saratoga Federated Church – I sit down with mathematician Satyan Devadoss to discuss whether or not there’s sufficient, good evidence to warrant belief in the Christian god.



3rdEye2020 says:

Satyan seems like a nice enough person. I would have pointed out to him, that you can't spell Satyan without Satan 🙂

Evidence says:

Satyan Devadoss evidence for a God must be one of the weakest I've ever heard of.
Science can explain everything but morality, therefor God!

TruthSeeker says:

You managed to pack many of your best stuff into this one debate. Very well done!

TRUTH or is it? says:

Matt, you will make a good Christian (again) when you realise just how much of a miracle that tree truly is.

chestbuster1987 says:

wow…I really was hoping Satyan would bring some strong arguments

LordSlag says:

43:08 Bird in the room. XD

Dylan Ost says:

I applaud everyone involved in this debate. You all seemed like the very nice genuine people.

MeOverThinker says:

you family is divers.  science can tell you what make you different.  Religion tells you that you are living in sin. Don't some religion consider mixing to be bad?  Science don't judge, religion discriminate.

spaveevo says:

When the religious guy says the Genesis account isnt a scientific document and it didnt mean 7 literal days…well many religious people do think that is what it is…Why? Because it directly says earth was created in 7 days…and they have Faith. This is the problem with religion. People believe whatever parts they want and think everyone else doesnt have a direct line to God like they do.

Jay Young says:

Satyan's arguments were unconvincing, but he was a damn sight more bearable than Matt Slick.

jason edwards says:

Did that Bart Ehrman debate ever happen? Cant fnd it anywhere :(

AMomentOfClarity2011 says:

Satyan Devadoss is Equivocation Man. He can swop meanings faster than anyone I have seen yet.

Torgeir Molaug says:

If an omnipotent (biblical) god really exist, why doesn't he reveal himself to us, instead of letting human beings claim to speak on his behalf?

John Rodgers says:

I find it interesting that in Satyan's opening, he never evens mentions the bible or historical accounts of Jesus, instead mainly arguing that the evidence is that there is something we can't quite understand and that must be God. Then later, when Matt points out that these experiences are felt by believers of all religions, Satyan says that the real evidence is instead in the historical accounts. It didn't really seem like Satyan had consistent points, but instead was just making up things ad hoc, which Matt then quickly shot down.

BigRalphSmith says:

At the 1 hour mark, Devadoss just starts preaching and making claims.
All these discussions always end up going down this path for the person defending or trying to support theism or some particular supernatural dogma.
Also, was the emphasis on Devadoss being a mathematician some unconscious effort to bolster his perceived intelligence in the eyes of the audience? I'm a little suspicious when things like that are tossed out there.

AtheistComet80 says:

As a former Baptist myself, I understand how, in Darrel Ray's term, the God virus works.  But it still mystifies me that Christians can sit and listen to a reasoned argument that completely undermines their worldview and still believe in their god.  Yeah, I know.  Cognitive dissonance and all that.  But it just goes to show how they are (and how I was) trained to (or not to) think.  Good job Matt.  Your efforts on TAE led me out of religion.  My world is all the better for it.  Thank you.

Robert Kortus says:

Was hoping that Devadoss would bring something to the table regarding mathematics, instead got the same old apologist dribble – appeal to emotions, anecdotes, ignorance of other relgions, etc. Disappointing.

John LeGresley says:

Question for Matt. Hi Matt, great job as always. In this video dialogue, there was discussion on the resurrection of Jesus. Not much talk of Constantine's role in that, and his own invested interest in why he might have pursued that way of thinking. (Or perhaps Paul's too). Another point, no one met Jesus and no-one saw the resurrection etc…. would these not be worth pointing out to your opponents?

Free Thinker says:

So this SD fellow is most impresses but the fact that the claims are "unbelievable" and "unclear" and "messy", so if this guy fine a more "unbelievable" and "unclear" and "messy" religion would he go off and be a believer of this other religion. What about in his maths does he go for the "unbelievable" and "unclear" and "messy" proofs Im sure he doesn't, hes seen a problem in his faith and turned in to a virtue because of his prior belief.

Red Hunteur says:

Well, you've debated Sye Ten and now Satyan. Is Satan next?

Guy Regensburger says:

Mr. Devadoss seems like an extremely nice guy, but nevertheless, extremely gullible and misguided on how we attain truth.
All of his arguments boil down to textbook fallacies. Arguments from ignorance or personal incredulity, arguments from popularity, appeals to emotion, and others.

narco73 says:

I liked the pastor. And Satyan too. It's great when you find nice, intelligent christians to debate.

Oh, and good audio too! :)

GypsyLeah says:

I can't believe it. This fucking guy said so much stupid shit and topped it off with a quote from The Princess Bride. I feel violated.

Razid says:

I feel that the opening remarks of the debate was a bit all over the place, on both sides. Not a lot of talk about the evidence for God (Or lack there of). Talk about morality, history of Christianity, Jesus, the Bible and a lot of other unrelated stuff that doesn't really have a whole lot to do with the topic.
For me, a good bash at all the unscientific claims of the Bible (Genesis, Exodus, Job, etc), the Quran, and the Torah etc would have been a good addition, despite the fact that science can't confirm or deny the supernatural. At least, that shows that holy books, the original source for many people's beliefs, is incorrect historically and scientifically.. The very source of indoctrination is incorrect. It would show that that "evidence" isn't valid, and is very unhistorical. That it is, in fact, what most rational people would call, "bad evidence", or "pseudoscience". It would show that science and religion are for the most parts incompatible, and that "evidence", therefor would have to be "scientific evidence", because science has taken us so far in the last 150 years or so in regards to exploring reality, and that religion hasn't done a whole lot of anything in this same period, other than keeping people in superstitious beliefs and dogmas.

On top of all this, one thing I really missed hearing from Matt was: "Evidence for what God? Aphrodite? Osiris? Hermes?". The problem is that the topic is already biased right from the get go, and it's hardly even addressed. It's just assumed to be about the Christian God, because they are from the US. The theist might be a Christian, but why is he a christian, and not a Muslim? What is the justification for that? And if he is a Christian, how does he reconcile with a billion people in the middle-east, claiming that there is evidence for their god? He doesn't need to defend belief in Islam, but at least address that there's a problem here in regards to biases and assumptions about which god we're talking about.

Also, a whole talk about "Evidence of God" and not a single mentioning of the Null Hypothesis? Why not, Matt? :/ Absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

"Is there evidence for God?" Yes. But it's not good or unreliable, and is therefor considered "bad evidence".
"Is there good evidence for God?" No. Not at this point.

Comments are disabled for this post.