As I mentioned in the article that just went out, I’m debating Matt Dillahunty. But I messed up the time—the real debate is in ten minutes at this link.
You did a great job in this debate! I was getting annoyed just watching Matt switching between different replies to the fine tuning argument; I can’t even imagine being in the hot seat and trying to respond to that. Also, the fact that he denied that if X is predicted by Y, then the existence of X makes Y more probable is hilarious. I think he was confusing epistemic probability with like objective metaphysical probability at that point in the debate.
Entertaining so far. Based on your opening statement, I can’t tell if you actually believe any of this stuff or if it’s all just one really elaborate philosophical prank. Well done.
You did a great job in this debate! I was getting annoyed just watching Matt switching between different replies to the fine tuning argument; I can’t even imagine being in the hot seat and trying to respond to that. Also, the fact that he denied that if X is predicted by Y, then the existence of X makes Y more probable is hilarious. I think he was confusing epistemic probability with like objective metaphysical probability at that point in the debate.
Entertaining so far. Based on your opening statement, I can’t tell if you actually believe any of this stuff or if it’s all just one really elaborate philosophical prank. Well done.