30 minutes in and its fair to say Baked Alaska and the other presupper are actually a public health risk. They shouldn't be allowed to walk around in public without an aid.
This is absolutely wild. The Christian apologist is using the law of excluded middle means that all types of agnosticism, moderate confidence, fence-sitting and acute openness are irrational and logically impossible positions. First of all, we do that sort of thing all the time in our everyday lives. Most of the thoughts that go through our head each day involve evaluating our limited access to evidence and orienting ourselves in proportion to our confidence in our assessments. Secondly, it is absolutely foolish to tey to use a law of logic to something as fluid and dynamic and irrational and unstable as human thinking.
Let me just give an example to prove my point. Many years ago, a journalist once suggested that Donald Trump has a collection of Hitler's speeches on his bedside table, which he reads regularly before bed. I obviously have no means to actually collect any primary evidence to test or verify this claim. The claim cannot be tested per se. All I have to go on is my prior knowledge of Trump and his lifestyle, and to decide whether or not it sounds reasonable or plausible to me that this could be true. In other words, I don't 100% believe this claim to be true, nor do I 100% believe this claim to be false. On the one hand, Trump is not a big reader. I doubt he owns any books at all. So the notion that he has a book on his bedside table sounds absurd. On the other hand, Trump is very clever at using rightwing rhetoric and language in order to further his political agenda. So maybe he consulted with the works of Hitler and learnt a trick or two. It sounds kind of plausible. And also, this claim kind of sounds like a false flag. It's just the kind of dumb, fake story that liberals would want to be true and would likely repeat without any regardless for its truthfulness. And so, at the end of my assessment of the evidence, I give this claim a 25% chance of being true.
@@Jessica_O_Bell there were professional linguists that compared Trump's speeches to Adolohie Hilter's, there's a reason why they started talking about Trump "sounding" like Hilter all the time, because it happened too often to be "accidental" You don't end up with that much correlation by "accident", and the fact that people reported seeing Hilter's work around Trump a LOT. MAGA is the American version of the Brown Shirts.
It is logically incoherent to experience existence while simultaneously not existing. To deny this is to volunteer yourself for absurdity and incoherency. These idiots are just being argumentative for the sole purpose of refusing to give an inch to their interlocutor.
@ yeah but isn’t that a tu quo Que fallacy, it’s not holding accountability for our own godless world. Even if god isn’t real, that doesn’t mean our foundations is circular, a logical fallacy ?
@ but instead of us taking accountability for our own godless world, we’re rejecting God? Focused on their worldview? We must take accountability for our own flaws independent of anyone or anything else
@realBreakfasttacos hey taco this is unrelated but in a shrooms video once upon a time. You were outlining a story that went, "Mohammed went into a cave and was eaten by 'Wuraka'". I remember clicking off cause I wanted to intently listen to the mind-blowing thing I just heard but I since lost that video. Could you please go into that again?
@realBreakfasttacos sadly no. Please know I'm working off a fleeting memory of the conversation, but I remember you saying in reference to Wuraka, that he ate Mohammed (literally cannabilized) and emerged from the cave as Mohammed to start the religion. I could be totally wrong though so don't attack tacolord for my false memory if I'm buggin
Josie is an absolute champion of patience and humbleness, in the face of a guy just constantly double talking, overtalking and ignoring him, he still remains polite and respectful
I realized something. The "special revelation" argument that presups enjoy using is basically "look at the trees". But because everyone makes fun of the latter argument, they just call it by a different name.
Sounds like someone doesn't understand weather forecasts. The percentage chance of rain is based on the number of models/projections that resulted in rain; given initial conditions. Everyone decides how to react given the info.
Baked Alaska's ability to comprehend a topic, is inversely correlated to the amount of data about the topic. The more complex a topic, the less he is able to comprehend any portion of that topic.
Asserting wrong things about philosophy to prove a god's existence should just disqualify these people until they can prove they learned from their mistakes.
"Belief" is a human concept. We invented the term. We noticed that something existed within human culture, namely a cognitive orientation towards a proposition, and we created a word to describe and explain this phenomenon. The laws of logic are properties of nature. We notice that nature behaves in a particular way. We use this term to describe this phenomenon. This phenomenon is objective, thus it would still exist even if humans didn't. Using a law of logic of nature onto a feature of the human mind is like trying to figure out what colour is Perry Como's song Magic Moments.
@@Noetic-Necrognosis You can see that a light is either a degree of on or off, though. Logic seems to be descriptive. It's able to describe what has been observed. Of course you can't sense a descriptor.
@@CoderOfBugs The laws of logic, if they are descriptive, then they describe something-what is it they describe? I hold these are universal principles of being. It's metaphysics, not physics. Nowhere in a material object's matter do you find the laws of logic.
@@Noetic-Necrognosis I'm not saying they're physical. Even as descriptors they're still an aspect of metaphysics. But to elevate logic itself, from a realist point of view, to a state of transcendence seems over baked. It could be the case that the tool of logic is a construct to help humans navigate the physical world, but logic is tied to how the reality functions. And the fact that humans reasoning is elevated above, what seems to be, normal cognition just seems to necessitate higher degrees of precision. There's a reason we're 8 billion strong now, and maybe it's our elevated abilities to describe reality and sometimes even mold reality to our own needs, allowing us to thrive. Is it true that the idea that something can't be both what it is and what it isn't independent of any mind to conceive it? Yes, it seems so. Does that mean that logic exists in some transcendent realm? No, I hold that logic exists only so far as reality exists, and I'm confined by my senses, so I can't realistically commit to a literal Platonic realm that transcends spacetime. If literally nothing existed, would logic exist? I'm not talking about a void with particles. I mean literally if there was not something at all.
"One guy believes his car is in his garage, and another believes his car is in his garage, but one is justified and one isn't. What's the difference between these two people?" Me: "Uh. One has actual evidence that their car is in fact in their garage, while the other is wrong about the car being in his garage?" Presupper ("Chico"? or maybe Baked Alaska....): "Divine wisdom of god was beamed into his head." I can't even. Why are religious types always like this? Does god magically teleport the first guy's car into his garage when he "Believes" it? And he never answers why the other guy is unjustified. Just why....
I feel kind of sorry for presuppers. They've been conned into thinking they have something in the empty sack they're holding up, and have been bamboozled into thinking they can refute the logical possibility of a skeptical scenario by appealing to a belief that they're in ... a skeptical scenario! "I _know_ I'm NOT a brain in a vat BECAUSE I _believe_ I'm a brain in a (god) vat!". lol.
I think that they mostly all have narcissistic personality disorder, and the debate style that presupp offers is a way to provide themselves with narcissistic supply.
Here's a decent way to stump a presupp: "Is it possible to think you had a revelation and it not be true?" If they accept this then: "How do you determine whether your revelation is true or not?" If they don't accept: "How do you determine whether or not that a theist(that believes in another god) has had a false or true revelation?" Not sure if they'll have a coherent counter since their epistemology is trash.
Metaphysics is just speculation about the fundamental nature of things. "Speculation about natural reality that goes beyond what scientific investigation can currently confirm."
@@ianchisholm5756 Sure, but these particular theists (presups) love to bring up The SEP constantly. And then make their entire argument about the necessity of metaphysics. Their reference work says that their primary argument may not even exist, so how can it possibly (ss they insist) be foundational?
lmao so baked alaska thinks if there is a 51% probability something is true that you should believe it? that sounds insane to me on its face, and the fact that he thought the other guy was stupid for rejecting that is hilarious.
Finally someone pressed a pressup on the cogito. Each time i heard a presup claiming "you cant justify anything", i always wondered how they would respond to the cogito, that is, that at least i can know one thing, that i exist.
@@andralfoo Descartes says: After reaching the bottom of the doubt, after concluding I can't be certain I'm dreaming or just imagining everything, or maybe that a demon ia making me get the wrong answer every time I sum 1 plus 1. Then, how do i know even I exist? Well, if I doubt that I exist, there is still an I to doubt. Even If I doubt that I doubt, still there is an I. If I'm wrong about me existing, event then there is still an I to be wrong. I doubt, therefore I am.
Variations: 1. I believe in God and its the real actual God 2. I believe in God, and its the wrong actual God. 3. I dont believe in a particular God, but that God is actually Real. 4. I dont believe in a particular God, but that God is not actually real.... And so on....and so on
Fine Tuning isn't solved by appealing to a Deity. Presumably God could make any universe he wanted with any constants he wanted... It's entirely arbitrary that he would choose this exact one, thus the Fine Tuning argument is equally arbitrary.
There are an infinite number of ways a god could be, such that it would have a nature to desire creating a universe with only black holes, only a single zinc cube, only five odors of dessert, etc, or no universe at all. By their reasoning, a god would have to be fine tuned.
Why allow them to always shift the burden of proof. You guys never hold them to substantiate their position and allow them to bait you into defending yours. Not sure the reason!
@@bradleywilliams6799 I consider belief means accepting a proposition as true, or at least likely true. You either accept (believe) that, or you dont (you either believe, or you dont) Problem?
He unironicly said that a Christian who thinks his car is in his garage and isn't justified would automatically think it WAS justified simply be because he's a Christian. The guy is an absolute moron 😂
@FullOnMetalHead1995 to quote cheeko "you are an idiot". If he had been talking about you it would have been his first statement that was objectively true in the entire conversation.
30 minutes in and its fair to say Baked Alaska and the other presupper are actually a public health risk. They shouldn't be allowed to walk around in public without an aid.
Probably so.
This is absolutely wild.
The Christian apologist is using the law of excluded middle means that all types of agnosticism, moderate confidence, fence-sitting and acute openness are irrational and logically impossible positions.
First of all, we do that sort of thing all the time in our everyday lives. Most of the thoughts that go through our head each day involve evaluating our limited access to evidence and orienting ourselves in proportion to our confidence in our assessments.
Secondly, it is absolutely foolish to tey to use a law of logic to something as fluid and dynamic and irrational and unstable as human thinking.
Let me just give an example to prove my point.
Many years ago, a journalist once suggested that Donald Trump has a collection of Hitler's speeches on his bedside table, which he reads regularly before bed.
I obviously have no means to actually collect any primary evidence to test or verify this claim. The claim cannot be tested per se. All I have to go on is my prior knowledge of Trump and his lifestyle, and to decide whether or not it sounds reasonable or plausible to me that this could be true.
In other words, I don't 100% believe this claim to be true, nor do I 100% believe this claim to be false.
On the one hand, Trump is not a big reader. I doubt he owns any books at all. So the notion that he has a book on his bedside table sounds absurd.
On the other hand, Trump is very clever at using rightwing rhetoric and language in order to further his political agenda. So maybe he consulted with the works of Hitler and learnt a trick or two. It sounds kind of plausible.
And also, this claim kind of sounds like a false flag. It's just the kind of dumb, fake story that liberals would want to be true and would likely repeat without any regardless for its truthfulness.
And so, at the end of my assessment of the evidence, I give this claim a 25% chance of being true.
@@Jessica_O_Bell One of Trump's ex-wives, Ivana, originally reported the book. BTW, he owns 1000s of books and he will sell you one for only $69.99.
@@Jessica_O_Bell there were professional linguists that compared Trump's speeches to Adolohie Hilter's, there's a reason why they started talking about Trump "sounding" like Hilter all the time, because it happened too often to be "accidental"
You don't end up with that much correlation by "accident", and the fact that people reported seeing Hilter's work around Trump a LOT.
MAGA is the American version of the Brown Shirts.
Baked Brain Alaska, always asks questions, never learns anything.
This is so true!
It is logically incoherent to experience existence while simultaneously not existing. To deny this is to volunteer yourself for absurdity and incoherency.
These idiots are just being argumentative for the sole purpose of refusing to give an inch to their interlocutor.
Im an atheist. How do we deal with this glaring flaw in our godless world?
@jaromsmiss It's not something that is solved by theism.
@ yeah but isn’t that a tu quo Que fallacy, it’s not holding accountability for our own godless world. Even if god isn’t real, that doesn’t mean our foundations is circular, a logical fallacy ?
@@jaromsmiss No. It's not a tu quoque fallacy.
@ but instead of us taking accountability for our own godless world, we’re rejecting God? Focused on their worldview? We must take accountability for our own flaws independent of anyone or anything else
"Stop sperging out and interrupting me while I sperg out and interrupt you!"
Yes!
15:52 "Thats sophism" 💪🏽🗿🤳🏽
Yes!
@realBreakfasttacos hey taco this is unrelated but in a shrooms video once upon a time. You were outlining a story that went, "Mohammed went into a cave and was eaten by 'Wuraka'". I remember clicking off cause I wanted to intently listen to the mind-blowing thing I just heard but I since lost that video. Could you please go into that again?
@@TierBelowPro Was this it? th-cam.com/video/z9ctjncVqOY/w-d-xo.html
@realBreakfasttacos sadly no. Please know I'm working off a fleeting memory of the conversation, but I remember you saying in reference to Wuraka, that he ate Mohammed (literally cannabilized) and emerged from the cave as Mohammed to start the religion. I could be totally wrong though so don't attack tacolord for my false memory if I'm buggin
@@TierBelowPro I FOUND IT
th-cam.com/video/SH62fed2_zY/w-d-xo.html
Josie is an absolute champion of patience and humbleness, in the face of a guy just constantly double talking, overtalking and ignoring him, he still remains polite and respectful
I think Josie figured out how to break the matrix.
“Justify your presuppositions” Game over.
Excellent point!
I realized something. The "special revelation" argument that presups enjoy using is basically "look at the trees". But because everyone makes fun of the latter argument, they just call it by a different name.
Correct!
Chico: “You just have to accept that I’m going to overtalk you”
Also Chico: “I won’t defend my position until you pinky swear not to interrupt me”
Basically how every conversation with Chico goes.
Sounds like someone doesn't understand weather forecasts. The percentage chance of rain is based on the number of models/projections that resulted in rain; given initial conditions. Everyone decides how to react given the info.
Excellent point!
Baked Alaska's ability to comprehend a topic, is inversely correlated to the amount of data about the topic.
The more complex a topic, the less he is able to comprehend any portion of that topic.
Excellent point!!!
“WILL YOU PLEASE JUST ANSWER MY SCRIPT LIKE A CHILD WOULD DO?” they seemed to say.
Basically!
They’ve read the York Notes on Van Til. Tosspots.
LOL
They simply don’t understand this epistemology. It’s hilarious.
They have a biblical epistemology!!!!
What did i just stumble across 😂
A wonderful conversation!
Asserting wrong things about philosophy to prove a god's existence should just disqualify these people until they can prove they learned from their mistakes.
Excellent suggestion!
"Belief" is a human concept. We invented the term. We noticed that something existed within human culture, namely a cognitive orientation towards a proposition, and we created a word to describe and explain this phenomenon.
The laws of logic are properties of nature. We notice that nature behaves in a particular way. We use this term to describe this phenomenon. This phenomenon is objective, thus it would still exist even if humans didn't.
Using a law of logic of nature onto a feature of the human mind is like trying to figure out what colour is Perry Como's song Magic Moments.
The laws of logic are metaphysical principles of being. They aren't empirical. You can't see, hear, smell, taste or touch a law of logic
@@Noetic-Necrognosis
So is your mother.
@@Noetic-Necrognosis
You can see that a light is either a degree of on or off, though. Logic seems to be descriptive. It's able to describe what has been observed. Of course you can't sense a descriptor.
@@CoderOfBugs The laws of logic, if they are descriptive, then they describe something-what is it they describe? I hold these are universal principles of being. It's metaphysics, not physics. Nowhere in a material object's matter do you find the laws of logic.
@@Noetic-Necrognosis
I'm not saying they're physical. Even as descriptors they're still an aspect of metaphysics. But to elevate logic itself, from a realist point of view, to a state of transcendence seems over baked. It could be the case that the tool of logic is a construct to help humans navigate the physical world, but logic is tied to how the reality functions. And the fact that humans reasoning is elevated above, what seems to be, normal cognition just seems to necessitate higher degrees of precision. There's a reason we're 8 billion strong now, and maybe it's our elevated abilities to describe reality and sometimes even mold reality to our own needs, allowing us to thrive.
Is it true that the idea that something can't be both what it is and what it isn't independent of any mind to conceive it? Yes, it seems so.
Does that mean that logic exists in some transcendent realm? No, I hold that logic exists only so far as reality exists, and I'm confined by my senses, so I can't realistically commit to a literal Platonic realm that transcends spacetime.
If literally nothing existed, would logic exist? I'm not talking about a void with particles. I mean literally if there was not something at all.
He has the refutation of Jonesy but won't say it until he hears the pledge? Hilarious
Yes it is!
"One guy believes his car is in his garage, and another believes his car is in his garage, but one is justified and one isn't. What's the difference between these two people?"
Me: "Uh. One has actual evidence that their car is in fact in their garage, while the other is wrong about the car being in his garage?"
Presupper ("Chico"? or maybe Baked Alaska....): "Divine wisdom of god was beamed into his head."
I can't even. Why are religious types always like this? Does god magically teleport the first guy's car into his garage when he "Believes" it? And he never answers why the other guy is unjustified. Just why....
The religion and presupp has damaged their mental capabilities.
I feel kind of sorry for presuppers. They've been conned into thinking they have something in the empty sack they're holding up, and have been bamboozled into thinking they can refute the logical possibility of a skeptical scenario by appealing to a belief that they're in ... a skeptical scenario! "I _know_ I'm NOT a brain in a vat BECAUSE I _believe_ I'm a brain in a (god) vat!". lol.
I think that they mostly all have narcissistic personality disorder, and the debate style that presupp offers is a way to provide themselves with narcissistic supply.
Me too! I wish they didn't have the issues the presupp causes them.
@@realBreakfasttacos Having those issues may well be what attracted them _TO_ presupp!
@ I think the presupp actually damages their intellect.
@ Well, if you have to deny autonomous reasoning, guess what happens? lol
The poor folk are stuck in an epistemic trap of their own making.
How can a Christian presuppositionalist ever win an argument? Only atheist presupposition has a grounding!!!!
Excellent point!
Here's a decent way to stump a presupp:
"Is it possible to think you had a revelation and it not be true?"
If they accept this then:
"How do you determine whether your revelation is true or not?"
If they don't accept:
"How do you determine whether or not that a theist(that believes in another god) has had a false or true revelation?"
Not sure if they'll have a coherent counter since their epistemology is trash.
They literally claim the bible is the foundation of their epistemology.
@realBreakfasttacos they must be good at geometry. They deal with a lot of circles...
None of these presups even go to church.
Excellent point!
The SEP suggests that metaphysics may not exist. How can something that may not exist be if a higher order?
Metaphysics is just speculation about the fundamental nature of things. "Speculation about natural reality that goes beyond what scientific investigation can currently confirm."
The term 'metaphysics' is often employed by theists as a synonym for 'supernatural realm'.
@@ianchisholm5756 True, but that is only because they don't understand even the basics of metaphysics.
@@ianchisholm5756 Sure, but these particular theists (presups) love to bring up The SEP constantly. And then make their entire argument about the necessity of metaphysics. Their reference work says that their primary argument may not even exist, so how can it possibly (ss they insist) be foundational?
lmao so baked alaska thinks if there is a 51% probability something is true that you should believe it? that sounds insane to me on its face, and the fact that he thought the other guy was stupid for rejecting that is hilarious.
If it's 51% then belief switch goes to "TRUE".
They can't seem to conceive that the world isn't black and white.
Baked Alaska is definitely an interesting one.
Finally someone pressed a pressup on the cogito. Each time i heard a presup claiming "you cant justify anything", i always wondered how they would respond to the cogito, that is, that at least i can know one thing, that i exist.
TJump did that with DD and Old Gary blew a gasket if I remember correctly.
Tnx, didn't saw that video. But being Gary I don't have high expectensions of his response
hi do you not consider cogito circular?
@@andralfoo how?
@@andralfoo Descartes says:
After reaching the bottom of the doubt, after concluding I can't be certain I'm dreaming or just imagining everything, or maybe that a demon ia making me get the wrong answer every time I sum 1 plus 1.
Then, how do i know even I exist?
Well, if I doubt that I exist, there is still an I to doubt. Even If I doubt that I doubt, still there is an I. If I'm wrong about me existing, event then there is still an I to be wrong.
I doubt, therefore I am.
"it's arbitrary"
Their morality and claims for sure!
World Word Salad Championship 2025
Yes!
You see Manars debate with Deconstruction Zone?
Could you link that? Might be hard to find the timestamp, but I'd appreciate it
@garysan 5:09:01, on Deconstructions recent live
I did not see that!
@@realBreakfasttacos it was so funny
@@realBreakfasttacos i thought his debate with dz was his worse out of all the debates he had
Rough stuff
Always!
Variations:
1. I believe in God and its the real actual God
2. I believe in God, and its the wrong actual God.
3. I dont believe in a particular God, but that God is actually Real.
4. I dont believe in a particular God, but that God is not actually real....
And so on....and so on
One of the comments later on with quite a few responses had a good breakdown
Fine Tuning isn't solved by appealing to a Deity. Presumably God could make any universe he wanted with any constants he wanted... It's entirely arbitrary that he would choose this exact one, thus the Fine Tuning argument is equally arbitrary.
There are an infinite number of ways a god could be, such that it would have a nature to desire creating a universe with only black holes, only a single zinc cube, only five odors of dessert, etc, or no universe at all. By their reasoning, a god would have to be fine tuned.
Excellent point!
Who cares if it rains or not? The only thing that matters is if i bring my umbrella. Which i can do even if it doesn't rain...😂😂
Great point!
Why allow them to always shift the burden of proof. You guys never hold them to substantiate their position and allow them to bait you into defending yours. Not sure the reason!
They won't ever meet the burden of proof. We know they are intellectually dishonest.
Wtf was that ???
A great conversation!
This needed to be modded better. So much over talk nearly everything was impossible to hear.
Moderators don't do that anymore. They are really just human timers.
This was in a custom VC and unfortunately we aren't allowed to moderate in those unless there are no mods present or a violation of TOS occurs.
@ Was NOT aware of that. My silence is taken.
Philosophy by pedentry
Yes!
you either believe or you dont, you either accept a proposition as true or likely true, or you dont
What is the alternative?
You gave three options in your own statement. Let me add another, most likely not true.
@@bradleywilliams6799 ah I guess you consider that accepting a proposition as likely true is too different from accepting a proposition as true?
@@bradleywilliams6799 I consider belief means accepting a proposition as true, or at least likely true. You either accept (believe) that, or you dont (you either believe, or you dont) Problem?
@ you still either believe something is most likely not true, or you dont. You either accept a proposition, or you dont
What about 'i don't know'? Why does someone need to make a belief claim?
Cheeko wrecked yall
He unironicly said that a Christian who thinks his car is in his garage and isn't justified would automatically think it WAS justified simply be because he's a Christian. The guy is an absolute moron 😂
Is that a subjective opinion or divine revelation?
Cheeko wouldn't shut up and didn't understand any of the arguments.
Cope n seethe
@FullOnMetalHead1995 to quote cheeko "you are an idiot". If he had been talking about you it would have been his first statement that was objectively true in the entire conversation.