วีดีโอ

Affirming the Consequent, plain and simple. Completely unsound.

Hey jiub. Did jay ever respond again to destroyer after their debate? Lot of people said jay lost.

How can you demand to be given a spotlight when talking with people who dedicated their lives to these topics and then, after minutes have passed, turn around and say "oh I'm a high school dropout, you're gonna have to stop talking all intellectual with me"? All with a straight face.

wow what a sperg 🤣

"I'm literally a high school dropout, you're gonna have to drop down to, like, kid language for me, sorry." 💀💀💀

lol the ending

Mike is ridiculous

So I know hundreds of liberals and out of them one is a socialist. The rest have jobs and ambition. Who are these socialists?

We don't agree with axioms, that is the whole point. You have to say why your axioms can be assumed.

Chase haggard is going crazy over time

Ok. But just declaring something is an axiom doesn’t actually make it one. The way ‘classical foundationalism’ is thrown around in the internet’ is wild sometimes. That’s the logjam here. Chase points out that their worldview is ungrounded- and then they laugh snarkily and say well no I don’t need to justify these things (truth, logic) they’re axioms. Again declaring them as axioms doesn’t mean they actually are. It doesn’t necessarily mean that granting them as transcendentals grounded in the ‘mind of god’ is true either- but they COULD be. And frankly as outlandish a claim as that may seem- it’s better than the alternative- just claiming they ‘are’ with no intellectual courage about actually trying to explain them- because if you try and ground them in the brain your worldview falls apart. It wouldn’t rub me the wrong way if they weren’t arguing for atheism. But just claiming these things as axioms is basically an agnostic position because it means you’ve bowed out of the race and thrown up your hands and given up trying to explain them. They try and have their cake and eat it too. You can’t just throw up your hands and say ‘these things just *are* dude. We don’t have to explain them’. It’s like a gussied up 5 year old tactic- and then somehow make the incredible leap to atheism from there.

This a great video I show to my philosopher friends as to why Philosphy of Religon is in full retreat. This shit is fundamentally unserious. Frat boy who failed to get a masters degree and apparently studied philosophy for 20+ years doesn’t understand modality 😂

You presuppose a god, and that does not establish there is a god, therefore everything you "justify" is based on nothing.

I'll never understand GROWN people believing in fairytales

Jay, The guy you debated at the end is an unitarian with last name Salas, if memory does not fail me, who Sam Shamoun has debated before. This Salas guy was obliterated by Sam, but even when proven wrong using scripture, Sslas arrogance does not allow him to acquiesce, no matter how much scriptural evidence one puts in front of him. Ask Sam for the video he had with him on this issue. When Sam first met him, it seemed Salas was not really unitarian, but ultimately showed his true colors; he enjoys antagonizing in debate and is insufferable. Sam referred to him as a heretic. Blessings. Sins of Islam Monitor @IslamSins in X

4990 Ernest Junctions

Chase: Literally gives a textbook syllogism as an argument JMike: "I'm not hearing an argument."

Im convinced that islam is only for the low iq. Once people actually understand it they leave immediately

At the end of the day, the ultimate authority for all of us is our own reasoning. And, there are justifications for the laws of logic that don't reference God.

Solipsism is a cop out and can’t be lived out honestly.

He says "It just seems like you're avoiding" as Jay addresses every point mentioned, aka it just feels like you're not telling me what I want to hear.

Ecumenists calling people heretics doesn’t make sense.

"Because of vibes" 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

It's funny. They ask for you to argue for it then refuse to listen to or get confused when you don't follow their presuppositions. Very cool!

Bros been playing too many jrpgs XD

how can one not know the story of how God first spoke to moses in the burning bush, or when manoah said "weshall surely die for we have seen God". "ITS AN ANGEL" bro doesnt even read his bible

The last thing he is going is levels of gods like a dragon ball episode when you have different levels of Kai. if were talking just semantics by definition a thing has to meet the definition to be define as such. If the thing im looking at categorically meets the mean of duck it has duck-ness to the fullest degree by definition then the thing has to be a duck. With god one meaning is supreme being. Supreme qualify the being. Meaning if and only if you are the highest being can you be called god.

The other thing he doesn't seem to understand is neccessary conditions. For example if you have a fire and we know fires need oxygen for there to be fires we can assume oxygen is present when there is a fire present. Other words x is oxygen and y is fire. X is the neccessary conditions for y. Y exist. Therefore x exist also.

He not getting the answer. When you use if else declarative in code if the if is true the code executes else it does the else statement. The question he ask was if true if true is this also true. The only output has to be true because they way he stated it. you can't then declare false after only inputting true. Now if you're trying to falsify the if you would still declare if false if false if false output false. You can't expect a true output. With boolean logic you can also use zero or one to represent the value true false. He say if we are to believe this about Christ is this part about God also true. The answer is yes because you already ask if this is true then if this is true is the final true also. It all holds or falls together.

went to a philosophy salad bar but avoided the epistemology section

If the laws of logic are invariant as you describe here, then you give a reason why they pertain without reference to any God.

We was Israelites.

So, only the things creatures create apart from & against god's will can be evil?: Our actions can be evil & our character can be evil.

I will never blame Jay for being mad again. This is absolutely ridiculous 😭

When you don't have actual evidence just word salad, and call it philosophy, and say the other guy doesn't understand it.

If Christ was given power as you said then we wasn’t god from the beginning Because he didn’t have the power!!

Jesus was probably called Yehoshua actually because they were all speaking Aramaic back then and there.

Krishna is an avatar of Vishnu, not Shiva. That whole thing was dumb and wrong.

But my axioms

This is wild, every time he brings up something, he gets refuted and ends up agreeing completely... 😂

"My mind is chemical reaction.." and that's a circular argument

Lol Mike kicked me off immediately when I asked for evidence that B Theory of Time is real and can counter the first premise of the Cosmological Argument. Dude is a joke

Let's look at 3:54 "And they (Jesus's enemies) planned, and Allah also planned; and Allah is the Best of planners." If you are gonna translate planner with deciever, then translate the whole verse. Then it would be "And THEY (Jesus's enemies) DECEIVED, and Allah also deceived; and Allah is the Best of deceivers" So it turns out God was making the evil doers taste their own medicine. God only deceived those who tried to deceive first. It also turns out that Christians, who claim to love Jesus(peace be upon him), don't care about Jesus being deceived and put to death. They just want to insult God who rescued him Let's look at the other verses on the screen Quran 7:99 "Are they then secure from the design of Allah? And none feels secure from the design of Allah save the people that perish." God explained this just three verses ago in 7:96, which you obviously skipped. Let me show it Quran 7:96 "And if the people of those towns had believed and been righteous, We would have surely opened for them blessings from heaven and earth; but they lied, so We seized them because of that which they used to earn." So again it turns out God was making the evil doers taste the consequences of their own actions Quran 8:30 "And remember the time when the disbelievers plotted against thee that they might imprison thee or kill thee or expel thee. And they planned and Allah also planned, and Allah is the Best of planners." Again in this case, God is saving a prophet from those so tried to deceive and kill him. The prophet in this case is Prophet Muhammad ﷺ Quran 10:21 "And when We make people taste of mercy after adversity has touched them, behold, they begin to plan against Our Signs. Say, ‘Allah is swifter in planning.’ Surely, Our messengers write down all that you plan." Yet again, God is planning against those who tried to plan against his signs. God is giving them their own medicine Quran 13:42 "And those who were before them did also devise plans, but all effective devising of plans belongs to Allah. He knows what every soul earns; and the disbelievers shall soon know whose will be the final reward of this abode." Again, God is devising plans against those who first devised plans against his prophets and signs. So these verses from the Quran make us understand that God will plot against those who plot against righteous servents of God Now let's look at the Bible shall we? Jeremiah 4 : 10 Then said I, Ah, Lord GOD! surely thou hast greatly deceived this people and Jerusalem, saying, Ye shall have peace; whereas the sword reacheth unto the soul Jeremiah 20 : 7 O LORD, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived: thou art stronger than I, and hast prevailed: I am in derision daily, every one mocketh me. Ezekiel 14 : 9 And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the LORD have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand upon him, and will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel. 1 Kings 22 : 23 Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil concerning thee. 2 Chronicles 18 : 22 Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil against thee. We see the lord of the Bible deceiving his own prophets. So we have a God in the Quran who deceives to defend his righteous servants, and a lord in the Bible who deceives his own prophets

Laws of logic do not exist out there written down on some tablet. Logic is just a descriptive tool we use to make sense of the world around us.

In evaluating naturalistic explanations, several inherent issues arise which makes refuting the argument from the video above virtually impossible without falling into these issues below: 1. **Inherent Arbitrariness and 2. Inherent Selective Reasoning**: The Theistic model accounts for both the objectivity and the implications of a mind through these universal conceptual propositions/laws, but a skeptics objection must inherently arbitrarily only argue exclusively for its objectivity but arbitrarily omit the implications of a mind, whereas the theistic model accounts for both, making the theistic argument more robust and less arbitrary. 3. **Inherent Circular Reasoning**: as a skeptic, creating a model of reality that does not require a mind already presupposes that conceptual things can emerge without a mind, which is circular reasoning. However, the reason why the theistic position is already conclusive is because the only times we ever observe conceptual things emerging are from minds, because our observations show us that minds are the inherent source for "reasoning". This is fundamental to the nature of "a mind", but to use any alternative examples through nature, this again falls under the same problem of circular reason to already presuppose that nature emerged without God. The Theistic model, which posits a Universal Mind, offers a more coherent and robust explanation for logical laws as they account for both the objectivity and also acknowledge the implications of a mind rather than only choosing to acknowledge its objectivity but overlook the implications of her mind, which is inherent within a skeptics model. This is why it doesn't seem that there is a possible objection or model an atheist can provide that would not fall under this problem, that's rendering all potential atheistic objections ineffective, and that The truth of Theism is conclusive.

These people just can't admit that GOD exists. They have built in prejudices that make them want to fight this. Its called sin, or going it it your own way. God's ways truly are better.

Her entire approach proves evolution is false

Nikki said morality is what is of the most benefit to the most people. If this is put into action then she would have to accept slavery as a benefit to humanity and therefore moral if the majority of people voted for it. This is what she is saying.

You're talking to the stupidest people on the internet. They understand nothing about reality.

She is describing dark matter in her closing statement