วีดีโอ

After this video I went on to teach philosophy for 10 years, and now I have wife and kid.

I agree this one didn't work. The is-ought gap is unsolvable *You simply can't derive an ought solely from descriptive premises*. However, you can avoid the is-ought gap. Our knowledge of "oughts" didn't come through solely descriptive premises. The appropriately named "con science" plays a role in how we gain "moral knowledge" or "knowledge of oughts".

It is my contention that the naturalistic fallacy is best understood as within the family of causal fallacies. At the very beginning, Moore thought he was doing more than a causal fallacy by trying to argue for the provocative conclusion: "you can't define morality". He later recognizes that such a bold and provocative move was more than he could actually prove. In the end, the argument he offers is identical to "Correlation does not equal causation" by observing "an example is not a definition". After all is said and done, he doesn't show "morality cannot be defined", but merely shows many people's attempt to define morality was done by observing traits correlated with morality and incorrectly inferring they have found the trait that causes a thing to be moral.

@@Testeverything521 ahh, so the video is describing the thought process rather than the definition of Naturalistic Fallacy. Okay my bad. Because I was thinking that this fallacy is simply defined "what is, is not what ought to be"

Thanks for the kind words :) I think the intuitions that come built into humanity (like the doctrine of double effect) are often not consequentialist at all.

Reformed epistemology is the idea that you can have a "non-inferentially justified belief in God" because of his "sensus divinitatus". I argue that the "sensus divinitatus" is actually just an inference. I'm not critiquing the sensus divinitatus. I think we correctly infer the existence of God. I just critique the notion that belief in God is this non-inferentially justified thing. "For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made..."

@@Testeverything521Do you believe it is morally acceptable to kill a nonhuman animal for food? If so, what moral difference between an animal and a human would cause you to be okay with killing one for food but not the other?

@willbyrob6582 We need more circumstances to know. The more vague you are the harder it is to answer the question. I'd argue there are morally significant considerations between humans and other animals (like the utilitarian "extent" of pleasure for instance). In most circumstances modern Americans are in, killing animals for food in the ways that we do is significantly morally problematic.

@@Testeverything521 I’m talking about raising an animal to kill them for food, either in a factory farm or in a local farm. When you say “in most circumstances”, it sounds like you’re against factory farming, so I guess I’m wondering what your position is on raising a cow, giving them a nice life, and slaughtering them painlessly.

@@willbyrob6582 I'm more strongly opinionated the clearer the moral issue is. Factory farming is a lot easier to oppose than other methods. I could see trying to raise/kill a cow ethically could still be problematic in a lot of circumstances (especially if these things are done purely for taste preferences), but that's not an argument I'd actually want to make. I'm not going to complain if someone is trying to give a cow a better life than its wildlife counterpart would have had and can truly offer them a painless death. Even if you can argue against that, I don't think the juice is worth the squeeze.

Epydemic2020@ Gmail.Com

No. By suggesting torturing babies for fun is wrong it does not imply torturing babies would be good if it wasn't for fun. Torturing babies would not be good even if God could command it. Goodness isn't caused by His statements. P.s. I'd sooner assume myself to be crazy than to believe the voice telling me to torture babies is divine.

@@Testeverything521 You have just gained massive respect from me compared to most apologists By the way that Channel name of yours aged extremelly well

I believe the measure would be blood alcohol level, and the idea would be "if you are too drunk to drive then you are too drunk to consent.

@@Testeverything521 thanks for your answer. But a person too drunk to drive is still held responsible, as the court deems that they consented to getting behind the wheel while drunk. The court accepts that the drunk driver is capable of making this decision. So why is sex the only action a woman cannot consent to while drunk? Either she has the ability to consent or she doesn’t. It can’t be both

@@hiyorisarugaki1830 I think the law is consistent here. If a drunk person drives a car or commits rape, their drunkness doesn't excuse their behavior. Just because you are held accountable for your actions doesn't imply that meaningful consent is one of the actions you are currently capable of.

@@Testeverything521 You misunderstood me. The woman is too drunk to drive=court convicts her of DUI. (They say that being drunk doesn't mean you didn't make that decision) Her actions are her own. . But when it comes to sex, the woman verbally and physically consented. But because she was drunk, she was actually raped. She was raped because she cannot consent, as she was drunk. . That is the inconsistency. DUI=you are responsible for your actions. Sex=You are not responsible for your actions. i'm not saying you are responsible for being raped. But i am saying you are responsible for your actions, you can still make decisions and choose who you want to have sex with. . Your logic means that a women too drunk to drive is raped every time she has sex, even if she initiates it. It means that every woman who drinks alcohol actually has no agency, is not responsible for their actions, can commit crime, and not be haled responsible. It means that every woman who drinks alcohol will have sex anybody, and everybody on the planet, while drunk. But obviously not every woman is raped while drunk, because they say NO. So if a drunk woman can reject somebody, why didn't the alcohol make her say yes? Because drunk women do have agency. They make their own decisions, good or bad. This whole time i'm referring to a woman that agreed to sex, but according to the law she was actually raped because she was drinking. I am NOT referring to a man who has sex with a woman incapacitated. If you get drunk intentionally, and consent to having sex with 1000 men, you was not raped. Because you consented. You choose to drink, you choose to have sex. It's all your choice. And before you say: "A woman shouldn't be raped because she drinks" It shows you missed my point AGAIN. RAPE=sex without consent. But in my hypothetical, the woman DID consent. The question is, was she capable of making that decision. Unless incapacitated she is absolutely capable of making her own decisions.

@@hiyorisarugaki1830 If a sober person gets drunk, they still maintain responsibility for their choices. Drunk people are still responsible for who they have sex with. That's why drunk people still go to jail if they sexually assault someone. What I'm saying is that a drunk person, while being responsible for their actions, is not able to engage in the action of "saying 'yes" to sex in a way that demonstrates genuine consent". It's the same way we treat young teens. They are responsible for their actions (if they murder someone they get in trouble), but they can't genuinely consent to sex with an older person. Even if they can say the words "yes" that doesn't mean they gave genuine consent. Similarly, while drunk people are legally responsible for their choices, entering into legally binding contracts while drunk it not something a drunk person is really capable of doing. While saying the word "yes" to sex is something a drunk person (or a child) is technically capable of doing, it doesn't represent genuine consent in the eyes of the law. (There are a lot of times that accepting someone's "yes" can get you into a lot of trouble.. your students, subordinates, underage, intoxicated, or pretty much anyone in a vulnerable/coercible position, etc) There's no contradiction between saying "Drunk people are legally responsible for their actions" and "drunk people cannot offer genuine consent while intoxicated".

At the 3 minute mark you see me playing the willing accomplice along with the video. The reason this trick is popular, however, is because you don't need an accomplice to be in on it. You can make the person believe their leg is really growing.

Right, but how is this done. I need an explanation of how it’s done. I have a fake ass preacher, after exposing the other one, telling me that he gonna do it without touching anyone and I need to debunk this now!!

​@@bigdre31371 Does the guy who specifically performs miracles to heal people's leg length happen to have a friend who has uneven legs but he hasn't bothered to heal yet? That'd make him a sucky friend. Nobody does this trick under truly testable circumstances. You can draw a line on a person's ankle and knee then measure the line (You could theoretically do the same on the femur if the pants weren't in the way). If the shin grew, the line length would change. All of these tricks rely on the fact that the hip/shoulder has a lot of give and can move a lot without looking like you are moving it. You can trick people that aren't in on it. Check out this youtube video of this old children's trick involving the same principles but with the shoulder: /watch?v=brZbbOv4S4s&ab_channel=MIX

@@Testeverything521The link you posted doesn't work. But can I get your opinion on this video th-cam.com/video/bLUO4rDG6uc/w-d-xo.html People are saying she just has her hip back but to the best of my abilties, I have not been able to replicate it.

Do you think it is real now?

@@Testeverything521 It was back in the early 90's and I had my doubts then and also heard folks could lose their healing especially if one's faith was tiny as Jesus always said "let it be done according to your faith"! But I know what I felt and I could not wrap my head around it! I wanted it to be real but no I didn't believe it then and certainly not now as I have many ailments I would love Jesus to heal me of now!

That is excellent news Micha. I'm very happy for you :) Thank you for taking the time to come and tell me about it.

@@Testeverything521 I think it was early 2010 we last spoke and my TH-cam name began with m and ended with 8 I had many health problems after I left Christianity ( none before ) after speaking with god we decided that it’s best I stay away from conspiracy theories and keep going to church or I would end up back in hospital. The power of God is truly extraordinary. I am happy you are still on TH-cam thank you for your reply god bless

Go for it :)

@@Testeverything521 Bet!

Supporting premise 1 and 2 actually does demonstrate a God exists. As I'm sure you agree, showing that a valid argument has true premises is identical to demonstrating the conclusion of that argument is true.

Why do people set up the miracle exactly like the trick is set up?

It can potentially be tough, but usually a person's attitude gives them away.