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.
Thus, the irrationality, hypocrisy (special pleading) and indeed impossibility of Matt Dillahunty's atheistic worldview is reasonably demonstrated.
Dillahunty Hang Up Tactic
Often while taking calls on the Atheist Experience rather than exert the effort to do the Dillahunty Dodge Matt will just get angry and hang up on callers.