Matt Dillahunty SHUTS DOWN Christian's "Best Explanation" Argument

[00:00:00]over time. And if God uh if there is a God and he creates moral agents, why is he completely hidden? Why isn't [clears throat] he answering the questions? Why isn't he giving us new information? Why isn't he demonstrating his existence? Why isn't he um showing the people who are wrong in their moral conclusions how they should be right? Is there some explanation for the universe?

[00:00:24]Sure. Do we know what it is?

[00:00:28]>> No. I agree. Um, >> could it be that it's a perfect God? I don't know because I don't know if a perfect God's >> Welcome back to Faith and Facts, a channel where we keep an open mind and explore life's biggest questions through respectful evidence-based conversations.

[00:00:45]The debate you're about to watch happened a while ago, but the central question is just as relevant today as it was then. What actually counts as evidence for God? Is it enough to show that the universe is consistent with a creator? Or must the evidence point uniquely and convincingly to that conclusion before belief is justified?

[00:01:07]In this exchange, Matt Dillahoney and Zach Seckler move beyond the usual talking points and wrestle with a much deeper philosophical issue. They aren't simply arguing over whether God exists.

[00:01:20]They're debating what makes an explanation meaningful in the first place. Can a hypothesis be considered evidence merely because it fits the facts? Or does genuine evidence have to distinguish one explanation from every serious alternative? It's a fascinating discussion because both men value reason and logic, yet they arrive at very different conclusions about how evidence should be evaluated.

[00:01:47]The disagreement isn't just about religion. It's about the standards we use to decide what's true. If you enjoy balanced conversations that challenge assumptions from every perspective without telling you what to think, be sure to like this video, subscribe to Faith and Facts, and join our community of curious thinkers. Now, let's take a closer look at what Matt Dillah Hunty and Zack Seckler actually had to say.

[00:02:16]Let me make sure I understand the question right. You're asking me that if I were convinced that any given fact was in fact more likely upon the hypothesis that a perfect mind exists, would that be evidence for a perfect mind?

[00:02:30]>> Yeah.

[00:02:32]>> Um, yes. But would it be sufficient evidence to warrant accepting that there was a perfect mind? No. Because in much the same way that like if I dealt you I'm I'm a magician and I I can do things with a deck of coil. I used to be able to do things with a deck of cards. I can't really do as much anymore. But if I were to deal you 13 spades, it's more likely that that is a result of me cheating than that it happened naturally.

[00:02:58]>> But that is not while it is evidence for the proposition that I perhaps cheated, it is not enough to warrant a conclusion that I cheated because we know that the perfect bridge hand or 13 spades um has happened in games um and that this is a possibility. And so you would need to there would there would need to be more than that. But what we're talking about here when we say on the hypothesis on the hypothesis that there is a perfect mind. I'm not sure that an imperfect mind can look at that and say this is more likely with a perfect mind. H how do we tell that?

[00:03:33]>> Okay. Yeah, that's great. First I want to say like with your like analogy and things, Matt, I totally agree with you.

[00:03:37]Like I think this is super cool that like we can have some agreement that like hey if there's and I can say the same thing in favor of atheism. I think there's arguments that like provide weight towards atheism. Um so I think that like there's evidence for athe and I mean hard atheism anytime I'm bringing atheism here. I understand you disagree.

[00:03:51]>> Sure. I get it. And while I'm not necessarily here to defend strong atheism, hard atheism, it's not a problem. We we can Yeah. And if we want to swap words for the people who are confused, generally when we're talking about theism, we're on on the hypothesis that a god exists versus atheism on the hypothesis that a god doesn't exist.

[00:04:08]>> Yeah. And so with your question with regards to like the indifferent mind, Matt, I'm going to say we just have to compare the theories. Um in the in a similar way as we do like scientific like we have different theories, you explain different things. I'm going to say like sure, let's bring forward like the perfect mind hypothesis. Let's bring maybe like the imperfect mind. Let's bring the evil mind. Um let's say there's no mind. And we need different theories. And I'm gonna say like when we compare the theories like whatever we bring out like I think my model is the best theory. Um so maybe like maybe like a less than perfect mind. I would say that's just a more complex hypothesis that's going to hurt take a hit on simplicity um and things like that. So I think that like large story like a lot of not a lot of your opening but a good bit you're like why say like there's a perfect mind rather than maybe like a 99% perfect mind or like you know something in the middle. Um, I'm going to say like we should just compare the theories and I think whatever theory um that like a non-theistic hypothesis is going to have. Um, I think my theory is the best. So, that's kind of how I see things.

[00:05:01]>> All right. I I think I want to just for clarity in the same way that we're clarifying the theism or atheism, um, somebody in chat is going to have their head explode if you keep swapping hypothesis and theory. You don't have a theory. you you don't have a hypothesis that has been through testing and peer review and all the things to get to a graduation point of a theory. So, we're not comparing the theory. We're comparing hypothesis. And you don't even really have a hypothesis unless it's falsifiable and testable. So, really what we have is um a a speculation on the loose hypothesis that there is a god. What would we expect? Well, it depends on the god, right? I mean what what what is it like? Let's let's pick one. Um for example, you think that um a good and beautiful world is more likely on theism than atheism.

[00:05:59]But isn't a good and beautiful world subjective? And isn't it the case that any being that finds itself in a world that's suitable for it is going to find things about that world that it views as good and beautiful and that it requires nothing more than that person's appreciation for the fact that hey, I can breathe. I can see. I can interact.

[00:06:19]I can Oh, there's flowers there. They smell nice. Why do they smell nice? Do they smell nice for me? Do they smell nice for the bees? Uh is it for a pollination thing? Is there some intent behind it or does this is this just how it works? It's it's really easy to say theism is simpler, but you could all you know the the the way in which you're you're saying or suggesting that theism is simpler um really doesn't fit I don't think with um sort of the outcomes razor approach to this because I don't think theism is simp simpler. Um my my position is that there's no reason to believe there's a god until there's sufficient evidence that warrants it.

[00:06:57]And so when the people um who would say, "Hey, um if a god exists, that's a better explanation for X than atheism."

[00:07:07]Except that not only is it the fact that it's a better explanation or it is more consistent with it or what that is about your expectations. That's about what you would expect if there is a God. You and I begin with the same universe as far as I can tell. Um and you're the one that's adding something to it. And by adding a god to it, the biggest thing there could be, you are adding a god, magnificent powers, um the ability to do pretty much anything that is conceivable. That is not a simple hypothesis at all. That is incredibly complex hypothesis. What you're saying is there's a magical box out there outside of spaceime or wherever you're going to place it. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth.

[00:07:50]That can do anything and everything. And that becomes the explanation, the best explanation. And if there is a magical box out there, here's what we'd expect.

[00:07:59]That doesn't make it simpler. It just makes it more hidden.

[00:08:02]>> Okay. So, there's a lot you just um put out here, Matt, because we started with like um looking at specific evidence under like explanatory power, and then you talked about like simplicity. Um and I'd love to talk about simplicity um too, but let's just let's focus on explanatory power for a sec. Um so, we talked about like the generic like Beijing argument. Um and like it seems like we agree that like if that argument would run, like we'd have some evidence for theism. Um, you mentioned the good and beautiful world. If it's okay with you, I'd love to talk about the embodied conscious moral agents first because that's what you said like everything else seems to like fall like underneath.

[00:08:32]Um, so here's a test like my friend Tim talked about this um where we could say like maybe not the same as a scientific test but a philosophical test um to say that like I'm going say my theory like would explain this better than like an atheistic theory. So um saying that like a perfect mind created the universe um this being is like perfect. So it's morally perfect. Um, so if it's morally perfect, I would say that he would care about the existence of moral agents. Um, the existence of moral agents would be more likely under this hypothesis than a view of the world where fundamental reality is just indifferent to moral agents and just doesn't give a crap whether moral agents exist. Um because you think about like epistemically all the different ways um things could have gone just from like the principle of indifference knowing that um that I would say that like given all the different possibilities one where that there are these moral agents would be more likely under a view where there's a morally perfect being that would like these agents than a view that would not.

[00:09:22]And I'm not saying this proves God exists or anything like that. I just say this is evidential chip that provides some evidence in favor of the theistic hypothesis. So what do you think about that?

[00:09:31]>> Sure. It seems to me that when you say under the hypothesis that a perfect mind would care about moral agents, we've we've skipped past an important part of why would it create moral agents or agents at all in the first place, but let's assume that it did. It also seems like you're ignoring all of the other factors that one would expect. So, >> I'm sorry. I I know you don't like being interrupted. Um I could say like you could say like and I have friends like Emerson Green. He's an atheist. He has great p podcast apologetics counter apologetics. He would say like yeah there is like these moral agents that provide some evidence and if you bring up like suffering and hitness and all these things like yeah these things exist and they provide evidence like contrary but we still have with moral agents like this some evidence pushing us towards theism and I'm sorry I won't interrupt again Matt um that's my bad but I wanted to just bring that up.

[00:10:18]>> Sure. So what you seem to be saying is that on on on theism we would expect the the god to care about moral agents. Right.

[00:10:31]>> Yeah.

[00:10:31]>> Why wouldn't that god also um act perfectly to make sure that those agents have a perfect understanding of morality? Why wouldn't that god also interact to make sure those agents don't disagree about what moral views are and things like that? We're skipping past all of the problems, all of the things that seem to be um counterindicators and and potentially defeaters for the proposition and focusing only on one simple thing. If God, then people. But that that ignores or moral agents. If God, then moral agents. And that ignores all the factors about moral agents, which is we don't agree on moral issues.

[00:11:10]We've had and and our moral views have changed over time. And if God uh if there is a God and he creates moral agents, why is he completely hidden? Why isn't he answering the questions? Why isn't he giving us new information? Why isn't he demonstrating his existence?

[00:11:26]Why isn't he um showing the people who are wrong in their moral conclusions how they should be right? Aren't those the things we would expect under theism as well?

[00:11:37]>> Yeah, I love this, Matt. I love what you're doing. Um because it follows it seems like right like we're kind of agreeing on this fundamental method. Um like we could talk about like hiddenness and disagreement and suffering. Like I'm I'm cool with that, but I guess my goal I'm starting with is smaller than that.

[00:11:50]Um I'm trying to like establish like there is evidence for the existence of God. And I could say like like for now I could say like sure amount. Let's just say that like suffering and like changing morality and disagreement.

[00:11:59]Let's say these all count against God.

[00:12:00]All I'm trying to say right now at this point in the context of debate is say like even if it's like really really really really tiny like there is some evidence for God because of moral agents. Um like what do you think about that? Would you say yes there is? No, there isn't. Because I know there's all these other chips and like for the sake of where we're at right now in this context, I'm fine like giving those to you. Um though I obviously would push back. But I'm just saying at this moment when we look at moral agents, this is like some even if you want to say it's really tiny evidence that pushes us in favor of the guy hypothesis.

[00:12:29]>> It doesn't it shouldn't doesn't and shouldn't push us at all. The fact that there is the fact that there are facts that are consistent with the hypothetical explanation for those facts is absolutely trivial. What what what would what sort of proposed explanation for facts would it be if it wasn't consistent with the facts? Mhm. Well, I think I'm trying to get at this like no evidence claim. Like if we're going to say there's no evidence for these, no facts.

[00:12:57]>> Um, this debate was supposed to be about whether or not a perfect mind created the universe. At no at what point did I say there's no evidence?

[00:13:06]>> I never said you said that. I'm just trying to say, >> okay, then why are we sitting here talking about something I haven't said?

[00:13:12]>> I wasn't if I if I said if I put it on you that you said that, that's my bad, Matt. I wasn't trying to push this on you because you clearly have not said that. All I'm trying to do at this point is say, hey, there are these things that are going to push us, like there is evidence for God that's going to push us in that direction of a perfect mind creating the universe. That's all I'm trying to do at this point.

[00:13:30]>> And what I'm what I'm saying is the fact that there are facts that are consistent with the explanation for that, your proposed explanation for those facts is absolutely trivial. I would not consider that evidence for a proposition. The mere fact that there are facts that are consistent with something like the fact that there's a dead body is consistent with the butler did it as a hypothesis. Okay? It doesn't it isn't a fact that points to the butler killing someone. It is a fact that we're trying to explain. We have a dead body. You've proposed not you. Somebody has proposed that the butler has done it and then they say, "Look, there's a dead body there. That is evidence for the proposition that the butler killed him."

[00:14:07]No, that's an evidence for for somebody being dead. that's potentially evidence for somebody killing them. And until you draw the connection that necessarily ties those two, it's not an evidence for a proposition. You've come up with a hypothesis and the only thing that you can point to and and you seem really keen on this. Oh, I want to make sure that nobody can walk away from here saying there's no evidence for God.

[00:14:28]Well, I'm not aware of any evidence that is expressly for a proposition and exclusive of other propositions.

[00:14:34]>> Well, I think any of you can explain any of the data for the most part. Um, so that's interesting. Um, so I just want to get to this and the probability of embodied moral conscious agents. I would say this is more expected under theism than atheism. I'm using theism as a perfect mind created the universe. Do you agree or disagree with that?

[00:14:58]Um I I I I don't have any way to assess that because on theism on on theism as a proposition where there's a perfect mind. My expectation was that we it would be the only thing there was no point to or need to create anything at all let alone create imperfection and and not provide all of the other things with it. The the defeaters are all of the other factors. But also I don't have any we have one universe and we have one set of facts to assess and what we know is that there are conscious agents.

[00:15:32]Um I have no way of evaluating whether that's more likely on I mean I need a more specific theism. If your proposition is there is a theistic god that wants to create moral agents, well then yes, it's more likely on that hypothesis um than it is on there is a a universe that is following naturalistic progression. But that naturalistic process um as far as we can tell led to us. So the odds of it happening are one or the probability of it happening sorry is one. The odds would require a different formulation.

[00:16:07]>> Okay. So originally like um you said like no we like we you you'd think that like God wouldn't create anything but you said like say like you believe that there's a perfect mind or like a god that would want to create embodied moral agents then you say like yes that would be like evidence in favor of like that hypothesis >> I I can you say it one more time I don't think I followed it.

[00:16:28]>> Yeah I'm sorry. So it seemed like to me you said like assuming that there is some sort of like perfect like being that would want to create moral agents then like yes the existence of like us would be more expected on that hypothesis than like an indifferent hypothesis and like you're you're fine saying that.

[00:16:44]>> No, I don't know. I don't know. So I don't have any way to calculate or approximate the probability. Um if if the proposition is a theistic god who wants to create imperfect a perfect theistic god who wants to create imperfect beings exists then on that hypothesis um it we would expect to see imperfect beings but I don't know how to how to determine whether that's more or less likely than if there is no uh perfect theistic god what what are the what's the likelihood of moral agents arising or however I I apologize if we've we've changed terms a couple of times. Um I don't I don't know how to evaluate that. I don't have anything to compare it to. I don't have any other universes to look at. All I can look at it is what is and then you have proposed an explanation and the explanation you proposed of of a perfect mind.

[00:17:42]Uh I think that comes with a lot of other factors and my question then is okay um certainly if there's a perfect mind that wants to create things we would expect there to be created things but there are other expectations I would have of a perfect mind I would have expected it to create perfect things.

[00:17:59]>> Mhm. [clears throat] So in your view then like like yes maybe there is say that claim that there is like some being that wants um people like us like there is some evidence like even if it's really tiny for it because like we in fact exist but then we're looking at all these other things um that like really push us against that idea. Do I have you right?

[00:18:16]>> You you you seem really desperate to get me to say that there's evidence for God.

[00:18:21]And what I've said repeatedly is that when I say there's evidence for a proposition, I'm not willing to just say these facts are consistent with this hypothesis. It is these facts are exhaustively or andor exclusively consistent with that hypothesis. I don't want to say there's evidence for God.

[00:18:37]Just like a dead body isn't evidence for the proposition that a butler killed that body.

[00:18:43]>> Well, can't I guess maybe we can go a little bit different direction? Like couldn't like any theory explain all the facts? Like this is why like we still have like I'm not a young earth creationist but like young earth creationists can come up with all sorts of like crazy explanations to like explain the facts of say like um like decay and things like this. Like isn't this why um like like surely like anyone can like have an explanation to explain all the data. Like it's not like we're going to have some theory that can like explain everything away um and make no other theory like totally like and like shut everyone up for like all of eternity. Like to me it seems like like any theory can explain all the data even if it's like really really crappy explanations.

[00:19:19]>> No most well most theories don't apart from perhaps a theory of everything which >> is not my >> Yeah that's something else explain facts within a particular realm a narrow realm I mean you've basically tried to come up with a theory of everything and and the hypothesis is that there's a perfect being. Um, and I it until we I don't know how to demonstrate I don't know how anybody could demonstrate that a perfect being is possible or how to identify one or what a perfect being would do. All this seems to be is Zach has some expectations of what the world would look like if there was the God that he believes exists. And if he defines that God, I'm going to have expectations of what the world will look like. But what I know right now is what the world looks like. And uh it's also consistent with a magical being outside of spaceime that decided not to intervene or give a crap about any of us at all. That's that's there. It's also consistent with there being 12 uh perfect beings uh who don't interact um or haven't provided evidence or haven't given these. You you could just keep doing this endlessly. And in that case, why stop at one being? Why not two or three or five or 10 or 12? And so that's where we get into Aam's razor talking about multiplying entities unnecessarily. The difference between the two of us is that you're wanting to multiply it to one perfect being and I'm not. I'm I'm at zero right now.

[00:20:48]Sure. But in place of that zero, um, and this is why I think if if people get a chance, read the debate book between Oppy, um, and Kenny Pierce. Um, because like you could, like, sure, you can say zero, but in place of that zero, like, and maybe like Matt, like I'm not saying you have to have an explanation right now as we have this debate in October 21st, 2022, but like surely like in place of that zero, there's something like Opia would talk about like his idea of like a hypothesis of a foundational like initial state that's going to create everything. Um, and like Kenny Pearson in that debate book pushed back and says like hey like this theistic theory um is do a better job explaining these things like you may say like sure there's zero gods and I may say yeah there's one god um but in place of like that question of like explaining like why is there anything at all like what's foundational um if anything like there's got to be something on that like if you're going to say there's zero if there's nothing on the like theic side there's got to be something that's going to fill in that um explanation for for why there's got to be anything at all.

[00:21:41]So what what I'm what I'm talking about here is is there some explanation for the universe? Sure. Do we know what it is?

[00:21:52]>> No.

[00:21:53]>> I agree.

[00:21:54]>> Um could it be that it's a perfect God?

[00:21:56]I don't know because I don't know if a perfect God's possible. Could it be that the universe is is entirely explained without appealing to a perfect God? I have no idea. It doesn't seem to be anything that we could rule out. So, when you're putting in a god and I'm putting in zero gods, that doesn't mean I'm saying there's no explanation. I'm saying you've narrowed the explanation to a specific type of explanation and I haven't. I'm open to whatever explanation actually is the result of the evidence and argument.

[00:22:26]>> Well, I'd like to say the same thing that like I think I'm open to whatever explanation is like the evidence and argument. I just think the evidence and the arguments are going to favor my theory over your theory. So, I I don't think that's something that like you can just have.

[00:22:36]>> I I don't have a theory.

[00:22:38]I just I just acknowledge I don't have an explanation for the for the universe.

[00:22:42]What I'm doing is responding to people who are saying the best explanation for the universe is a perfect mind. And I'm I'm saying, okay, demonstrate that a perfect mind is possible. Define a perfect mind. Show me how you identify a perfect mind versus a nearly perfect mind. How do you demonstrate that the universe is the product? Probabilistic arguments like this are never ever ever going to convince me and shouldn't convince anyway. Basian analysis is based is entirely conditioned on the priors and priors would essentially for the for a universe require other universes and you don't have any so you have no prior so you're doing best guesses at best in this case you're not even doing basian analysis you're actually just looking at say on the hypothesis that there's a god that can create and wants to create it will create or creation is likely or expected yes that's true but on the hypothesis that the butler wanted to kill the person, then the dead body becomes demon, you know, evidence for the proposition. But that's not the way evidence works.

[00:23:43]>> Okay. So, what do you like I've heard you say demonstration a lot. Like, what do you mean by demonstration, Matt?

[00:23:48]>> Show it.

[00:23:51]>> So, what do you mean? But what do you mean by show it? Like empirically show it? Like just show that it's more likely than another? Like, what do you mean by show it?

[00:23:57]>> So, here's the thing is you're asking me how you're asking me how I should demonstrate what you believe. I don't know. This is what people people ask me all the time, what would change your mind about a god? I don't know. But if there is a god, that god should know and he should be capable of doing it. And the fact that he hasn't done it means that he either doesn't exist or doesn't want me to know he exists. So you're the one who's coming in here with a hypothesis. Why would you ask me how to demonstrate it? You need to demonstrate it. I don't think it can be demonstrated. I've seen no way for anybody. It's the same thing with spacetime. People say God exists outside of spaceime. How do you know there is anything outside of spaceime? How do you know that that there's a being that could exist outside of spaceime? To me, existence is necessarily temporal and existence in its normative sense is spatial and temporal. So to say something exists outside of spaceime is nonsense to me. And so when you are saying I I'm an imperfect mind, but I've reached the conclusion that there's a perfect mind behind all of this. That's a cool assertion. Why do you think there's a perfect mind? How could you tell?

[00:25:01]>> Yeah, that's good. So, why I asked you >> what I think makes this conversation so interesting is that Matt Dillah Honey and Zack Seckler are actually debating something even more fundamental than the existence of God. They're debating what evidence itself is supposed to do.

[00:25:20]Zach's argument is that certain features of our universe, like conscious moral beings, make more sense if there is a perfect mind behind reality. He's careful to say these aren't proofs, but small pieces of evidence that taken together point toward theism. That's a legitimate philosophical approach known as inference to the best explanation.

[00:25:43]And it's been used by many philosophers for centuries. Matt, however, pushes back with an important distinction. He argues that simply because a fact is compatible with a hypothesis doesn't mean it's evidence for that hypothesis.

[00:25:58]A dead body is compatible with the idea that the butler committed the crime. But until something connects the butler specifically to the crime, the body itself isn't evidence against everyone else. In other words, Matt is asking whether the evidence actually discriminates between competing explanations rather than merely fitting one of them. That raises a fascinating question for everyone watching. Should an explanation be accepted because it offers a meaningful account of reality or should it only be accepted if competing explanations become significantly less likely? Those are very different standards and they lead sincere people to very different conclusions. Another important moment comes when Matt challenges the idea of simplicity. Theists often argue that one perfect mind is a simpler explanation than countless brute facts. Matt sees it differently. He argues that introducing an all powerful, all- knowing being adds an enormous amount of complexity unless there's compelling evidence that such a being actually exists. Whether you agree with him or not, it's a reminder that philosophical terms like simple and complex are not always as straightforward as they first appear. At the same time, Zach's position highlights something equally important.

[00:27:21]Human beings naturally look for explanations. Very few people are satisfied with saying we simply don't know. For many believers, God isn't inserted to stop inquiry because they genuinely think theism provides the most coherent account of morality, consciousness, reason, and existence itself. That doesn't prove the conclusion, but it helps explain why thoughtful people continue to defend it.

[00:27:49]Perhaps the biggest takeaway from this older discussion is that neither side is arguing against reason. They're arguing about how reason should be applied. One side believes extraordinary claims require uniquely identifying evidence.

[00:28:08]The other believes the cumulative weight of many observations can reasonably point toward God, even if no single argument is decisive. That may be why debates like this never seem to disappear. They're not just about religion. They're about how humans weigh uncertainty, evaluate competing explanations, and decide when belief is justified. Whatever conclusion you reach, the healthiest approach is probably the one both sides in their own way encourage. Keep asking questions.

[00:28:42]Keep examining your assumptions. And don't be afraid to revise your views if the evidence genuinely leads somewhere new. If you enjoy thoughtful conversations that explore faith, skepticism, and philosophy without demanding blind agreement, like this video. Subscribe to Faith and Facts and join us as we continue exploring life's biggest questions with curiosity, humility, and an open mind. Until next time, keep seeking truth wherever it leads.